Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

"WP:FTN" redirects here. For nominations of featured topics, see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates.

Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
Before posting, make sure you understand this short summary of relevant policies and advice and particularly the guideline on treating fringe theories. Also, check the archives for similar discussions. We can help determine whether the topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately and impartially. Our purpose is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but to describe them properly. Never present fringe theories as fact. If you mention specific editors, you should notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so. Deploy {{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion. Please also notify any relevant Wikiprojects to encourage an increased visibility for the discussion.
Search this noticeboard & archives Lowercase sigmabot III will archive sections older than 20 days Additional notes: Discussion of fringe theories will only depend on coverage in reliable sources. Medicine-related claims must comply with more stringent sourcing requirements, but we also generally prefer academic sources. We are not a forum to discuss fringe theories as such. Our goal is to improve articles about them, or create new ones if needed. For concerns about neutrality in articles not about fringe theories, use the neutral point of view noticeboard. Report article content that appears to violate the no original research rule at this noticeboard. Paste {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section when your concern was addressed.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Article alerts

Today's featured articles

• 25 Nov 2024 – Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (talk · edit · hist) will be Today's Featured Article; see blurb

Did you know

• 18 Oct 2024 – Tyromancy (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Jonathan Deamer (t · c); see discussion

Articles for deletion

• 04 Nov 2024 – Sonoran University of Health Sciences (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Jdcooper (t · c); see discussion (4 participants; relisted)

Redirects for discussion

• 03 Nov 2024 – Handwriting expert (talk · edit · hist) →Graphology was RfDed by BD2412 (t · c); see discussion

Featured article candidates

• 02 Oct 2024 – Roswell incident (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Feoffer (t · c); see discussion

Good article nominees

• 23 Aug 2024 – Epistemology (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Phlsph7 (t · c); start discussion

Requests for comments

• 10 Nov 2024 – Bermuda Triangle (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by Guninvalid (t · c); see discussion
• 29 Oct 2024 – List of common misconceptions (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by WhatamIdoing (t · c); see discussion

Articles to be merged

• 05 Oct 2024 – White lighter myth (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to 27 Club by HadesTTW (t · c); see discussion
• 13 Jul 2024 – Peter A. Levine (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Somatic experiencing by Klbrain (t · c); see discussion

Articles to be split

• 08 Jul 2024 – List of common misconceptions (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by WhatamIdoing (t · c); see discussion

Michael Woodley, paranormalist?

• Michael Woodley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I was taking a look through the history of this bio on a minor race-and-intelligence researcher and saw that a brief section was added back in August about Woodley's work attempting to prove the existence of paranormal psychic phenomena [1]. This content appears to have been deleted because the account which added it, Woodley Meanie, was an obvious impersonation and thus a username violation. However the material seems to have been correctly framed and verifiable, based on Woodley's 2020 publication "Anomalous information reception by mediums: A meta-analysis of the scientific evidence" [2]. I did a bit of googling and found an even more recent one, "Genetics of psychic ability –– A pilot case-control exome sequencing study" from 2021 [3]. The latter is discussed in this post on the website of the PROFRINGE organization Institute of Noetic Sciences: "Paper Published! Do Psychic Abilities Run in Families?": [4] That post does seem to imply that the authors of the paper worked in conjunction with the organization, so it is not really an independent secondary source, and it certainly wouldn't count as WP:FRIND. Thoughts about whether this merits inclusion in the article? And does anyone know of independent secondary sources discussing it? Generalrelative (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I think this biography is very marginal. I'm not seeing much in the way of attestations to notability here and WP:BLPFRINGE makes me worried that a lot of fringe sources are being used to artificially inflate the profile. The search through the sources seemed to me to indicate that there just isn't that much interest in this person. He's entirely obscure if, perhaps, a darling of various fringe causes. Delete? jps (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I note it was recreated after being deleted in 2017. jps (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I would support deletion. He's definitely widely cited on far-right blogs, but significant mainstream coverage is quite thin. From what I've seen, it's mostly limited to media coverage of his 2013 study purporting to refute the Flynn effect. His entry in the Springer Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science (ref #1) is co-authored by his frequent collaborator Matthew Sarraf, so not an independent source. And this article on cryptozoology in Scientific American devotes a paragraph to him but its author also collaborated with Woodley on a paper (see [5]). On the other hand, this goes into some depth on Woodley's cryptozoology, and does appear to be independent. Combine that with passing mentions here, here and here in conjunction with race-and-intelligence fringe and I wonder if others might object. Thoughts? Generalrelative (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Is psychic ability correlated with race and intelligence too? Nil Einne (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, because they are both correlated with the ability to believe in Loch Ness Monsters! [6] Generalrelative (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

There's also a relationship between mental health and belief in superpowers and grandiose conspiracy theories (beyond ideology)... —PaleoNeonate – 15:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

After hunting around a bit more (at times wondering if I was searching for an elusive Sasquatch myself), I found what appears to be a WP:FRIND source discussing Woodley's paranormal investigations: this brief write-up in the The Sunday Post: [7]. Thoughts on whether this is substantial enough to merit a brief mention in the BLP? Generalrelative (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

That Sunday Post article looks like WP:SENSATION at best and payola at worst. jps (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I think you may be right. I'll leave it out unless I find something better. There are a number of overtly FRINGE sources like this reporting on the same paper but nothing else even remotely mainstream that I've been able to find. Generalrelative (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Notice: a separate item from this BLP, referring to Woodley's membership in the far-right Unz Foundation (an organization that supports, among other things, Holocaust denial) is now underway at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Michael Woodley. Not forum shopping here; I was given an aggressive BLP warning by DGG in relation to this content. But it clearly relates to FRINGE as well since the warning appears to imply that we shouldn't mention membership in such organizations. Generalrelative (talk) 12:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

AfD

I have decided to nominate the page for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Woodley (2nd nomination). jps (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

EmDrive again

This addition to the article is disputed. Tajmar et al measured zero thrust. Shawyer keeps claiming everyone else must do it wrong. Should we discuss this claim in the article? --mfb (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

McCulloch's research is still being funded by DARPA even after they reviewed Tajmar. Both Popular Mechanics and Forbes wrote articles on Shawyer's response to Dresden. Seems notable. A one paragraph mention shouldn't damage an article on a "fringe" topic that already exists on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subuey (talk • contribs) 18:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The coverage of the Dresden work in the lede seems undue, especially the quote, though there should be some mention in the lede.

We should avoid the (typical) claims that others must be doing it wrong, unless covered by a clearly reliable and independent source. --Hipal (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Hipal Should there be a mention of the current funding for McChulloch's work? Subuey (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Without diving into the article history, I'll just repeat that it would depend on the quality of the references verifying that information. In cases like this, if the references don't give context on the importance of the funding sources, then it probably would be UNDUE. --Hipal (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, it did mention that it was significant the support was continued. Subuey (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Authored by a contributor to Forbes, so probably not per the WP:RSP summary. --Hipal (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I don't see Popular Mechanics on the list, I can assume because it is a very good RS? Subuey (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

No, not at all: https://www.popularmechanics.com/ufo-central/ MrOllie (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

If there's no RSP entry about PM it's just that it hasn't been noticed yet as discussed enough at RSN over the years to have an entry. I agree that it's rarely a good source, they're indeed notable for promoting clickbait topics like UFOs. —PaleoNeonate – 17:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Their own Wikipedia page shows they have awards and numerous nominations. A mainstream outlet. Perhaps some shoddy reporting. Many of the UFO articles are from government sources though. Subuey (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Quality levels have risen and fallen quite a lot over the 120 years they've been around. MrOllie (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Just sayin' Subuey (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

No. There are still perfectly fine articles in PM about topics like power tools and building your own chicken coops. But as a source of encyclopedia content, their promotion of fringe woo seems to disqualify them as reliable. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. The most recent discussion of Popular Mechanics at the Reliable Sources noticeboard was not particularly enthusiastic. XOR'easter (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring to promote Rife's fringe theories

This continues a section about Rife above.

A cherry-picked attempt has been made to squeeze a recommendation for Rife machines out of a comment from Cancer Research UK (CRUK) by the inclusion of this comment in our Royal Rife article:

"Recently, some studies were made in laboratory with pulsed radiofrequency machines that work in the same way as Rife machines: researchers found that low frequency waves affected cancer cells, but did not affect normal cells."

The "recently" and "pulsed radiofrequency machines" are OR. The comment by CRUK, in its entirety, includes a more specific explanation which revealed the machines didn't even use the same frequencies as Rife machines, ergo the content isn't even relevant for the Rife article and it fails MEDRS.

Here is the comment from CRUK in their section labeled Research into Rife machines as a cancer treatment:

The Rife machine hasn't been through the usual process of scientific testing. There are studies that looked at low energy waves as a treatment for cancer. They used machines that work in the same way as the Rife machine. Some of these studies were in the laboratory.
One study was on a small number of people with advanced cancer. They had a type of liver cancer called hepatocellular carcinoma. Researchers found that the low frequency waves affected cancer cells. It did not affect normal cells. But this research is still at an experimental stage, and it’s not clear exactly how it could work. And importantly the electromagnetic frequencies used in this research were not the same as those of Rife machines.

I reverted the cherry-picked content and left this edit summary: "Totally fails MEDRS (note "one" small study using frequencies that are "not the same as those of Rife machines."): "One study was on a small number of people with advanced cancer. They had a type of liver cancer called hepatocellular carcinoma. Researchers found that the low frequency waves affected cancer cells. It did not affect normal cells. But this research is still at an experimental stage, and it’s not clear exactly how it could work. And importantly the electromagnetic frequencies used in this research were not the same as those of Rife machines."

I was reverted with this nasty edit summary: "Enough bullying... Your bias is anti-scientific. You have demonstrated it many times. Stop your useless editing wars."

These attempts to legitimize and promote fringe therapies fail for at least five reasons:

1. The CRUK article is filled with negative things to say about Rife and his machines. It makes it clear they are unproven.
2. OR and SYNTH are being used.
3. The content isn't even relevant for the Rife article as they are not Rife machines and don't use the same frequencies.
4. It fails MEDRS as it's vague and is only specific about one little study. MEDRS demands we use reviews and meta-analyses of MANY studies of good quality. We have to be able to link to them, not quote some mention that such studies might exist.
5. The personal attacks don't help.

I'm not going to edit war over this, so I invite others to check out the situation. We also need admins who can take action. -- Valjean (talk) 02:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

An edit warring case has been opened here. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The disruptive editor has been indefinitely blocked. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Michael Woodley at BLPN

WP:BLPN#Michael Woodley. Doug Weller talk 16:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

With all mention of his involvement with the London Conference on Intelligence now removed, although that isn't the consensus at BLPN as I see it. Doug Weller talk 08:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Now at afd [8] Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Sex

Our artcle about Sex (not the act, which is covered at Sexual intercourse) has doubled in size over the last year xtools, almost entirely due to the contributions of CycoMa1, an editor who has just been topic banned at ANI from medical topics for CIR issues. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Medical_articles_topic_ban_for_CycoMa1. The whole article really needs to be checked over for neutrality, and possibly just wholesale removing their contributions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: it seems at the very least that Crossroads and a few other editors have been keeping a close eye on the article, so I don't think wholesale removing their contributions is called for -- TNT (talk • she/her) 21:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Wholesale removal is up for discussion at the article talk, so I encourage anyone with an opinion to chime in. I think it's likely that we'll settle on a more moderate approach. Many editors (including me) have indeed kept an eye on it, but consensus-development at Talk:Sex has been sub-par for a while, and I would not assume that content in the article has any implicit consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 22:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Socialist Republic of Romania

Transylvania1916 claims that Ion Iliescu was the president of the Socialist Republic of Romania, and Petre Roman its prime-minister, which I have never heard before and seems wholly WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

It was only for 1 day, but it still happened technically. Iliescu & Roman assumed office on 26 December, and the Socialist Republic was abolished on the following day. What on Earth is so hard to understand? I removed the sources from the infobox because they were cluttering it, and added relevant paragraph at the end of the Revolution sub-section. Transylvania1916 (talk) 12:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Nope, Iliescu was coup leader, not president.

Your edit is WP:FRINGE and unverifiable in sources given. Completely made up original research. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I bet you didn't even read the sources... Transylvania1916 (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Google Books shows that page, there is no mention that Iliescu has ever called himself president of SRR. The other is a compendium of legislation, does not mention that, either.

Reply to Yeah, no, you revert my sourced edit, you come up with actual arguments: your edit isn't sourced in the meaning of WP:PAGs. It is your own original synthesis of two different sources, one of them being a WP:PRIMARY source.

Nicolae Ceausescu was the last president of SRR. Iliescu called himself president of the Council of the National Salvation Front. See WP:1DAY. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Is this a fringe theory? My apologies, but I'm not clearly understanding how it is relevant to this board. It seems more like a dispute over terminology, but this looks more like David Rice Atchison trivia (if I may use a somewhat similar example from my home country). jps (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@ජපස: They claim it's sourced, but they have provided absolutely no source which mentions it as a real fact. They have just applied their own logic unto sources. If anything, it is doubtful that SRR existed on 26 December 1989, and certainly there was no president of SRR. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

If it is just an idea that a user has, it's not quite a fringe theory. Especially if there is no source. You're right that this is some real throwback stuff to WP:1DAY. WP:FRINGE content tends to be a bit more organized and more muddled. This looks straightforward. jps (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@ජපස: Same as merely because we can write "the king of France" it does not follow that France does have a king. If it were trivia, a historian should have made the claim before. I lived for many years in Romania, and while I heard claims that Iliescu were neo-Communist, I have never heard the claim that he were president of SRR. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Debatable whether this is fringe, but from the perspective of improving Wikipedia, I think you both have something to offer here. The best way to address this type of controversial information, rather than reverting it entirely, is to retain some form of the content in a more correct form. The current article lacks any description of what came immediately after Ceaușescu's downfall. It goes straight from their execution to a new section talking about the abivalent interpretation of Iliescu's NSF actions, without ever saying what these actions were. A sentence at the end of the execution paragraph saying something like 'On December 25, Ion Iliescu proclaimed himself president of the Council of the National Salvation Front, and the following day they formally abolised the Socialist Republic of Romania' (or whatever the accurate description would be) would benefit the article without pushing the controversial claim that Iliescu was ever president of SRR, and would likely be something both of you would accept. Agricolae (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

How much does WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE affect fringe BLPs?

I ask because it's being used to justify removing material from the Woodley article mentioned above. It says "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution (see § Using the subject as a self-published source, above). Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures." There's an explanatory note explaining who isn't well known at Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual. Doug Weller talk 14:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I haven't dug (do you get that one?) too deeply into the article history. That said, I note one of the introductory sentences from here: Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. Publishing books, publishing articles, speaking at conferences, and giving interviews - all of which are supported in the article by RS and all of which, I assume, were intentional acts on the part of Woodley - define him as a public figure, and can be objectively interpreted as active efforts to achieve, among other things, media attention. If RS support this notable, "not low-profile" public figure's association with any group, claims that such content constitute defamation (i.e., damage to a person's reputation without justification) seem reckless and false. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm with JoJo on this one. Woodley has thrust himself into the public eye and availed himself of public fora. He's abandoned any claim not to be a public figure. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that everyone who has written a book, or spoken at a Zoo is necessarily a public figure. Looking at Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual, and after conducting literal minutes of painstaking research, I think there's an argument to be made either way on this person. The interview with Maisonneuve was a small part of a much larger article, and being a speaker at a Zoological Society of London talk on cryptozoology isn't really high profile, especially as the sourcing we're using for it is a blog post by one of the speakers. Not exactly Has appeared as a featured performer or speaker for a publicly advertised event at which admission was collected and/or which garnered significant independent, non-local coverage. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually I wasn't even thinking of Woodley but raised this as a general issue. Doug Weller talk 16:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Doug, I actually think the Wikipedia guidelines (and general outlines presented by Orange Mike and ScottishFinnishRadish above) do a pretty good job of structuring the answer to this question, but it is entirely possible I am missing something. I don't mean to be a bother, but perhaps you could rephrase your question or specify a bit? Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I am basically asking if this makes it more difficult to show that little known but notable figures are fringe. Doug Weller talk 17:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I was missing something, and I see it now. I think the answer to this has to be "yes." I don't think it's a terribly satisfying answer, but the policy is cautious by design. So if you had, say, a person who published a website dedicated to a square-shaped time object who was deemed notable, but not public, including direct criticisms might be tricky from a reputational standpoint. One strategy I think that might be deployed is side-by-side facts, such as "Mr. Fringe says the moon is made of cheese and is fourteen miles from Earth. According to NASA, the moon is made of rock and is 239,000 miles from Earth." This can also go overboard, however. Definitely worthy food for thought. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Side by side counters by referencing sources that don't mention the subject would be WP:SYNTH. I have seen too many abuses of this at the BLPN by people who don't understand that it was OR that try to right great wrongs. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:FRINGEBLP tries to make it clear that fringe beliefs of people should not be coatracked onto Wikipedia. For what it's worth, I think it's probably better if Wikipedia errs on the side of exclusion when it comes to fringe content simply because it is so hard to properly contextualize by its very nature. So if someone is notable but believes in goblins, Wikipedia may not include that obscure factoid on the basis of WP:UNDUE, for example. When someone wants to know whether notable person is a goblin-believer but doesn't find it on Wikipedia, that's okay. We should have very good sourcing (of the sort that makes it clear that goblins don't exist, for example) to say that. Otherwise, leave that sort of investigative journalist games to others. On the other hand, there are some people who derive notoriety from their fringe beliefs. In that case, it is not Wikipedia's job to refuse to reference criticism of those beliefs, for example. If notable goblin believer goes on Joe Rogan's show and then a bunch of articles are written about his goblin beliefs and there is a professional folklorist who publishes a blog explaining what is wrong with that position, it is perfectly fine, in my estimation, to use the folklorist's words (properly attributed) as a way to achieve proper contextualization and, dare I say?, WP:NPOV. jps (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with this, but would go slightly farther. In general, when a notable person just so happens to hold a fringe belief that receives little media attention (passing mention, or none), it would be out of WP:PROPORTION to put it in an article along with the requisite WP:FRINGE balance. Even for some clearly-public figures, like the former US congressman who wrote (or drew, I don't remember which) Bigfoot material, it just seems no more relevant than mentioning they collect stamps, have a pet African hedgehog, or are a fuitarian. If it receives significant coverage in media, then yes, but I would say that the same applies if they use their notability to promote their fringe. If a notable actress goes on Joe Rogan to talk about vaccines causing autism, or how putting a polished rock in your . . . (never mind), then it becomes fair game. Agricolae (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

And "According to NASA" could simply be presented as an unattributed fact per WP:YESPOV, —PaleoNeonate – 18:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but this may be more of a flaw of allowing the various SNG to overcome GNG like NPROF. If someone is only notable because of their fringe work but not well known, shouldn't there be high quality RS that report that the person is fringe? Does this person need or qualify for a standalone article if not? Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

If there is notability due to "fringe work", essentially by definition the source that confers such notability has to acknowledge that the work is fringe per WP:FRIND. Otherwise, I would argue, the fringe work is not notable. jps (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As a general principle, I tend to lean towards assuming a person is not a public figure in borderline cases. This includes cases that would otherwise check-off boxes for items at WP:LOWPROFILE. For example, small-town politicians who serve on some local planning board, and may give an interview to a small-town newspaper, or perhaps academics for whom part of their job is to publish papers are not "seeking out media attention". We should not be looking for reasons to publish articles on marginally notable people, rather the opposite. --Jayron32 17:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

the sourcing we're using for it is a blog post by one of the speakers. True that, but a referenced post by the noted palaeontologist and author Darren Naish under the imprimatur of Scientific American isn't exactly chopped liver. The subject has authored/co-authored several published books, and in their professional capacity they agreed to be interviewed and quoted about cryptozoology. Sure, this person isn't exactly Elton John, or even Darren Naish for that matter. But IMO their activities have made them a "not low profile" public figure, and by extension reliably sourced information about their affiliation with a disgusting group is not defamatory. I certainly won't be losing any sleep, however, when the AfD results in article deletion. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

My point is that it is difficult to use that source to show someone is high profile when the only coverage of the talk was by another person who was a speaker. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC on in-text attribution

There is currently an RfC at WT:W2W (section link here) about requiring in-text attribution in articles. This is similar topic to the previous discussions establishing that the terms "pseudoscience" and "conspiracy theor(y/ist)" can be used without attribution, conclusions which are not being disputed here, but related terms such as "denialist" are under discussion. As such, it may be of interest to this noticeboard. Sunrise (talk) 05:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Eduard Shifrin

• Eduard Shifrin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Kabbalah, quantum physics, information theory... this looks worth keeping an eye on. XOR'easter (talk) 04:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

if a person has received coverage for their writing, even if it's fringe, it's entirely okay to mention it in their own article. Be a wrench, not an axe, and tweak the coverage to summarize without endorsing views. No one will die because Wikipedia says (gasp!) someone wrote something that deals with an area that irks some Wikipedians. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

This is already being discussed on Talk:Eduard Shifrin. Let's keep the conversation focused, please. XOR'easter (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Timothy Darvill and Stonehenge as a Mediterranean solar calendar

See [9] byJason Colavito and also his Twitter feed[10]. Darvill's article is here. Doug Weller talk 14:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Recent human evolution

The whole Recent human evolution article seems like its purpose is to exaggerate recent human evolutionary rates beyond the scholarly consensus. Some things that really stand out on a cursory reading are numerous references to the work of the science journalist Nicholas Wade, the author of the widely criticsed A Troublesome Inheritance which was criticsed by scientists in an open letter for its exaggeration of recent human evolutionary rates, as well as citations of things like this BBC article from 2007, which is based on the claims of anthropologist Henry Harpending, who believed that black people were naturally more aggressive due to their genetics. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, ffs, it cites phys.org too. XOR'easter (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know, I saw a documentary called X-men, and it seems humans are evolving very quickly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Is Gadianton robbers notable?

It’s about some sort of criminal organisation in the fictional Mormon ancient America. Only BOM sources. Someone has tagged it for notability but I’m thinking AfD. Doug Weller talk 20:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

At the very least, the article needs some proper etic framing. It looks like Mormons sometimes make reference to this for various purposes. Here is a reliable independent source which might provide some context. There's a reference to them from some folklore accounts in Utah. They're mentioned on p. 73 of this book I do not have access to.

I do think it's worth having mention in Wikipedia, but WP:TNT seems like a possible avenue here. Redirect might be an option if they're mentioned elsewhere.

jps (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Mentioned quite a bit actually.[11]. A very interesting mention is in Secret combination (Latter Day Saints) which says "The most notable example of a secret combination is the Gadianton robbers, a conspiracy throughout much of the narrative of the Book of Mormon." I didn't do my due diligence, there are academic sources discussing them, eg Making Space on the Western Frontier Mormons, Miners, and Southern Paiutes

By W. Paul Reeve[12] and Terrible Revolution Latter-Day Saints and the American Apocalypse by Christopher James Blythe · 2020[13] both of which are university press book, the latter OUP. Doug Weller talk 11:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Also by the former author: "As Ugly as Evil" and "as Wicked as Hell": Gadianton Robbers and the Legend Process among the Mormons, a very readable (admittedly not-quite etic) secondary source about the Gadianton Robbers narrative itself, but also about its impact on early Mormon society. Based on such sources, a standalone article looks retainable. –Austronesier (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Decipherment of rongorongo, a 2009 FA article

Yesterday I was removing some stuff sources to Andis Kaulins[14] who self-published this book claiming "that many ancient megalithic sites are not tombs, but are remnants of ancient local, regional and perhaps even larger Neolithic surveys of the Earth by Stone Age astronomy, with gigantic stones being placed as immovable survey markers."[15]. I found this article which had a note saying "Besides Fedorova and Fischer, who are discussed here, these include José Imbelloni, Barry Fell, Egbert Richter-Ushanas, Andis Kaulins, Michael H. Dietrich, Lorena Bettocchi, and Sergei V. Rjabchikov." I didn't see the point of mentioning all these fringe authors so I deleted it. I also added an OR tag as I consider a lot of the notes to be pure original research. I was reverted by User:Kwamikagami who says on my talk page "The article passed FA with that info included. No OR problems then. What we have here is an insistence of TRUTH, as with other fields rife with pseudoscholarship. One linguist here on WP likened the author at issue (Dietrich) to reading von Däniken." But that was in 2009. So I have three issues. Is there justification for mentioning the fringe authors? Are many of the notes OR? Does this still meet our FA standard? Rongorongo also has some notes that appear to me to be original research, some clearly not sourced IMHO. Doug Weller talk 09:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Seems like there is a lot of activity on the article talkpage that is vaguely relevant but perhaps missing the obvious solution that is to remove references to WP:SELFPUB. jps (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Pinging the other editors who have been active on the article and talk page in the last few months. @Austronesier, Bigdan201, Skyerise, and Eirikr:. I'm wondering if an FA review would clear this up. But both articles are at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/2004–2009 so I guess one would have to do what is called for at Wikipedia:Featured article review. As I've never been involved in an FA I'm probably not qualified to do it. Doug Weller talk 15:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I didn't realize this was an independent objection; I assumed it was in response to BigDan/Xcalibur pushing TRUTH, or at least removing anything that would deny the TRUTH. I'd have to check how many mentioned in the fn are SELFPUB. Deletion may indeed be the way to go. The reason for mentioning those authors, though, was that they may be mentioned in popular accounts of rongorongo, so readers may wonder about them if there's no mention at all. Certainly we cleared out a lot of garbage about them when we prepared the article for FA, with Bettocchi and Rjabchikov fighting to keep it and insisting that we give them the coverage that they deserved. Imbelloni was published in Man, and his claims sparked an expedition to Easter Island. His claim that rongorongo was related to the Indus Valley script is still repeated, despite being published in the 1920s and repeatedly debunked. Fell is well-known as FRINGE, though his claims about rongorongo are incidental to what he's best known for.

As for FA review, there's been little change to the articles since FA, with Austronesier and me mostly keeping any fringy cruft from building up again. — kwami (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

But our expectations/standards have changed a lot in the last 13 or 14 years. I doubt it would pass now. Doug Weller talk 09:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I have raised jps's obivous point about WP:SELFPUB on several occasions (and not just about Dietrich). Dietrich is considered by one involved party to be a notable subject-matter expert based one (!) review in a peer-reviewed journal and an article about Dietrich in Die Zeit. My reply to this still holds: if that's notability for inclusion, then Wikipedia is doomed. –Austronesier (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I never pushed TRUTH. I never even claimed that Dietrich is correct! It's simply an interesting theory that could be added, that's all. Kwami has made a baseless appeal to authority, by claiming that accredited rongorongo experts were involved in FA review back in 09, yet there's no RS for this, and all the edits are by his account, including the footnote (as I proved on the talk page). As for that note, some of those names can certainly be labelled pseudoscience (eg Barry Fell), but not necessarily all. No researcher should be dismissed as pseudoscience unless the RS support this, otherwise you're venturing into LIBEL territory.

Dietrich is not self-published, I never claimed that he's a notable expert, and not on the basis of 2 sources. Please stop spouting nonsense, it's counter-productive.

The main issue I had with kwami is that I don't see any reason not to include Dietrich, except for gatekeeping and IDONTLIKEIT. I even offered a much reduced version as a compromise, to no avail. The objections boil down to kwami's personal belief that it's incorrect, even though his objections have been shown to be fallacious and often based on flat-out misunderstandings of the text.

I'm fine with removing self-published work. The main reason I tried to include a summary of De Laat is because they have secondary reviews, and I didn't want another editor's substantial content to go to waste.

Another FA review may be worthwhile, especially if there's a possibility that it could alter the current baseless consensus against my contributions. Xcalibur (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Astrologers complain that they're shut out of WP too, because of the "baseless consensus" against their contributions. Sorry, but pseudoscience only belongs on WP if it's treated as pseudoscience. For a contribution, you need RS's on the subject, and you've never provided any, only one non-expert asking the experts to take a look to see if there might be anything to it. They have, and there isn't. The fact that they don't want to waste their lives debunking garbage doesn't mean that the garbage is gold. — kwami (talk) 05:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Astrology is covered here, albeit with the disclaimer that it's not accepted by modern science. Moreover, it's not equivalent -- context matters here, and rongorongo is an unsolved mystery. This means that one guess is as good as another, as long as there are RS, which I provided. Esen-Baur is an expert, and it is in fact a review (you would know this if you read it properly, which you did not); the fact that she asked more experts to weigh in doesn't negate this. Besides, that's far from the only RS/source. They have, and there isn't No, the experts haven't weighed in (except for Esen-Baur). You haven't provided a single RS (or any source) refuting this. Xcalibur (talk) 08:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)\

Repeating something does not make it true. Esen-Baur is not an expert, by her own admission. She asks the experts to take a look, because she does not have the knowledge to evaluate it. She brought Dietrich to wider attention so that they might evaluate it, not realizing that some of them already had. She does not review Dietrich, she summarizes -- there's a difference. You keep saying I must not have read her properly because I disagree with you, a common claim with those pushing pseudoscience. — kwami (talk) 09:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Repeating something does not make it true. That much we can agree on. And repeating that "wikipedia is doomed" is no less an obnoxious, disingenuous comment than it was the first time. This is especially so when rongorongo studies seem to be moribund -- you yourself said that the Y! study group is inactive. When I say you didn't read, it's not sophistry on my part, it's an honest response to all these misunderstandings. Yes it is a review, and Esen-Baur does have relevant expertise, especially since (assuming the Dietrich theory is true) rongorongo is not even a script, but a notation system! Anyway, if any of the experts you accept have evaluated Dietrich, I'd be interested in a link. For my part, here's the Esen-Baur review, a significant source, but not the only one: [16] Xcalibur (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

While I'm at it -- while Dietrich is certainly not notable enough to warrant his own article, I think the sources ARE sufficient for adding a section. Especially if the existing sections have a paucity of sources, which may well be the case (I haven't checked yet). As for kwami, I don't expect to see any sources for these appeals to the authority of Guy, Sproat et al, so that's a moot point. Xcalibur (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

As I've said before, I was happy to accept Dietrich, as it was nice to have a treatment of RR as something other than a script. There's an inherent bias in a decipherment article, as it needs to be a script to be deciphered. I only changed my mind when I belatedly realized that he'd already been debunked by the RR group, which included some of the very ppl that Esen-Baur had named as experts. De Laat was part of that group later on, and he's giving his own opinion on the RR talk page: that Dietrich is nonsense, but also that he doesn't want his book summarized on WP because after feedback from the RR group he realized that he needed to rework the whole thing.

If you believe that EB is a RS, then let's accept what she says: that she's not an expert, and that Dietrich requires expert review. Until she gets her wish, there's nothing for WP to cover.

So you have zero sources that D is notable, and zero sources that he's credible, but the evaluation of one of the authors that you wanted to include in the article, De Laat, that D is nonsense. So why are you fighting to add nonsense to WP? — kwami (talk) 07:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The first two lines I agree with. belatedly realized that he'd already been debunked by the RR group this never happened. I haven't seen a single link or shred of evidence for this conspiracy theory. Let's not forget, you were called out for spouting nonsense about De Laat (although to your credit, you acknowledged this and edited). Speaking of De Laat, their disagreement with Dietrich isn't relevant, especially when there's a CoI. he doesn't want his book summarized on WP I didn't realize that authors had creative control over content discussing their work on wiki. Besides, I updated my summary to reflect that De Laat's latest paper is a substantial revision, although the rest is still there because that's what most sources cover. then let's accept what she says: that she's not an expert, I don't believe EB ever said this, and she has relevant credentials. Dietrich requires expert review. She asked for further peer review, which is reasonable. That doesn't negate EB being a review, which it clearly is. So you have zero sources I do have the sources, though. The fact that Dietrich had multiple papers published in scholarly journals already elevates his work above De Laat, which is self-published. Of course that's not enough by itself, which is why I have a secondary RS journal article, and then there's the Die Zeit article, mentions in other papers on rongorongo, etc (multiple blog-like sources discuss this, although they don't count as RS). Certainly not enough for a stand-alone article, but it should be fine for adding a section. So why are you fighting to add nonsense to WP? I haven't seen a single valid point against the content (IDONTLIKEIT is not valid).

Can you confirm that your objection to this is that my sourcing is inadequate? Is that the hangup? Xcalibur (talk) 10:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories#Proposed addition: Relationship of WP:FRINGE to other policies and guidelines

Mentioning it here as I'm guessing not everyone watches that page. Doug Weller talk 11:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I've been mulling over User:DGG's comments on this and have decided to mention them here, as they appear to be an attack on the way we handle fringe. In a long screed which needs to be read for full context he says fringe is no longer a danger to Wikipedia (which is hard to swallow as fringe is even more a danger to the world than it was 15 years ago) and ends his comments with "the first step towards of this would be a contents rule, that we never say something is fringe, or false, or true, or controversial.I would not modify the rule: I would remove it. To use a previous example of mine, we don't even call Stalin a tyrant. Reporting what he did will make it clear, and reporting the views of his supporters will make it even clearer. But if any of us say that we know something to be true, or false, or unproven, we can only be asserting either that we are supernaturally inspired, or that there is nobody better informed or more intelligent. We all know what we think today, but we can not tell if we will still think it tomorrow; how can we dare enshrine it as a judgment in a work of reference? " Doug Weller talk 14:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The dangerous social movements of our time are not represented significantly in Wikipedia. - That is because disobeying fringe (and falsebalance) is a ground for sanction. Once we take that away, we are on course to be the next r/incel or like community.

And I do neither see how a (self-declared) mol. biologist/librarian's review of a work of history is a valid "illustration" for the tedious arguments. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

For context, it might be helpful to know that the IP user who started this thread is topic banned from race & intelligence, and would have been indef blocked for meatpuppetry if not for concerns about collateral damage. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gardenofaleph/Archive if you're curious. Though the IP user bends over backward not to mention it, DGG's recent amendment request from ArbCom ([17]), which was about race & intelligence, is clearly an important piece of background here. Generalrelative (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. Interestingly, I was not aware that even IP editors can be topic-banned! TrangaBellam (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

In extreme cases, yes. And the abuse in this case was extreme. Generalrelative (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I comment when asked, and what I say does not depend on who asks me. The views I expressed are not new; I've said them before over many years. I was not aware I was reviewing a book, not that considering Stalin a tyrant was controversial. My background in science is on my user page. The most recent presentation of my views was at WP-NA 2021, at [18] at 4 h 57 min. DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Please note that DGG has altered the above comment after it was replied to by TrangaBellam below, without marking the change, in clear violation of WP:TALK#REPLIED: [19]. Though the meaning change was minimal in this case, that sort of casual violation of guidelines is a problem. Generalrelative (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Who is talking about Stalin, here? TrangaBellam (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I see no need to say more, except that if Doug thinks fringe wasn't a worse danger when he joined, he's forgotten about Scientology. If he means Trump et al are a danger, he's right. I wish they were fringe, instead of a near-majority, But thanks for reminding me to find the link to my talk. DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

As is made clear on the guideline page: WP:FRINGE is not about whether an idea is popular or not. Donald Trump's positions on certain things are indeed WP:FRINGE beliefs per our guidelines even as, perhaps, a "near-majority" believe they are true. jps (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

That's right, fringe is really popular in this age, not least in America.[20] Alexbrn (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm noticing a lot of debate here about what "the facts" are, and what we should believe. We are going to have to relearn the lessons that Wikipedia learned in its infancy: That Wikipedians must not concern themselves with what they believe to be true, but with what is verifiable by mainstream, academic sources. Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. To debate about what is true is to arrogantly raise ourselves to the status of scientist, historian, doctor, or reporter, and to violate Wikipedia:No original research. Personal belief is a corrupting factor in editing articles, especially if you feel strongly that your point of view is the correct one. MarshallKe (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

While this is true in the abstract, when it gets down to brass tacks there are people who are familiar with the reliable sources and the full survey of the literature on a topic and then there are people who are not. Ultimately, people need to base their arguments for including material on mainstream, academic sources. We agree on that matter. But take a subject like alternative medicine where there are hundreds if not thousands of papers which make claims that alternative medicine works in pocket journals, obscure outfits, or walled gardens. It would be irresponsible for Wikipedia to pretend that the sources which proclaim such, as numerous as they may or may not be, are somehow indicative of the "mainstream understanding". And yet, that very argument is made all the time on the talkpages of this website. We need editors who adhere strictly to wanting to toe the line of using only that which is vetted by mainstream academic sources, but we also need editors who can identify those sources and can summarize them accurately which is why WP:CIR is a thing. jps (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I've read your reply three times now and fail to see how your point contradicts mine. I never claimed that we shouldn't strive for full understanding of the literature or that we shouldn't be aware of low-quality scientific journals or the ways studies receive feedback from the academic community. All I'm saying is that our personal beliefs should be ignored insofar as we are capable, as they corrupt the editing process. Most sane people capable of independent thought have at least a few beliefs that don't match up with the current academic consensus. An editor who thinks their personal belief on a topic match up perfectly with the current mainstream consensus is almost certainly wrong, and if they have sufficient competence, they have to demonstrate that to other editors, and don't just get to say the magic words "I am competent and you are not" and everyone else just says "oh okay well then I'll just believe everything you say". You still have to show your work, otherwise it's just an ego battle of who believes more strongly or who is smart and who is dumb. MarshallKe (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Or maybe not one's work, but at least RS supporting it, since that's what WP can work with, of course... —PaleoNeonate – 18:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

@DGG: it is true that what you say is not new, but it appears to me that you are looking for spooks where there are none and are playing a dangerous game here of carrying water for a group that adheres to a particular set of beliefs about the race and intelligence controversy which I think are best described as being "intellectual dark web". This argument has appealed to a certain crowd who think of themselves as torch-bearers for the Sokal hoax when I think they are better described as last gasps of a moribund approach to scientific racism. Part of the reason we have a fringe guideline at all is because, essentially by definition, the sources that surround fringe claims tend to be on the thin side. Knowing when a particular perspective is noticed enough to be described on Wikipedia is delicate when you have a group creating their own alternate universe of sourcing. This was true 15 years ago and it is true today. jps (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

It's too early to settle that question. Research in human biology will decide. At least, it will decide for for those who actually trust the scientific method, and do not adopt the anti-scientific approach of accepting only those results in science that meet their preconceptions, or the even more tempting pseudo-scientific method of accepting only the results that they think socially useful. Such was the attitude in the 1930s, and we all know the consequences. DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

This sort of "the jury is out" claim is a canard. You may recall that global warming denialists used much the same 10 years ago, in their effort to rewrite other WP:MAINSTREAM discussions on Wikipedia. "The science is settled" is a phrase that was bandied about in effort to put to bed some of this nonsense, for better or worse, but I'll say it now to you: the science is settled that race is not biologically determined. It is pseudoscientific to claim otherwise. And invoking Godwin's Law in service of scientific racism as you are doing is amazingly rich. jps (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Pardon me, couldn't help but notice the goings-on next door, and I'd like to weigh in. I think the FRINGE policy serves an important role, but only when correctly applied. The trouble is when it's abused and reinterpreted in order to gatekeep minority views out of articles. For example, claims for the effectiveness of homeopathy, colloidal silver, or Scientologist auditing are clearly FRINGE, these practices should only be covered as quackery that at most has a placebo effect (or turning your skin blue, in the case of ingesting silver). But the scientific minority view that global warming is not primarily anthropogenic and/or not a real danger is not FRINGE at all, it's a valid minority view being disenfranchised and shouted down through various means, such as being falsely labelled FRINGE. There's an important distinction between unscientific nonsense vs minority, unpopular, yet scientific viewpoints. I too have noticed that the line often gets blurred, especially by editors who gatekeep articles or are driven by an agenda. That sort of thing is not conducive to an encyclopedia. But an encyclopedia shouldn't promote snake oil either, so it's tricky.

back on topic, the science is settled that race is not biologically determined. It is pseudoscientific to claim otherwise. even if you believe that race is a construct, there are biological differences between ethnic groups, aren't there? This seems like a case of semantics to me. Xcalibur (talk) 11:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

the scientific minority view that global warming is not primarily anthropogenic and/or not a real danger is not FRINGE at all This is your opinion. The scientific sources disagree with you and with the conservative/libertarian news sources and blog you probably got that misinformation from. (The pseudoscience of climate change denial is, like the pseudoscience of holocaust denial, politically motivated.) We go not with your opinion but with the reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The same applies to Xcalibur's claim there are biological differences between ethnic groups, aren't there?. Races and ethnicities are not delineated by biology. A fringe issue that has been extensively debated on Wikipedia in different forums over the last two years is whether claims of genetic racial differences in intelligence are fringe. In all of those discussions the consensus of editors, based on an examination of reliable sources, has been that those racialist claims are fringe. NightHeron (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Climate change skepticism and Holocaust denial are not even remotely comparable, an absolute false equivalency. On one hand, we have a scientific view that goes against the mainstream opinion regarding future predictions of a vast, complex system (the Earth's climate); on the other, fallacious denials of a historical event with an overwhelming amount of evidence that says it occurred. Even if climate change skepticism is politically motivated, that is certainly no less true for climate change proponents. Of course we go by the RS, but that policy is also vulnerable to subversion and gate-keeping: if the article's guardians approve, blog-like sources are considered reliable; if not, then reputable scholarly journals are not considered good enough. In other words, the bar gets arbitrarily raised and lowered, which is yet another means of gaming the system. And if the RS themselves are biased or lopsided in their coverage, then there's nothing to guard WP against this. BTW, you didn't comment on the distinction between valid vs false FRINGE labeling, which was my main point. Xcalibur (talk) 11:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that climate change is happening the way the scientific consensus says it is happening. You can deny this as much as you want, but it doesn't change that fact. Seems odd that you think it is somehow arguable. Perhaps because of your political bias? Have you read the climate change literature? Do you know why what you term the "minority" view is in the minority and how marginalized it is as a position among those who actually study the phenomenon? In fact, I would contend that your argument in this fashion would essentially exclude you from being competent enough to edit within our articles on climate change. jps (talk) 12:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree. The lack of competence is alarming. Alexbrn (talk) 12:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Please be aware, unfounded accusations of incompetence can be construed as a personal attack.

Yes, I've read up on climate change, enough to be aware that it's not really settled, it's only claimed to be due to how highly politicized the topic is. The following facts are certain: we've released alot of CO2 since the Industrial Revolution, it's a greenhouse gas that has a warming effect, and the earth's climate is getting warmer, with more erratic weather events. That much is settled, what's NOT settled is how much of this is anthropogenic vs natural, and how much trouble we're in. Natural oscillation, the carbon cycle, and albedo all factor into this. The earth was warmer than it is now during the Medieval Warm Period, and much cooler during the Little Ice Age, all without the presence of industry. Following these trends, we should be due for a Modern Warm Period, which could at least partially explain away warming trends. Then there's the carbon cycle, which sequesters CO2 into the biosphere, directly offsetting its greenhouse effect; the concern among scientists is whether the natural pump can work quickly enough to offset emissions. And then there's albedo, or reflectivity of the earth -- with more greenhouse gas, cloud cover and albedo goes up, reflecting more sunlight away, which again directly offsets warming. On top of all this, as I said, we're trying to predict the future of a huge, complex, nonlinear system, which is always challenging.

I didn't mean to go off on a tangent here, but that's a reasonable summary for why climate science isn't really settled. I've looked into the literature myself, and it doesn't seem to answer these points, or admits they're not factored in. There are other things too, like the mesopelagic layer of the ocean having much more life than previously supposed, which affects the rest, but I won't go into every detail here and now. Point is, a scientific view can go against majority/consensus without necessarily being FRINGE. Xcalibur (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

what's NOT settled is how much of this is anthropogenic vs natural This is incorrect. If you are of this opinion, you are contrary to the reliable sources on the subject. The added denialist talking points (which is what your arguments are, whether you believe it or not) about past climate change are so efficiently debunked in the associated literature that we even explain why the arguments are incorrect on relevant pages here at Wikipedia! The long and the short of it is that your armchair arguments here, while commonly made by interlocutors who arrive at climate change talkpages at Wikipedia, really are wrong and do not belong in the encyclopedia as anything more than an object lesson for incorrect arguments. That's how we treat it, and that's definitely the best way to treat it considering that any alternative would just be appointing random individuals as arbiters of content rather than reliable sources. jps (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Even if climate change skepticism is politically motivated, that is certainly no less true for climate change proponents. No, accepting climate change is simply motivated by facts. Climate change denial is grounded in the belief that free markets cannot do wrong. This belief is solidly refuted by the fact of man-made climate change and is therefore an obstacle to accepting that fact. Those who do not have that belief do not have a reason to reject the science, and that is why they accept it. So, the reason why üpeople on the left tend to accept the science is not the presence of a political position but the absence of one specific false worldview. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Climate change is a theory, not a fact. The level of CO2 and its function as a greenhouse gas are facts, the larger model is a theory which may or may not be correct. Science can make mistakes, in fact a large part of science is learning from mistakes. Your assertion that climate skepticism must be founded on blind faith in capitalism, rather than simply skepticism, reveals how highly politicized this is, and the political bent of climate alarmists. Even more troubling is this religious belief in "The Science", as if scientific institutions cannot possibly be wrong when predicting the future of a huge, complex system, which is not only unscientific but anti-science. Xcalibur (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

File under: gravity is a theory, not a fact. Basically you're pushing WP:PROFRINGE denialism here on Wikipedia. Don't. Alexbrn (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Not even remotely similar. Gravity is a law, ie law of gravitation. The climate change hypothesis/theory (it could be either, not sure actually) has nowhere near the same scientific backing. It wasn't my intention to push anything, I brought up climate as a passing example to illustrate my point, and got dragged into a discussion. Xcalibur (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Strictly speaking to terminology, this is a category error, and Alexbrn is correct. Have a look at the page to which Law of Gravitation redirects; you'll see a description of several theories: the most accurate of which is Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. Laws are for logic and mathematics--since science is inductive, laws are not on offer. Future observations could always change things. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity. Your argument is also like "evolution is just a theory". Anti-science playing with words. I'd support a ban if this continues or manifests as damage to content. Alexbrn (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Pardon my semantic error. The point still stands: comparing current climate models to rock-solid science like general relativity or evolution is absurd and borders on the irrational. It shows a complete lack of skepticism, almost a blind faith in the current consensus, which may change and is not built on nearly as solid a foundation as the other theories mentioned. Xcalibur (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

There are huge numbers of people who deny evolution is "rock-solid science", exactly like you're denying climate science. And with the same types of argument. It's a problem on Wikipedia too. Alexbrn (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I have to say that your argument, User:Bigdan201, is just as fallacious as those who are relativity deniers or creationists. It's just as pseudoscientific and just as disconfirming for editing articles on the subject. jps (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not even similar. You're comparing fundamental scientific tenets to predicting the weather, which is ultimately what climate science is, albeit on a grander scale. Let's put it this way: if evolution or gravity were wrong, this would turn reality as we know it upside-down. If climate science is wrong, it simply means that we miscalculated how the atmosphere would respond to multiple variables. It's not in the same ballpark. Xcalibur (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The science of climate change is not the science of weather prediction. That you make such an astonishing argument as this seems to me to indicate strongly you need to take some time to learn more about this. More than that, this is a perfect object lesson as to why DGG is ultimately incorrect about the community no longer needing WP:FRINGE. Here's a perfect example. Here's an established WP:USER who is basically saying that because we have inaccurate weather predictions we therefore are unsure about whether human beings are causing a severe and rapid change to our climate. Your argument, such that it is, is one that is basically regurgitated pablum from deniers. It has no basis in reliable sources and deserves to be completely excluded from articlespace except to show how it has been debunked in reliable sources. jps (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say they were equivalent, but it's a useful comparison. Predicting the behavior of a vast, complex system is difficult, and no matter how strong your foundation is, there's still a % error, and perhaps key variables that you missed entirely. Comparing even the best predictions to fundamental scientific principles (as was done here) is in fact hyperbolic and absurd. Even if you have 100's of the best RS for your prediction, it could all be wrong, just as 95% of political analysts made wrong predictions on the outcome of the 2016 election (but that's another can of worms). Yes, articles follow RS, but the RS don't control the Earth's climate. Xcalibur (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

btw, just to reiterate: I'm not against FRINGE or related policies, I just think it's taken to excess, particularly when content which is not pseudoscience or quackery is lumped into FRINGE. Xcalibur (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

It is manifestly not a useful comparison as many reliable sources have pointed out over the decades that this particular argument you are making is ignorant at best and motivated reasoning at worst. I really do encourage you to study this subject because it is abundantly clear that you are ignorant of it. So here's an excess that I will take this guideline to: I am glad that WP:FRINGE can be used to shut down conversations like this when people argue as you are doing that Wikipedia should include more "minority beliefs about climate change". That this is not going to happen is a feature of WP, not a bug. jps (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

If you read my post about natural oscillation, carbon cycle, and albedo, you should realize that I'm far from ignorant on this. I'm also not insisting that the current climate models are wrong, just that they might be. As I said further down, FRINGE distinguishes between pseudoscience, questionable science, and alternative theoretical formulations. All I'm saying is that there should be greater acceptance of the last category. Xcalibur (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

You are ignorant enough to think that the argument that "weather prediction is a useful comparison to climate change" has not been roundly debunked in reliable sources, that's for sure. Again, you need to do more research on this topic. Since there really are no reliable sources which argue that climate change denial belongs in "alternative theoretical formulation", I also chalk this up to ignorance on your part. This is me being generous. There are some people who come to this topic with motivated reasoning. I am assuming that's not what's happening here. jps (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

That seems like a personal attack, and its based on you misunderstanding my posts. I've said plenty here and explained major points. "weather prediction is a useful comparison to climate change" I didn't actually say this. I brought it up because there's a common thread: the difficulty of predicting complex systems. If you want me to explain any further, you can ask, otherwise you can re-read my posts, which should be informative. Xcalibur (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Have a look at Strange attractor. A point is running around in a huge phase space, following a very complex trajectory based on comparably simple equations. This is probably what you are talking about - a lot of people have heard about that. The weather is the point running around on the trajectory, and because the system is chaotic, you cannot exactly predict where that point will be in four weeks. But climate is the trajectory itself. It is the attractor. Its shape is exactly determined by the equations, and by a set of independent parameters - such as CO2 concentration. The problem we have with determining the weather of next month simply does not exist with determining the climate of twenty years from now, if the parameters we put in are realistic. That is why climatologists' forecasts from decades ago are spot on, and why denialists' forecasts are not, and why drawing conclusions about climate from how the weather behaves is ignorant. So, can we please stop this now, and you either go and bring yourself up to speed on the subject or shut up when the subject comes up? --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Huh. It seems that contribution of mine was not WP:CIVIL enough, even though I said "please". See User talk:Dennis Brown#I don't think the message made it through. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

arbitrary break

There are biological differences between any two people. There are also biological differences between groups of people when the two groups are separated by genetic distance. But race is a clumsy proxy for the latter no matter how you slice it. For example, when the American medical community warns certain races that their risk is higher for contracting a certain genetic disease, this is not an indication that the race itself is a biological marker for the disease but, rather, that a group of related people who have a higher risk for the disease are more likely to be classified as a certain race. If you really want to know whether a couple is at risk for having a child with sickle cell anemia, knowing the race of the patient is not the test. In one sense, you are correct: this is a case of semantics because the definition of race is ultimately semantic. It is crucial that the most accurate way that race has been defined is in the context of social science, and, social facts being what they are, that's the way race is made. Where I have seen many fail in this regard is that they think that because skin color, for example, is heritable that therefore race is something that is inherited. But that's not how the causal chain works. Race is a construct that is socially attached to a large number of arbitrary identifiers that come into the designation of race. Whenever a biological basis has been looked for it in a serious fashion, the findings have always been (to the extent that we say, "the science is settled") that the biological/genetic variations within any "race" are just as broad or broader than the biological variations between any "race". Brown Paper Bag Tests, phrenology, and one drop rules are all examples of what happens when people try to operationalize this in pseudo-empirical fashions.

I knew a biologist who argued that "race is a phenotype" because skin color was inherited. But the phenotypic association of the color of skin is not race as the variation in phenotypes that determine melanin concentration in the skin is broader and overlaps between racial identity groups in a way to make it basically impossible to say anything meaningful. On the other hand, we know that racism exists and that there are things that happen which are racially motivated even as many disagree that this is an okay thing to do. So this is where the question falls. When you note that, for example, black people are five times more likely to be incarcerated in the United States than white people, the plain truth of that is that this indicates a racial bias. Since the biological differences between populations selected by race have been studied in serious fashion without any meaningful distinction identified while scholarship has identified racism in the society over and over again as not just a correlative but a causative factor, it is just as pseudoscientific to argue that the difference in the American incarceration rate is due to biological difference as it would be, say, to argue that the phase of the moon is what determines the rate of hospitalizations.

jps (talk) 12:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Your points on race are well-taken. It's true, you have to guard against fallacies. To use your example of the minority incarceration rate in the US, this is sometimes used by racists to falsely claim that criminality is linked to skin color, which is fallacious. Rather, there are systemic social/cultural issues created by racism (ie discrimination by skin color) and other factors, which leads to those affected being incarcerated at a higher rate. It's also certainly true that there can be variation within a race/ethnicity as well as between different races/ethnicities, although that doesn't rule out minor baseline differences between populations. All humans are one species, this is easily proven by the fact that we can breed and have fertile offspring. However, there are minor differences, some of which you mentioned, these include not just skin color, but also facial features, fast vs slow twitch muscle fibers, hair type, and so on. I've read that people of the Himalayan region are adapted to have more efficient oxygen uptake to help them live in that high-altitude environment. Individuals and groups vary physically, and also mentally. Could there be minor baseline mental differences between races/ethnicities? Maybe, but if they exist, they must not be too significant. However, no one can research this today without getting tarred-&-feathered and losing their career and reputation. Xcalibur (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

However, no one can research this today without getting tarred-&-feathered and losing their career and reputation. There is no evidence that I have seen that there is any kind of "tar and feathering" as such at least not any more than there is in any other dead-end area. I know that a lot of race realists and IDW types like to say that this is true, but the claim is "evidence free" as they say. Let's say you spend your time trying to find out whether the moon affects people's likelihood of hospitalization. It is absolutely the case that you will not be treated with scholarly respect: you are barking up a pseudoscientific tree. jps (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. If Bigdan201/Xcalibur is open to persuasion, this source is explanatory: [21]. More can be found at Talk:Race and intelligence/FAQ. Generalrelative (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, I'll be sure to read. Xcalibur (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Bigdan201: There are also high-quality sources that present the opposite view, but they’ve been excluded from the FAQ for reasons that aren't clear. I recommend reading the comments by Stonkaments in this discussion, where he listed a few of them, as well as the subsequent exchange here. [22] [23] [24] [25]

The discussions linked above are an excellent example of the unusual way that WP:PARITY has been applied to this topic. The sources presented by Stonkaments in those discussions include a paper by Ceci and Williams published in Nature. [26] While this source endorses an environmental cause of group differences, it also is very clear that there have been attempts to suppress those who challenge this idea. Normally, WP:PARITY would not require Wikipedia to exclude a viewpoint published in Nature in favor of one published in Review of General Psychology, but that is what's been done in this case. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

It is fortunate, then, that Generalrelative's source discusses the editorial (not an article) and provides a very good explanation for why it isn't exactly relevant to the discussion you link to. Frankly, I find your WP:ADVOCACY tiresome and think it was a mistake for you to have had your ban from discussions of race and intelligence lifted. jps (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Bigdan201: But the scientific minority view that global warming is not primarily anthropogenic and/or not a real danger is not FRINGE at all Please see WP:FRINGE/ALT, explicitly covering this case. Things can be fringe without being pseudoscience or quackery. The root issue seems to be people who are insisting that we can't even call this view a minority one. One that typically strays into WP:RGW territory (ie. "The Man" is suppressing my favorite theory in mainstream scientific journals, it should be more prominent here to compensate).

even if you believe that race is a construct, there are biological differences between ethnic groups, aren't there? This is a significant bag of worms to this one (there's a good reason it's under DS), but the short version revolves around two concepts. 1) Race is not a good proxy for genetic variation, two anglo-European individuals may be more genetically dissimilar than an anglo-European and an east-Asian. 2) Defining and measuring intelligence is, in and of itself, a construct; there are numerous examples of cultural biases in intelligence testing, on top of why one culture or another values certain mental activities higher than others. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe it's RGW to point out that if a valid minority view is underrepresented in RS, that poses a problem for a neutral encyclopedia. As for FRINGE/ALT, I honestly disagree with lumping minority scientific views in with quackery, they are two very different issues. By extending FRINGE that far, you end up with gatekeepers forcing viable content out of articles for violating their orthodoxy. There are similar problems with FALSEBALANCE, which is built on good principles, but gets taken too far as well. Xcalibur (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

For Wikipedia's purposes, if the view is underrepresented in RS it is necessarily not valid for inclusion at Wikipedia. jps (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• I don't believe it's RGW to point out that if a valid minority view is underrepresented in RS, that poses a problem for a neutral encyclopedia.. The suggestion that the viewpoint deserves more representation in RS is precisely WP:RGW (Wikipedia doesn't lead; we follow), with a sprinkling of WP:CRYSTAL (Although currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community, it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections.).

By extending FRINGE that far, you end up with gatekeepers forcing viable content out of articles for violating their orthodoxy. I see WP:FRINGE/ALT as the clarification of the boundary specifically to avoid this issue. If it's being abused, address the abuse, rather than changing the guideline. Regardless, the policy of WP:UNDUE already covers the concept of a minority viewpoint being identified as such: Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. Emphasis exists in the policy, not added by me. Contrary to your view that content must be given additional prominence to remain neutral, policy says the opposite. See also WP:GEVAL: Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. (Emphasis added)

So yes, if a view is underrepresented in RS, core content policy dictates we are to give it correspondingly less representation. Your arguments against the guideline WP:FRINGE are in opposition to the core content policy WP:NPOV. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

However… in an article specifically about a fringe topic, it is appropriate to give some weight to what proponents say. More than we would in an an article on a related topic. For example: while we don’t mention what flat earth proponents say in our article on the Earth, we DO in our article about Flat earth. In fact, in Flat earth we go into some detail about what proponents believe, and cite some of those proponents (as primary sources) to establish the fact that they believe it. Context matters in determining if, when and how we cover fringe theories. Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, there are clear situations where the topics should be covered in articles. This doesn't appear to be in dispute in this discussion. This dispute seems to be revolving more around whether or not, in our discussion of an individual who supports a minority viewpoint, we state that the minority view is indeed the minority viewpoint according to reliable sources. Policy says "yes", whether or not you read the clarifications in WP:FRINGE. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Good points by Blueboar. In fact, I'm fine with proportionate representation, and giving minority views correspondingly less coverage. And yes, we should clearly state that it's a minority view. The problem as I see it is when this policy is taken to excess, when minority views are locked out, or barely mentioned except to argue against them. My issue isn't with the policy, it's with excessive interpretation. Xcalibur (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

But take, for example, an editor who shares your belief that the science is not settled on global warming attribution. We have many such accounts who have argued that such minority reports should be mentioned in our article on climate change. We, however, lock out that view per our policy. I do not consider that an excess. That seems appropriate given the overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources on the topic. jps (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Yup fringe material is left out, except to put it in a fringe box, properly contextualized by decent RS. That's what we call neutral. Alexbrn (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

If the RS themselves are not neutral, then the "neutral POV" becomes a fiction. More to the point, an encyclopedia should strive to be informative. When it comes to controversial issues like climate, it should present both sides in good faith. Naturally, this doesn't necessarily mean a 50/50 split, perhaps 70/30 or 80/20 is more appropriate. But when minority views are drowned out, strawmanned, or only attacked, it's simply not fair representation. This might make sense for pseudoscience and quackery, but not for plausible minority views. As I said, the policies are founded on the right principles, but they're taken too far. Xcalibur (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

When it comes to controversial issues like climate, it should present both sides in good faith ← this is called WP:PROFRINGE whether it's climate, evolution, JFK assassination, cancer-cure enemas or whatever. WP:GEVAL exist to stop it. Alexbrn (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Alexbrn is precisely right here, but I'm sorry, we can't bend the rules just because the reliable sources are mean to an idea. If you would like to right that wrong, you'll need to encourage the creation of reliable sources that do that. Then Wikipedia can follow. But we cannot accommodate any of the splits you propose on climate because the reliable sources on climate do not admit to any such split. That's how Wikipedia works, and it really cannot work in any other way if we are going to avoid original research. jps (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Disagreement on climate is not even remotely comparable to the other things you mentioned. It's fine to dismiss conspiracy theories and pseudoscience, but when legitimate minority views get lumped in, then it becomes excessive. RS, FRINGE, FALSEBALANCE, et al have the right ideas at their core, they're just taken too far. For RS in particular, I think we should use them prudently, rather than espousing the belief that published sources define reality. Xcalibur (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

File under: all these other fringe things are obviously insane, but my favourite fringe idea is special and deserves your respect! This is a repeated cry on fringe topics here on Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Not only is it comparable, it is a perfect object lesson for the problem with people trying to promote their pet ideas in the encyclopedia. You have made it clear that you are partial to climate change denial arguments. Others are partial to creationism. Others are partial to JFK conspiracy theories, etc. We are unable to distinguish between which of these fringe theories is correct and which are incorrect. Therefore we go by what the WP:MAINSTREAM reliable sources say. That offends the believers in those ideas. I am sure there are, even now, some fringe proponents balking at being lumped with the climate change deniers as strenuously as you are balking being lumped with them. But we have no other means to figure out what is encyclopedic and what is not. The only alternative is to name an editor-in-chief, but that's not the Wikipedia model. jps (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

ISTR the GMO conspiracy theorists here got extremely upset if they were compared to the climate deniers. Alexbrn (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I still say it's not equivalent. In fact, the FRINGE policy page provides a spectrum, ranging from pseudoscience, questionable science, to alternative theoretical formulations. I think the last category should be distinguished from the rest, climate being an example of this. Xcalibur (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Of course you say it's not equivalent. But the reliable sources disagree with you. And until you can get reliable sources that agree with you published, our hands our tied. The spectrum described on the guideline page only works if you have a reliable source that identifies a fringe belief as being in one of those categories. In our case, the category for global warming denialism is science denial. jps (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

There are reliable sources which give fair representation to climate skepticism, and criticize climate alarmism. Trouble is, the bar for RS would be arbitrarily raised for those sources, and lowered for RS that agree with the consensus. I'm not accusing you in particular, but this is the pattern I've observed. Xcalibur (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide examples, just for my own edification? I would be grateful. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

It's right that WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims require exceptional sourcing, but I'm suspicious of supposedly slam-dunk sources which are alluded to rather than actually referenced. Alexbrn (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing can be a bit tedious, especially when it's to prove a point in a pointless debate, but I'll get back to you on this. Xcalibur (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to make a daring prediction that you aren't going to be able to find any, but I would be happy to be shown to be wrong. Let us know! jps (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Bigdan201: Continuing from well above. Two hopefully clarifying points. For the sake of simplicity, let's assume a hypothetical science topic, with a mainstream and a small-but-significant minority rejected by the mainstream.

If the RS themselves are not neutral, then the "neutral POV" becomes a fiction. Here, I believe you are simply incorrect regarding core policy. If the high quality mainstream journals (ie, Nature, Science) only publish meta-analysis supporting the mainstream view, then it is indeed the mainstream that is presumed default and the minority view must be contextualized as the minority relative to. If the minority view is to be considered equivalent, it needs to be published in those top-quality journals alongside the mainstream. To 'correct' for the 'imbalance' of those journals does not improve neutrality, it harms it. It's even an example in WP:RGW: Spread the word about a theory/hypothesis/belief/cure-all herb that has been unfairly neglected or suppressed by the scholarly community. You might disagree with that policy, but it is indeed foundational content policy, and no change to WP:FRINGE would affect this concept. The more we debate this, the less focus we can spend on actionable concerns.

But when minority views are drowned out, strawmanned, or only attacked, it's simply not fair representation. This might make sense for pseudoscience and quackery, but not for plausible minority views. This is where there's room for discussion, probably. And this is where 'it depends' comes into play depending on how significant/plausible the minority is. In the specific context of BLPs for advocates of minority views, the view should very much be discussed but I don't think this is disputed. Where on the fringe scale it is will affect how it's presented. Personally, I'd want there to be a pretty high bar of prevalence for a minority view for the BLP to present the author's view as the one which gets the 'final word', like refuting a mainstream criticism. Stepping out of hypothetical world for a moment, this is the kind of thing I would sooner consider for advocates where experimental data is scant or impossible (ie. string theory or futurism) than for established fields with significant experimental data. Yes, even if it turns out they were right in the end, the article should reflect it now if reliable sources say their peers dismiss them currently. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

John Mew concerns about COI and FRINGE

I came across the John Mew article as it had a cite error. Looking at the most recent changes it looks like it's being edited by the subject, or someone close to him. As he has some "interesting" ideas about dentistry I thought I'd drop a note here. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 21:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The New York Times profile is wild! jps (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Interesting article on pseudoarchaeology

Experts Say ‘Pseudoarchaelogists’ Are Threatening the Field With Pet Theories About the Ancient World Engineered to Go Viral The "viral" bit is about the alleged discovery of Sodom and the alleged airburst over Tell el-Hammam. Doug Weller talk 10:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

University press book Ancient Ocean Crossings: Reconsidering the Case for Contacts with the Pre-Columbian Americas.

Pure fringe. See [27] where the university press ad says "Paints a compelling picture of impressive pre-Columbian cultures and Old World civilizations that, contrary to many prevailing notions, were not isolated from one another". Used in several articles.[28] Doug Weller talk 14:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Lol, "The work gives new meaning to the expression tour de force." Indeed. Generalrelative (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• So, dear experts, the pertinent question for Wikipedia is: is this book pseudoscience, questionable science, or an alternative theoretical formulation? Should Dr. Jett be summarily removed on sight as a lunatic charlatan, or added (if contextually relevant) as a significant minority view? Books are where scholars enjoy relatively more freedom of synthesis, discussion, and speculation than primary literature might permit. It would sure be convenient if Jett were speaking completely out of his anus, and could summarily be dismissed in all cases (and thus expunged from the hallowed halls of truth known as Wikipedia). But is it possible certain claims could be evaluated on their own merits? Archaeologist Peter Bellwood in reviewing the work states "I have no trouble in believing that many coastal populations in the Old World had the ability to cross wide oceans by at least 5,000 years ago", and finds individual aspects to criticize, yet concludes: "I think the upshot of all of this is that transoceanic "contact" between peoples in different hemispheres occurred along a scale of significance. That it sometimes could have occurred is not in doubt, but was it always relevant from broad perspectives of cultural and biological evolution? Stephen Jett has done a good job, but endless questions remain." Anthropologist Terry L. Jones begins his review with "Stephen Jett is one of a handful of dedicated (mostly) geographers who have sought to keep dialogues about prehistoric transoceanic contacts with the Americas within the realm of scholarly discourse for historians, anthropologists, archaeologists, or anyone else who might listen." His review finds aspects to commend and to criticize, and concludes with "Despite such misgivings, I think that the possibility of intercivilizational contacts across the oceans connecting Asia, Malaysia, South America, and/or Mesoamerica continues to be worthy of consideration, and I appreciate Jett’s monumental efforts in trying to keep that possibility alive in the minds of American scholars." Geographer Charles F. Gritzner writes: "Jett takes a stand counter to the long-held position that such contacts were improbable, if not impossible. The book, then, is a reconsideration of traditional views", and concludes "Jett has drawn together and convincingly presented and assessed a huge body of evidence that amply supports the case for early transoceanic exchanges." A review by Colombian archaeologist Diana Carvajal Contreras notes: For Jett, cultural developments are explained by diffusion. For the vast majority of historians and archaeologists, this explanation for the dissemination of knowledge and technology is viewed with caution in the best of cases and seen with skepticism in the case of inter-oceanic contacts before the Vikings. It is criticized as a vision of being biased by the notion of cultural evolution.

Laughing out loud is good and healthy for the body, but closely examining sources and preconceptions is also healthy for the mind. I'm by no means an armchair expert in archaeology or anthropology (pre-Columbian or otherwise), but, just spitballing, I would place this guy as a minority but alternative scientific viewpoint, if one accepts the premise that science consists of more than the simple dichotomy of "majority" (right and good) and "fringe" (wrong and bad). --Animalparty! (talk) 05:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'd say you're just a bit too high up on that horse for me to hear what you're trying to ask. Feel free to continue resenting the community I suppose. Generalrelative (talk) 06:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  • @Animalparty: I find it difficult to take Gritzner seriously. I realise that he grew up at a time when hyperdiffusion was taken much more seriously, but he's praising some fringe people writing in two self-published books. One by John L. Sorenson. Doug Weller talk 14:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'd say we let the actual experts in that subject decide that question - historians and archaeologists - and completely ignore our own spitballing. The way we always do it. The way the guidelines tell us. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Phantom time hypothesis

• Phantom time hypothesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP found quite a few faults, and indeed, the article needs a brush-up. I started by slight reorganizing and NPOVing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Might we rewrite this line in the lead: The hypothesis has never attracted any support from historians. Since Illig is a "historian," it directly contradicts itself. What about The hypothesis is refuted by the vast majority of scholars. And perhaps a source to pin to it. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable source that calls Illig a historian? He did German studies at University of Bremen. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Mother Jones calls him a historian, as well as numerous lesser sources, but I suppose it could be argued that he's merely an "author." German studies degree would certainly cover the early medieval period of Europe, though. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

OK... that is nomially a reliable source, but they got it wrong. [29] says, Die Historiker, das sind die anderen, er zählt sich selbst nicht dazu, und sie ihn auch nicht, weil er nie Geschichte studiert hat, sondern promovierter Germanist und Diplomkaufmann ist. The historians are the others, he does not count himself among them, and neither do they, because he never studied history but a specialist in German studies with a doctorate, and a business graduate. This is pretty consistently what sources say; only a few call him a historian, probably because they guessed he is one since he writes about history. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

There are a lot of armchair historians out there. I think it is fairly clear that "academic historian" is the sense that the sentence is trying to communicate. Sometimes there is a fine line between WP:ASTONISH and WP:ASTONISHME, and I make no judgement as to which principle is most appropriately applied here. jps (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Is the New York Post a reliable source for this article "Activist makes list to bust imposters claiming to be Native American"

Posted today.[30]. Doug Weller talk 17:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

What is it being cited for, and where? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

It was just posted today, and I have no idea. I guess there are three options. No, it's not reliable for anything, it's reliable in some instance and not in others, or it's reliable for anything. It might be relevant for Pretendian. Doug Weller talk 17:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't use it for anything. (Note that there was pushback on Keeler's methodology and the verifiability of her claims.[31][32]) Schazjmd (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I would say that it is reliable for the fact that an activist has compiled such a list, but this would have very limited utility. For example, it would be justified to include it on a page of the activist themself, or if we had some discussion somewhere about the generic (not specific to one person) issue of such claims being disputed it could be mentioned to illustrate the extent of the perceived problem. It is not reliable for the contents of the list (which the Post is not claiming to have independently verified) and it is not WP:PROPORTIONal to mention inclusion on the list in any BLP unless there is some independent RS about that specific individual that mentions their inclusion on the list. Agricolae (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:NYPOST is generally unreliable for factual reporting. I would look for another source or leave it out. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

This is what I expected to hear. Doug Weller talk 19:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Conversations with God

Probably notable, but most of the text is unsourced. Doug Weller talk 11:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Alexander Cockburn

• Alexander Cockburn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Section "Green issues" contains several fantastic climate change "explanations" by laymen written as if they were serious scientific ideas. Example: He cited the statements of semi-retired explosives expert Martin Hertzberg that rising CO2 levels are a symptom, not a cause, of global warming, which Hertzberg asserts is the result of natural, predictable changes in the Earth's elliptic orbit.

Yeah, or maybe global warming is caused by hobgoblins rubbing their hands together.

Can't quite think of a way to rewrite this in accordance with WP:FRINGE. Maybe someone has an idea. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

That whole section should just be nuked. What isn't WP:SYNTH from primary sources is sourced to blogs and Counterpunch, which should not be used, especially in a BLP. If there's no good secondary sourcing about this, then it isn't WP:DUE. I've removed it, so I guess we'll see how that goes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I suspected that to be the right solution, and I agree with it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I did some digging and found his obit in The Guardian, which says For example, he shared the scepticism of many conservatives about global warming and climate change. There's also Columbia Journalism Review, which goes more in-depth, and has this nice quip, Neither article, by itself, is groundbreaking in any way. Hansen’s list is generic and Cockburn is wrong. But there is a likeable tension in their collocation that has not existed on news pages in some months. It also provides Rebutting the remainder of Cockburn’s pseudo-scientific argument is unnecessary. Lastly, I found this Reason article which is pretty small, not in-depth, and provides Now comes Cockburn's second column peddling climate change denial. Really, the only thing to work off of is the Columbia Journalism Review piece, which might be enough to say "Cockburn wrote in support of the incorrect and pseudoscientific belief of climate change denialism." That's really not enough for it's own heading, though.

To be honest, that entire article is just filled with SYNTH based on his writings, with little in the way of secondary sources to show that any of it is notable or due. The entire "political views and activities" section could be cut down to a paragraph that says "He was a socialist, Marxist and a contrarian."

At times acerbic, Cockburn could also be gently and humorously ironic, once declaring Gerald Ford America's greatest president for "doing the least damage" and praising the Lewinsky scandal's entertainment value. is sourced to this unreliable source which doesn't mention gentle, humor or irony, or even Gerald Ford. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

As indicated by SFR, the entire article is problematic. Tangents, synth, puff, verbosity, you name it. If I have time over the next few days (that's a significant if, unfortunately) I will break out the hatchet and start a-hackin'. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I now suspect the job will require a bulldozer and C-4. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Please see the article Talk page for more comments (not that I'm recommending that rabbit hole), as issues regarding the page seem mostly tangential to fringe topics. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Recent addition to OR policy

I'd be interested in thoughts about this matter at the OR policy talk page. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Charles Faulkner (author)

Working through 2009 promo tags and stumbled on this article. I'm inclined to shorten it significantly but curious opinions on whether the fringeness of his views is being buried in the body and needs to be made more apparent to a reader.Slywriter (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Service: Charles Faulkner (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--Hob Gadling (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Alexander Gorodnitsky

• Alexander Gorodnitsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some user still believes in the existence of "climate change skeptics". --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Norman Fenton

• Norman Fenton (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Recently came across this tangentially via COVID-related avenues (see Hart Group of which he is a member), and find there's a lot of science stuff in here which is outside my area of interest (Bayesian reasoning) including the bold claim that he is "renowned for his work in software engineering". I note he has also pronounced on climate change (how, I don't know). Do other editors know more and (outside COVID vaccines) is there a fringe aspect here? Alexbrn (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I went through and trimmed some WP:PEACOCK language. While he does appear to have a significant number of citations in computer science and software engineering (roughly a thousand IEEE citations per year), I feel like "renown" needs a better citation than that. Much of the section seems to need a bit more work to read like it wasn't written as a promo or to pulled from his CV. But he doesn't appear to be a WP:FRINGE computer researcher, more like the common example of being over-certain outside his field of expertise. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Category:Race and intelligence controversy

I just finished diffusing the biographies in Category:Scientific racism, which constitiuted about 60% of the category, into a new category named Category:Proponents of scientific racism, except for a few articles which lacked context or were otherwise unapplicable. However, I discovered during cleanup that the new category has a large overlap with Category:Race and intelligence controversy: 31 articles are in both categories, and from a cursory glance some of those entries are nondefining for R&I. Any advice on what to do with the biographies in the R&I category? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

AfD for The Templar Revelation

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Templar Revelation (2nd nomination) - it may end up being kept, but at the moment it has no inline citations, just a link to this which I'm pretty sure fails RS. Doug Weller talk 17:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I swear that site ripped off the aesthetic from my website aggregating resources on Hittite history from 1995 or so. Dumuzid (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

RFC on Allegations of the Chinese government systematically undercounting COVID-19 cases and deaths

 You are invited to join the discussion at [[:Talk:Chinese government response to COVID-19#RFC: How should we include allegations of undercounting?|Talk:Chinese government response to COVID-19 § RFC: How should we include allegations of undercounting?]]. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)