Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

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:

G. Edward Griffin

G. Edward Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are a lot of arugments on the talkpage and in the recent edit history about this particular biography and how exactly he should be characterized and how the beliefs he promotes in his books should be outlined. These beliefs range from creationism to 9/11-Trutherism to laetrile-cancer-cure-promotion to chemtrail-paranoia. Warning, Callanecc has imposed a very strict 1RR rule on the article.

jps (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

There's also been a lot going on with some previous history at the article and this board [1] for those here who either haven't seen it yet or don't remember. Some actions there might be better brought up at WP:AE in terms of behavior related to fringe topics, so just be mindful there's been some talk of that as well at [2]. More editors experienced in fringe topics, especially within BLPs would be helpful. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Seconded. One editor, Atsme, who is generally a delightful person, seems fixated on the idea that recent studies (mainly from a single group in China) invalidate the consensus view that laetrile is quackery, and validate Griffin's thesis in his book World Without Cancer, to the effect that amygdalin is rich in a vitamin, B17, lack of which causes cancer, and that the medical establishment suppresses knowledge of this (and the consequential curative properties of laetrile) in order to protect its income. I could really do with someone who has much greater reserves of tact and diplomacy than I, to explain the realities of Wikipedia policy on fringe medical ideas and conspiracy theories. Frankly, I think we'd be better off without the article. There are virtually no mainstream sources, though he is popular with websites like whale.to, mercola.com, Natural News, David Icke's forums, even Stormfront. Most of his books and "films" (none, I think, with any theatrical release) are self-published, those that are not are published by the John Birch Society. Mainstream sources tend not to bother looking at Truthers who advocate chemtrails and sundry other silliness. I think it's deletable, but no doubt this would be as unpopular as mentioning that he's known mainly for conspiracy theories. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Is this person even notable enough for an article? I know that Glenn Beck has promoted him, but that alone isn't enough to establish notability. He's off-handedly mentioned in a few academic treatises documenting far-right-wing ideology and conspiracy theories, but nothing rising to the level of WP:BIO's exhortation to "significant" coverage. jps (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

After much discussion, I have proceeded with an AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. Edward Griffin (4th nomination). jps (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Tbilisi-sighting

Tbilisi-sighting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Aside from a WP:MOS-violating title, the article seems like it probably shouldn't exist, but I thought I'd ask here first.

jps (talk) 11:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

A tiny bit of news coverage, not enough for its own article, so redirected to UFO sightings in Russia.

But Tbilisi is in Georgia. jps (talk)

Moved to UFO sightings in Belarus - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Ummm, that's not Georgia either. Minsk is... Sorry. Kleuske (talk) 09:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a really confusing account. Not sure why it was titled "Tbilisi sighting". Can't even determine if the redirect is worth keeping (is anyone in their right mind going to search for such a thing?) *shrug* WP:Redirects are cheap. jps (talk) 15:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

List of observations of solar and lunar transits of unknown objects

Now may you please review List of observations of solar and lunar transits of unknown objects? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

That list looks marginally okay to me, though the sourcing for some could be improved. There should be some acknowledgment that in the days before image capture, these reports were all unverifiable. Distant birds and even insects can cause peculiar transits for eyepiece observing. jps (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted. Its creator has a history of making these weird agglomeration and odd articles, and I don't see how these things have anything much to do with one another. Mangoe (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Article reads like someone was trying to put a Fortean spin on the topic, however I have no way of knowing if this is actually a notable part of astronomy or not. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• I removed the unreferenced ones, those referenced to Fort (not a reliable source for this kind of article), and one self-published reference. What's left is primary-sourced and doesn't really establish importance IMO. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of observations of solar and lunar transits of unknown objects Mangoe (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

List of paranormal magazines

List of paranormal magazines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Does this title sound to you like it's magazines published in another dimension?

Anyhoo, I think that it only fair that we include magazines like Skeptical Inquirer in such a list. Don't you?

jps (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Two responses.

1) Sure, as that magazine relates to the paranormal.

2) More important, though, is maybe considering whether to perhaps just delete the article altogether. As it is, I am not seeing that there are any clearly established independent sources which support the inclusion of the entries already listed, which raises both serious WP:NOTABILITY and WP:SYNTH issues. Maybe the best option would be to include it in the article if the article is found to survive AfD, which at this point is to my eyes a very open question. John Carter (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It is also I think worth noting that "paranormal" does not appear to be a topic heading in the Gale Directory I am currently looking at, and, for that matter, neither does "occult." "Parapsychology" however does appear to be the most proximate subject heading I find there. Maybe it might make sense to request the article be moved to something like "List of parapsychology and the occult magazines" or something to that effect. John Carter (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Boldly go forth, as far as I'm concerned. jps (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

How do I find out ... ?

If D. Ullman is banned, restricted or otherwise sanctioned by or from wikipedia? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy#DanaUllman_banned. It's not too hard to do a simple search for it, is it? -A1candidate 17:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks A1c, I initially thought you'd done something useful for the first time, but no, that would be too much to expect. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Dullman has been topic banned from homeopathy, broadly construed, for over five years. He makes very occasional appearances to pity himself and encourage fellow travelers. Best to ignore him. 2600:1008:B102:5115:B81A:B4AB:F712:98A9 (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

He made an appearance today, which prompted my question. I couldn't find anything about the broadly construed hpathy topic ban though. Thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 19:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive558#DanaUllman. The topic ban used to be listed under "Enforcement" on the page A1candidate linked to, but the log of blocks, bans, and restrictions there was deleted in January last year. You can still see it via the history tab. Brunton (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

To see if someone is sanctioned from some source, your best bet is to look at their talk page history for the notification. For discretionary sanctions under arbcom, see Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log, all sanctions are logged here. Second Quantization (talk) 13:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

That was a 2009 ban, so you go to the link above, click on 2009, and look at the history.[3] But a look at their talk page was faster. Dougweller (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

Conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A recent major edit of the article requires some additional eyes to review it, as there is an accompanying wall o' words on the Talk page protesting the use of the term 'conspiracy theorist' to describe 9-11 truthers, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

On closer examination, it seems to be part of an ongoing effort by one editor to remove the phrase "conspiracy theorist" from Wikipedia articles.This example edit is typical. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes this is absolutely right. Im going to remove term "conspiracy theorist" wherever it pops up as long the claim not covered by a cite. Just recently we did speak about the use of such term at DRN.To make it clear Im citing DRN Volunteer Bejnar: "Conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" can be used in a pejorative way. Any contested use should be supported by a reliable source, and pejoritive uses should be avoided per Wikipedia's guideline at WP:Manual of Style/Words to watch: There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias. Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view. --Bejnar (talk) 05:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)" See also his talk page on that: "Indeed. When neutral reliable sources consistently agree that a person is a "conspiracy theorist" it is not inappropriate to use the label; however, in most instances that is not the case and "conspiracy theorist" is used disparagingly, and hence should be avoided in accordance with the logic expressed in the WP:Tone essay. --Bejnar (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)" --- Global warming conspiracy theorists typically... - this was claimed to be from Latours article (see pdf in refs) but it was totally wrong cite, misused by whoever was editor here, possible in bad faith. I explained on articles talk too Spearmind (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

You are taking your crusade way too far. Yes, the term can sometimes be applied derogatorily, but the fact is that the term "conspiracy theory" is not necessarily derogatory... it can neutrally be applied to any theory that proposes that a conspiracy has taken place. That's the actual dictionary definition of the term. It does not necessarily mean that the theory is nuts or that the theorist is a nutter. Blueboar (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory is judgmental. That 9/11 was the result of a conspiracy by al Qaeda is mainstream, that it was the result of a conspiracy by the New World Order is a conspiracy theory. But there is no problem in using the terminology provided that is what mainstream sources say. TFD (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

TFD has a point above. "Conspiracy theory" in practical terms seems to share certain characteristics with "pseudoscience" and "new religious movement", although while academia has decided that NRM is a form of more acceptable PC-term for the earlier "cult" or "sect," there doesn't seem yet to be a more PC-version of the term Conspiracy theory. All three cases however seem to share the problem that individuals object to the usage of the terms here. In all three cases I think the best way to go is the same - find reference works relating specifically to the terms and articles in academic journals which use the term to describe distinct subjects and just repeat, without OR or POV, in lists here the subjects they so describe. Also consult other reference sources and/or journals and look to see if they use the same terms in articles related to those subjects and to what level of WEIGHT and follow their lead. If it winds up being the case that certain groups or topics that individuals personally disagree should be included in such lists or described by those terms, well, that's life. John Carter (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The use of these terms has been discussed lots of times (check the archives)... and they have been upheld every time they were discussed. The theory that "9/11 was the result of a conspiracy by al Qaeda" is, in fact, a "conspiracy theory". Yes... it happens to be a conspiracy theory that is accepted by the mainstream... but that acceptance does not change the fact that it is a "conspiracy theory" none-the-less. The same is true for conspiracy theories that are only accepted by fringe nutters. As long as a theory invloves the idea that a conspiracy is/was occurring... that theory is - by definition - a "conspiracy theory". Yes, I do understand that term can be viewed as being derisive ... but the fact remains that the definition of the term is much broader than that. The term itself does not mean "nutty" or even "fringe". It actually has a very neutral definition. Blueboar (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

No, the "al Qaeda theory" is not a conspiracy theory, because that's not how the phrase is used. You may as well accuse the Republicans of engaging in a "conspiracy" to defeat the Democrats, or Coca Cola to be involved in a conspiracy to undermine Pepsi Cola. After all, they meet in secret to discuss these projects all the time. Al Qaeda's behaviour was essentially no different, and from their point of view it was a military operation - no more of a 'conspiracy' than the Bombing of Dresden. The outcome of all the discussions I have read on this topic has been that the term conspiracy theory cannot meanigfully or usefully be extended to cover every example of plotting, as it then becomes utterly meaningless. User:BruceGrubb was topic banned because of his persistent attempts to push this line. Phrases mean what they are used in discourse to mean, not what the combination of words could imply. To take a few well known examples, anti-Semitism does not mean opposition to all Semites, and anti-Americanism does not include opposition to all the countries of the Americas. Likewise, AIDS is not any syndrome of immune deficiency. Paul B (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Conceding that the term "conspiracy theory" has a negative connotation as applied in most ordinary discourse, and that we should therefore be circumspect in our use of it, the "crusade" being discussed above is going too far. The idea that the moonshot was faked is a conspiracy theory in the commonly accepted use of the term. And if an attempt were made to remove that description on the grounds that it was not clearly cited, despite the fact that the article's content clearly demonstrates as much, and is thoroughly sourced, I would likely say it was contrary to both WP:BLUE and WP:COMMONSENSE. That kind of blanket attack is at best silly and at worst disruptive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. We don't need sources for exact phrases when those phrases are simply standard terms for the relevant concept. We don't need the actual word "fringe" to be used in an RS to justify calling a theory "fringe". If they say its marginal, irrational, dingbat, preposterous (etc), it's fringe. Paul B (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

... and in fact WP:TONE supports describing those usages as Fringe. I think the issue Spearmind has is from the judgement implied by the words "conspiracy theorist", but that implied judgement isn't an issue if it's the reliable source doing it.

That is, calling someone a conspiracy theorist is normative in the sense that adhering to a conspiracy theory is seen as a negative (at least to me). So a believer in a conspiracy theory can be called a conspiracy theorist, since the judgement is implied. It's not the editor adding in any extra judgement that the sources don't.

Also, a small note to quickly demarcate conspiracies and conspiracy theories. An actual conspiracy is not like a conspiracy theory. Here theory is used in the colloquial sense, as an idea someone has. A conspiracy is any secret agreement seeking to break the law or do undesirable things. A conspiracy theory is an idea someone has about the existence of an (as of yet) undisclosed secret agreement but for which the conspiracy theorist can not perform any convincing demonstration of how they have knowledge of the event. Second Quantization (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it might be reasonable to in a few circumstances modify the phrasing to say "a supporter of a conspiracy theory that has received support in..." might be a reasonable way to differentiate between the tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorists and the supporters of more reasonable conspiracy theories. John Carter (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that editors frequently disagree over whether a specific conspiracy theory is "tin-foil hat" or "reasonable". Advocates will always argue that the theory they are advocating is reasonable... and will say the conspiracy is absolute fact and not "just a theory". The only way to remain neutral is to use the dictionary definition of the term... if a theory proposes that a conspiracy took place... no matter how nutty or how reasonable it is... it can and should be described as being a "conspiracy theory", and those who propose/advocate such theories can and should be called "conspiracy theorists". Blueboar (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

But there are some differences in the level of independent non-nutjob support for them. So, for instance, I've seen enough sources discussing the possible assassination of John Paul I for trying to control the Vatican bank that I think most people would count that as more of a minority-type conspiracy theory than a nutjob conspiracy theory. And, also, there are at least a few independent reliable sources, like a few reference works on conspiracy theories, to provide some indication of just how far into the woo zone some of them might be. So far as I remember there are maybe at least three "reference" type works on conspiracy theories, and the way they present the various theories and relative woo-factor they seem to ascribe to them are probably good indicators of how far out there some of them might, comparatively, be. John Carter (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Words to watch

I've seen many times where people would object to a fringe label such as pseudoscience, conspiracy theory, etc. claiming it's not NPOV or contentious(those claims often coming from someone wanting to support a fringe view). WP:LABEL helps with this by specifically stating the term pseudoscience is supported by NPOV and why. Are there other terms we should consider either adding at WP:LABEL or elsewhere to cut down on claims of the terms being contentious when used to describe fringe content? I see conspiracy theory come up pretty often which may not be as concrete as pseudoscience, but is there anything we can do to give guidance in using such terms when others are opposed to them because they call the terms contentious? Maybe pseudoscience only gets the specific treatment at WP:LABEL because it's the most concrete of the fringe definitions, but I'm just curious what people's thoughts are on terms or places to mention this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Psuedoarchaeology and all its derivative words? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 17 Adar 5775 18:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest maybe revising the phrasing to say something roughly along the lines of "terms like psuedoscience, pseudoarchaeology, pseudohistory, conspiracy theory, alternative medicine, alternative history, new religious movements, cult, and the like can be used in wikipedia to describe the subjects in wikipedia, with the prominence of usage of such terms in our articles to be, roughly, analogous to the usage of those specific terms or virtual synonyms in well regarded general reference or academic sources, or specialist reference or academic sources relating directly to the terms and their usage." Maybe, something like that anyway, although probably a hell of a lot better phrased. John Carter (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

denialism has been contentious. Especially in regards to global warming denialism which denialists claim is defamatory since it sounds like Holocaust denialism. It's an extremely weak claim, but it has hoodwinked a number of administrators and editors who think that global warming skepticism is somehow "more neutral". It's not. All scientists are skeptics. Global warming denialists pretend to be skeptics but they're either lying about it or are too ignorant to understand that the ideas they are hung up on have all been investigated thoroughly. jps (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Misconceptions as per List of common misconceptions and Lie-to-children might merit inclusion as well. I do however think that there may well be a bit of a problem regarding what might be called the overuse of these specific terms. So, while I would have no objections whatsoever to incorporation of any of them in the most directly relevant lists with adequate sourcing, there does seem to me to be a question, as Ian.thomson has expressed here regarding perhaps how much weight and prominence to give such words in articles on the individual topics described by these terms themselves. John Carter (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

UFO linkfarm in need of pruning

There was a link farm in the article that I moved to the talk page so that usable material could be incorporated using potential sources. Talk:Berwyn_Mountain_UFO_incident#potential_sources_removed_from_the_article But it has turned into a bigger clutter on the talk page with anons adding more and more links.

Can someone take a peek and trim out those that have no possible use for an article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Annabelle (doll)

Annabelle (doll) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article about a haunted doll appears to be only supported by credulous sources, so Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annabelle (doll). - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Some new additions to the article include lots of supernatural claims cited to fringe sources, like The Demonologist (..."reveals the grave religious process behind supernatural events and how it can happen to you!...") - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It is particularly worrying to me that the sources (mostly in "entertainment news"/"slow news day"/"junk food news") are being held up as paragons of reliability. Are sources like this actually reliable factual sources per our guidelines and community consensus? There is a contingent of editors at the AfD who are vigorous in their defense of such sources. It is hard for me to imagine that their views represent the community consensus on that subject. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It appears that the stand alone article may be kept - with significant WP:UNDUE problems intact. The only sources available report that this doll was possessed by a dead girl and demons, moved around on its own, attacked people, left threatening notes, etc. (I find it interesting that none of the sources put these reports in the context of an urban legend or pop culture phenomenon, rather they seem to go out of their way to sensationalize the subject.) We know the claim that a doll has supernatural powers is a fringe view, and policy instructs us to clarify how the fringe view differs from the mainstream view. But with no sources explicitly critical of these claims, WP:OR via WP:IAR has been suggested as a solution. I don't think that's a good option to remedying the WP:UNDUE problem, however I strongly advise against the pointy edit warring that's currently happening at the article now. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Harbour Mille incident

Harbour Mille incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Five years ago, the CBC wrote a few articles about something that was flying through the air. Pictures look like a missile. Denial that it was a missile may be simply part of military secrecy. Regardless, the article seems like it will probably go nowhere and was likely created in an abundance of WP:RECENTISM fury. Delete? Redirect?

jps (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

After some initial Canadian media attention, the story sunk into oblivion, leaving the stand alone article doomed to eternal stubhood. No lasting notability outside the UFO fan bubble. Redirected and merged to UFO sightings in Canada. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Cucurbita

Newly-featured article, has a section entitled "Medicinal uses" which is the usual small-study alt-med stuff. It'd be fine if it was entitled "Uses in alternative medicine", which is what I've tried to change it to, but it's hardly a mainstream medicine, and it's downright misleading to call it such. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, bugger. I started checking the sources. To quote Talk:Cucurbita, "It's particularly bad when one of the sentences - the one on eye health - was, when I checked not justified by the sources [...] :I just checked the sources for the Traditional Chinese Medicine section. Abstract of http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-73739-8_51 : "It is not officially listed in the Chinese Pharmacopoeia." [...]"

OH, you mean PUMPKINS. Now I understand. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Burzynski

• Burzynski Clinic (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

This article is seeing a flurry of activity recently, with questions on Talk which touch on fringe/neutrality issues. As always, expertise from fringe-savvy editors can help. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Skepticism vs. denial in climate change politics

There is an ongoing definitional problem that Wikipedia has been spectacularly unsuccessful in solving.

Climate scientists, science educators, and skeptical organizations have decried the use of the term "climate change skeptic" to describe those who are properly climate change deniers. [4]

Yet, Wikipedia persists with the following categories:

• Category:Climate change skepticism

• Category:Climate change skeptics

• Category:Climate change skeptics (politicians)

• Category:Climate change skeptics (scientists)

By endorsing these designations and not the "denier" designation, Wikipedia has firmly taken the side of climate change deniers. Why is that? What is the remedy?

jps (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Are there good sources which address this terminological question? They might offer a way through ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Not really. There are just polemic rants from one group or another. There is no "neutral" agreed-upon designation for such groups. "Climate change skeptics" are the preferred names of the deniers while "climate change deniers" are the preferred names for those who oppose them. I guess this is somewhat similar to the term of art pro-life to indicate anti-abortion activists. jps (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, there are some climate change deniers and even some who are opposed to them who think the designation "denier" is needlessly inflammatory. However, the term "denier" is only inflammatory in the sense of it carrying implications that are not necessarily intended. Even worse, the most reliable sources don't have a consistent way of describing these groups or people who espouse such ideas. "Denial" is the closest thing we've got to what the preponderance of sources use as a designation when they are trying to be deliberate. Still, sources from the sociological literature, for example, use both designations in different contexts since both designations are used. It's something Wikipedia is not equipped to handle. jps (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Look through this list for sources discussing this subject? jps (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a definite problem here in that a fair number of the scientists could be legitimately be characterized as skeptics rather than deniers (e.g. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen). Mangoe (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Arguing that the models can't be verified seems like straight up denialism to me, considering the models are verified by ensuring they can predict past events and also earlier climate models have been checked for the success of their . Second Quantization (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Sonja... there are many scientists who are skeptical of specific models and claims, but accept others. Which models a scientist supports plays a huge role in determining his/her views on subsidiary questions such as whether climate change is driven by man-made factors vs. natural factors (or a mix of both), how dire the situation is, what we should do about it, whether we can do anything about it, etc. etc. etc.

In many ways, the climate change debate reminds me of a religious dispute... you have the BIG disagreement between believers and non-believers (acceptors and deniers)... but then you also have smaller denominational disagreements among the believers, over questions of dogmatic details - with accusations of "heresy" (ie "denial") being tossed around by the various denominations at anyone who doesn't fully agree with their particular version of the dogma. Blueboar (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen is a classic pseudoskeptic, a social scientist or political scientists who feels she knows physical science better than physical scientists. When asked about the publication in the Spring of 2003 of a revised version of the paper at the center of the Soon and Baliunas controversy, she said, "I'm following my political agenda -- a bit, anyway. But isn't that the right of the editor?" . . dave souza, talk 08:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC) [added italicised words for clarification + missing sig, dave souza, talk 19:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)]

That's a common misconception. ALL climate models worthy of the name (either based on physics, or "toy" models that have physically realistic parameters) give essentially the same result regarding anthropogenically-induced warming. They differ around the edges on various things but the basics are firm.

This is not newfangled stuff. Tyndall discovered the main greenhouse gases in 1859 and Arrhenius made the first prediction of temperature change from doubled CO2 back in 1896. The physics are so robust that his result is only a little outside of what is now regarded as the "likely" range of climate sensitivity. So this is old, established science -- in the past century we've just been refining the details.

Getting back to the original question... My impression is that "denier" is rapidly overtaking "skeptic" in the media. I realize that I'm not a WP:RS (smiley) but it might be possible to find someone who tracks such things. Note also several scholars prefer the use of "contrarian" as being less loaded than "denier", e.g., [5]. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I prefer the term "Harbingers Of The Endarkenment" which I think all wiki eds should be obliged to use henceforth. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

In all seriousness, however, we don't seem to have a good way to deal with this situation. What we've done is essentially adopt the propaganda of the contrarians (I don't think, except for perhaps Richard Lindzen, there are any deniers who are fine with the "contrarian" designation). One thing that dawns on me is that the lot of them are opposed to climate science consensus. So Opposition to scientific consensus on climate change would actually be a NPOV article title. We could subsume all the categories under that neutral designator Category:Opposition to scientific consensus on climate change and remove the "naming" problem. Would that be a good way of doing it? jps (talk) 13:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be better... but we still have the issue of how to treat those who are not necessarily opposed to the scientific consensus, but who still question some of the data and conclusions that are accepted by the consensus. I think these people are properly called "skeptics", rather than "deniers" or "opponents". Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Same problem: all scientists question the data and conclusions that are accepted [provisionally] as the consensus, pseudosceptics assert that the consensus is wrong without going through the proper scientific process. Unlike the fake "skeptics", scientific skeptics publish their analysis and data in peer reviewed publications, and help to form the changing consensus. Fake skeptics misuse the label, but don't do the work properly. . dave souza, talk 19:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I think at some point you have to bring the IPCC into it. As the UN body tasked to provide "a clear and up to date view of the current state of scientific knowledge relevant to climate change," their current Fifth Assessment Report has to be seen as representing 'the mainstream.' There will be people who think that the UN is a conspiracy by lizards to take away the freedoms of their favourite political party, but for the rest of us, it is not really valid to be 'skeptical' about the legitimacy of mainstream climate science, as summarised by the UN body. Wikipedia should acknowledge this explicitly, without mealy-mouthed false balance. --Nigelj (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

(e-c) I could live with the variant proposed above. While Blueboar has a point, he seems to be equating "questioning" data, which scientists regularly do in general, with questioning the results of multiple independent studies. Now, there might be a few people of at best marginal scientific qualifications out there, like me, who might say that they don't question the evidence of global warming as anthropologically induced, but might say they haven't seen sufficient evidence to indicate that the primary reason for the existing global warming is necessarily human input. They might simply ascribe it to the earth coming closer to returning to its more average warmer temperature, and note that the earth has actually, apparently, been marginally cooler for the past few hundred years than normal. I suppose for such cases, if the scientific community has many of them, I dunno, "Opposition to the theory of human impact on climate change" or "Skeptics of the..." might be acceptable, if unfortunately way more longwinded than even I generally like. John Carter (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

In response to some of the points made by Blueboar above - that there are people who question some of the data and conclusions that are accepted by the consensus - the question we editors have to ask is which data and conclusions. If the current IPCC report says that the data is sketchy or the conclusions unclear in a certain area, then it is good science to question them. However, in relation to the point Blueboar raised earlier ("whether climate change is driven by man-made factors vs. natural factors") then the report is clear and ascribes a very high degree of certainly to the worldwide findings. Denying that climate change is mostly human caused at this stage is virtually unsupportable. --Nigelj (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I note you hedge with "mostly" and "virtually". This must mean you are a denier. Blueboar (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how that helps us decide the names of categories. It's almost as if you'd rather discuss your views on climate change (or perhaps mine) than how we should present the topic in the encyclopedia. --Nigelj (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

My point is that we need to be careful not to be overly broad in labeling people as "deniers"... when in fact they are not... "skeptics" is a valid term for those who do agree with most of the IPCC conclusions, but may question some of the specifics. Save the term "Denier" for those who really do deny that climate change exists. Blueboar (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that "skeptics" in that definition includes [most or all] mainstream scientists: for example, Michael E. Mann describes himself as a skeptic, and in recent papers questions tree rings as an annual proxy record of termperature changes. He's solidly mainstream, and indeed his work is [unscientifically] denounced by Richard A. Muller who has been seen as part of the fake skeptic camp, though renounced part of that camp's denial of temperature changes when his Berkeley Earth project produced unexpected results. To the chagrin of Anthony Watts (blogger), a denier who describes himeslf as a skeptic. Denial is a spectrum, in the less clear cases unscientific opposition to the IPCC consensus is better called contrarian. . . dave souza, talk 06:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

People who question basic facts of climate change as outlined by the IPCC -- that the average global temperature is increasing primarily due to increasing carbon dioxide concentrations caused by human activity -- are not skeptics in the scientific skepticism sense. They are either ignorant or in denial. All of the articles in the above categories basically include those who "question" those basic facts. So we should not use "skeptic" or derivatives in the category names. What words we should use is what we need to decide. jps (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Acknowledging the probable reasonableness of the above, I guess, although this is probably going on a tangent not particularly relevant to this noticeboard, I would be curious on what basis that statement is made. Like I said, not disagreeing with it, but at least so far as I remember, and I obviously could be wrong, there might not be necessarily enough raw information available on changes in climate over the long term on a planetary scale in a broad sense outside from our one planet in the one period of recent recorded climate information to provide enough of a basis for conclusions along those lines. Granted, I am about 3 decades out of date here, but there didn't seem to be enough data back when I was in school to make a conclusion drawn on the data then available necessarily reliable. That information, however, clearly could have changed since I last really studied the topic. John Carter (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The basis for the statement would surely be WP:WEIGHT, specifically WP:PSCI and WP:GEVAL. The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report is currently the best overall assessment of the state of science on the topic, have a look in the Summary for Policymakers for an outline of the info you want. You'd need a very good source for any other conclusions. . dave souza, talk 23:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

"I would be curious on what basis that statement is made" Which statement specifically? "enough raw information available on changes in climate over the long term" Some methods are mentioned at: Temperature record for the long term (depending on what you count as long) but that seems to me to be irrelevant to the current discussion. Of course, a large historical record of temperatures isn't needed to make and test the current models which are based on basic science. It's for the same reason one doesn't need to know the history of an atom to model what happens when it gets hit by another atom; it's quite frankly irrelevant, if you know the current state of a physical system you can calculate how it further evolves in time provided you include the right processes.

"like me, who might say that they don't question the evidence of global warming as anthropologically induced, but might say they haven't seen sufficient evidence to indicate that the primary reason for the existing global warming is necessarily human input." I don't get this. Models which take into account human emissions of CO2 predict the warming we have experienced, those that don't, don't. "They might simply ascribe it to the earth coming closer to returning to its more average warmer temperature, and note that the earth has actually, apparently, been marginally cooler for the past few hundred years than normal." If temperatures are changing there has to be a mechanism and that can also be modelled, then you can make predictions or see if it can accurately predict past warming (say 1970 to 2010). Temperatures don't just magically return to "normal" all by themselves (and they aren't, see [6]). Second Quantization (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Decades ago, people had a hard time coming to terms with radiative forcing, but it's pretty well understood these days that the heating effect expected from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations accounts for the global warming that is observed on decadal timescales. The surprise for many is how large the effect is, but the consensus is strong that it is the size we observe it to be.

I will grant, however, that many are not necessarily aware of the facts surrounding these issues, so it is possible that there are those who "question" because they simply don't know. Distinguishing between which is which is not something we're equipped to do either, so simply saying "opposition to..." and leaving it at that seems to me to be a good solution. jps (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that the commercially funded disinformation campaigns and the politically motivated media coverage may still be too influential, especially in the USA, that while we have to discuss this with people with only a passing interest, and those who have taken little up to date scientific input recently, we are, sadly going to get nowhere. Those who feel that there is still a legitimate scientific debate going on have been wrong for decades now, but they still represent a loud and vocal minority, especially as I say in the US, and this will always scupper a clear consensus here in WP discussion for some time to come, I fear. --Nigelj (talk) 11:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue is editors: here we have an editor reverting to self-contradictory wording which equates skepticism to belief, when the sources don't make any statement that the subject is skeptical. Common misuse of language. . . dave souza, talk 15:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

In addition to the disinformation campaigns and politically motivated coverage, unfortunately, I think that the topic has also tended to at least some of us older editors, who might be among the more active "disbelievers," to have suffered in their eyes the same fate as a lot of millenarian movements who find that their predictions don't come true. A lot of us remember Ted Danson's statements which, as they were presented at the time, were basically seen as predicting the end of the world by the end of the 20th century. That didn't, of course, happen. Michael Crichton's State of Fear played a large role in the development of the thinking some individuals like myself as well, particularly the implications that the idea may have had some sort of less-than-beneficent governmental support. The Global warming conspiracy theory, unfortunately, particularly with the apparent "failed predictions" of Danson and the like, coupled with the distrust of authority of all kinds in general over the past decades in the West, does, I think, unfortunately, play a big role in a lot of sometimes goofy ideas going around there. This one included. Michael Baigent comes to mind as an equivalent in the field of religion. I acknowledge that this comment is completely off topic, and say this not necessarily in the defense of those who like me still harbor some lingering suspicions. Having said all that off-topic b.s., I guess I should apologize to those who actually have done more research and know more about the topic than me, and, maybe, ask if the sources exist to describe the millenial aspects of the early global warming advocates somewhere. John Carter (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Ted Danson's comments were not specifically about global warming, but rather more about ocean conservation. He may actually have made an accurate point too -- it is highly likely that we have passed the tipping point for fisheries and coral reefs and that tipping point could have been the year 2000. Michael Crichton's book definitely played into climate change conspiracy theories, but we're trying to talk here about specific points made in climate science not about the weird political machinations of right wing (or left wing, mind you) ideologues. Actors and science fiction authors are not the experts who drive the conversation. jps (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

As for politically motivated coverage, you may be amused by Jim Inhofe having invited Crichton to testify to Congress, apparently supposing he was a scientist. You did realise Crichton was writing fiction? Similarly, Danson seems to be an actor, author, and producer, not a scientist. Don't know what you mean by "early global warming advocates", people like Spencer and Legates who claim, on religious grounds, that global warming is good for you? . . dave souza, talk 20:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

If you want to trace the early history of work on the relationship between carbon dioxide in the air and the temperature of the earth's surface, it might make more sense to start with this paper [7] that Svante Arrhenius published in 1896, rather than with anything Ted Danson may have said. Cardamon (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Since it came up, does anyone have a good source for exactly what Ted Danson said, when he said it, and it what context? I tried to find this for the article Ted Danson. I found many later arguments over whether he was right or wrong, but no specifics on the statement itself. It still has a "citation needed" tag after many months. --Amble (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe the statement was made in a speech when he founded the organization that is now Oceana (non-profit group), but I cannot find a transcript of it either. jps (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

jps: You should have checked for precedents before starting a pointless discussion in the wrong forum. We've already got an administrator's ruling about this:

Use what the sources say. If the majority of sources call a subject a "skeptic" then they are a skeptic. If the sources calls them a "climate change denier" then call them that. We use what the majority of sources use. Single partisan sources that are used in opposition to the majority of sources will be considered POV pushing and sanctioned under WP:ARBCC. Mass changes of any material without discussion is disruptive.

If you wish to overturn the administrator's ruling:

• take it to the administrator's noticeboard
• inform people who participated last time
• come up with something new.

Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Most of the most reliable sources use some form of "denial" as the marker. jps (talk) 05:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Eternity is not endless time...eternity is the gradient of total potential energy, down which matter flows like a river.

An IP editor has rather aggressively made some edits to Eternity which seem to favor a metaphysical viewpoint over a more general mainstream viewpoint. The edits have also introduced WP:LEAD problems, overquoting and questionable assertions made in Wikipedia's voice. A few more eyes on the article would be appreciated.- MrX 01:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

That's Systemizer / 8i347g8gl -- similar IPs and characteristic nuttiness, along with "♦" in citations. An indefatigable edit-warrior, this person has been adding nonsense for years, and recently caused the indef semi-protection of Terence McKenna. According to the first SPI there had once been a range block. Manul ~ talk 11:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted the latest and blocked the 91.122.0.0/21 range for three months. If they simply hop to a different IP, I'll semi. Bishonen | talk 13:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC).

Thanks everyone for your help and advice.- MrX 13:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

So, another St Petersburg proxy engaged after a few minutes. I've semi'd for a month and blocked the 89.110.0.0/19 range, after consulting the SPI to look for the siblings. I don't suppose blocks can really do much here, even range blocks, because all the available ranges are merely the gradient of total potential nuttiness down which IPs flow like a river. But the semi should help for a while. Bishonen | talk 14:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC).

I would like to comment that I do think that if content that dwells on the metaphysical explanation on the subject can contribute to the article, then it should be included, so long as there are proper sources that aren't OR. But I do agree that the pointy nature of such edits are quite annoying. Optakeover^(Talk) 16:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

"the gradient of total potential nuttiness down which IPs flow like a river" ← Priceless.- MrX 16:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Now that you mentioned it, that sounds pretty ridiculous. Optakeover^(Talk) 17:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

This seems like a poetic description of the Second Law of Thermodynamics; time is a gradient of increasing entropy, and eternity is the point at which entropy would be infinite. I don't think this belongs in the article. This article can define "eternity" is and give various interpretations of it from established religious and philosophical perspectives, but it cannot try to guide the reader towards understanding the term "in Wikipedia's voice." Roches (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Houston, we have a stargate

Ranmasu Uyana - some sources for the site[8] Or an ancient world map?[9] - maybe a useful source. Dougweller (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The page only has one source, which is a problem, but plenty exist for a motivated editor to use. It's a tourist destination apparently? It seems to be a major cause of people being interested in the topic. As long as the article doesn't consider the possibility that this is actually of extraterrestrial origin, it doesn't look like a fringiness problem to use reliable sources that some people think it is. Rhoark (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Is reiki fringe and/or pseudoscience

A new flare up at reiki. Are various sources sufficient to use the word "pseudoscience"? Does WP:MEDRS allow us to discount sources saying it is nonsense (after all, the sources are not review articles...)? Geeze, it's a "spiritual practice", so we cannot dare say qi/ki doesn't exist. A little experienced help would be appreciated. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)