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

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 (1 participant)

Redirects for discussion

• 03 Nov 2024 – Handwriting expert (talk · edit · hist) →Graphology was RfDed by BD2412 (t · c); see discussion
• 26 Oct 2024 – Picric acid (homeopathic remedy) (talk · edit · hist) →List of homeopathic preparations was RfDed by Trovatore (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

• 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

Spacedrives

• Vacuum to Antimatter-Rocket (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Icarus Interstellar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The former doesn't look notable at all. The latter survived AfD in 2014 thanks to a list of sources that superficially looks good but may suffer from reliability problems upon closer examination. "Engage! Warp Drive Could Become Reality with Quantum-Thruster Physics". No. No, it could not. XOR'easter (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Antimatter is one of the most expensive substances on Earth: about $62.5 trillion a gram. VARIES could solve this issue.... The lasers aboard VARIES would produce protons and antiprotons directly from the vacuum of space through the Schwinger pair production.

PROBLEM SOLVED!

jps (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Yea, with no current technology even allowing to currently test the theoretically basis, —PaleoNeonate – 22:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

What?! You don't think they're going to be able to make a gamma-ray laser? Ye of little faith. jps (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Let's review the sources:

1. [1]: 2 sentences, part of a large gallery. No consensus yet on the reliability of space.com.
2. Primary source, a JBIS paper detailing the proposal by Richard Obousy. Obousy is also a co-founder of Icarus.
3. [2]: Primary source to Icarus website, plus weird citation formatting.
4. [3]: About antimatter and fusion technology, does not mention VARIES.
5. [4] Supposedly republished from Discovery News, but the original is no longer available; might be a PR by Obousy. There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News for science topics.
6. [5]: 2 paragraphs out of many proposals; probably not RS.
7. [6]: This is the paper that first predicted Schwinger pair production. It was published in 1931, while the proposal was made in 2011.
8. [7]: Blog.

AfD? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd say so. The Fox News item definitely looks like PR written by Obousy himself; it doesn't have a byline at the top, but the text at the bottom (Richard Obousy is co-founder and President of Icarus Interstellar Inc., etc.) certainly reads like an author bio. XOR'easter (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vacuum to Antimatter-Rocket. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Now, as for Icarus Interstellar... It reads like a PR, and at least some of the sources are primary or PR as well. Any comments? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

It passed AfD in 2014 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icarus Interstellar) based on a list of apparently in-universe sources (unconvincing keep for me). On the other hand, if this page subsists it'd be the right place to preserve mentions of some projects that could not remain as separate articles, perhaps... —PaleoNeonate – 00:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

2014 was a while ago, and the old AfD basically took the source quality as given without digging into it. Revisiting that might be in order. Meanwhile, there's also Helical engine to consider. I'm doubtful that a tabloid flash-in-the-pan really amounts to notability. XOR'easter (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Half of Helical engine is currently a copyvio from a non-peer-reviewed "report" by the inventor. Oddly, Earwig doesn't seem to pick it up (and is running very slow today), but the paragraph beginning The engine accelerates ions confined in a closed loop is almost verbatim. I've reverted more on that page recently than I'm generally comfortable with (confrontational is not my favorite look); would anyone else want to investigate and hazard a judgment on whether it's even notable? XOR'easter (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I've gone and reverted ExoEditor's reversion of your deletion. Judging by the previous ANI thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1059#User:ExoEditor_and_User:Kepler-1229b ExoEditor seems to have major WP:CIR issues. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

They restored it again. Recommend RD1. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, my stars — they added a student's homework report as a source, calling it a statement by the professor who taught the class. What can I say but WP:CIR? There also seems to be a systematic issue with taking only the credulous parts of sources, like omitting how the Popular Mechanics' story admits it would likely violate the laws of the conservation of momentum. When you've lost Popular Mechanics... XOR'easter (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's look at the sourcing for Icarus Interstellar...

1. [8]: Primary source.
2. [9]: Dead link to and Alaska government website, possibly with regards to its registration status as a nonprofit.
3. [10]: Primarily an interview.
4. [11]: Primary source.
5. [12]: Dead link, presumably a primary source.
6. [13]: Primary source
7. [14]: Paywalled, can't tell.
8. Duplicate of 4
9. [15]: Dead link
10. [16]: Primarily about Project Persephone, not its parent project.
11. [17]: Dead link?
12. [18]: Passing mention; primarily about Eric Davies.
13. [19]: Scheduale for a conference organized by Icarus.
14. [20]: PR-like article describing the the conference; I don't think this is encyclopedic.
15. [21]: PR.
16. [22]: Dead link.
17. [23]: Primary source.

So we have at most one live, usable source in this article. AfD? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Having received no response, I opened the AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icarus Interstellar (2nd nomination). I noticed that another WP:BEFORE might not be necessary, since the last project update on their site was in 2015. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The AfD was closed as delete. XOR'easter (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

In the same topic area, cited to some of the same dubious sources and seemingly coming out of the same community:

• White–Juday warp-field interferometer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Warp-field experiments (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

XOR'easter (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

When I first see Warp-field experiments and start reading it it seems generic and legitimate. Then I see that it's unfortunately a person's work that the few who commented about have criticized and that the only two independent sources are a little synthesis used to cover the topic. I agree with the current PROD and we'll see. For White–Juday warp-field interferometer there appear to be some other sources, like "NIAC is Back: NASA Funds 30 Innovative Ideas that Just Might Work"[24]. I look at it and see no mention of White, Juday or interferometer. Are some of them better? Or is there a potential merge target (well there's Harold G. White too)? —PaleoNeonate – 03:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I deleted three supposed references that, from everything I could find, did not mention the topic of the article. Everything else seems to be either primary or fluff. "News" websites have no goddamn filter when it comes to "NASA is building a warp drive for real!" stories. Maybe the Harold G. White article could serve as a target for a redirect or a very selective merge. XOR'easter (talk) 04:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I did a copyvio check on White–Juday warp-field interferometer and found some rather egregious examples. With them gone, the article looks even more like it would float off in a light breeze, but I despair of getting it deleted over the objections of the "it has footnotes, so it must be notable" crowd. Anyone have thoughts about a possible smerge target? XOR'easter (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

As part of the ongoing spring cleaning we're trying to manage over at the Physics WikiProject, I've redirected White–Juday warp-field interferometer to Harold G. White. XOR'easter (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Nur ibn Mujahid

• Nur ibn Mujahid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor attempted to ascribe an ethnicity (Somali) to a historical figure based on a single source touching on the existence of "oral traditions" linking the figure to Somalis (this is presented as a footnote in the original source) [25]. The vast majority of reliable sources do not attach an ethnicity to this figure and only discuss him as a Muslim leader who had taken part in a war between Muslims and Christians in the region [26]. I have removed the additions from the article's lede and left a mention of this in the article's body [27], but seeking more opinions on whether the additions should be discarded completely as a fringe theory. --Kzl55 (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Kzl55 I have replaced the source in question with a biographic encyclopedic one and provided a link under it for verification [28]. You are right it was in the foot note and i didn't take notice of it .However it's not a fringe theory. The one i provided now is not and it's a reliable biographic description of him based on two other sources based on manuscripts.

I explained it much further , if you are interested: [29]

Also please notify me the next time around.

Cheers

Ragnimo (talk) 01:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

This is still undue, the only reliable citations presented is a footnote and a single sentence mention. Exceptional claims on Wikipedia require exceptional evidence. Please also see WP:RSUW "if a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not". Please be patient and await further contributions from the community. Also please indent your comments in the future, you've been advised on this previously. --Kzl55 (talk) 11:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The source i replace it with is reliable and not a mere mention but an actual biographic entry about him. Namely from and this has been refrenced by other texts and the dictionary reviewed by other journals [30] &[31] suffice to say it should fit Wiki standards.

And there is no other source you can mention to contest this either or that state otherwise. So the rule of minority POV or exceptional claim do not really apply here. As for being patient and awaiting fruther contributions, you should have had notified me about beginning this discussion , it was only after i made correction edit that i saw that you had opened this Noticeboard through looking at your contrib, so notify people as the rules "If you begin a discussion of another user on a common notice board, it is expected that you will notify the subject user by posting a message on their talk page (and/or through off-wiki email, if the subject has chosen to enable that function). There are two sides to most stories, and good faith requires the assumption that the subject of the complaint may have a valuable perspective to contribute." WP:NOTIFY. As i had advised you earlier.

Cheers.

Ragnimo (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Please stay on topic and keep your comments brief. In terms of your additions, as explained above they describe viewpoints held by a small minority of reliable sources, you've cited a single footnote as well as a single sentence mention, and so would not normally be included in Wikipedia article "regardless of whether it is true or not" per WP:RSUW. The vast majority of reliable sources do not comment on the individual's ethnicity. There is no point of turning this into a forum, I suggest we wait for opinions from other editors on whether the addition is undue or not. Lastly, use of indentation is a behavioural guideline that all editors are expected to follow, please adhere to it otherwise your comments will clutter talk page discussions. --Kzl55 (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Please adress my points and keep your comments on the contention itself, without having to repeat yourself.

Again as i stated it's not even a minority view point if (A) it's not contested by other sources and (B) other sources don't offer a different viewpoint about his background. And (C) it's from a mainstream encyclopedic dictionary production about African biographies that have been reviewed as credible by African academic journals and is used a refrence text

Wether other sources make mentions of it or not has nothing to say for if this a minority POV or not.

Ragnimo (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

You are attempting to add text based on very limited support in reliable sources, this goes against content guidelines as explained above. The vast majority of sources do not comment on ethnicity of this figure. Article content not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight by inclusion per WP:FRINGE. Inclusion would also breach neutrality guidelines as Wikipedia articles should cover "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views". As stated above, we are going in circles, this is a noticeboard and not a forum, I suggest we wait for input from other editors. --Kzl55 (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Again as i stated it's not even a minority view point if (A) it's not contested by other sources and (B) other sources don't offer a different viewpoint about his background.

I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. If one scholar claims Person A is Ethnicity B, and no one else has bothered to speculate on the topic, that means... we just take it as fact? That's the very definition of a minority viewpoint: the majority has not speculated on their ethnicity, while one has.

Also, if the source is mainstream encyclopedic dictionary production about African biographies, that violates WP:RS. We do not cite other encyclopedias, only direct sources. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Bite. First of all it is a direct source, because the view is less so encyclopedic more so a collection of other scholars contributions, that write in biographies of historical people. The one about Nur Ibn Mujahid being Merahen Darood is from that of anthropologist Harvel Sebastian [32], from Dictionary of African historical biography (Vol. 1)

Also it doesn't mean we should take it as a blatant fact but include it and state the scholar in question who holds that view?

In any case can we include it in the body instead of the leed that there exist a tradition about it because there is another source besides from that one scholar claiming that traditions existence [33] & Which i previously added before it being removed by KzI55 on the grounds that it was in a footnote.

Both Kurt Wendt and Ethiopian/Somali studies authority Enrico Cerulli was refrenced for that by Harvel Sebastian. I could look for another source by Enrico Cerulli which is most likely in Italian if that helps. Ragnimo (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

You are recycling the same argument. The additions you are trying to insert are supported by a limited number of sources, by your own admission a single in-passing mention in one source and a footnote. This is a glaring example of a minority viewpoint and Wikipedia guidelines are clear on this issue as explained above by THTFY and myself. Why is this so hard for you to accept? --Kzl55 (talk) 02:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

irst of all it is a direct source, because the view is less so encyclopedic more so a collection of other scholars contributions, that write in biographies of historical people.

No. That is flatly wrong. It is not a direct cite. If you want to cite someone, cite the original work where the statement was made, not an encyclopedia or dictionary.

Also it doesn't mean we should take it as a blatant fact but include it and state the scholar in question who holds that view?

No. At best you could say it's this scholar's opinion, but then you're giving undue weight to a minority viewpoint.

Right now, you do not have enough reliable sources to include this claim of ethnicity. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, it if other sources or scholars don't discuss it, it's probably undue for Wikipedia. If the one who supports the view is very notable in the field, it could be mentioned with attribution. Since it's being contested by multiple editors, it's probably best to leave it out and move-on until better sources are available... —PaleoNeonate – 14:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, I have now removed the undue additions. Many thanks for your input HandThatFeeds and PaleoNeonate. --Kzl55 (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response back was busy all keeping vandals and socks in check.

Bite No. That is flatly wrong. It is not a direct cite. If you want to cite someone, cite the original work where the statement was made, not an encyclopedia or dictionary. It is original work, its written by Harvel Sebastian himself. And his attribution is on the page. But OK.

If the one who supports the view is very notable in the field, it could be mentioned with attribution.

I will find the original source of Enrico Cerulli in Italian, and perhaps look to see if there is another source for this and i will come back to this noticeboard or alert you on the talk page.

Cheers Ragnimo (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The source that I will reference in this initial post will be directly from a book written in 1935 by the highly accredited Professor Kurt Wendt, in which he explicitly mentions the ethnic background of Emir Nur as being from the Darod tribe, Marehan clan. This book has been cited in many contemporary works throughout the last 70 years and is widely held as the one of the preeminent scholarships into the "Conquest of Abayssinya" as this book contains the original manuscripts. Furthermore many other prominent historians such as I.M Lewis from the London school of economics and French Professor Robert Ferry have mentioned quite clearly that the Conquest of Abyssinia was accomplished predominantly by the Darod tribe headed by the Marehan, Harti, Gerri, and Bartire. With that being said, I believe it is intellectually dishonest to not include the mention of the Emir's ethnicity since there have been no disputes from other scholarly sources that would contradict this information. --CSI99283 (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by CSI99283 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Ragnimo, the source you are looking for is E. Cerulli, "Documenti arabi per la storia dell'Etiopia". This should be added and used. It's a clear reference that states that Nur ibn Mujahid was of Marrehan extraction. I will shortly in due time provide at least three sources. That way it will not be viewed as a minority opinion and therefore the article can be reedited using the clear references since there is no concensus here anyway. Take care, see you all soon. 86.18.37.245 (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

As explained multiple times by a number of editors above, inclusion of a viewpoint held by a limited number of sources is undue as its a minority view point. Per WP:RSUW "if a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia". If the majority of reliable sources do not comment on his ethnicity then Wikipedia should not either. I suggest you put this to rest. --Kzl55 (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Of all the sources that ascribe an ethnicity to Nur Ibn Mujahid they consistently reiterate his ethnic background is of the Marehan extraction. As the editor above said "If the one who supports the view is very notable in the field, it could be mentioned with attribution." I've already included one of the preeminent notables in the field of East African studies, Professor Wendt, who ascribed the Marehan background to the Emir. And the editor above me has stated that he will provide a source from Dr E. Ceruli who is exceedingly prominent and known to be a distinguished scholar in regards to the history of the Horn of Africa region.

In the words of London School of Economics Professor I.M Lewis, who has also written extensively about Somalia in many of his various books states "Dr Cerulli is the doyen of Cushitic studies and the founder of modern ethnographic studies of the Somali, in which he was the first to adopt the rigorous standard of oriental scholarship. All those who now work in the field owe a great debt to Cerulli's pioneer endeavor and to his many brilliant contributions"

I am including this as a preface to the addition of Dr. Cerulli's "Documenti arabi per la storia dell'Etiopia" in which he explicitly states that Nur Ibn Mujahid is indeed of the Marehan extraction. Which would undoubtedly make this a significant contribution from a notable scholar in this specific field of study thus warranting contribution into this Wikipedia page. --CSI99283 (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by CSI99283 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Of all the sources that ascribe an ethnicity to Nur Ibn Mujahid...

If the majority of reliable sources discussing this individual do not comment on his ethnicity, which is the case here [34], then adding a minority viewpoint found in limited sources would be undue for Wikipedia. There is no reason to comment on ethnicity if majority of reliable sources do not discuss it. This was thoroughly discussed above. Lastly, please stick to one talk page for this discussion, it makes no sense to have two identical copies of the same discussion running across two talk pages. --Kzl55 (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

We don't have to mention the information explicitly, It's all about the wording. So for example, it should be worded as: "Some sources state that he was of Marrehan-Darod extraction." If we have a few sources, then to include it is valid. The wording can be debated later on. However there is no doubt that there is academic literature that clearly state him to be Marrehan and therefore that should be included. I will very soon collect them and add them and then Ragnimo and others should edit the article to reflect that. 86.18.37.245 (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

We are going in circles, you need to understand and accept Wikipedia guidelines as explained by multiple editors above. The vast majority of reliable sources discussing this individual do not comment on ethnicity [35]. Adding information found on very limited number of sources would be undue weight given to a minority viewpoint. Per WEIGHT: "generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". Put this to rest until such time your additions find wider support within reliable sources. --Kzl55 (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I created a new account since it makes it much easier to communicate. I just want to say that there is no consensus. That's just not the case. There is a difference of opinion and our job is to resolve that. There were 3 editors including yourself that was opposed. That doesn't make it a consensus because many of us think that a tentative and not explicit mention is justifiable. Having said that, User: CSI99283 and myself are willing to change the wording. We are not proposing to state him as Marehan explicitly. However, we can easily state that he was 'tentatively' Marehan and the problem will be resolved. The only references that mention his identity all mention he was Marehan Darod. Hopefully within the next few days I place them here.

I.e. "Documenti Arabi per la stories dell'Etiopia." It states: "Nur ibn Mujahid, of the Marrehan Darod." (Translated). CSI99283, the source is clear. I don't see any reason why this edit shouldn't be worded to reflect that he could have been Marehan Darod even just to say that he "some sources state he was Marehan", this would be a perfect edit. Can we agree? Sade Tan (talk) 01:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree Sade Tan, this edit seems to be the most balanced and neutral per Wikipedia guidelines since it reflects the most prominent and reputable authoritative source on the subject and is not contradicted by any information thus far presented on the board. Furthermore per wiki guidelines neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence which means that the reference to "Documenti Arabi per la stories dell'Etiopia." is the most significant contribution that has been made up to this point. There is seldom any scholar that is deemed more distinguished in this particular field of study than Dr Cerulli and thus warrants this attribution in my view. --CSI99283 (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• A quick search on Google Books yields +30 pages of results for Nur ibn Mujahid [36], and yet not a single one of them mentions this ethnic clan claim [37]. I stand by my previous comments, three citations would still be a minority view point if the overwhelming majority of reliable sources discussing this topic are not commenting on his ethnicity.

Lastly, off-Wikipedia canvassing will not be tolerated, you can not brute-force minority view points by attempting to game the system. Both CSI99283 and Sade Tan were reported at ANI Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Off-Wikipedia_canvassing_on_Horn_of_Africa_topics. --Kzl55 (talk) 11:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

What does off Wikipedia canvassing even mean? We kept the discussion on these boards for a reason. Are you forcing us to accept your opinion?

First of all, that is an absolutely wild allegation made in bad faith. I used to frequent the Nur ibn Mujahid article for a long time before I ever chose to register. I never accused you of cheating or doing something questionable nor did I ever force my opinion on anyone else. These are discussions going on these boards and I kept it there. If I wanted to force it, these discussions might not even be happening. Someone could have forced edit the article, but that's not happening is it? Unacceptable allegations. Sade Tan (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there is any off site canvassing Nur Ibn Mujahid was written as being Marahen was on the page for a very long time. So it's not suprising that regular vistors would be alerted when they saw this change.

Going back to what Kzl55 said before: If the one who supports the view is very notable in the field, it could be mentioned with attribution.

As someone above me explained it is mentioned in "Documenti arabi per la storia dell'Etiopia"(Arab documents for the history of Ethiopia) by Enrico Cerruli, who is a Somali & Ethiopian studies authority and very notable enough. He is the primary sources for Muslim medieval history and is aknowledged by other scholars in that field. It is also mentioned in another publication on Somali Islamic history "Storia Delia Somalia L'Islam in Somalia Il Libro Degli Zengi(Islam in Somalia) [38]

" e al suo successore, I'emiro Nur, origine dalla tribu Somala dei Marrehan: He had a successor, The Emir Nur, who originated from the Somali tribe of the Marrehan"

We can mention this with attribution to him.

Ragnimo (talk) 05:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I see im not the only one to have issues with your fringe theories. Its easy to cherry pick sources, the Harar emirs are known to have been Harari not Somali though, they may have diverse ancestry like many monarchs did. The Harari dynasty existed as late as the 19th century see Emirate of Harar, they do not claim Somali origin. Mohammed Hassan states the following about Nur on p. 180 "Nur was the son of Wazir Mujahid, one of the brilliant cavalry generals of Imam Ahmad. Mujahid , the son of Garad Ali, was from a well established Adare (Harari) landed noble family. Mujahid married Ahmad’s sister, from which marriage Nur was born. Described as "just and God-fearing leader", Nur was well-connected within the ruling Harari nobility. However, in spite of his family connections, his link with the Harari ulema, his experience in the jihad and his maturity of age, it took him many years to establish his authority. [39] or see Alemayehu Wondimu p.20 "It could be said that it is unlikely to find the Harari emir who did not involve himself in propagation of Islam. Even some emirs became great figures both in spreading as well as in protecting it. Among these Aw-Abadir, Sultan Sabraddiin, Sultan Sa‘daddin, Emir Mahfuz, Grad Abogn, Imam Ahmed, EmirNur, Emir Sadiq, Emir Abdash-Shakur, Emir Abdal-Karim, Emir Abdullahi are worth mentioning." [40]. Magherbin (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Some time ago, SENS was designated as a fringe theory. I cannot speak for the situation at the time, but in the modern day, this is incorrect.

While there is debate as to the exact efficacy of the strategies proposed (if they will be as revolutionary as the organization claims, or are 'merely' promising strategies cure disease), they are now widely accepted as valid tactics to consider when developing treatments for age-related diseases.

Exhibit 1: Hallmarks of Aging

In 2012, SENS's theories were effectively repackaged in a paper published in Cell, titled "The Hallmarks of Aging" - this paper has an extremely high number of citations (7296 and counting at the time of writing), providing it with ample authority and an indication of popular support. Its statements are unquestionably identical to SENS's own, but more in-depth, with slightly different categorization and an additional emphasis placed on genomic instability and epigenetic drift

(to summarize:

  SENS: Extracellular aggregates. HoA: Loss of proteostasis. Misfolded proteins often aggregate.
  SENS: Extracellular matrix stiffening. HoA: Again, loss of proteostasis. ECM is made from proteins, the stiffening is thought to be caused by modifications to these proteins - which can easily be classed as loss of proteostasis.
  SENS: Intracellular aggregates. HoA: Wow, SENS likes (hates?) their loss of proteostasis.
  SENS: Death-resistant cells. HoA: Cellular senescence.
  SENS: Mitochondrial mutations. HoA: Mitochondrial dysfunction.
  SENS: Cancerous cells (note that this is separate to death-resistant (senescent) cells). HoA: All cancer is caused by epigenetic alterations or genomic instability. Both hallmarks.
  SENS: Cell loss, tissue atrophy (SENS strategy: introduce stem cells) HoA: Stem cell exhaustion)

Though the paper does not explicitly call out SENS, it comes to effectively identical conclusions (with a few additions), and its popularity therefore suggests that these conclusions are shared by the scientific community, raising SENS's authority. Looking at its authors, one (Maria Blasco) is now on the research advisory board of SENS, suggesting that she supports the organization - lending it further authority, given her prominence in the field.

Exhibit 2: Investor confidence & startups

SENS has completed extensive intra- and extra-mural research programmes on prospective drugs matching its preferred strategies, and some of these programmes are now approaching clinical trials, with ample funding. See: Revel Pharmaceuticals, Ichor Therapeutics & (the only currently public company built on a strategy SENS initially proposed) Unity Biotechnologies. Unity in particular is a good example, with a current market cap of $304m. Of course, even fringe theories can be well-funded, so this is more supporting information than anything.

Exhibit 3: Preclinical data

SENS has now released extensive preclinical data for a variety of approaches based upon its strategy, which have shown a range of impressive results. They have done this through both intramural and extramural research, as well as research by scientists who agree with their conclusions. Despite these approaches generally being preclinical, there is still evidence supporting them and significant data available, which I feel contributes to a potential re-designation of SENS as non-fringe. Efforts to treat disease using strategies identical to SENS are also underway by independent groups, and I will happily discuss these if prompted. Alyarin9000 (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

For context, I recently opened an RfC about the SENS controversy section. There are previous FTN threads about SENS but not an incredibly decisive consensus. As the discussion of the RfC continued, it's become clear that the status of SENS as fringe or not (which might have changed in the past 10 or so years) is central to how that section will wind up. —Wingedserif (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Wingedserif, it is 100% fringe. They have become more adept at trying to position themselves as legitimate students of gerontology, but if you peel even the first layer of the onion, it's the same old bullshit. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Guy Are you trying to suggest Hallmarks and SENS are significantly different, or are you suggesting that a paper with over 7000 citations is "fringe"? Alyarin9000 (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Alyarin9000, SENS are a bunch of cranks. Citation counts don't change that. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Guy You can't just call some people "bunch of cranks" and ignoring scientific studies and the scientific community without even giving any argument to support your claim.--ThunderheadX (talk) 00:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

ThunderheadX, yes I can, when the evidence shows them to be a bunch of cranks, and their main activity is policy-based evidence making. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Guy What evidence?, You are just ignoring the scientific studies and the scientific consensus about the science behind SENS. You just decided that SENS are "bunch of cranks" and that scientific studies doesn't matter.--ThunderheadX (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Guy So when does something turn from fringe to respectable enough to NOT be considered fringe? Because obviously acceptance by the scientific community doesn't count if what you're saying is true. Would it take a drug passing the FDA using one of their strategies? Woudl an extramural group doing so independently count (e.g. Gensight Biologics), or would it have to be an agency started by SENS?

SENS is questionable as far as if they're over-hyping how quickly they can have an effect, but consensus seems to start to be convergent towards "they could at least have a shot at treating various age related diseases". Alyarin9000 (talk) 19:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Though the paper does not explicitly call out SENS So it's not explicitly SENS, but we should treat it as if it is! --Hipal (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Read my comparison Hipal - Hallmarks and SENS have a very broad overlap. Broad enough that if one is fringe the other is, and vice versa. They say almost the same thing, Hallmarks just puts more emphasis on epigenetic drift and only indirectly references extracellular matrix crosslinking. One of the writers is even on SENS's scientific advisory board (or equivalent) right now! Alyarin9000 (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Alyarin9000: Can you please provide reliable sources to this effect? I expressed a very similar concern to Hipal in the talk page RfC several weeks ago: "Hallmarks of Aging" authors don't seem to explicitly link their criteria to those of SENS—it makes it hard to tell whether SENS has influenced current medical theories of aging or if there's just a coincidence in terms, which is why I mentioned WP:SYNTH above. We need to be able to WP:VERIFY the relationship between the two, otherwise the popularity of the "Hallmarks of Aging" doesn't impart mainstream acceptance to SENS. —Wingedserif (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wingedserif: How does Maria A. Blasco, one of the writers of Hallmarks, being on the SENS research advisory board sound? How about the harvard researcher that spearheaded the first genomic sequencing method? He's also on the board, George Church. Impressive history, respectable.

What about their papers? "7-ketocholesterol catabolism by Rhodococcus jostii RHA1" cited by 35, "Whole-animal senescent cytotoxic T cell removal using antibodies linked to magnetic nanoparticles." cited by 14, "Enzymatic degradation of A2E, a retinal pigment epithelial lipofuscin bisretinoid." cited by 45 - these are impressive citation numbers which any scientist would tell you provides some level of authority suggestive that, at least at some point, the research likely enjoyed significant support by the field. This is better than a news report, this is primary literature - and with those citation counts, they are certainly not fringe. My lecturers at university got way, WAY less than that on their own papers.

Big figures in the financial industry such as Jim Mellon are throwing money at them, respected scientists such as the "world renowned cyclodextrin expert Dr. Lajos Szente" (globalnewswire's words, not mine) are stating their work could be "truly revolutionary" (Underdog was a spin-out from a SENS research project) - do I need to keep digging? Alyarin9000 (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The reason I asked for an independent reliable source—a news story, a journal article by non-SENS scientists, a literature review, anything—is that I think claims about SENS having or not having fringe status calls for more than we allow self-published sources to assert. I have been looking for such a source myself and I have been unable to find one, only articles that say Silicon Valley investors are attracted to support SENS. (FWIW, I think SENS would fit somewhere in the middle of the fringe spectrum as "Questionable science", not "Pseudoscience".) It seems to me to be going way off into the weeds to establish reliability by citation counts of board members or institutional funders, which still might constitute OR. —Wingedserif (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

What about my other points Wingedserif? The citation counts of SENS's own research papers? The ties between SENS and the actual WRITERS of the Hallmarks of Aging paper, suggesting some level of agreement? Alyarin9000 (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Wingedserif You just ignore the fact that there are already secondary sources that prove that SENS isn't "questionable science" because it targets known and significant causes of aging phenotypes. What exactly is "questionable science" in SENS?.--ThunderheadX (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Alyarin9000, Globalnewswire is a press release distribution service, they say whatever they are paid to say. MrOllie (talk) 01:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@MrOllie: TIL. Regardless, Google states that Lajos Szente has over 9000 citations to his name, with a H-index of 45. That is RIDICULOUSLY respectable, so i'd concur with the statement that the guy's almost certainly great. ("H-index scores between 3 and 5 seem common for new assistant professors, scores between 8 and 12 fairly standard for promotion to the position of tenured associate professor, and scores between 15 and 20 about right for becoming a full professor." according to journal-publishing.com)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alyarin9000 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hipal SENS target known causes of aging, it is an undeniable fact even without the hallmarks of aging article. There are secondary sources that show that SENS target actual and significant causes of aging:

Senescent cells: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12325-020-01287-0 https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/504845 (ApoptoSENS)

Advanced-Glycation-end-Products: https://www.nature.com/articles/s12276-021-00561-7 (GlycoSENS)

mitochonrial mutations: https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/pdf/S1550-4131(16)30502-2.pdf (MitoSENS)

Even the wiki articles about Senescent cells and Advanced Glycation end Products say that they play a role in aging. So what exactly are you asking for? for an article that will confirm that when SENS mention "senescent cells" they actually talk about senescent cells?... It looks like some people just decided that SENS are "a bunch of cranks" and decided to ignore scientific studies and the scientific consensus. There is actually no proof that SENS methods and goals aren't recognized as legitimate by the scientific community today, there are many studies and scientific articles that prove that the scientific community support the science behind SENS and its goals. and some of them actually mention SENS : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5161440/ "Newly armed with an idea of how humans age, numerous companies and government-funded programmes have sprung up to address human ageing as a problem in and of itself, rather than trying to address the diseases of ageing separately. High profile examples include the (formerly Google) Alphabet-funded ageing research venture, Calico (California Life Sciences Company); the interventions testing program (ITP) run by the National Institute on Aging (NIA), designed to test the longevity-enhancing potential of a variety of different drugs; and Human Longevity Inc., co-founded by J. Craig Venter, which aims to elucidate and treat the (epi)genetic causes of age-related diseases. Furthermore, the SENS (Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence) Research Foundation performs its own research and helps fund the research of other institutes, and focuses on utilising combinations of regenerative medicine, gene therapy and pharmacology to reverse ageing." --ThunderheadX (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• It's fringe. Fringe proponents citing each other a lot does not de-fringe something. As for the OP's assertion that these ideas are "widely accepted as valid" ... well, show me the supporting text from that from the NHS, CDC, or WHO and I'll buy it. Until then, fringe. Alexbrn (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hallmarks of Aging is literally cited by the UK parliament, in an article published by the authority of the House of Lords Alexbrn - https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld5801/ldselect/ldsctech/183/183.pdf Alyarin9000 (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Or are you gonna claim the House of Lords are a fringe organization of pseudoscientists? Alexbrn Alyarin9000 (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Not a reliable source for anything SCI/MED certainly. And even if it was, their session reports are going to cite stuff interviewees mentioned. That would not necessarily lend any credibility to it. The document doesn't even mention SENS that I can see. Alexbrn (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

They're discussing hallmarks of aging, which is effectively identical with a few small variations. Hallmarks of aging is cited here. https://www.who.int/ageing/health-systems/4_History-development-lessons-learned-frailty-concept.pdf - WHO. Happy now? Alyarin9000 (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to ping you Alexbrn Alyarin9000 (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Happy that the fringe designation is correct and applies. We can't use synthesis to talk about one thing as though it were another by dint of an editor's original research, and in any case something being "cited" does not mean is it accepted, or non-fringe. If you want to show SENS is "widely accepted" as a whole, you need a source that says that. Alexbrn (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so let me get this straight. An organization proposes a hypothesis that says X things are the root causes of aging. They are considered fringe, until another group publish a hypothesis stating X+1 things are the root causes of aging. The other group is cited 7000 times, by groups including the WHO and UK parliament, and major investors such as Jim Mellon and Peter Thiel invest in drugs focusing on them. The first group, despite being effectively identical to the second group, and in fact HAVING FOUNDING MEMBERS OF THAT SUCCESSFUL GROUP ON THEIR BOARD are considered fringe no matter how respected the second group are, nor how similar their findings are, nor how much their authors show agreement with the other group after publishing. The house of lords is a fringe organization of pseudoscientists, and the WHO routinely cites psuedoscientists in their reports showing an overview of what we know. The only thing that matters is if the WSJ or w/e report very specifically that the first group is "totally fine" - the number of varied citations means nothing, ONLY WHAT A SCIENTIFIC JOURNALIST THINKS

I'm at my wit's end here. I'm arguing with a bunch of I.T. specialists who are claiming that journalists are the final arbiters of science, despite the complete incompetence of scientific journalists that is absolutely obvious to anyone with half a semester of scientific education. I have lost whatever small fragment of faith I once had in this lousy project's capability to hold an ounce of truth. You ignore primary literature and evidence in a misguided sense of neutrality, and instead wholeheartedly rely on the people who are so bad at science that they can only report.

What metric do we even HAVE to recognize a paper's 'fringeness' other than its citation count (tempered by the reputations of those citing it), the history of its authors, the soundness of its methodology, the outcomes it produces in experimentation? What the Wall Street Journal or New York Times think? Don't make me laugh. @Alexbrn: Alyarin9000 (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Your descent into ad hominem probably betrays the weakness of the argument, and a reason why this will be my last response. To propose that a paper proposing characteristics is somehow the same as a set of strategies to head-off ageing, mixed up with extreme quackery like cryonics, is a daft idea that has no basis in sources. SENS was (is?) fringe. Alexbrn (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

My descent into a steadily controlled rant only betrays the fact that i've been arguing this for so long that my frustration is finally boiling over. The strategies match the characteristics, they are based on them, they are the first to HIGHLIGHT them. Cryonics isn't even central to SENS, it's at most a peripheral topic which tends to interest a subset of people interested in SENS - but in no way does cryonics target the damages that SENS highlights. Completely different areas, with completely different levels of reliability. Alyarin9000 (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Concluding ping Alexbrn - and have a good day.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alyarin9000 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

So there's no true SENSman. Alexbrn (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

SENS does 0 research on full-body cryogenics Alexbrn - you just cannot tie them together. Alyarin9000 (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

No, let's leave such associations to the SENS thoughtleaders, eh?[41] Alexbrn (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

AdG also solved a mathematical problem which left professional mathematicians stumped. Does that mean SENS also researches mathematics? Alexbrn Alyarin9000 (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn You call the hallmark of aging article a "fringe"?, based on what exactly?. And what exactly are you saying? that SENS targets for alleviating aging like reducing senescent cells and advanced glycation end products in the body have no support from the scientific community?. I already provided here secondary sources that support the fact that SENS target known and significant causes of aging phenotypes, and no, they don't need to specifically mention SENS and confirm that when SENS mention "senescent cells" they actually talk about senescent cells. --ThunderheadX (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn't call any "article" fringe; I called the ragbag strategies of SENS, with its cryonics/quackery connections fringe. Try to stay relevant to the section's question. Alexbrn (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn What are you talking about? there is no cryonics in SENS methods and it have nothing to do with the discussion here. We are talking about the "hallmark of aging" paper and other sources point out the fact that SENS is based on known and well accepted science and isn't "fringe" or "questionable science".--ThunderheadX (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

See the title of this section for the topic ("Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence"). See the link given for the cryonics connection. Alexbrn (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn There is nothing about cryogenics in SENS website at all. I don't know what link you are talking about but it doesn't matter and you are just changing the subject for no good reason. You have anything to say about the secondary sources that show that SENS does target known reasons for aging phenotypes?. read the articles in SENS "intro to SENS research" page on their website: https://www.sens.org/our-research/intro-to-sens-research/ and you can see that SENS research is focused on those known and well accepted causes for aging phenotypes. You can't ignore this fact. --ThunderheadX (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Fringe organisations typically try to market themselves as serious, so their own website is obviously not WP:FRIND. In actuality, it's classic Motte and bailey argumentation since this is one woo that seems to be in play.[42] And that's before we get to all the Benjamin Button claims. THE OP claimed that SENS is "widely accepted as valid". Instead the organisation seem merely to have raised a few journalists' eyebrows and hooked up with strange bedfellows. Come back if/when there are good WP:MEDRS to cite. Alexbrn (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

IRT "known reasons for aging phenotypes", isn't it more accepted as one of the symptoms rather than a main cause? Also, research in aging is legitimate and indeed also done by others, but the discussed article is about SENS itself, its claims, results and reception. —PaleoNeonate – 04:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn SENS website isn't a good source about SENS research focus?. What are you trying to say? that SENS just lie about the fact that their research focus on accepted causes of aging phenotypes like senescent cells and advanced glycation end products and instead just research about cryogenic?. it doesn't look like you read WP:FRIND, it doesn't say that an organization's website isn't a reliable source about the activity of the organization. You treat everything SENS say as a lie even when they talk about their own activity because you are just looking for excuses for ignoring the fact that SENS target well known causes of aging. I know you are sure that SENS are liars but you can't treat it as a fact in a discussion without giving any reasonable evidence for this, and you need one hell of an evidence to prove that SENS completely lies about all of its activities.

PaleoNeonate " isn't it more accepted as one of the symptoms rather than a main cause?" Didn't you read the studies I provided here? things like senescent cells and advanced glycation end products(AGEs) are known causes of aging phenotypes and not just markers of aging or something like that. There are more "upstream" causes of aging that also cause senescent cells but removing senescent cells is a well known strategy for reversing age-related symptoms: Senolytic. advanced glycation end products are an accumulated molecular damage and it is known that removing them will alleviate phenotypes of aging. And it is obviously relevant to SENS itself because their research focus on those things. How can you call SENS a "fringe" if their research is supported by well known scientific facts? --ThunderheadX (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

We need WP:FRIND sources for fringe topics, and even in general we need independent sources for content to establish there's sufficient WP:WEIGHT for something to be worth mentioning. Remember, an encyclopedia article is not (directly) "about" a topic, but should be a summary, rather, of what the best sources are saying about it. Alexbrn (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn Are you kidding me?, WP:FRIND have nothing to do here and there is nothing in this page that say that an organization's website isn't a reliable source about its own activities regardless of if they are considered "fringe" or not. You are just making up ridiculous rules and claim them to be part of pages like WP:FRIND. And BTW there are other sources that prove that SENS is deeply involved in research about causes of aging like advanced glycation end products: https://www.revelpharmaceuticals.com/ " Opening a new category in the SENS repair approach to aging ... Since then progress has been rapid, with development of glucosepane binding antibodies and discovery of therapeutic enzyme candidates capable of breaking up glucosepane crosslinks. Revel will build upon this progress by advancing the first GlycoSENS therapeutics into the clinic. This company is part of SENS's GlycoSENS program of researching ways to remove advanced glycation end product cross-links from the body. --ThunderheadX (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

This is WP:FT/N, where the correct application of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE to fringe topics, in particular, are discussed. Your pharmaceutiucal website is not a good source for anything either. What we want are reputable, secondary, independent sources. Per WP:FRIND the best sources to use when describing fringe theories, are independent reliable sources. Anyway, since consensus is clear I suggest we are now done. Alexbrn (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn Its like you are not even reading my replies... You just keep with the same lie over and over again. There is no rule in wikipedia or any of your pages that say that a website of some organization isn't a reliable source for the activity of the organization. I am talking about the research focus of SENS(and research groups that are working with SENS) and not about the theory itself. I already provided secondary sources that support the fact that SENS target known causes of aging. --ThunderheadX (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

ThunderheadX, you have already been referred to the WP:ABOUTSELF policy, which you presumably read since you replied to my message. —Wingedserif (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Wingedserif Your reply have nothing to do with anything I just said, and its not the first time it happens. --ThunderheadX (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@ThunderheadX: It's more a neutrality issue than a reliability issue. Of course a website is "reliable" for what an organisation likes to say about itself, but there's no weight to it and it likely deviates from the accepted knowledge that is meant to be our common currency. Hence WP:FRIND exists. If it didn't we'd be doing things like using David Icke's site to detail his beliefs because "it's reliable" for them. In general, "it's reliable" is the mating call of the POV-pusher. If fringe ideas don't get coverage in good sources, we must omit them. And that is core policy and non-negotiable. Alexbrn (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn "deviates from the accepted knowledge"? we are talking here about facts about the organization activities like its research focus. If an organization claim to research about senolytics or enzymes that brakes advanced glycation end products why shouldn't we believe it?, there is nothing to do with reliability here. Are you sure you understand about what I am talking about? it seems like you don't get what I am talking about and you react to something else completely. --ThunderheadX (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I think I understand well what you're trying to do. Wikipedia does not generally deal in "facts", but in knowledge. We want merely to reflect what accepted knowledge there is about SENS as published in good sources (i.e. that they're a maverick/silly organisation with hyperbolic claims). Just because something is a "fact" (like the fact that SENS say their work is invaluable) does not make it worthy of our notice. See WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Or better still start at WP:5P and try to get a WP:CLUE about what the overall purpose of this Project is. It's WP:NOT a venue for you to advocate fringe notions or boost fringe organisations. Alexbrn (talk) 06:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

So to make it clear Alexbrn - the citation counts of the papers SENS research mean nothing, the quality of the journals they publish in mean nothing, their agreement (and actual pre-dating) with widely accepted information means nothing -- we can only VERY SPECIFICALLY remove fringe designation if someone outright says 'they are no longer fringe', we cannot infer that information from the wider context and standard indicators academics usually use to denote quality? Alyarin9000 (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Some rubbish there. Nothing has been produced to show SENS is mainstream (only tricksy propositions that something kinda like SENS might be like what SENS might do and be kinda legitimate if we indulge in some speculative squinting); plenty that it's fringe. So that's where we are. Wikipedia cannot change reality, merely reflect it. Alexbrn (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Look, if you'll agree to give it a fair shake, i'll highlight some of SENS's papers, their citation counts, what journals they're published in and such to show practical evidence that SENS are currently seen as more than fringe by the scientific community, I just thought that would be considered too close to Original Research Alexbrn Alyarin9000 (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

It would be. If you want Wikipedia to say something about the view of "the scientific community", you need a source meeting WP:RS/AC. You are just WP:REHASHing previous unconvincing appeals. Alexbrn (talk) 13:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

My problem is i'm used to that sort of thing being the accepted standard of evidence (lack of OR actually being looked down on), so i'm a little lost using journalists as actual sources etc. And the opinions of very authoritative scientists probably mean nothing in this context as well, I assume? We couldn't, say, look at SENS's scientific advisory board and analyze their H-indexes etcetera? That sounds like it'd also fall under Original Research. It feels like the acceptable range of information is excessively narrow Alexbrn - but I guess it is not ours to question why. It just seems a shame - no matter how compelling SENS's case, nor how much evidence there is supporting its authority as 'more than fringe', wikipedia will continue to actively harm their efforts until a journalist decides that they like them. Alyarin9000 (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

(Later) Bingo! In fact I have found such a source:

• Warner H, Anderson J, Austad S, Bergamini E, Bredesen D, Butler R, Carnes BA, Clark BF, Cristofalo V, Faulkner J, Guarente L, Harrison DE, Kirkwood T, Lithgow G, Martin G, Masoro E, Melov S, Miller RA, Olshansky SJ, Partridge L, Pereira-Smith O, Perls T, Richardson A, Smith J, von Zglinicki T, Wang E, Wei JY, Williams TF (November 2005). "Science fact and the SENS agenda. What can we reasonably expect from ageing research?". EMBO Rep. 6 (11): 1006–8. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400555. PMC 1371037. PMID 16264422.

It says,

the idea that a research programme organized around the SENS agenda will not only retard ageing, but also reverse it—creating young people from old ones—and do so within our lifetime, is so far from plausible that it commands no respect at all within the informed scientific community.

So there we have it. Alexbrn (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

2005 was before they began their research programmes - and before a lot of the field did similar. "As far as we know, “senescence marker-tagged toxins” do not yet exist. Moreover, if they did, it is uncertain whether they would do more harm than good." - these 'senescence marker-tagged toxins' are senolytics, which have been shown to exist and are used in a wide variety of papers, showing benefit in a range of areas (at least in mice). Hallmarks of Aging probably cites a few, but there are tons. FOXO4-DRI etcetera. At the time, the most optimistic of Aubrey's proposals (classed as exceptionally optimistic by your paper) - allotopic expression of mitochondrial genes - was considered the most 'science fantasy' of all his proposals. SENS then managed to express those genes in mice in a highly respectable journal. Gensight Biologics may well pass their own drug independently which does the exact same thing for a third gene - they finished P3 already, and just need to be accepted by regulators in September. Their data is exceptional to treat the genetic disease they are targeting, so obviously the gene functions. In short, the paper you're citing is outdated Alexbrn. Alyarin9000 (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, we know what the "informed scientific community" thinks, we know that you will disagree. These SENS guys were obviously thought preposterous and (insofar as anybody remembers them) no source exists to say that has changed. This is obviously WP:PROFRINGE advocacy now, with a likely COI taint. Time to end the discussion. Alexbrn (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

New data, Alexbrn - yes, a source exists to say that this has changed. The idea that any research programme could reverse aging has basically split the field 50/50 - I point you to https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343052399_Lack_of_consensus_on_an_aging_biology_paradigm_A_global_survey_reveals_an_agreement_to_disagree_and_the_need_for_an_interdisciplinary_framework . Given the support for Hallmarks, which is near identical to SENS, that question likely closely parallels any individual researcher's opinion on SENS. Published in "Mechanisms of Ageing and Development", a - once again - fairly respectable journal https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=29640&tip=sid&clean=0 Alyarin9000 (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Another irrelevant paper. Alexbrn (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• I've been looking into this topic since yesterday afternoon, and I've found no reason to suspect there is anything mainstream about this term. It seems entirely relegated to the fringes, and as such, we should portray it as fringe. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

MPants What is the definition for "mainstream"?. The scientific community support the science behind SENS's research focus and I gave secondary sources that prove it, even articles in wikipedia admit that Senolytic(removing senescent cells which is a major research focus of SENS) are being researched as a way to " prevent, alleviate, or reverse age-related diseases" and that advanced glycation end products play a role in aging. so there is no reason to consider SENS as "fringe".--ThunderheadX (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

ThunderheadX In all frankness, if your argument depends on quibbling over the definition of "mainstream," then your argument is doomed to failure. I'll not answer your question, because it is a pointless waste of time to argue over what "mainstream" means. We both already know, and our definitions are similar enough that you understand what I meant.

As for the rest of your comment, I would point out that the science behind the concept of warp drive is supported by the scientific community, but anyone who sets out to build one is most definitely a fringe actor. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

MPants You just define "mainstream" as something that in your opinion is accepted by the scientific community while ignoring many studies and secondary sources that prove you wrong. Do you want me to give you studies about potential rejuvenation treatments? there are plenty of those and many of them doesn't have anything to do with SENS. Rejuvenation is possible and most of SENS research focus will probably be part of it according to current scientific consensus. You just keep ignoring this fact. If someone was developing a technology that will probably be a significant part of alcubierre drive then it will obviously won't be considered a "fringe" just because more technological advancement is needed. SENS doesn't expect to make it all by itself, there are very promising potential rejuvenation treatments like partial-reprogramming that are still not part of SENS strategy and might not need to be, but even when partial reprogramming will be available in the clinics some SENS strategies like removing advanced glycation end products will still be needed and nobody is questioning this fact.--ThunderheadX (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

You may wish to read WP:BLUDGEON. With each response you make, I find myself respecting your views here less and less. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

MPants If you and others here have tried to actually read and understand what I am saying I wouldn't have to repeat the same facts over and over. Its not my fault that you just ignore the facts. And to be honest I don't find myself having less and less respect for your views becaus I have no respect for your views at all because they are just based on your unwillingness to consider the facts when they contradicts your beliefs. --ThunderheadX (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Stop pinging me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Let's be sensible: the notion that ageing can be "reversed" by some kind of "strategy" is not part of mainstream medicine. Alexbrn (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn Why didn't you just admitted that this is your problem with SENS instead of making out ridiculous lies about wikipedia's rules?. Anyway, how you decided that reversing aging "isn't part of mainstream medicine"? there are plenty of scientific papers that talk about this possibility and about current technologies like partial reprogramming that are probably going to be part of future rejuvenation therapy, here is one of those articles: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/12/5/611/htm The discovery that partial reprogramming can reverse the aging clock without permanent alteration of cellular identity has led to initial studies that demonstrate the potential to reverse organismic aging. Although there are many challenges ahead, our current understanding of cellular clocks and our ability to reprogram them using germline factors opens the door to many promising therapeutic approaches to slowing down, preventing, or reversing aging itself and thus treating the many age-related diseases that burden society. Indeed, if these approaches can be made practical and scalable, we may find ourselves in a future in which we have no time to age. --ThunderheadX (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I stopped reading when I saw a junk journal being cited. Wikipedia likes reputable sources, not quackademic ones. Alexbrn (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn A quick check states that the journal's in the 2nd quartile for its field, not quite 1Q but it's not like he's citing a 3-4Q journal Alyarin9000 (talk) 03:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn read the article about this "quackademic" source MDPI, it is one of the largest publishers of scientific journals. The paper I showed you is also on researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351034806_No_Time_to_Age_Uncoupling_Aging_from_Chronological_Time .--ThunderheadX (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, MDPI come up a lot at this noticeboard. See WP:CRAPWATCH. Researchgate is a general repository containing a variety of things, some of it predatory/crap too. In any case the paper you link seems not even to mention SENS. Alexbrn (talk) 05:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, MDPI is an aggregator like pubmed. The journal is Gene, which is apparently in the second quartile - i'm not reading too deeply into it, so maybe it's lower in other fields, but if you want to criticize any journal - criticize Gene. Thunder was replying to your statement that reversal of 'aging' is not mainstream - there are many different organizations who confirm that it is. All you need to do is look at methylation clocks to see that aging is actually highly plastic to intervention, including exercise etc (with limited effect) Alexbrn Alyarin9000 (talk) 12:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

MDPI is a publishing company. It is not an aggregator. Unclear how you messed that up. Its journals are of varying quality. I wouldn't call it as awful as Hindawi, but if the standard-bearer for a claim is sourced to MDPI, that's definitely a WP:REDFLAG as is rightly being pointed out. As for whether an article is on ResearchGate or not, that's just up to some author posting it. It says nothing about the reliability of the article. jps (talk) 12:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Publishing company, sure. Sorry, i am rushing a little at this point. Still, wikipedia itself highlights that MDPI should be considered on a case-by-case basis. The article itself is published in Genes 2021. Looking at SJR - https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=19700188368&tip=sid&clean=0 - that journal is actually fairly respectable in 2021 ජපස Alyarin9000 (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

"Fairly respectable" is perhaps something I can get behind as an accurate evaluation. However, for WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims, we would like to see them sourced to something a bit more than a "fairly respectable" journal. Major breakthroughs typically are published in the top-notch journals, not the "fairly respectable" ones. jps (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I think MDPI is worse than Hindawi by any reasonable standard. --JBL (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Difference between what "is" what is being researched, no? Were one proposing that there is currently a human colony on Mars, that would be fringe. Proposing the same to be a possibility for investigation is not. Designing Mars habs for future use is not. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Real research would be to determine whether something could be done, not to pre-decide it and hype it. Thus pretty much the opening words on the SENS website invite you to watch a video describing why "SENS is invaluable to defeating aging". Even the experimental research seems to have long got short shrift, with some of the mouse experiments being described as "frankly silly".[43] Alexbrn (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn You're more right than you know about feasibility vs accomplishing a goal. Compare Mars One and the Moon to Mars program. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Unambiguous fringe theory. I carefully read all of the above arguments, and found the case for it being fringe to be compelling. One day we may figure out how to reverse aging, but it certainly has not happened yet (and yes, the SENS proponents say that it has happened, not just that they are researching it). If it ever happens, everybody will be talking about it, not just a few cranks. I don't mind most marine mammals, but Sea Lions? I could do without Sea lions. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

  The case against it being fringe, on the other hand, leaves something to be desired. Trying to sell a parliament as a reliable source for science by setting up the false dilemma that everything must be either a reliable scientific source or a fringe organization of pseudoscientists? Claiming that WP:ABOUTSELF is not about cases such as this, which involves a questionable source as a source on itself? Trying to redefine "mainstream" so something which is clearly not mainstream becomes so? Those methods may be slightly original, at least I have not encountered them in exactly this form, but they are still well within the area of bad reasoning well-known to everybody who frequents this page, and of course well outside the area of sound reasoning. Also, I am surprised that the link to WP:IDHT has not made an appearance yet. (Do not ping me either. I live here.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

My statement about parliament being a fringe organization of pseudoscientists was more just my frustration boiling over into the most tame string of words which could convey my frustration. The point remains that the most important factor highlighting the feasibility of the SENS approach (enough to make it lose fringe designation) is its similarity to the Hallmarks of Aging paper. You cannot say a review with 7000 citations from a wide variety of institutions is fringe, and by extension SENS becomes incomplete yet close enough to the sum of current knowledge to be considered a reasonable strategy. Alyarin9000 (talk) 03:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to add, HoA is literally published in Cell - that's a high-quality journal Alyarin9000 (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

You claim that I have bad reasoning? did you even read the WP:ABOUTSELF page?: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities" which is what I said over and over in the discussion. You claim that the WP:ABOUTSELF page or any other page say that we shouldn't take SENS's website as a reliable source for SENS's activities like researching about senolytics and enzymes that brakes advanced glycation end products?. Non of you even answered this simple question and you are just avoiding the subject and just dismiss anything and everybody as "fringe" or "bunch of cranks". If something can be non-"mainstream" and still be a scientific consensus(like the fact that SENS target some significant causes of aging phenotypes) than this term "mainstream" is completely irrelevant for the discussion here. You cant talk about good or bad reasoning while completely ignoring the points of the other side.--ThunderheadX (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

"So long as the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;"

ABOUTSELF is not a loophole in WP:FRINGE.

ApLundell (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

What is "exceptional claim" in claiming to research about things like senolytics and enzymes that brakes advanced glycation end products?, There is nothing exceptional or special about this and SENS aren't even the only ones who are doing this. Senolytics research is quite common actually. There is no reason not to believe those simple facts SENS is publishing about its research.--ThunderheadX (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

What is "exceptional claim" This is a good question. Thomas Kuhn, as outmoded as he may be these days in Science and Technology Studies and Philosophy of science circles, may help to provide an answer to this. An "exceptional claim" would be one that seeks to overturn a paradigm while an "ordinary claim" might be so-called "normal science". jps (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn I think it will be helpful if you answer some questions about what is your problem with the arguments in favor of stoping considering SENS as fringe. Do you think that SENS's website isn't a reliable source for claiming that SENS is researching about things like senolytics and removing advancded glycation end products? or that it doesn't matter and not worthy to be considered in the article?. What you consider as a good evidence that SENS isn't fringe?, do you expect a letter (like the letter that is being used as a source in the "criticism" section) that simply state that SENS is accepted by the scientific community?. You think that we should prove that the idea of reversing aging is itself not "fringe"? or that is "mainstream"?. How you determine if something is "mainstream" or not?.--ThunderheadX (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

ThunderheadX, you have to provide reliable, secondary sources. Of course, SENS's website doesn't qualify. If you are not able to provide that kind of sources, please stop trying to wear down other editors' patience. --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

+1 to this. I've been lurking throughout this conversation because I'm curious to see how more experienced editors handle persistent WP:SEALIONing from committed SPAs like these. At what point does the community decide to WP:DENY recognition? At what point is WP:IDHT considered disruptive? Not necessarily seeking direct answers to these questions here, just pointing out that this thread is instructive. Generalrelative (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

That point has now been reached (if it hadn't been before). The case is closed. Alexbrn (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn Generalrelative So you say that I didn't provided any secondary sources here, like I never mentioned it over and over... ok. You know what I got tired of this game you are playing, it is clear that none of the "experienced editors" here are here to have a serious discussion and just blame me for being an advocator of SENS. Accusing me of advocating for SENS like I am working for them or something doesn't change anything and in fact it isn't really about SENS anymore because there are serious problems with how wiki editors(including the "experienced" ones) are dealing with sources and information or the discussion about those things and I noticed this problem not just on the SENS article(read my earlier discussion on wingedserif talk page). Do whatever you want with the SENS article but don't act as if you had any real discussion about anything, you are just wasting people's time and efforts on pointless fake discussion with a predetermined ending.--ThunderheadX (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Race and intelligence

• Race and intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Renewed activity there, —PaleoNeonate – 06:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Some of those comments, like the "ethnomarxist" one are so on the nose that it might be worth dragging them to AE. I wish Race and Intelligence was treated like ARBPIA where anybody wanting to discuss it would have to have at least 500 edits, which would cut down on a lot of the drive by SPAs, though I am not sure there is enough disruption to warrant it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

There's definitely enough disruption to warrant it, I would argue. Ask for a motion, perhaps, and cite the voluminous number of cases and events over the last 15 years. jps (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad this issue has been raised here because it's the appropriate place to discuss whether the view that genetics contributes to race and intelligence differences is a fringe view. Frog Tamer (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

This question has already been discussed several times here, and the result is always yes. No need to repeat that again. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

These editors must be Marxists, the mainstream media sources must be liberal fake news, the scientific community must be a cabal, therefore the outdated claims of some suggesting that evaluations of intelligence correspond to latent intelligence and that IQ is mostly influenced by group genetics must somehow become true, that repetition and make-belief might perhaps materialize it in the world and Wikipedia someday... Propaganda noise to manufacture false controversies is routine on WP, unfortunately, but easily recognized as such. —PaleoNeonate – 02:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Easy to argue against strawmen of your own construction (a favorite of ethnomarxist pseudoscholars), but nobody said "the scientific community must be a cabal". The problem is that Wikipedia is misrepresenting the scientific community, some segment of which consider hereditarianism a reasonable hypothesis, and thus not fringe. It's really pretty simple. This fact will not change because X number of Wikipedia editors voted against it without any coherent argument, because they don't like it. Frog Tamer (talk) 09:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC) — Frog Tamer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: now blocked as WP:NOTHERE, —PaleoNeonate – 09:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Hemiauchenia's second suggestion here, and agree that there is enough disruption to warrant it. The problem with bringing these SPAs to AE (or other enforcement venues) is that so many turn out to be socks, so the process ends up resembling a very boring game of whack-a-mole. E.g. Mikemikev's most recent proven sock Spork Wielder was a huge headache until being blocked just a few weeks ago. Generalrelative (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. It would be very helpful not to have to waste time dealing with all the socks, SPAs, and IPs who refuse to accept consensus, have nothing new to say, and insist on repeating the same arguments again and again in support of racial hereditarianism. Restricting to those who have at least 500 edits is an excellent idea. NightHeron (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

If you think there's been enough sustained disruption over this topic (and seeing the spate of SPAs and throwaways, that's an understandable concern), then WP:ARCA would be the place were such a request needs to be filed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Feragho the Assassin is attempting to relitigate the outcome of last years RfC at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC_on_sourcing_in_relation_to_race_and_intelligence, despite the RfC ostensibly being about souricng, the RfC directly asks whether the hereditarian position is fringe. The RSN is not an appropriate place to litigate whether or not the hereditarian view of race and intelligence is fringe, and I am in half a mind to just outright close the thread before it gets out of hand. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

As was suggested in the last sentence of the comment here, I've started a new RFC to address that sourcing issue that several editors feel needs to be discussed. [44] I would post this link at talk:Race and intelligence if I were able to, but that page is EC-protected so I can't edit it. --AndewNguyen (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Aaand alreadly pre-emtively closed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Ze'ev Herzog

What do you think about [45] and [46]? Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, the material was restored without consensus. —PaleoNeonate – 12:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Is this like red squirrels and gray squirrels?

More eyes needed at Grey alien‎. THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE!! --Guy Macon (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

And my MindGuard-running Amiga was stuck at a Guru Meditation and needed restarting! For all that time I remained vulnerable.^[Humor] —PaleoNeonate – 01:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

This article possibly contains original research hints at remarkable possibilities. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tesldact Smih: Battleground behavior, aspersions, personal attacks, and more. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Pentagon UFO videos, again

Media publicity surrounding the latest UFO video acknowledged by the Pentagon. I think a 4 day old story needs a bit more time to settle, but there are article move and rename proposals being discussed. See Talk:Pentagon_UFO_videos#Requested_move_18_April_2021. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The fact is, of course, that all the articles on the newest leak reference the old videos as well. I would not be the least bit surprised if this new business was orchestrated by To the Stars (company). jps (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I wondered the same when looking at the CNN source the other day although another site was linked there, that I didn't really check the origin of. On the other hand it seemed nothing new: confirmation that the videos were not fake and that what was filmed is unknown/unidentified, that airspace is monitored for potential aircraft that may pose a security threat. I'm sure some will see more into that, as usual, or at least attempt to echo every news post in a stream of speculation... —PaleoNeonate – 14:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The new video shows unidentified triangular shaped objects, which UFOs-are-aliens proponents are heralding as a new breakthrough in Earth-ET relations. Of course there are other explanations. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Some previously unidentified triangle videos (other than optical illusions) were eventually confirmed to be known planes, of course... —PaleoNeonate – 01:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Stop throwing cold water on my Earth-ET relations! Exopolitics is the next big thing! jps (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

They claim to drive Pentagon UFOs? Triangular vehicles are two corners short! They must be illegal aliens from shithole planets with severe corner shortages. Earth First! --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure Earth First! wants anything to do with this. Generalrelative (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Ted Gunderson

• Ted Gunderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User removes Skeptical Inquirer source, adds YouTube instead. Seems pretty active at the moment. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The Passing of the Great Race

• The Passing of the Great Race (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unsure about wording. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Sounds Lovecraftian. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hyperborea

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

Lots of back on forth editing with people trying to make Hyperborea out to be a real thing, plus some general nuttery. Might want to keep an eye on it. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 11:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Now protected. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Alternative theories of quantum evolution

• Alternative theories of quantum evolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rename this? Other ideas? Whenever someone suggests that something is based on quantum, that usually means they do not understand how it works and think that adding quantum will reduce the pain. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, it doesn’t seem to be anything to do with quantum evolution, so some sort of rename is appropriate. Brunton (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative theories of quantum evolution. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced Biomedical Research

This AfD may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Vaticinium ex eventu

• Vaticinium ex eventu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What do you think of [47]? Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Also related:

• WP:ANI § Needlessly vexatious
• WP:DRN § Vaticinium ex eventu

—PaleoNeonate – 04:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this is fringe at all: see my last comment in Talk:Vaticinium ex eventu#Back-and-Forth Discussion Copied from DRN, and perhaps also my comments at Talk:Gospel of Mark#Discussion of authorship and dating. Any further participation in these discussions is more than welcome, Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 17:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Dave Grossman (author), Killology

Do the pages Dave Grossman (author), Killology and On Killing meet the NPOV and FRINGE guidelines? As far as I can tell, the subject is a non-academic who is not doing science, yet presenting his work as if it were science (psychology, more precisely). However, the Wikipedia articles makes him appear as if he were an academic. The misrepresentation of the subject and his works is particularly problematic given that the person and his works have been attributed as a contributor to militarization of police in the US. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

This is going to be a headache.

As you noted, Grossman isn't an academic. However On Killing and, to a less degree, On Combat were definitely influential; they got onto various military required reading lists and spread into scholarly works from there. Case in point, one of the sources on the Killology page, "At War with Metaphor: Media, Propaganda, and Racism in the War on Terror", is written by a Sociology Professor and takes Grossman's work as an expert opinion. By and large, On Killing is also just an exploration of S.L.A. Marshall's well known thesis in Men Against Fire: The Problem of Battle Command.

Which is a problem, because Marshall's work is actually very controversial. Our article is pretty bad, this source summarises the dispute much more evenly [48] (though, for what its worth, it also cites Grossman as an 'academic supporter of Marshall'). Personally I find the argument of those who think Marshall fabricated his evidence very compelling, but I'm not an expert.

Back to Grossman. He's got more credibility than the news reports would imply, but he's not an actual psychological researcher (and he's probably wrong). No idea where that leaves us. --RaiderAspect (talk) 07:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Swiss Policy Research

There's a new account SPA over on Swiss Policy Research that's trying to remove criticism of the website as a conspiracy and pseudoscience site. Silverseren^C 00:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

OneTaste

I find the tone of this article somewhat questionable, as it seems to give unwarranted credence to the company's promotion of "Orgasmic Meditation" practices (yes, it's exactly what you are probably thinking it is). BD2412 T 04:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Hmm...surprisingly well cited and covered in reliable sources. Honestly, it seems to temper the tone rather well and avoids outright claiming any of the beliefs are factual. The use of "supposedly", "she says", "are said", ect, controls for such things rather well. And it very clearly covers the criticized elements fairly and descriptively. I think the controversies section needs some organizing and sub-sectioning to make things cleaner and easier to read. But, otherwise, this seems like...the right way to cover well-cited fringe subjects. Silverseren^C 05:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I would say that towards the end of the article, there is a much bigger sense that the whole thing is a scam than is enunciated earlier on in the article. A recently published article in The Telegraph (unfortunately paywalled, but I have read a preview version) suggests that the company folded up and disappeared once a serious investigation began. BD2412 T 05:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Good riddance too, have some personal experience with one of their San Francisco locations in 2012. OneTaste was a name I hadn't heard or thought of for a long time till I was perusing this noticeboard. It was definitely a predatory organization, an acquaintance of mine went into a lot of debt to them. Convocke (talk) 03:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Update/shameless plug of WP:UPSD, a script to detect unreliable sources

It's been about 14 months since this script was created, and since its inception it became one of the most imported scripts (currently #54, with 286+ adopters).

Since last year, it's been significantly expanded to cover more bad sources, and is more useful than ever, so I figured it would be a good time to bring up the script up again. This way others who might not know about it can take a look and try it for themselves. I would highly recommend that anyone doing citation work, who writes/expands articles, or does bad-sourcing/BLP cleanup work installs the script.

The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

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

Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. This is a nice tool indeed! jps (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Yup... very useful. I especially like how it states clearly that it has limitations, and outlines how it should NOT be used. I hope people will read that. Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• I've been using it for cleanup for a while, it is very useful. With a glance I can see which sources should be double-checked, and which parts of the article are suspicious. Tercer (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Faith healing

My edit has been removed in which I specified on the lead that the practice is fringe. This article needs more eyes. Shankargb (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I restored the scientific consensus language in the lead (again). Shankargb, please pay attention to what's on the article talk page where there was careful consensus for specific language (generally the better place to visit first than a noticeboard). The language you were removing was there to illustrate the scientific consensus against faith healing being anything but pseudoscience. That language in part originated with having to deal with fringe POV-pushing there. KoA (talk) 03:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

While the mention of pseudoscience is not in the first paragraph, it is still in the lead in both versions. Since there was previous talk page consensus in relation to specifics, the now-restored previous revision seems fine. —PaleoNeonate – 09:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

It should be mentioned in first or second sentence given Homeopathy and Astrology get that treatment too. Moving it to last paragraph of lead is problematic. Shankargb (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Slightly different subject. Astrology was a protoscience and precursor to astronomy which gets deployed by certain practitioners with the veneer of science. Meanwhile, homeopathy makes explicit claims that are pseudoscientific (such as serial dilution increases potency). Faith healing, however, arises in a variety of contexts. Surely some of those contexts rely on pseudoscientific reasoning, but a lot of them are no more pseudoscientific than someone who carries a rabbit foot for good luck. Some superstitions just don't rise to even having the veneer of scientific argument. jps (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@KoA: The edit just moved things around, it did not add or remove any text apart from removing "virtually all" and a minor change in the gestures part. --mfb (talk) 01:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The most recent edit, yes, though the edit in question at the time was removing it linked above. KoA (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for not pitching in earlier. I followed Shankargb's recommendation of putting it in the first paragraph; but beyond that I didn't change anything. But this isn't really a discussion for here, if I may (the article talk page would have been fine: there doesn't appear to be any dispute [at least among those of you here] that faith healing is the usual pseudoscience BS). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Transcendental Meditation

Transcendental Meditation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The evidence for the effectiveness of the technique seems to have improved over the last two months! Also, Cochrane reviews seem to be less relevant than other studies. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Some content was restored. In case someone has access to the full source, I posted a concern on its talk page. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 13:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Benveniste affair

• Benveniste affair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article was renamed last year, from Jacques Benveniste, and reorganized accordingly. Now someone (probably a relative) tries to turn it into a biography again, moving the "Jacques Benveniste" part to the top but not renaming the article. Also, removing categories. Someone else revented, then I reverted again after the second attempt. But I guess this is not the end of it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, Benveniste affair seems preferable per WP:BLP. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

COI editor warned at User talk:Claire Benveniste. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and Covid-19

See my comments at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation#Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) prescriptions:

Also see:

• China is promoting coronavirus treatments based on unproven traditional medicines --Nature
• Be Wary of Acupuncture, Qigong, and "Chinese Medicine" --Quackwatch
• Beijing proposes law to ban criticism of traditional Chinese medicine ==British Medical Journal
• TCM for COVID-19 --Science-Based Medicine

--Guy Macon (talk) 10:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

There has got to be an intersection here with homeopathy where someone has recommended dilution of bat for a Covid cure.... Or is that Witchcraft? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Roko's basilisk at AfD

This discussion may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Carlos Castaneda

I took a look at this yesterday, and while it isn't credulous, it really seems to have a hard time saying that the whole thing was BS. Certainly the external links listed are far more negative, and more certain about it. Mangoe (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mangoe: Well, the lead is a bit soft on this, but it clearly says "[his books] have been found to be fiction". It probably needs stronger wording than that. The section "Reception" also is clear about the BS nature of Castaneda's books. He sort of got away with it during his lifetime because appropriation and exploitation weren't a big issue yet in public discourse. These days, he would have gotten his ass kicked much sooner and harder for misuing the name of Yaqui culture. –Austronesier (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Kingdom of Judah

What do you think about [49] and subsequent edits? I'll grant you that the majority of scholars believe that the United Monarchy existed, however they believe so based upon sparse and shoddy evidence, it is a leap of faith rather than science. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I will put my cards on the table here--I am a United Monarchy skeptic, for pretty much the reasons you describe. The extra-biblical evidence just doesn't seem to fit the political entity described in the writing. That being said, it is undoubtedly true that while some skepticism is probably widespread, a belief in the general existence and contours of the United Monarchy is the majority opinion. I will note my exegetical days are well behind me and I have not done any surveys of more recent literature, so this is largely an informed opinion from 20 years ago. To sum up: I agree with you, but for Wikipedia purposes, I think we likely have to concede this point. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 12:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Yup, but you see: when Amihai Mazar says United Monarchy existed, Mazar is good; when he says Judah was sparsely populated in the 10th and 9th centuries BCE, Mazar is bad (deleted). If you read what he wrote, he puts the estimate of the whole population of the United Monarchy somewhere around 20 thousand people. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Just want to note that the majority of scholars who are interested in that question must be theology scholars, whose job description contains believing things completely without evidence. What do the historians believe? --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

For good or ill, that's something of a porous boundary in these instances. I am going to see if I can't get back in student mode and update my thinking a bit with a survey of the landscape. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I was recently looking into this issue, and the impression I got is that the term "United Monarchy" is used as description of the period preceding the origins of Judah as a polity. In other words, they call it the "United Monarchy" while perceiving it as anywhere from a single Monarchic state to a tight-knit group of tribes. As to the prevalence of those perceptions, I got the impression that there's quite a bit of disagreement, with liberal and agnostic scholars predominantly favoring the tribal view, and conservative and theistic scholars predominantly favoring the monarchy. Personally, I doubt there there was a single kingdom controlling the region at that time. I'm not as familiar with this period as I am with the New Testament period, but from what I recall, the earliest evidence of Israelis as a distinct ethnic group shows that they started as small communities scattered throughout Canaan. I have a hard time imagining that turning into a massive state that then split into two states. And I've yet to find any evidence other than biblical texts to support that notion.

FYI, this was also an issue at Yahweh, but in that case, I suggested a change that would sidestep the issue. In both cases, it was the same editor. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is a generally good summation. And yes, the consensus is that an independent Israelite identity emerged in several seemingly disparate places in Canaan, from within the Canaanite ethnic group, based on archaeological findings that seem to indicate some communities uniformly adopting what resemble Kosher dietary habits. And later, it can be said with more certainty that several tribes emerged, some only later being absorbed into an Israelite identity, from both archaeological findings and clues in extant texts (such as the Biblical "Song of Deborah"). This was a complicated process that spanned centuries, and only later did a more cohesive and unified Israelite identity form, and even then more so in the context of tribal kinship and mutual recognition of those other tribes as related peoples. And of course that there were specific cities and limited regions that were identified as belonging to those tribes. From what I recall though, most scholars (by this, I mean mainly archaeologists and critical textual scholars) tend to dismiss the concept of the United Monarchy as semi-legendary, at least as far as any it being any sort of actual unified polity that exercised any power outside the environs of Judah. That there was possibly a historical Saul, David, and Solomon, but that while they claimed to be a sort of chieftain over a loose tribal confederacy of most of the Israelite tribes, they wielded little if any influence over the northern tribes, and it was something more akin to being a ceremonial kingship that was later mythologized and regarded as something more than it actually was, by both the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. A way to claim legitimacy for later rulers. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, this is the sense I get of the current state of scholarship as well. The scholarly matter of The Jewish Study Bible (2nd ed, 2014) also aligns with this perspective, the most relevant article being by Oded Lipschits (pp. 2107-2119). Newimpartial (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

If I remember well, that source also has an article by Aren Maeir, imparting more nuance. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, yes, if by more nuance you mean describing more positions taken in the archeological scholarship and drawing somewhat more modest conclusions. The concluding statement of the relevant passage ((pp. 2126-7), however, which can be taken as Maeir's own position, is In any case, the lack of substantive epigraphic materials...and other extensive archeological evidence, indicate that even if an early united monarchy existed, its level of political and bureaucratic complexity was not as developed as the biblical text suggests. In other words, the position he has described earlier - Some scholars continue to believe that the United monarchy was a large and prosperous kingdom, mirroring to a large extent the image portrayed in the biblical text - is not supported by the currently available material evidence. Newimpartial (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

True, the text is available at [50], and if Maeir posits anything:

1. extreme scarcity of evidence about the United Monarchy;
2. lack of consensus about UM among archaeologists. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Like other recent scholars, he is able to rule out the historicity of the large iron-age kingdom described in the Tanakh as the "united monarchy". I think that is significant as well. Newimpartial (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Orissa Balu and Kumari Kandam

Fringe and given I can only find two sources, looks undue. Doug Weller talk 19:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Balu has no expertise in archaeology or history, being a self-appointed turtle researcher through his own foundation. He holds no credentials in any field, so far as I can tell, and his work doesn't appear to be peer reviewed in the relevant fields, or used in reliable scholarship. His article makes claims of his notability based mostly on his knowing other researchers, and that his claims have been picked up by both Tamil nationalists and sensationalist tabloids. The concept of Kumari Kundam is resolutely fringe material akin to Atlantis, and making claims based on a dearth of evidence (using turtles?) about a mythological content and/or Tamil history in general is both fringe and undue. His notability is also an open question, and might be ripe for AfD. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Lab leak 3001: The Probably Not-So Final Odyssey

Attempt to relitigate the legitimacy of the lab leak supposition again at Talk:Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2#Discussion_of_4th_origin_hypothesis. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

RfC on genetic link between race and intelligence

There is a request for comment on whether the hypothesis that there is a genetic link between race and intelligence is a fringe theory. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § RFC on sourcing in relation to race and intelligence. — Newslinger talk 08:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Now archived. jps (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

And now reinvigorated at Talk:Race and intelligence. jps (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Patriotic Alternative

There seems to be a lot of vandalism and removing of various criticisms of this white nationalist fringe group from IPS and red accounts. Eyes needed. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

QAnon conspiracy theory: Trump is still in the Oval Office, Biden presumed dead

[51], [52]

I'm telling you, you can't make this stuff up. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Guy Macon, well, you can - they do - but I know what you mean. As to Lin Wood? I cannot give my honest opinion without being banned under WP:BLP. See [53] - pure crazy town. Even Rittenhouse has dropped him. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Oooh, I got a picture with Dubya back in '03 or '04, think I could convince a bunch of Q fans that the last 17-18 years have been a sting operation to catch Obama sacrificing kids to Satan on Mars while high on adrenochrome? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

AHA, but Obama had Satan in his pocket, there is PROOF. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

That video reveals Obama's deepest, darkest secret. Listen carefully as he says "good ta see ya!" He has a thick Norwegian accent! Then he switches to his usual cultured voice. And note that Norway and Hawaii have the same number of letters, which as we all know^{[Citation Needed]} is essential when altering a birth certificate. And look at this:[54] Looks like a coverup to me! --Guy Macon (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I sport a Satan on my user page too, —PaleoNeonate – 02:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

And cats. This proves that you weigh the same as a duck and are made of wood. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

As with so many of the claims of these QAnon adjacent political operatives, it is like Poe's Law on steroids. They can always fall back on "can't y'all take a joke?" I mean, I guess we used to be able to take a joke, but it gets increasingly harder to do this when we are so unmoored from a common reality that it is anyone's guess as to who will believe what. Remember Billy the Burlap Bag Boy when the internet was new? I could hardly believe then that anyone would be misled by such obvious parody. Fast forward 21 years and parody has been slain. jps (talk) 11:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I can (almost famously) take a joke, but I don't see how "Let's start a civil war for bullshit reasons just so we can get our asses handed to us by the vast majority of people, but not before killing a whole bunch of innocent people just to make us feel better about the fact that people keep telling us that our fucked up beliefs are fucked up!" is a very good joke.

Now, "Birds aren't real" ? That's a joke. So is "Finland isn't real". And the Pacific Northwest tree octopus. In fact, the world is chock-full of so many examples of good jokes that I find it hard to believe that most of the crap coming from this group is a joke. Especially when you look into the history of Ufology and the kind of ridiculous crap it proves people are willing to believe earnestly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey now, a lot of ufology consists of harmless jokes that are genuinely funny. Remember when crop circles were all the rage? I had a lot of fun back then. Please don't throw it in the same pot as fascist propaganda. Tercer (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I was going to defend my comparison, but honestly, I truly believe that one would have to be significantly stupider to believe in a Democrat satanic pedophile ring secretly controlling the government and that Trump is a stalwart, genius defender of the children than to believe that there are beings from Zeta Reticuli who want to stick a probe up one's ass. Therefore, I concede the point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree that it's two topics, although there are some links between politics and ufology, —PaleoNeonate – 16:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

That's a good point. There's also the famous paper NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science. I guess I never managed to believe that people actually believed aliens travelled light-years just to play some pranks and leave again in the dead of the night. If you soften your head enough to accept this nonsense you're bound to be more vulnerable to fascist propaganda. Tercer (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm. If there are a few blurry UFO pics from back when most people didn't have cameras, just put a high resolution video camera in everyone's pocket. If the UFOs are real you will get a boatload of photographic evidence. If not, you will get lolcats. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

On UFOs and conspiracy theories there's a really interesting article in The Conversation by Benjamin Zeller, the formost expert on the infamous UFO cult Heaven's Gate about how the group embraced a culture of conspiracy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I finally got to the bottom of this. Look at this photo:[55][56] Look at the size of the Bidens compared to the Carters... --Guy Macon (talk) 06:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

There were giants on the Earth in those days...looks like it's time to bring the Nephilim into this discussion! Dumuzid (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Joe and Jill Biden are at least half angels, confirmed. (Oh, wait...) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

It's clearly intended as humor. However, like all humor, only partisans find it funny. If you want to understand the joke, backdate it four years and for Trump and Biden, substitute Hillary Clinton and Trump. Or backdate it twenty years and substitute Gore and George W. In each case the joke is that the wrong person is in the White House. The legitimate president was robbed of his office and replaced by someone who is brain dead. If you think the right person is in the Oval Office, then it isn't funny. TFD (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

It's clearly intended as humor It may be clear to you. But the positions out there are so diverse nowadays, there are probably people who believe it. And the person who invented it could be one of those. Poe's Law in action, as jps said. Somehow similar to the question whether people who sell snake oil believe in it themselves: I can't tell, just speculate, and I don't really need to.

Maybe the positions have always been so diverse, it's just that the kind of people who lived in padded rooms in the fifties became talk show guests in the eighties, and now they have their own popular YouTube channels or TV shows. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

TFD, I've no doubt it was intended as humor, at least partially. Whether or not it's even remotely successful as humor is an entirely different question, and what we here were "discussing" (read: mostly satirizing but also discussing a little) was the likelihood of it being read as humor by the intended audience. Frankly, most of those people have never met a wildly improbable claim they didn't want to believe, and some may well try to edit WP to reflect their belief. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Jack Sarfatti

• Jack Sarfatti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"He is critical of Cultural Marxism"

I think this is not according to WP:FRINGE, but I do not know enough about the easter egg Marxist cultural analysis#More recent developments behind the "Cultural Marxism" link to be sure. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The article doesn't appear to say what "Kaiser 2011" actually is, but I'm guessing it's How the Hippies Saved Physics. That book doesn't mention "cultural Marxism" anywhere (unsurprisingly). I'll go ahead and remove the dog-whistle. XOR'easter (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

As an aside: that is such a good book! I read it for one of my favorite history of science seminars in grad school. The title makes it sound kind of woowoo but Kaiser is a top-notch scholar. Highly recommended. Generalrelative (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC on racial hereditarianism at the R&I talk-page

An RfC at Talk:Race and intelligence revisits the question, considered last year at WP:FTN, of whether or not the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is a fringe theory. This RfC supercedes the RfC on this topic at WP:RSN that was closed as improperly formulated.

Your participation is welcome. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Mammoths in the Shahnameh

Bashir Iran is currently edit warring this unsourced passage into the mammoth article.

According to Ferdowsi's Shahnameh in the Shah Mazandaran Shah's army (which is located in Mazandaran Shahnameh is different from the current Mazandaran and some consider it in northern Asia and the current Russian steppes), there were 1200 elephants. If we consider the Shahnameh as an epic based on the facts of the last 3000 years, then we may encounter a report of the survival of a group of mammoths up to 3000 years ago in North Asia.

As far as fringe theories go, this is certainly out there. I can't find any reference to this so this appears to be a "novel theory" from the user in question. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

He also appears to be adding the same passage to the Farsi Wiki diff note: read right to left. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Wuhan Institute of Virology

• Wuhan Institute of Virology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Li-Meng Yan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This story from The New York Times is very informative:

• How Steve Bannon and a Chinese Billionaire Created a Right-Wing Coronavirus Media Sensation

--Guy Macon (talk) 13:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Alas, multiple editors are pushing the conspiracy theory at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation#The Lab leak hypothesis needs a stand-alone article. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not "pushing the conspiracy theory", I am pushing coverage of the conspiracy theory. Wikipedia cannot, must not, and will not say "the claim that COVID originated in a lab is false, so we will neither talk about it nor describe the evidence that shows it is false". I know the rules as well as you do and am not likely to start promoting unsourced bullshit, but we absolutely cannot treat this claim the way we treat "a meteor cause COVID". User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 14:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Rather wonderfully, a new essay WP:LABLEAKLIKELY has appeared, which should really be preserved for posterity as an exemplar for what WP:PROFRINGE is. All we need to do in the misinformation article is cover the misinformation as discussed in solid sources, of which there are ample. Some editors seem to think it's a venue for discussing what is, or is not, "misinformation". I feel more sanctions coming on. Alexbrn (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Ugh. When a retired NYT reporter publishes about virology in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (and not a forum focused on virology), one must raise questions about the biological evidence they present, and cannot source it to that article alone. This is why MEDRS exists. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 15:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Did anybody ever encounter any text which was based on logic and reason and explicitly said it was "based on logic and reason"? I think I never did. --Hob Gadling (talk)

I read the piece, and it's really unfortunate. Wade is infamous for his promotion of pseudoscience in racial genetics [57]. -Darouet (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

---Guy Macon (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I have nominated the redirect WP:LABLEAKLIKELY for deletion. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe MfD is the way, it's a type of fakearticle+povfork and WP is not a webhost for political propaganda and conspiracy theories... —PaleoNeonate – 23:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Someone at the MfD is arguing for deleting WP:NOLABLEAK as well. In my opinion the same argument could be used for deleting the redirect at WP:YWAB if we wanted to delete a WP:THEHOLOCAUSTISAMYTH redirect to an essay supporting holocaust denial After all, YWAB does say that the holocaust happened. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Orissa Balu

Orissa Balu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Notable? Looks like he made up his own research institute. jps (talk) 03:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Section WP:FTN § Orissa Balu and Kumari Kandam also related, —PaleoNeonate – 13:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Paracas Candelabra

IP and two accounts adding fringe material trying to link this to Hindu mythology. Needs more eyes. Doug Weller talk 15:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

PragerU

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

Prager"U" promotes climate change denial. Should the article follow WP:FRINGE or not? Should we downplay criticism of Prager"U" from secondary sources because Richard Lindzen is a much more wonderful expert than them? Please weigh in. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to note that I recently added a little material there citing The Independent, then was eventually pinged a few days later, but I unfortunately don't have time right now to check the recent history, conversations and repeat/state the obvious... —PaleoNeonate – 16:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, it's a bog standard right-wing nutjob website. I wish that it were fringe, but that bullshit is now the dominant view in the second-largest party in the US. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

"Second-largest" is a nice touch.

Of course, you know that fringe is not defined by the number of adherents among the badly educated and ideologically motivated. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Hoopes banned from Facebook, likely due to complaints from fringe authors

I've just read about this on the Facebook page Fraudulent Archaeology Wall of Shame[58] - an archaeologist there posted a message from him, which included this: "It happened this afternoon without warning or explanation. Just a brief notice that I was being suspended. I cannot even login to my FB account and I have become invisible on FB messenger even to my own family.

I do not know why it happened, but my last post before the hard ban—and possibly what triggered it—was a comment about white supremacy with a link to Robert Sepehr’s “Atlantean Gardens” YouTube channel. Ironically, I was citing it as evidence for the kind of objectionable content that persists on YouTube."

Doug Weller talk 19:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

FARBCOM again. Good grief. -Roxy the sometimes happy dog. wooF 08:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Balochistan Sphinx

Balochistan Sphinx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I found this article which claims a rock formation which clearly has nothing special on it resembles visually a "sphinx". No reliable sources...instead just claims supported by fringe theory websites including the personal website of Graham Hancock (!). In my opinion the article should be deleted.--JonskiC (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

As someone with a geological background, that's a nice (I presume sandstone?) photo outcrop. Based on this geological map. The rocks are probably late Cenozoic in age. Might be worth adding the photo to Geology of Pakistan. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I also agree that the formation has not attracted significant enough attention and should probably go to AfD. I note that the NatGeo article cited in the article refers to it under the alternate name "Lion of Balochistan", but there doesn't appear to be any other coverage of that either. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. The photo could emphazise that its just the usual geology of pakistan. But as a whole this is the worst claim of a structure which isn't actually there i have seen in my whole life. in my opinion this rock formation does not deserve an article at all.--JonskiC (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I cleaned out the fringe sources and left the remaining NatGeo citation. Interesting rock formation, it would be good to find more sources attesting its notability. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I looked at Google scholar and found only a paper about "Regional Development through Tourism..." Searches using JSTOR found nothing. Searching Google Books and Google Search found a tsunamis of fringe and tourism sources. Searches using DuckDuckGo result in the same fringe and tourism sources. Surprisingly, the tourism-related sources that mention the "Balochistan Sphinx" (or the "Lion of Balochistan") typically state clearly that it is a natural rock formation. Paul H. (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Notability cannot be established so it should be deleted. While it does not need to be an actual sphinx to be notable, we would need secondary sources that discuss it in detail. TFD (talk) 03:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I've managed to find a mention in Hilal, the official magazine of the Pakistan Armed Forces [59]. However, despite it being an offiical goverment publication, it seems to be pretty fringe, and treats it as if it was an actual sphinx. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Now at AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balochistan Sphinx. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

"Geopolymer" fringe theory in "Material science analysis" section of Pumapunku Article

Members of this group might want to take look at the Material science analysis section of the Pumapunku article, which gives undue credence to the fringe idea that the sandstone and andesitic blocks are artificial stones composed of alleged "geopolymers." Paul H. (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

User Retinoblastoma (talk · contribs), who added the section, claims that the hypothesis is backed up by peer-reviewed research. But both sources are by the same three authors, so they are not independent. Not sure about the speculation by Richard Inwards about this hypothesis. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The 432 Hz vs. 440 Hz conspiracy theory

Disclaimer: This is another "general education on various fringe theories" post. Please skip to the next post if discussing fringe theories on the fringe theories noticeboard offends you.

The 432 Hz vs. 440 Hz conspiracy theory

• The "432 Hz vs. 440 Hz" conspiracy theory
• Music Tuned to 440 Hz Versus 432 Hz and the Health Effects: A Double-blind Cross-over Pilot Study
• Effect of music of specific frequency upon the sleep architecture and electroencephalographic pattern of individuals with delayed sleep latency: A daytime nap study
• Perfect Pitch: 432 Hz Music and the Promise of Frequency
• 432hz Unlocked and Explained (The Miracle Frequency Secret Revealed)
• Music Theory: 432 Hz Tuning - Separating Fact From Fiction

And of course we cover it, at least in passing:

• Concert pitch#Controversial claims for 432 Hz
• Scientific pitch#Controversial claims for 432 Hz, against 440 Hz tuning

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Guy Macon, 415 is the One True Pitch. If it ain't baroque, don't fix it. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Time to deprecate EXPLORE. One of the double-blind test groups had the killer size of nine(!) participants. Or does double-blind refer to the peer-reviewers? –Austronesier (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I thought the really cool kids these days were rocking 392Hz[60]. Alexbrn (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

GWEN towers generate energy operating within the same 400 MHz frequency that the human brain also operates. Our brains are vulnerable to ELF technology because they begin resonating to outside signals similar to a tuning fork.[61]. Sure, Hz...MHz...it's all the same NWO conspiracy at work. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

432? 415? 392? Amateurs. We all know the real masters play at 490 Hz [62] (that G sounds an awful lot close to 440, so doing a bit of WP:CALC the A would logically be around 490ish)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Austronesier, long past time. That has been the International Journal of Complete Bollocks forever. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Somehow this gem of a journal never crossed my path. ...Dean Radin...duh. –Austronesier (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

As a side-note, I've added EXPLORE to WP:UPSD. It's clearly a nonsense journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Headbomb, hey, don't you obsessively follow my userpage? Damn, man, I have had that on my nuke-list forever! #1 at User:JzG § Woo Guy (help! - typo?) 21:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, I should say I added doi recognition for EXPLORE. The base url was already on the script. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to register for the daytime nap study. -Roxy the sometimes happy dog. wooF 08:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Havening

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

Obvious bollocks, but is it notable bollocks? Guy (help! - typo?) 21:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Covered in Psychology Today and has a celebrity proponent in Paul McKenna, so, yes, notable bollocks by our standards. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The “Assessments” section seems to lack MEDRS. Brunton (talk) 09:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

A 2015 publication is given as reference for conclusions of a 2020 study, that can't work. For the 2020 study only results of the treatment group are reported, but not the control group. Secondary sources are completely missing for this one. The article also leaves completely open what "Havening" actually is. How does this "amygdala depotentiation" happen? Is it someone touching you somewhere, is it someone saying some magic spells? Or something else? --mfb (talk) 10:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

The 2020 study itself is used as a reference there as well. I’ve removed that use of the 2015 reference, but the article is giving way too much weight to a couple of primary sources.Brunton (talk) 11:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Psycho-oncology

• Psycho-oncology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I find my capacity to Even sadly depleted. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

This post is minimally-informative as to the specific grounds of objection to the article or topic. The impact of psychological factors on health outcomes in cancer patients is intensively studied. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Lisa Miller (psychologist)

• Lisa Miller (psychologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I pruned this article to a stub, since it was all self-sourced, primary sourced or unsourced. It seems likely she meet WP:GNG (decent number of Google hits) but most of it looks to be mind-body woo and not usable. Anyone feeling charitable? Guy (help! - typo?) 21:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Carnivore diet, again

• Monotrophic diet (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

New (not so new) account at work adjusting text about the healthiness of the carnivore diet. Could use eyes.

Relatedly, Vilhjalmur Stefansson looks suspicious. It says, for example "While there was considerable skepticism when Stefansson reported his findings about the viability of an exclusively meat diet, his claims have been borne out in later studies and analyses" - sourced to a MA thesis! Alexbrn (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I included Vilhjalmur only in the historical context, not as a medical authority for carnivore diet. It certainly would be helpful to clarity what you pointed out in the article text. LizardMeat (talk) 04:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• That is likely an LTA. SPI filed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion. IP has been blocked

LizardMeat is likely to be a sock-puppet of Zalgo [63]. He turns up on the Monotrophic diet every few months. He also works alongside another banned user who now uses IPs from Croatia [64] who has used about 50 IPs in the last 6 months to call anyone who criticizes the carnivore diet a "vegan activist". I have reported the IP. Vilhjalmur Stefansson needs to be completely re-written. I will get round to it at some point. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC) You are in contact with and are editing an article for a famous vegan quack Michael Greger https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Greger&diff=991010461&oldid=990995208 And now you are trying to get attention from an editor(alexbrn) who is an english PhD and has no idea about science or the scientific method and has never worked as a scientist but now considers himself an authority on what is and isnt worthy of being included in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a joke because of self important vandals like you with an agenda and no morals. Oh, and lets not forget I was banned(and harrased) because of your lying sockpuppet accusastions of everyone who tries to write about any diet you dont agree with. As most ideoloues, you have no leg to stand on. Just lies to support you. 93.141.96.10 (talk) 10:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC) Forgot to say, I dont work with anyone, user Psychologistguy has a history of sockpupet accusations and banning users who are against his vegan agenda and keeping wikipedia factual. 93.141.96.10 (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC) We comment on content, not users.Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC) 93.141.96.10 you have been blocked on loads and loads of IPs for the last month saying the same thing [65], it is harassment. I have already raised this concern several times at ANI and you have been blocked every-time. I am not a vegan activist, nor am I editing for Michael Greger not are other editors. You were banned on your account [66] for harassing users and calling users "vegan activists". You do not need to be a vegan to criticize the pseudoscientific carnivore diet. No does it make someone a "vegan" for speaking to a vegan or emailing one. I have plenty of vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian and meat eating friends in real life. You are discriminating people just because they eat a different diet (see Vegaphobia). Just because I speak to someone who eats a specific diet does make me a vegan activist that is absurd. You are too fanatical and abusive about this topic, this is why you are blocked every few weeks. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC) See, I came to wikipedia trying to create an article about the carnivore diet after seeing that its creation has been blocked by vegan activists like you on wikipedia. I even asked about it on the admin pages in order to be seen as factual and not breakin any COI. In response I was harrased, laughed at and banned, just like you are trying now. You atempt to be seen as a rational and independent editor is a joke. Your whole point of being on wikipedia is to promote veganism and vegan activists. Your editing history is clear about your ideoloy and COI. I really dont care about te carnivore diet, just wikipedia being factual and not being taken over by fringe vegan ideology. 93.141.96.10 (talk) 11:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC) You have been indef blocked this means you are not supposed to come back. Nobody laughed at you or harassed you. You were trying to add pseudoscience to Wikipedia and then you called many different users "vegans" for reverting you. The idea to eat raw meat and dairy all day without any fruit or vegetables is clearly a fringe position that dietitians do not take seriously. Wikipedia is not the place to promote it. If a Wikipedia carnivore diet is to be created it needs to be in accord to Wikipedia policy. Your agenda seems to be to promote it and remove any valid criticisms of it. It's obviously an insane diet that is potentially lethal to humans and the planet and its only taken seriously by trolls on social media platforms like sv3rige. And no that is not from vegan activists. We have mainstream nutritional sources criticizing the absurdity of it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC) I like how you are muddying the waters and gaslighting while trying to show yourself as an independent editor with no COI even after admitting to be in contact with a famous vegan quack and your whole wikipedia carreer being about editing vegan articles and sitting on the carnivore diet article accusing everyone who wants to create it of sockpuppeting with no proof whatsoever.93.141.96.10 (talk) 11:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC) Enough, this is not the place to discuss user conduct, if you have an issue take it to their talk page or here wp:ani.Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC) SlaterSteven I have filed 3 ANI cases against this user and his IPs. He's been doing this for a year using IPs to call me and others vegan activists. He has been blocked every-time. The latest was here [67]. The admin CaptainEek stated if "he returns let me know and I'll extend the block". The same admin has since blocked several of his IPs in the last 3 days. There is a discussion on this admin's talk-page [68]. The IP was previously using this IP [69] blocked for 2 weeks. He also used this IP [70] which was blocked for 31 hours. He's been doing it for about a year now so I expect to see this user every month on new IPs. It's the same thing every time. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC) I do not care, this is not the place to discuss user conduct. If it is a sock it can be ignored as such, and just hat this.Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC) After harrasing poeple who he, based on his ideology calls quacks, he expects that people just take it and leave. Which is his agenda in the first place, since that leaves him free to edit wikipedia based on his ideology. You will not be hearing from me any more here. Nice day to you! 93.141.96.10 (talk) 11:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Legend of the Rainbow Warriors

Legend of the Rainbow Warriors/ Can someone pop in an look at the history on this? We have a tye died aficionado with apparently no ability to notice messages edit warring to "fight the power, maaaaan", and I'm at 3RR with their hippie BS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heironymous Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Myers–Briggs Type Indicator

• Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Just noticed that Hans Eysenck is still quoted as if the Hans Eysenck#2019 King's College London enquiry had not cast doubt on all his writings. This is probably the case in other articles too. Can it stay that way, or does something need to be done? And what? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Helen Keller

• Helen Keller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I put this on my watchlist when I heard that there is a group on social media which thinks Helen Keller is a hoax. You know, some people, when they cannot imagine a thing, do not believe it can be real. Must have something to do with their ego, as opposed to their imagination, being the same size as the universe. But that did not seem to have any influence on the article, until this reverted edit in April. Nothing needs to be done yet, Johnuniq had Helen's back, but maybe it is just starting. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I put it on my watchlist. TFD (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Here's in depth coverage of the TikTok craziness. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Excited delirium

• Excited delirium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fans of the Behind The Bastards podcast might have been tempted to check out our article on excited delirium, the condition police originally claimed had killed George Floyd. It was packed with references to papers by the American College of Emergency Physicians' white paper (three authors were on the payroll of Taser at the time and did not declare it), papers by Jeffrey Ho and Deborah Mash (Taser payroll), and Charles Wetli, who invented the term to account for the deaths of nineteen Black prostitutes in Miami Dade (spoiler: it later transpired they were victims of a serial killer).

Basically this is a fake diagnosis. Almost all "victims" are in police restraint, and many of the fatalities occur after use of Tasers. There's a brilliant piece of reporting by Reuters that was not cited at all, which I have added. Further help and copyediting would be appreciated. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

The whole thing is based on cases which were found to be caused by something else, it is supposed to be at fault when people die after being Tasered ("after", not "from", that sounds familiar), and it is described as a "controversial syndrome"? Maybe American College of Emergency Physicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) needs to mention this thing too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, Volteer1 reverted to the fringe version, which is concerning. There are three major problems with that:

1. It represents as fact the views of ACEP, who are the only US medical body to recognise the diagnosis;
2. It relies heavily on studies authored by paid advocates for Axon, including Jeffrey Ho, whose study administering ketamine without consent was terminated after 6 months due to ethical concerns;
3. It removes material that is unquestionably well-sourced, including a very substantial piece of investigative work by Reuters (about as RS as you get).

I'd encourage more people to watchlist this article. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Didier Raoult

• Didier Raoult (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recent IP activity playing down the evidence against Raoult's hydroxychloroquine-is-good-against-covid idea. I would revert, but it would be better if someone with real expertise on this subject checked this. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Spiral Dynamics

I'd try to work on this, but I'm not very good at translating Management into English, and that table is going to make my eyes bleed. XOR'easter (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)