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.
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. Deploy {{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Living Dinosaurs, Young Earth Creationism, and quackery abound at Mokele-mbembe

Recently @Kiyoweap: restored a plethora of WP:RS violations and WP:PROFRINGE material I'd removed from Mokele-mbembe. These references include a tremendous amount of unabashedly fringe, including material sourced to Young Earth creationists (William J. Gibbons) and a boatload of cryptozoology quacks, including references to Roy Mackal's notorious A Living Dinosaur?. Prior to the user's restoration of fringe material, I started two threads on the article's talk page. They received no response.

Anyway, article needs some eyes, particularly as this user has a long history of edit-warring in favor pseudoscience on the site (lately, notably where Young Earth creationism and cryptozoology intersect). Pinging editors who frequently work in these corners: @Tronvillain:, @LuckyLouie:, and @Katolophyromai: :bloodofox: (talk) 22:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The edit might have been a little over the top, especially since it eliminated most of the modern cryptozoologist material covered by Prothero and Loxton. I'm sure it was a work in progress, but as it was there was nothing left in the body actually explaining the modern conception of "Mokele-mbembe." --tronvillain (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I was in fact stubifying the article to make way to rewrite the section, and all the references I pulled were in violation of WP:FRIND. However, under no circumstances is it OK to restore material to this guy as a reliable source. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Ye gads. There is no reason why we should be giving cryptozoology so much unwarranted attention here. Thirty-two sections about different expeditions to find the creature? Furthermore, I notice that neither the original version with all the expeditions nor the redacted version give any detailed information about what the actual Congo people say about the creature, presumably because their stories are not supportive of the idea that the mokele-mbembe is a "living dinosaur." Just about all we hear about their stories is in the first sentence, where the mokele-mbebe is described as "a water-dwelling entity, sometimes described as a living creature, sometimes as a spirit" and later in the first section, which quotes Hagenbeck's description of the creature from the Congo natives as "half elephant, half dragon." I assume there surely must be at least some reliable sources that have been written documenting what the Congo people themselves say about the mokele-mbebe. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Knock it off Bloodofox. You removed 32k bytes of material, thus gutting the article.

Tronvillain too thought the purge was excessive ("little over the top").

Now you're trying to paint me as "in favor [of] pseudoscience". If I revert your major purge, it does not translate to my endorsing Gibbons as a source of highest reliablilty. Give me a fricking break.--Kiyoweap (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Have you considered not writing essays in talk page edit descriptions? --tronvillain (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

That would indeed be nice. On top of that, restoring Gibbons is indeed par for the course for Kiyoweap's edits here, which seem to be locked in 'pro-pseudoscience or revert-war, now' mode. Given the support for Gibbons and other quacks in the cryptozoology circle (and then the backtracking when called on it here), I think a deeper look into the user's edit history might be merited. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Arguably a revert does not necessarily imply endorsement of all content contained within that revert. --tronvillain (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Given Kiyoweap's other edits, such as aggressively pushing to employ works by cryptozoologists as reliable sources, I think an assumption of a pro-Gibbons stance fits in just fine with what we've seen so far (for example, today's best known living cryptozoologist, Loren Coleman also employs Gibbons as a reliable source and provides a glowing introduction to his work in Coleman and Jerome Clark's Cryptozoology from A to Z — quite typical of the pseudoscience/subculture). That said, if the user is in fact currently not pushing for more Gibbons and Coleman as a reliable source on Wikipedia but is instead simply not bothering to read what he is reverting, that raises another set of questions entirely (and of course still means he's reinserting pseudoscience into the article). :bloodofox: (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I believe the user has been warned in the past about sanctions. If so, take it to WP:AE. jps (talk) 15:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they have been alerted to discretionary sanctions in the pseuodoscience area, and I've now given them a final warning. I'm surprised at Kiyoweap's statement (and edit summary) above, and also at Tronvillain's apparent agreement with them that "a revert does not necessarily imply endorsement of all content contained within that revert." Sure it does. If an editor wishes to endorse part of the removed material, they should do a partial revert, rather than continuing for several days to edit war to reinsert content that it turns out they don't even mean to endorse. Or else they can do a full revert and then reasonably promptly remove the inappropriate part of the content they restored. Kiyoweap did the opposite; after the original full revert,[1] they added 11 books in the form of a bibliography,[2] which Bloodofox had removed as "fringe sources" in a separate edit.[3] Thus Kiyoweap went on to compound rather than modify their previous restoration of fringe sourcing. (I can't parse their edit summary, but if the intention was to involve User:Sandstein, who had made a minor technical edit, in some responsibility for this version for the fringe bibliography, that would be absurd.) Bishonen | talk 16:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC).

I'm just saying it doesn't necessarily- whether it does or not in this case is another matter. People do knee jerk reversions because they don't like change without even really looking at the content or sources, or people can think the content is good even if the sourcing is currently bad but are too lazy to look at and remove the sources themselves. That in this case they didn't then go to the talk page themselves and edit warred (after my comment I believe) makes this case more problematic. --tronvillain (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

As for prompt action, it has only been 2-3 days, and that is not a whole lot of time for assess 32 kilobytes worth of content-gutting. I think user:Bishonen is being a bit too strict here.

I mean Bloodfox admitted he was stubifying the article to make way to rewrite the section. Why is it okay for a pending edit drag on for the same number of days for other editors? That's called a double-standard.

Right now I can only still sketch out my impending change crudely, but 1) Powell and Mackal expeditions are WP:DUE weight material 2) POV external link to a podcast by Prothero[4] supposedly connected with the MonsterQuest show, which starts with a theme from the Flintstones followed by a mocking narrative. 3) William Gibbons's books, webpages can be replaced. Gibbon's expeditions being given no appreciable coverage is fine. 4) Clark, an non-sci trained author's book from small press is not the ideal source, but some sort of backbone content is desirable.--Kiyoweap (talk) 07:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Strict? I don't think so, Kiyoweap. It didn't have to be done all at once. A never so tiny edit, in the space of 2-3 days, to remove, say, Gibbons and Coleman, would have looked a lot better than what you did: edit-warring with three different editors to restore the material in toto. Also, do you have any explanation for this edit? Or for your aggressive notes to jps, complaining that he, who had reverted twice, to your own three times, was edit warring? You are apparently not aware of jps's formidable presence on this board over the years. That's OK in itself, you don't have to be. But when you don't know somebody's record, you'd be safer not to condescend to them with remarks like "Do not make drive-by visits to WP:FT/N and read a couple of postings on threads and imagine yourself to be able to make a well-considered decision". Furthermore, you have not set foot on the article's talkpage. I have trouble understanding why you didn't answer this, for instance. My advice for the proposed change you outline above would be to finalize it and then post it on talk for discussion. Of course that's not an order; you're free to instead post it as incremental additions directly to the article, giving others time to react before you add more. But IMO the talkpage would be preferable in a case like this, to give a chance for consensus to form while avoiding a lot of back-and-forth on the article itself. Edit summaries are not a discussion forum; that's what the talkpage is for. Bishonen | talk 10:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC).

Bishonen, of course 2 days is sufficient time some tiny gestural edits. But giving tiny concessions and representing this as only a partial revert hardly seems more good faith than doing an outright revert and saying so.

What I meant of course was 2 days was not ample time to make meaningful well-researched change. You're can't really make a time-assessment unless you've actually read the article and done the sourcing and fact-checking to see how tricky it is, viz.:

#1979: Thomas section stated that Rev. Eugene "Gene" Thomas had already heard stories of the 1959 Pygmy hunt and had 2 encounters himself in 1979 (prior to being engaged as the interpretor for the 1980: Mackal-Powell expedition). Which is significant information. The sources in the paragraph was a Gibbons websource and Coleman's Cryptomundo web source which are not desirable sourcing. Although I tried, I could nto find substantiation in Powell's paper and Mackal's book. So the situation where we have significant content I would like to retain, but it can apparently only be sourced using Gibbons book (communiqué to Crytpmundo /thomas-obit/). (Be warned that visiting Cryptomundo launches JSCoinminer Website)

Bishonen, I just botched my first revert using "undo" here because that coupled the old text with the new bibliography, causing harv error messages, so I had to do a double-take. It was just a mistake. To "compound rather than modify" wasn't what was on my mind.

In the retake I opted to version "851951305 by Sandstein" rather than "850193355 by Bloodofox" because there was no difference in the two, and Sandstein's edit was the easier to pick out from the crowded revision history. The suggestion that this was an attempt by me to blame this user for something is bizarre.I don't think you have so far taken me entirely in bad faith, I would like to see things otherwise.--Kiyoweap (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Before madly mashing that revert button at any user who comes by, I might suggest that you get very familiar with WP:FRIND, because any attempts to reintroduce fringe sources without a reliable source putting them into context will be met with resistance. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

"cryptozoology quacks" Bloodofox, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons also applies to talk pages, stop writing accusations about BLPs. Quackery specifically refers to "fraudulent or ignorant medical practices", and this in not the case here. Dimadick (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I believe the standard Wikipedia term for pushers of such fringe "science" is lunatic charlatans. Black Kite (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes I wanted to bring up Dimadick's point. It is undignified to refer to Prof. Mackal in that way, and I'm disappointed admins dont caution him to tone it down. Unfortunately the professor is no longer living, so BLP does not apply. --Kiyoweap (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Like everywhere else, the very Wikipedia article you link to does not restrict the definition of quackery to a narrow medical sense ("a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to skill, knowledge, or qualifications he or she does not possess; a charlatan", which it takes form dictionary.com for whatever reason). In reality, if you're selling snake oil or anti-evolution propaganda under the guise of science, you're a quack, whether inside or outside of a medical field.

And the term quack certainly applies to both Gibbons and Mackal. Yes, Mackal is dead, and Prothero and Loxton write that Mackal "had no training that would qualify him to undertake competent research on exotic animals". They highlight Gibbons's lack of appropriate credentials in a similar manner. A hallmark of the pseudoscience is misrepresentation and false credential mongering, which Prothero and Loxton also highlight commonly occurs in the case of Mackal but also occurs with Young Earth creationist cryptozoologist Gibbons, who "has a degree in religious education from a seminary". While use of terms like "undignified" and "the professor" by Kiyoweap above implies a reverence for the pseudoscience works of Mackal (Prothero, for example, would also be "the professor"), his revert-warring to reinstate references to works by figures like Gibbons implies a broader pro-pseudoscience stance point of view.

Of course, at the end of the day, this is all very typical pseudoscience-on-Wikipedia stuff. I hadn't seen the lunatic charlatans essay before — seems this is indeed a well worn path! :bloodofox: (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

No. Nobody in academia calls his colleagues a "quack" who happens to dabble in a field not quite within his expertise.

This is your own code, and it is not good enough excuse for trying to continue to use it.

And don't obliquely suggest Mackal peddles anti-evolution propaganda either. If you know for sure he has done it, put it on the table or just hold your tongue.

What exactly are the specific examples of what you accuse to be pseudoscience produced by Mackal? If he brings back the malombo fruit that the pygmies say the creature eats, and has it identified by a botanist, is that pseudoscience under your definition? If you can't get specific on these there is no sense in perpetuating the thread on this notice. --Kiyoweap (talk) 02:16, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, please. Mackal's A Living Dinosaur? is notorious (and unintentional hilarious) pseudoscience, and that's just the most obvious and relevant of a laundry list of deep fringe stuff Mackal produced in his free time. Fumbling around in the jungle in an attempt to find an antiquated notion of a dinosaur (while being duped by locals) makes for funny reading, yes, but it's also neocolonial dress pretending to be science.

Mackal's missionary guide, Eugene Thomas, himself baptized Gibbons (in the Congo, of course). Their two "expeditions" are directly connected. Anyway, Mokele-Mbembe makes for a revealing fixation among cryptozoologists, and highlights the strong undercurrents of Young Earth creationism that course through the pseudoscience, increasingly evident today. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I realize Mackal was working with "antiquated notion" of a sauropod regarding its posture or appearnace or habitat, which Prothero points out. Which you are free to add to the article. But Mackal was not specifically 'searching for sauropods' -- that is only a shorthand or caricature description. Mackal only says he was invetigating a remote possibility of "sauropod dinosaur-like animals surviving" (p. 216)", which could be any unknown or unusual reptile or a mammal. Either only the caricature version is so deeply ingrained in Bloodofox that he cannot escape from it, or he is knowingly misleading us.

On the allegation of Mackal "being duped by locals". I presume this is from Prothero's reconstructed scenario that the Powell-Mackal expedition was beset by Congolese making up stories where money was to be had.(p. 279ff) I guess Bloodofox's amusement comes from thinking that Powell and Mackal were seriously recording anecdotes and all the while these greedy locals were scamming them, har har har. Sorry, I think of this rather as a chilling stereotyped accusation of African locals as to their morals and belief-systems rather than a pie-in-the-face-of-Mackal comedy entertainment.--Kiyoweap (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Sauropod-hunting in the jungle = comedy gold. Also pseudoscience. Stick to reliable sources and you won't run into any problems with sourcing, thanks. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

"Mackal only says he was invetigating a remote possibility of "sauropod dinosaur-like animals surviving" (p. 216)", which could be any unknown or unusual reptile or a mammal." This is hardly the case. The typical description for Sauropoda consists of "long necks, long tails, small heads (relative to the rest of their body), and four thick, pillar-like legs. They are notable for the enormous sizes attained by some species, and the group includes the largest animals to have ever lived on land." The description would not fit the average mammal.

And to clarify what "enormous" means here, Sauroposeidon had an estimated height of 18 metres (59 feet). Dimadick (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Dimadick, if you absorb information in soundbites you might get the wrong idea. The expedition did not claim they local reports of such behemoths. Mackal does not claim they were sauropod-like as in outsizing elephants by many-fold, and can be quoted saying "This is certainly the right size for a Mokele-mbembe, but, of course, also for a smallish forest elephant" (p.180, he is referring to footprints here). Don't attribute to him mistakes he did not commit.

Re emela-ntouka "elephant killer", Mackal states rhinoceros is a "viable" theory (p. 238). He is not married to large dinosaur hypothesis, and Bloodofox is attempting to make it seems this is a case with tasteless jokes and zingers. --Kiyoweap (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

This discussion, starting from "The edit might have been a little over the top", is about improving the article Mokele mbembe. That means it is pretty much what Talk:Mokele mbembe is for. This page, on the other hand, is a noticeboard. The first contribution, ending with "They received no response", belongs here. Should we move all the stuff after that to the Talk page? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

It should not be moved, no. Discussion about the article should continue on the article Talk page, but copy/pasting the conversation isn't necessary. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Besides the distortions, the other leg of Bloodofox's charge of "pseudoscience" is bullcrap innuendo: "Loren Coleman also employs Gibbons as a reliable source and provides a glowing introduction" or "Mackal's connection to Young Earth creationist and missionary Eugene Thomas, .. who went on to baptize cryptozoologist Gibbons here. Scientists do not abandon their conviction in evoltionary theory when they come in contact with devout Christians. These are guilt-by-association smear tactics that may belong in mudslinging dirty political ads, not here.

And while Gibbons may be a "creationist", Prothero's insistence that Gibbons set out to prove young earth,[5] is suspect because Gibbon flatly denied this in a communiqué to Coleman (/mokele09/) saying: "Finally, I should mention that any discovery of a living dinosaur will not, in my opinion, .. prove that the earth is 6,000 years old, or disprove evolution".

Therefore Bloodofox needs to stop and revert his sweeping propagandistic editing that tries to forcibly associate these well-known cryptozoolgist's works like Loren Coleman's Cryptozoolgy A-Z from Simon and Schuster or Mackal's book out of Brill Publishers as somehow promoting "young earth creationism". This is not a WP:DUE weight characterization of these group of people. It is blatant WP:NPOV smear. --Kiyoweap (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

"My child is an angel; all others are devils." I understand that people who hold dear a particular fringe proposition (say cryptozoology) may find associations with other fringe positions (say young Earth creationism) to be a smear. But the sources do not indicate that there is a hierarchy of forms with respect to these subjects. While it would be a mistake to equate creationists and cryptozoologists, it would be irresponsible not to let readers know that they do find common cause in their tilting at windmills -- even if they may disagree as to which maverick ideas are supposed to be taken seriously. jps (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Not this again....--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The foregoing concerned Bloodofox's use of guilt-by-association argument, an obvious smear tactic. Opinion on jps's set of arguments I have yet to offer.

Attempt is made again to blur the distinction between hypothesis and claim. Why do you this? Most adults clearly recognize the difference. Mackal tapped experts on sauropods for the stance that their survival was improbable but possible.[6] Such statement of possibility is not pseudoscience. Any more than Prothero's statement that it is "possible that aliens have visited us".[7] And Mackal's pursuit of his improbabity isn't really any more quixotic than Prothero's guru Carl Sagan's improbable search for extraterrestrials.

There is a fundamental difference between young earth theory and a hypothetical living dinosaur. Young earth is a refutation of all geological dating and is incompatible with science. In contrast, a single dinosaur survival would only be an exception to the rule and would not refute the entire dinosaur fossil record.

So even if you are blind to it, your so-called "hierarchy" is there. --Kiyoweap (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Plausible deniability is the name of the game, and it is a rhetorical equivalence even still. Cryptozoologists claim not that it is possible that non-avian dinosaurs are running around but rather that there is evidence that they are running around. When you corner them about this, they fall back on the "all is possible which is not forbidden" defense. But YECs do exactly the same thing. Their game is to say, for example, that they have evidence that the world is young, young, young, but when you corner them about this, they fall back on the "we can never be 100% sure that these dating methods are accurate. It is possible that they are all wrong, you must admit!" jps (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• I don't understand what everyone's problem is. Of course dinosaurs are still around. There is one outside my window tanking up from my dinosaur feeder hummingbird feeder. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I've found that, by and large, dinosaurs taste like chicken. - Nunh-huh 21:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Orb (optics)

Orb (optics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Should this article include a “paranormal” section? There is one decent source, however IMO, the old one-way-linking rule for pseudoscience should apply here, i.e. a section in ghost hunting about the pseudoscientific belief should link to Orb (optics), but not the other way around. Curious what others think. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

That's exactly what we should do. I have removed the paranormal cruft. jps (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I left in the See Also link to Will o' the wisp, though I'm not sure if there are reliable sources which indicate that will o' the wisps are optical orbs. jps (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Also it may be beneficial to move the article title (keeping a redirect from Orb (optics)) to a more relevant photographic term. “Orb” is not a term used in photography. It is simply a holdover from the circa 2007 ghost hunting fad that made its way into pop culture. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe re-AfD? I see that User:Andy Dingley reverted me on behalf of the claimed results of the previous "merge". jps (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. Two reasons.

1. They're a significant part of paranormal 'evidence'. Paranormal topics are not necessarily scientific, but they can still be encyclopedic. Especially where, as in this case, there is such an obvious and rational explanation for them, it's well within our scope to explain this and to debunk the more fanciful others.
   Outside of the paranormal references to orbs, it's not even clear if this very minor optical artifact would even be notable.
2. There was an AfD on Orb (paranormal) which closed as a merge. Not a delete. Not a "merge for a bit until no-one's looking". If you want to overturn that, then go through an RfC. I did revert on that basis, but you then started edit-warring to repeat the deletion anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

As previously mentioned, “orb” is not a term commonly used in photography or optics to describe this optical phenomena. Backscatter is. It's in seven of the seven references cited in the article, as are the common terms "lens flare", "dust particles" or "floating particles". While paranormal enthusiasts may have called these things "orbs", they are a tiny minority. I'm not sure why we have an article about an optical effect named for the term a small fringe segment of the population uses. it seems WP:UNDUE weight on that view. WP:ONEWAY linking is a good start to fixing this problem, since ghost hunting is the appropriate place for the minority term/explanation/ debunking. Renaming the article backscatter (lens flare) or similar, and perhaps eventually merging it with backscatter article would be a vast improvement. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

But it has nothing to do with lens flare. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

“Flash reflection” then? Certainly the article title should be a recognizable photographic term used by the majority of sources cited in the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

"a recognizable photographic term" - that would be "orbs" (and you don't need flash either). And the majority of discussion of this effect is from the paranormal world, because no-one else really cares much about it. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we should just delete the orb (optics) and redirect orb (paranormal) to a new section of ghost hunting. Much like cold spot (paranormal). jps (talk) 03:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

No, we're a science-based encyclopedia. Our role is to explain, with a rational and sourced explanation. The previous article was doing that, but you want to disconnect the two. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Guy (Help!) 13:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Disconnect the two what? There is only one subject here as far as I can tell: things identified by ghost hunters as "orbs". Apparently, no one but ghost hunters calls these visual artifacts "orbs", so an article on orb (optics) may be completely WP:OR. jps (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll get the ball rolling. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orb (optics). jps (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Orb's sister article Rod has a similar set of problems. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. What to do with this one? :bloodofox: (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The article on Rods does need some better development. Especially considering it's not exactly neutral.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

What do you think needs to be added to/removed from the article? - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The article should be moved and the lead rewritten, since "rod," like "orb," is not really a term in optics or photography. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand this motivation to purge Wikipedia of fringe topics, or merge them into generic articles where nobody will find them. Ignoring woo-woo topics is not how Wikipedia educates the world. If I didn't know better, I'd think this was being driven by woo-woo advocates unhappy that skeptical Wikipedia articles are showing up in Google results. ApLundell (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a long history of unintentionally (or, in the case when fringe advocates fill a missing gap or band together, quite intentionally) promoting fringe topics. As a result, the platform has developed a robust set of guidelines regarding how these topics are treated, including WP:ONEWAY and WP:PROFRINGE. A lot of these pseudoscience articles have long passed themselves off as really real science, and the attention they're getting now is definitely a good thing. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

"Orbs" are "really real science". They're just misrepresented as to cause. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Which is why we’re having this discussion. I see that you’re lobbying hard to keep this article just the way it is for whatever reason, but please don’t misrepresent my comments. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@ApLundell, I wouldn’t worry about people searching for fringe topics and not finding them because they’re buried. We have redirects that function quite nicely, e.g. try searching for “coldspot (paranormal). - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Just rewrite it instead of outright deleting it. Just because it contains "fringe" info doesn't necessarily dictate complete removal.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Rods

After much wringing of hands and really some good collaboration had by all involved, it seems we've come to a redirected conclusion for these orbs.

Now, what should we do with Rod (optics)? I am hoping that it will not need an AfD.

jps (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

They're obviously not called "rods" in photography, or in the optical (or any) sciences. We have WP:FRIND sources that call them a hoax, though: [8], [9], [10], [11]. Perhaps redirect to an entry at List of hoaxes? - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Motion blur is another possible target. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts

• Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is ongoing major editing that will require auditing. I've removed a book promotion url earlier which was reinserted and I won't be able to check it again until tomorrow. There may also be a copyright violation (a huge quote transcripted from a youtube video I think). Likely undue weight to fringe claims as well. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 08:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Well I'm still here: thanks to Bishonen the potential copyright violation was fixed since; I have just removed again the book ad. —PaleoNeonate – 12:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Is this article titled correctly? It's not about scientific foreknowledge itself, but instead it's about the belief in scientific foreknowledge, surely. It's already a mouthful, so I'm not sure how to adjust it. jps (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, like "Claims of scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts", or "Scripture revisionism postdiction". —PaleoNeonate – 13:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmm related may be Vaticinium ex eventu and Hindsight bias —PaleoNeonate – 13:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, per WP-speak, shouldn't that be religious texts? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, on further consideration, I think it probably doesn't belong in our encyclopedia: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts. jps (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I am wondering if the Ayurveda or the Vedas is related to the subject. These texts had claims to scientific/medical knowledge. There is also the context that in the ancient times, the concepts of religion and science are not distinct from each other. A Wiki page states: "Most scientific and technical innovations prior to the scientific revolution were achieved by societies organized by religious traditions." - Darwin Naz (talk) 03:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The article was about claims that verses in the Bible and Quran revealed impressive knowledge of the world that was not available at the time (or predictions of eventual scientific discoveries), to convince the reader that the texts are sacred, of divine origin and inerrant, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 11:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I've long wondered why we have (ever since 2007) an article called Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory. Bishonen | talk 17:40, 25 August 2018 (UTC).

Ratings. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 19:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmm maybe that this one could be merged in Religious cosmology, but I've not checked about the notability. We also have acceptance of evolution by religious groups and Level of support for evolution#Support for evolution by religious bodies which are similar but about evolution... Maybe that Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory could become Acceptance of the Big Bang by religious groups? But I'd have to first read it when I can. —PaleoNeonate – 23:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Religious interpretations of Young Sheldon coming soon!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.220.13.71 (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2018‎ (UTC)

I suggest Moral panic about role playing games by religious groups (oh! We have Dungeons & Dragons controversies). —PaleoNeonate – 23:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

That article exists because the relevant section in Big Bang was getting absurdly unwieldy. It is definitely a topic that has both wide interest and a surprising number of sources (including not quite a few that poo poo the entire notion -- Stephen Hawking famously did so). No doubt the article could be improved. jps (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Another article of this type is creationist cosmologies. How I've tried to get that one to go away. :-/ jps (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• The editor who added this, Batreeq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has other odd edits as well. Example: [12]. "Some mystics describe", with citations direct to the Qur'an. Really? I am guessing that 90% plus of cites to holy books are invalid WP:SYN though, it's probably not just him. Guy (Help!) 07:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I am well aware of WP:OR. I did not cite the verses directly, rather, I stated that some people cite (interpret) the verses as such. My secondary source for this was Encyclopedia.com ("Contemporary American Religion COPYRIGHT 1999 The Gale Group Inc."). The excerpt is:

The traditional theology of the Sunni community teaches that Allah is above all one, unique, transcendent, creator, distinct from creation, eternal and permanent, and worthy of worship. Allah has, according to Sunnis, seven essential attributes: life, power, knowledge, will, hearing, sight, and speech. Of these attributes, power means absolute omnipotence, while knowledge, hearing, and sight indicate omniscience. Omnipresence is not stressed to avoid confusing Allah with His creation. Some of the more mystical trends in Islam have emphasized His nearness and presence everywhere (Qur'an 50:16; 57:4), causing others to accuse such mystics of pantheism. The traditional Sunni position explains verses referring to Allah's nearness as meaning He is everywhere near in His knowledge (6:59, etc.), not that He is immanent in His creation.

.

A later editor modified the citation order, which I pointed out to them on the talk page of the article. I hope this clarifies my edits. – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Salem Hypothesis

Regarding the Salem Hypothesis, see Engineers and terrorists and Engineers and terrorists, part 2 and Why do so many terrorists have engineering degrees? for some interesting theories. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe they were just terrorists and engineering is just a means to an end (e.g. successful bombing). - Darwin Naz (talk) 23:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Merge proposal at cryptozoology and list of cryptids

An editor has proposed that cryptozoology absorbs list of cryptids (proposal: Talk:Cryptozoology#Merger_proposal). For those you who have followed the notorious latter list know, previous attempts to reign in the WP:PROFRINGE that the list has historically promoted and embraced failed in part due to factors such as off-site lobbying at cryptozoology forums by cryptozoologist and, shall we say, aggressive editing by cryptozoology-sympathetic editors (at times resulting in personal attacks and even threats toward yours truly). Since then, the pseudoscience's connection to topics like Young Earth creationism and other pseudosciences like ufology have become increasingly clear, as the cryptozoology article now reflects. Anyway, there's some serious pseudoscience happening in these corners, and the process definitely needs more eyes. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Really... Again....--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Also this is far from a neutrally worded notice.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

This notice wasn't written to appease Wikipedia's cryptozoology proponents. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

It is still meant to be neutral (see Wikipedia:Canvassing, "Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner.").Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I get that you're very fond of this topic, Slater, but you're going to have a very hard time convincing others that this isn't deep WP:FRINGE territory, and that, indeed, offsite lobbying and threats toward myself haven't occurred. But good luck on your canvasing angle, I guess. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't get too bothered by this. Your presentation was perfectly neutral. Unfortunately, there is a subculture of Wikipedians who mix up the truth with "non-neutral" opinion. jps (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Ouch! That seems a but harsh. Equal coverage of BOTH sides is essential in both encyclopedic content and for this site. It irks me that some people don't seem to understand that we are here to create encyclopedic content. Not taking sides and reporting a single opinion.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:FALSEBALANCE seems relevant here. --tronvillain (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

And WP:FRINGELEVEL —PaleoNeonate – 04:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was talking about.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Undue promotion of 9/11 conspiracy theories

Editors here may want to add September 11 attacks, 9/11 Truth movement and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth to their watchlist. We have an editor who seems to think that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were an inside job by the US government and has been editing (and edit-warring) these articles to give undue weight to these fringe theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Awww, cute... someone who still thinks 9/11 was an inside job? How retro. Has he/she decided whether to be a MIH (“made it happen”) or a LIH (“let it happen”)? Blueboar (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked per WP:NOTHERE. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

IP pushing Joseph Davidovits

See Talk:Hebrews#Unfounded removal and [13] where he insists that an opinion of Davidovits be included although no reliable sources seem to have noticed it. He's also arguing that this material scientist is an expert on Egyptology which of course he isn't and doesn't even claim to be so far as I know. Doug Weller talk 15:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Drmies blocked him and then I realised the IP was a sock of a blocked editor. Blocked for a month. Doug Weller talk 18:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Sock of another IP or a registered user? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I meant to say account, but I won't say who. Doug Weller talk 19:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• Applied PC protection. This is obviously never going away. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Nash-Fortenberry UFO sighting

Nash-Fortenberry UFO sighting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Seems not so well-cited compared to other famous incidents. Is it notable enough?

jps (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The NICAP website, which is used as the principal source for the article, looks fishy to me. They appear to have some sort of editorial team, but they're all unaccredited - a bunch of like-minded people curating a website does not a reliable source make. I'll take it to RSN to see what others make of it as a source. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

NICAP is not ideal, to be sure. My hope is that someone can find some better sources. Sometimes this does happen. jps (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Menzel and Campbell are good WP:FRIND sources. NICAP, not so much. Large footprint in fringe and sensationalist sources indicate this 50s ufo report is beloved within ufology. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

For a really bad UFO article, take a look at Height 611 UFO incident. Sources are a TV show, a UFOlogist, and Pravda. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Besides websites devoted to the UFO, there are actually books that cite this event in detail (e.g. The UFO phenomenon by Time-Life Books). Also this could be significant because the event occurred during a period where UFO sightings were unusually high in the United States and such reports came from different parts of the country. Many sources cited, for instance, that from July to August of 1952 (Nash-Fortenberry UFO sighting was dated July), there were more than 800 reports, which included official Air Force official accounts of unexplained sightings over Washington, D.C. in the same month. - Darwin Naz (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I have NO DOUBT that Time Life books focused on this particular incident. I've read that (what can most charitably be called) grey literature. The authors of that series haven't met a first-hand account they haven't loved -- these are the intellectual ancestors of the producers active on the History Channel these days. The problem is that while some UFO incidents have been the focus of serious WP:MAINSTREAM consideration for their cultural importance (think Roswell, Barney & Betty Hill, or Jimmy Carter), the vast majority of them are your fifteen-minutes-of-fame types of tales. Incidentally, the reason Project Blue Book was shut down (or, at least, shunted off from public view) was because the sensationalism of these accounts made it nearly impossible to use most of them as anything but campfire stories. Even what believers hail as their "most incredible" incidents have "evidence" of such low quality that we're just left shrugging. All this is to say, we need sources better than Time Life Books. jps (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Etzel Cardeña

This guy Etzel Cardeña is basically a parapsychology crank and his article reads like promotion. He has written a bunch of papers claiming psychokinesis is real, yet there are no third-party reliable sources that have reviewed his work. In 2014 (with Dean Radin and others) he signed a nutty paper (in the notorious Frontiers Media) claiming paranormal research is scientific [14]. As reliable sources are lacking I think his article should be submitted for deletion. 80.189.126.234 (talk) 09:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, 80.189.xx. I've prodded the article. Bishonen | talk 16:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC).

Applying the "What links here" link at Etzel Cardeña and watchlisting some of them, I found this:

American Psychological Association says: "The APA has published hundreds of books.[18] Among these books are: [..] and many scholarly books on specific subjects such as Varieties of Anomalous Experience." I guess somebody can find a better example for "books on specific subjects" than a book by Cardeña and Stanley Krippner. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• My PROD was promptly removed, and the article is now at AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Etzel Cardeña. Bishonen | talk 21:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC).

London Conference on Intelligence

Emil Kirkegaard has been editing this article. Problem is that he attended this controversial conference and was involved heavily involved with it. There appears to be little to no criticism in the article, it is not neutrally written in relation to the sources. Mainstream news sources have described the conferences as far-right, eugenicist and racist [15], [16], [17]. These were not conferences promoting mainstream science. The ideas were very much on the lunatic fringe. Kirkegaard has tried to counter-balance this by adding a source written by the attendees who do not like the word "eugenics". The paper is online [18] - problem with this paper, it was co-written by Richard Lynn (a white supremacist) and a bunch of other racist kooks (Michael A. Woodley of Menie, Edward Dutton (who is associated with the Mankind Quarterly) etc.

Rationalwiki has a large run-down of the speakers at the conferences. Practically every speaker is some sort of kook associated with "race realist" community and controversial views from the far-right, alt-right, white nationalism, racism, eugenics, sexism, homophobia etc. They all seem to hold unorthodox views about "race". Toby Young attended the latest conference and ended up describing the speakers as "right-wing fruitcakes". Any ideas what should be done with this? I suggest that criticism should be added to the article, there is a false balance. Also see the talk-page for a discussion [19] Vihaan Khatri (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Anglo Pyramidologist is referring to User:Deleet who is, as it says on his userpage, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emil Kirkegaard Harassing Deleet is a hobby of AP's, he's had several socks do it. Of course he's right about this. Doug Weller talk 10:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems the conference article has become the target of a lot of sockpuppetry recently; eyes over there are definitely in order. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 22:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

If this sock harassing Deleet prevents Deleet from editing articles related to intelligence or race, then this sock is improving the project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants, but the Wikipedia party line (such that it is) requires me to remind you that matters like that should be taken up by either WP:AN or by WP:AE with a requested topic ban on the subject of Race and Intelligence for Mr. Deleet. I would do it myself, but I hate the process. jps (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, that's probably good advice. I should probably take it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

For anyone who is interested. Deleet has a sock-puppet Godotskimp who just filed a case against ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants [20]. Kirkegaard has been advertising people to help him on twitter. He is still editing articles related to race and intelligence. Examples: International Society for Intelligence Research which he spoke at a few months ago. Richard Lynn (a white supremacist who he works for), Nathan Brody etc.

As for the Intelligence (journal), a number of notable racists are involved with it [21] - Richard Haier, Richard Lynn, J. Philippe Rushton, Gerhard Meisenberg, Arthur R. Jensen etc. 89.163.221.47 (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

A topic ban on the subject of Race and Intelligence for Mr. Deleet and his sock-puppet Godotskimp would be most appropriate. 89.163.221.47 (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

IP, my comment was, in fact inapropriate. It was an off-the-cuff remark made in passing in the absolute wrong forum. Though I stand by the sentiment, this is not the place to hold that discussion. If you want to get the ball rolling, make a case (with diffs and other evidence) at WP:ANI or WP:AN. But we should not discuss this, here. I'm striking my comment above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Black Sun (symbol)

I'd like to draw more eyes to Black Sun (symbol). While this symbol has received little attention outside of Germany to date, it is becoming increasingly visible in alt-right and neo-Nazi circles (particularly in the Trump era U.S. political landscape and evidently even in some official context in Ukraine, see Azov Battalion). The article has historically propped the symbol up as "ancient", yet all indications are that the symbol was produced by a Nazi artist during the Third Reich with the intention to glorify the SS in some manner or another (it only occurs during the era on a floor mosaic at Wewelsburg). I'm working on a rewrite of the article, but in the mean time more eyes would be appreciated. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

While taking a look at this I noticed Black Sun (mythology), the core of which comes from an essay on D. H. Lawrence and his work of fiction The Plumed Serpent. Probably a candidate for AfD. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

It's pretty badly written too - ungrammatical sentences abound. Go ahead and put it to AfD. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Atlantis nonsense at Richat Structure

First added by User:IMedscaper and after its removal two IPs on 2 different continents. See my edit summary when I removed it and also Talk:Atlantis#Added "other location" Richat Structure in Mauritania, as related in film by George S. Alexander. Doug Weller talk 18:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Oops, and Talk:Richat Structure. Doug Weller talk 18:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Petrodollar warfare

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

Used to be a redirect to Petrodollar recycling which was recently reverted. There were previous AfDs but without consensus, I think. I'm not sure if this is the best place for it, but eyes welcome. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 02:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Zina Bash, OK (gesture)

• Zina Bash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• OK (gesture) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm writing this kind of in anticipation because there's not exactly an edit war here but there is concerning material relating to WP:BLP and fringe theories.

Zina Bash is being accused on the Internet by non-notable pundits of making a white supremacist gesture, one that isn't actually a white supremacist gesture but one that was invented by 4chan to make liberals look like over-reacters to banal things. See here from the ADL This is a highly harmful allegation with very little substance to it, you wouldn't mention Pizzagate on the biography of Hillary Clinton, for example.

The point is this is fringe to discuss, just like people who accuse pop stars of having Illuminati symbols in their videos. That shouldn't be mentioned on pop stars' biographies, because it's another conspiracy theory but anonymous people on the Internet. This shouldn't be within a million miles of Bash's biography (unless I am gravely mistaken), but how should it be summed up on the OK (gesture) article?

Expectedly, Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Anarcho-authoritarian, Good removal, I don't think this incident should be mentioned in the OK (gesture) at all per WP:BLP Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC being planned

Please see WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Primary_genetics_studies. Jytdog (talk) 23:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Clearly Wikipedia isn't ready for the TRUTH about black helicopters...

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#zapatopi.net --Guy Macon (talk) 00:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Fringe conservative theories about social media censorship

This is something to be on the look-out for. I've noticed that a number of editors have sought to add content falsely claiming that this or that conservative figure has been "shadow-banned", "censored" or blocked by social media platforms. In most of the cases, the claims of bans and censorship turn out to be false and/or unsubstantiated. As you may be aware of, this is a new talking point among rightwing conservatives, so we can expect more bad edits along these lines. I've encountered this type of fringe content on Diamond and Silk, Ronna McDaniel, PragerU and Shadow banning. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I've been treating some of the recent editing as a political conspiracy theory, falling under American politics sanctions. --Ronz (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not been too visible an issue, because the sourcing used for these claims is non-existent or entirely unreliable. But I've seen it, myself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Not so fast... Sometimes the shadow ban hits an engineer who understands what is and isn't evidence,[22] and sometimes the shadow ban is reported by a reliable source.[23] Of course there are also a bunch of bullshit claims of shadowbanning where there is no evidence. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that the Dilbert guy doesn't have any special insight into Twitter's search engine. Vice News did find that Twitter algorithmically limited the visibility of accounts that appeared to be engaged in trollish behavior, by removing them from the list of automatically suggested accounts that popped up in the search bar when entering a name. They didn't find that Twitter was systematically targeting conservatives, and they didn't find that Twitter was doing anything more than making these accounts ever-so-slightly less visible. Other tech journalists have disputed characterizing this as a "shadow-ban", and the claim of censorship is still a conspiracy theory that is not supported by any reliable source. Nblund ^talk 18:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

He's a Trump fan. His opinion may safely be ignored. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Scott Adams in not an engineer, as much as he likes to pretend. He has a BA and MBA and worked as a mid level manager (no idea if his hair was pointy) before becoming a full-time artist in 1995. ApLundell (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

As the years have gone by Adams has become a bit... odd. I wouldn't use him as a reliable source for anything but his own views. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

So when he says "I don’t have confirmation that Twitter is shadowbanning me. All I know is that my followers say they don’t always see my posts unless they go to my feed directly. Hundreds of people might be wrong (it happens) but the odds are against it." do you think he imagined it, is lying, or that hundreds of people are lying to him? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Could be any of those. But it's more likely to be the issue explained in the last paragraph of Shadow banning, which wasn't actually shadow-banning at all. Black Kite (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I have a hard time understanding where you ever got the idea that Scott Adams is "an engineer who understands what is and isn't evidence" when his first foray into the topic of "evidence" came with him defending intelligent design. Oh, and he's also a climate change denier. Really, he's pretty terrible on the matter of what constitutes evidence. jps (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

In a universe where non-trivial algorithms control the visibility of everyone and everything, "shadow banning" is probably too absolute of a concept to be easily defined. There's now a continuum between "Promoted" and "Shadow Banned", and everybody's on it.

For instance, what those republican lawmakers linked above are complaining about is not "shadow banning" as it's traditionally understood, they're complaining that they're not far enough to the "Promoted" side of the continuum compared to allegedly analogous democratic lawmakers.

We're probably going to see lots of increasingly wild claims about this. From anyone who's not as famous as they think they should be. ApLundell (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

There are two things going on I think. One is XKCD 1357. The other is that "conservative voices" tend to be vastly over-represented in opinion and discussion but vastly under-represented in factual reporting, for the simple and obvious reason that they are wrong. Sources don't say that climate change is a hoax, that massive tax cuts for the wealthy boost the economy, that giving people affordable health insurance is communism, because the evidence very clearly shows these things not to be true. Conservatives are still banging on about Benghazi and Hillary's emails, as if she won the election (well, she did, but you know what I mean). Guy (Help!) 20:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, you keep making that claim as if only th right promotes pseudoscience. They certainly do, but it is the left that promotes pseudoscience when the topic is GMOs, the blank slate dogma, power lines causing cancer, or nuclear power. There is plenty of bullshit on both sides if you look. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. According to Pew, Democrats and Republicans hold similar views on the effects of eating GM foods. Democrats are indeed less likely to favor nuclear power according to Gallup, but the difference is not huge (much smaller than e.g., the gap over climate change). As for the other two, I have an open mind but Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmm yes I know people part of a conservative religious cult who are very into "organic" foods... —PaleoNeonate – 06:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

There is pseudoscience on the left, but it tends to centre on diet and medical woo, which is not so much in the news. Antivaxers complain every bit as loudly about being "censored", and indeed censured (see Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network) but they have less powerful vested interests working on their behalf. The core of the complaint under discussion, as far as I can see, is the claim that neutrality must lie somewhere between what the mainstream media say and what Fox say. That is the fallacy of the false middle. So much of what "Conservative voices" say is objectively false, it is reaosnable not to give it any kind of equivalence to objective fact. Guy (Help!) 08:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• Shadow banning is when a member's contributions are entirely hidden from other members, but their ability to log in and make contributions is not affected, and they are not notified of the change in their status. This only happens on small internet forums, and the "evidence" cited by literally every single conservative mouthpiece to support the claim that they've been shadow banned completely fails to evince this. All it would take to prove shadow banning is someone taking a video of them using two devices; one to post using their account, and another with no account or possibly a sock account to prove that the posts aren't visible to others. But none of these so-called "victims" have ever done that.

The problem is not that they're being shadow-banned. It's that their contributions only appeal to a niche audience, and so the sites have declined to commercially exploit them in a way that also works to the "victim's" advantage. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, and victimization is the next step... —PaleoNeonate – 06:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

WP Cryptozoology: The Forbidden Topic...

So I've noticed for a while now that there has been a massive purge of articles from WikiProject Cryptozoology and everything related to it. Now I know that it seems around here that simply ADDING an article to the project or categories related to it seems to be a soft point for some people around here. I am not trying to start an argument but why is it that this needs to happen. Why can they not be a part of BOTH Folklore and Cryptozoology (in most cases this is correct). Adding it to the crypto category is not an avocation that the subject is real or not, it only acknowledges that it has been classified as a cryptid by some Cryptozoologists or has reports of something similar in real life. Cryptozoology is the study of animals that have yet to be verified of their existence, it may not be a legitimate science but completely ignoring reports/info on this seems very much like POV Pushing although I may be wrong. Now I'm not here to advocate for certain sides here, but it seems to me that people have forgotten/misread the guidelines of Wikipiedia around this subject. It NEVER says to ignore fringe theories all together or not show them (after all we are just an encyclopedia-type site), so completely ignoring or purging such topics seems s bit extreme an action. True, the source needs to be legitimate and I'm all for that (been an advocate for reliable sources since day 1), there should be no references from blogs on unlegitimate sites since THAT is in violation of Wikipiedia's policy. Books on the subject are very helpful and it would be a shame not to take advantage of the information they yield. I just want to know what people here think of that idea.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The problem is, and always has been, quality of sources. The vast majority of cryptid sources are basically fanfic. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

So? We have plenty of articles on made up crap.Slatersteven (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. An article based on sources that think chupacabras are real is not going to be very credible, is it? Guy (Help!) 22:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

OSE, and sometimes we have clear policy and enforcement in place to prevent more made up crap. --Ronz (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I think JzG's comment illustrates the the problem, at least, so far as there is one. People sometimes have a tendency to evaluate sources as though "reliable source" is some absolute universal quality, but of course it's not. A source written by someone who thinks chupacabra are real is very unlikely to be a reliable source for scientific facts, but may well be a very reliable source for details of the chupacabra legend and the people who believe it.

Sometimes people remove sources because they're fringe sources, which makes a lot of sense if they're being used to establish whether a cryptid is real or not, but is the wrong thing to do if they're being used to define a fringe belief or establish its notability. ApLundell (talk) 02:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Academics who discuss the subculture/pseudoscience of cryptozoology frequently comment on how common misrepresentation and deception is in the subculture. It's a hallmark of the subculture today, particularly as it grows increasingly close to, say, Young Earth creationism. Cryptozoologists are not reliable sources, even for their own claims, which require context and often involve some level of deception. There's a long history of certain users on this site aggressively pushing to inject cryptozoology sources in the project. Fortunately, this stuff is finally receiving a lot of scrutiny, and we've got guidelines like WP:PROFRINGE to keep them at bay. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I think your response may be more indicative of the problem. It is not remotely controversial to say that a source written from the perspective that sasquatch, chupacabras or Nessie is real, is not a reliable source. Guy (Help!) 08:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• I have the impression that something worthwhile for the WikiProject would be collecting a list of sources that are considered reliable about the topic (if that doesn't already exist, of course). —PaleoNeonate – 06:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
• "We have plenty of articles on made up crap." I agree. See for example most articles on category Category:Christian theology of the Bible. They are more fringe in subject matter than anything fokllorists can come up with. Dimadick (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear from policies like WP:FRIND and WP:FRINGE that coverage of a fringe theory should be based in independent sources. Books by people who believe in Sasquatch are not independent of cryptozoology, and so generally they should be used carefully, if at all. In this encyclopedia there are some quite a few articles about "made up crap", but the good ones rely on independent sources to give an overview of the topic, and less independent sources for details or specific points of view. There's only a problem when article about made up crap are sourced mostly or entirely to people who believe in that made up crap. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

There are actually adherents who do not merely make up things but adopt methods to investigate whether a source is erroneous or inaccurate. When I searched for this subject, for instance, I came across the work of Thomas Williams, who in 1985 investigated the marine cryptid Ri and found that it was a dugong (his work: Identification of the Ri through further fieldwork in New Ireland, Papua New Guinea). - Darwin Naz (talk) 23:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• It would help if you could give some examples of articles you say have been "purged" or suppressed and which editorial policies have been violated. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Give me a moment to finish my coffee and I'll get back to you.--Paleface Jack (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Just a forewarning, I might be a little bit grumpy in this message due to constantly having to deal with this issue, along with a particular user who has a habit of badmouthing edits that people do in relation to cryptozooology, regardless of whether or not the edits are legitimate. This (possibly) doesn't reflect anyone but I'll try to be as emotionless as possible. Looking at some of the comments here, it seems like some people didn't read my original post which clearly stated that I don't agree with putting "fanfic" sources into articles as they are not reliable. Secondly I NEVER stated that we should be working information to sound like something that has yet to be proven to exist to make it sound that they do. Equally bad is the rewording information on something that has no basis into biology or any pseudoscience (namely purported sightings and such that have not been proven to be misidentification, or a hoax). I can think of several such articles that were previously classified under the crypto banner that had no reason for being there. I was thinking about the "independent" sources that we are suppose to use and realized something. The amount of "independent" is minuscule at best and are not exactly done by those with a neutral standpoint (neutral standpoints are everything in science as one with preconceived notions tend to base everything on that notion, whether they advocate or detract from their opinion). I do think that if we don't at least acknowledge both arguments in the articles we are not being a true encyclopedia as this site was meant to be. If we can work together in finding neutral, independent sources that don't favor one side of the argument then we'd be in much better shape. Finally, I never saw any answer to my question on why the WikiProject Cryptozoology has been mass removed from articles. I did get BloodofFox's adamant opinion that it constituted as FRINGE but I'm not exactly sure that's the case. Not to mention that there was one reason that stated that since the sources didn't use the word cryptid (some used purported), it didn't fit with the project. I will have to take some time gathering up a few examples of this so bear with me.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Again, if you can find academic sources on the topic, we can use them. Stuff like genesispark.com or whatever Loren Coleman source you dig up isn't going to fly as a reliable source for anything on this site. Additionally, WikiProject Cryptozoology has clearly been employed by editors over the years primarily as a means of promoting fringe theories (it appears to have operated in a shamelessly WP:PROFRINGE mode since its inception). This went essentially unchecked for at least several years.

If the WikiProject is going to stick around in some form, it needs to dedicate itself to improving articles on the subculture of cryptozoology using reliable sources, not as a venue for promoting pseudoscience and fringe theories on the site. That said, the WikiProject Cryptozoology appears to be quite dead, so this discussion is evidently pointless. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Wording things a bit nicer when talking to people will go a long way BloodofFox. Although I do agree (partially) on your point. There has been kind of a tenancy to add every single source one finds, which is not helpful in establishing the legitimacy of the WikiProject. I tend to find that the "academic" sources really don't have an extensive research on the subject since they usually don't feel it's in line with what they feel is a real science (technically its not) and any info to come from it they discount. I'm still wondering if Dr. Greg Meldrum (an anthropologist) would be a good enough source for Sasquatch info...--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Of course, as academics highlight, anti-academic sentiment also happens to be a major element of the subculture. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

And everywhere else...--Paleface Jack (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I suspect that the issue may be that the pro-fringe types search for biologists, botanists, etc. to support the notability of cryptids and find nothing. And they never think to look at folklorists or anthropologists or mythographers. Whereas, the denizens of this grumpy corner of Wikipedia are disinclined to find folklorists who write about the myth of the Jersey Devil because they'd rather less of that nonsense on the encyclopedia anyway. As this is a voluntary project, whether you think it's neighbourly or not, that's entirely their right.Simonm223 (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't want this to turn into a big long argument with people insulting differences in opinions. I've had enough of that dealing with with BoF. I just want to clarify the parameters of sources since it's been severely limited by the Fringe and Profringe people. All of that aside, I find that it IS an issue finding only academic sources for Cryptozoology articles since there are so few and some that are get classified as Fringe (something that happens quite a bit). It just makes the expansion of such articles extremely frustrating when you have such a limited amount of what the Fringe and Profringe people accept as good enough sources.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

This is comedy gold. _Roxy, the dog. wooF 19:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps consider a Wikia option? This reminds me a little of Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_145#Should_the_"In_wrestling"_section_be_removed_from_professional_wrestling_articles? as in there seems to be a non-WP scope here. Of course, I don't think I have ever edited in this area. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm only trying to reach an agreement since I was told by someone experienced with these kind of antics that it was more POV pushing than anything else. Can't say I din't try though (sighs).--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

"Perhaps consider a Wikia option?" Another one? Wikia already includes Cryptid Wiki, CryptoWiki, and New Cryptozoology Tarmola Wiki. Dimadick (talk) 09:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

False memory syndrome

• False memory syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of topics characterized as pseudoscience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jane Doe case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Someone is recently adding material to related articles asserting that FMS was pseudoscience and conspiracy theory to justify sexual abuse. I've not reviewed the literature but I remember reading about it years ago and there were trials which demonstrated personnel incompetence, including using questionable therapies like suggestive hypnotherapy (pseudoscience itself), which would have caused vulnerable people to claim (or admit under possibly coercive circumstances) they were abused, causing a type of moral panic at the time. —PaleoNeonate – 06:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

False memory syndrome is a very charitable name for the coaching of vulnerable people to destroy numerous innocent lives. Guy (Help!) 08:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I think satanic ritual abuse had some of that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. In fact it was a major driver for modern study of false memories. This looks like a walled garden issue, though. Far too much emphasis given to the work of the Freyds. Guy (Help!) 10:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I remember that one. Recovered memory researcher makes a bunch of dubious claims based upon a case study of "Jane Doe" whith parents who live in "Momstown" and "Dadstown". Skeptics track down what actually happened, and it wasn't even close to what the researchers described -- some of which is directly contradicted by public records. Researcher responds by accusing skeptics of a patient privacy breach.[24][25]

Looking at the pages, one thing caught my eye. In our False memory syndrome article, is http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/res/dallam/6.html a WP:MEDRS-compliant source? I would assume that if I went through all the refs I would find other examples. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

More details: [26] Also see Taus v. Loftus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

User:WLU was highly informed about this general subject, and used to follow these articles. I don't know if anyone has reached his level since he got too busy to edit frequently. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

More suspicious articles:

• Recovered-memory therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wee Care Nursery School abuse trial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• McMartin preschool trial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Paul Shanley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--Hob Gadling (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Of course, there's a distinction between false memory syndrome and false memory - that false memories occur is overwhelmingly well supported, but the existence of a syndrome "in which a person's identity and interpersonal relationships center on a memory of a traumatic experience that is objectively false but that the person strongly believes occurred" is another matter. It's pointed out in this article that "But false memories aren’t a disease. We all have them. Having them is healthy and normal. We may not like our false memories, and they can have disastrous legal repercussions, but even in the worst cases they are still just the products of healthy brains." I think a lot of this content could simply be merged into other articles (where it isn't simply duplication of existing content). --tronvillain (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

agree w/ tronvillain--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Wee Care and McMartin are both core parts of the Satanic ritual abuse moral panic. Both of those were incidents where people were accused of (frankly bizarre) abuse of children, based on supposed "recovered memories" of adults, while the children were led to give answers the investigators wanted to hear. So less of a walled-garden, and more "these are examples of the panic in action." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

This seems to be something of a walled garden. I think we could usefully start by redirecting false memory syndrome to false memory, since the two are the same. Peter J. Freyd could also be merged to False Memory Syndrome Foundation as the "biography" is basically about his founding of that group. The biography was started by a Bonaparte sock. Guy (Help!) 07:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

A merge to a section of false memory seems reasonable. I think the "false memory syndrome" portion of the lede in false memory could probably be folded into that as well - it currently makes up most of the lede and that isn't supported by the amount of text it has in the body. --tronvillain (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm very doubtful about this claim that false memory syndrome and false memory are actually the same thing. There's no "syndrome" behind someone mis-remembering something, or even being firmly convinced that their memory of an event is the true one, even if someone else insists that they remember it differently. That's just an everyday thing.

However, it still might make sense to handle them in the same article. It might make it easier to keep the FMS content neutral. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

EmDrive again

RF resonant cavity thruster currently says:

Gravitational-magnetic-electric field interaction

A 2018 paper in “Results in Physics” by Y. Zhu a scientist in China have proposed a possible thrust from the gravitational field varied by strong magnetic/electric field. The gravitational redshift well showed that the energy of photon can be varied by gravity. From the law of conservation of energy, the energy of the gravitational field is accordingly varied by the photon. Therefore, the gravitational and electromagnetic field can be varied by each other. The equations for the interaction between gravitational and magnetic/electric field were obtained. The equations show that, the varied gravitational field could be manipulated in practice, including space propulsion.

References

Note the Results in Physics (journal) is a redlink. https://www.journals.elsevier.com/results-in-physics has more information.

[ https://retractionwatch.com/2017/12/21/elsevier-retracting-26-papers-accepted-fake-reviews/#more-53130 ] has some rather interesting information about Results in Physics as well.

And we have [ https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Isaac_Dinaharan ], where a researcher says

"I have also received rejections from Elsevier journals with an option to transfer. The journals which they suggested were recently started open access journals such as Heliyon, Results in Physics etc. Those journals collect open access fee from authors. Hence, I declined the transfer offer."'

The relevant passage in the Yin Zhu PDF cited is:

Electromagnetic and gravitational field are two very important fields. It is very significant to know the interaction between them. Eqs. (14) and (17) show that, the gravitational field could be manipulated with a magnetic or electric field just as that the electromagnetic field is done with the Faraday’s law of induction. For example, gravitational communication [31] should be possible with them. And, a GemDrive [32] could be designed by varying the gravitational field with a strong magnetic/electric field in one part of a spacecraft to produce a gravitational potential difference between two parts of a spacecraft which propels this spacecraft to move. It shall lead to use the gravitational field as used the electromagnetic one. In astronomical observation, many electric and magnetic fields are very strong. Eqs. (15) and

(18) are useful for the observation.

Ref 32 in the Yin Zhu PDF is Yin Zhu citing Yin Zhu:

[ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313315115_A_Design_of_GemDrive ] (PDF version: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yin_Zhu2/publication/313315115_A_Design_of_GemDrive/links/5895a8064585158bf6ede6d0/A-Design-of-GemDrive.pdf)

Which is "A Design of GemDrive" published in "Experiment Findings" by "Yin Zhu, Agriculture Department of Hubei Province, Wuhan, China".

Odd I thought that schools had Agriculture Departments. Who knew that provinces had them as well?

[ https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yin_Zhu2 ] tells us Yin Zhu's position at the Agriculture Department. "Manager".

BTW This contradicts [ https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=56172534300 ], which says that Yin Zhu is with the Fire Department of Hubei Province, Wuhan, China.

I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I removed that text for Wikipedia-policy reasons (separate from the fact that the "science" isn't). XOR'easter (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Not defending the source; just reiterating my comment from the reliable sources noticeboard that it's pretty common for post-graduate level academics to be CPC party members, and it's pretty common for bored CPC party members to get assigned random directorships where somebody feels having a Dr. So-and-so as the listed director will look good but where the administrative work involved in the directorship is insufficiently complicated to require specialist attention. (And I say this as someone with at least one in-law who might resemble that statement.) Simonm223 (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Hamlet's Mill

I don't know if anyone is interested in this, but it gives too much credence to "the claim of a Megalithic era discovery of axial precession, and the encoding of this knowledge in mythology."

It also for some reason leaves out the importance of numbers to the author. Jason Colavito wrote on this recently[27] saying "Hamlet’s Mill, published in 1969, is one of the foundational texts of the “alternative archaeology” movement because its writers mined global mythology to hunt out factors and multiples of 72 in order to claim that such numbers proved that world myths all encoded scientific data from a lost civilization about the precession of the equinoxes, in which the stars rotate backwards through the zodiac by one degree every 71.6 years, roughly 72 years to the nearest integer. Thus, numbers like 12, 36, 72, 432, 36,000, etc. all become important “precessional numbers” suggesting remnants of this lost science."

See also its use at Astrological age. Doug Weller talk 17:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Good catch with this. Many editors may not be aware that a fringe subculture exists around this stuff, and I've noticed a lot of archaeoastronomy pseudoscience slipping through the cracks on the site over the years. I'll take a look. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I really appreciate everyone's help here. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

An expert on the subject of conspiracy theories says...

This just in: an expert on the subject of conspiracy theories says creationism is wrong, man-made global warming is real, and the US government wasn't involved in the the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2010/feb/23/flat-earth-society

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes but the Earth is still flat. That's why I live in the Arctic, as far away as possible from the edge. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to break it to you Sunasuttuq... but you have it exactly backwards ... you live near the edge. Everyone knows that rock is heavier than water, and thus will be precipitated towards the edge by centrifugal force. The so called "northern hemisphere" has more land mass, and so is obviously nearer to the edge. (see: here for a correct map). Blueboar (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

But according to the report above "Antarctica as a ring of mountains strung around the edge." and this map, both from the Flat Earth Society, I'm at the centre of the world. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you, but everyone feels that way. Oh wait, the map, yes. Yes, you are at the center of the world. The Flat Earth Society is an unimpeachably reliably source, after all. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

"Any fool can look out his window and clearly see that the world is flat". Is not The Guardian[28] a reliable source? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps this will clear things up:[29] --Guy Macon (talk) 10:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Japan Air Lines flight 1628 incident

I just noticed an IP removing an "unreliable sources" tag from this article, which has a number of UFO sites as sources as well as "From flight plot by Bruce Maccabee" whatever that is (there's an article used as a source by this author but with a different name). Doug Weller talk 08:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

This looks to be one of the more credulous UFO articles, breathless prose cited to sources like "ufocasebook.com" and the serious-sounding but bogus "narcap.org" coupled with OR from primary sources etc. Needs WP:BLOWITUP. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Zachary King

Zachary King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

So much wrong with this article about a "former satanist". Considered just nominating it for deletion, perhaps somebody here can cut it to a policy-compliant version without removing all of the references. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I think AfD for non-notability would work (seems to be self-promotion or non-notable ministry-promotion)... The sources are either religious magazines or blogs. —PaleoNeonate – 06:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Wait, there's a Category:Converts to Roman Catholicism from Satanism? --Calton | Talk 09:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Haha, considering there'll be only one entry left, likely ready for "discussion" too. —PaleoNeonate – 11:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• Me 3, so - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachary King. Icewhiz (talk) 10:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Sunspot solar observatory

• Mysterious observatory evacuation stirs alien conspiracy theories
• Closure of NM solar observatory a mystery
• I'm Definitely Not Saying It's Aliens, But something weird is happening at a solar observatory in New Mexico

The Truth Is out There... --Guy Macon (talk) 10:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

And it's pretty mundane. Someone made a credible terroristic threat and since it is federally owned and operated, this triggers a shutdown. But the "evacuation" is also something of an exaggeration because there is no science staff at Sunspot anymore, only a caretaker and his family as they are in the long process of decommissioning the observatory. jps (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Sources, please. The story in the Albuquerque Journal appears to tell a different story.[30]

And both https://www.nso.edu/about/staff/ abnd Sunspot Solar Observatory appear to contradict your claim of "only a caretaker and his family" --Guy Macon (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm just letting you know the real deal because I have astronomy community connections. Take it or leave it. It's not surprising to me that the NSO website is out of date or that Wikipedia is wrong. jps (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Who are we going to believe, jps's "astronomy community connections", or the New York Times, Newsweek, ABC News, Science magazine, Space.com, and c|net, and dozens of other sources? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Um... nothing I wrote is contradicted by any of those sources, Guy. But time will tell. Of course, I won't expect an apology because you are never wrong. You can check our history for evidence of that. :P jps (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The Sunspot Solar Observatory has been closed for more than a week. Authorities remain tightlipped Friday, saying only that an undisclosed security concern was behind the decision to abruptly vacate and lock up the remote facility on Sept 6. Yeah, the NY Times only has this to say, and none of the other sources give any more information than that, just quotes from various people who have no idea what's going on. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Aliens? Not likely. Government overreaction? Very likely.

Sunspot Solar Observatory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There have been some attempts to sensationalize it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

There sure have been. :-\ jps (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Groan... this was mentioned on the Today Programme (UK, BBC Radio 4) this morning. Just a short passing mention, but implying that there was some sort of mystery and jokingly referring to the proximity to Roswell. They really ought to know better...GirthSummit _(blether) 10:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

—PaleoNeonate – 11:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

It's on Drudge, with the headline "UPDATE: FBI silent about sudden closing of solar observatory...", the New York Times,[31] Newsweek,[32] ABC News,[33] Science,[34] Space.com,[35] and c|net.[36]. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• Totally unrelated: 1967 UFO Encounter Immortalized as Trippy-Ass, Glow-in-the-Dark Coin by Canadian Mint. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
• Come on guys. No-one is saying it's aliens. But it's definitely aliens.

Regarding the status, the most recent announcement from the NSO says "There are approximately nine New Mexico State University and AURA staff employed at the observatory." which suggests to me a caretaker and a handful of NMSU folks. Also, Guy, that staff list covers all ten NSO sites, not just this one. Finally, their sites page says "As of 2017, the DST is no longer under NSO’s remit and is being operated by the New Mexico State University." So I think jps might well be right about this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• [37]. jps (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Categories on Elizabeth Clare Prophet

These edits added a couple of categories which I am rather dubious about. I have to doubt whether Summit University is a real "university", or whether Summit University Press is anything other than self-publishing which doesn't really merit calling her a publisher. Opinions? Mangoe (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah... Summit University doesn't appear to be a university in any real sense of the word. It "serves as the educational arm of The Summit Lighthouse, a spiritual organization based on the teachings of the ascended masters." As seen here: "Summit University® Online is a post-secondary certificate-granting institution. It confers non-degree certificates, not academic degrees" and "Our programs are organized and conducted by Summit University’s School of Theology and Spiritual Studies, and they take place almost entirely online." It seems likely that anything it publishes itself would be considered self-published. --tronvillain (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

"a spiritual organization based on the teachings of the ascended masters"

Is there a connection with "I AM" Activity, the new religious movement from the 1930s? Dimadick (talk) 10:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I have read some of her books long ago. —PaleoNeonate – 11:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

• Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) A bit of PROFRINGE edits, a bit of edit warring, a bit of discussion. More eyes would be helpful. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

This article could use a total rewrite, but the discussions on the talkpage look more like putting lipstick on a pig. jps (talk) 11:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

International Society for Intelligence Research

Could use more eyes. Specifically, does the claim from and about the society not engaging in policy belong? Doug Weller talk 17:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Ruggero Santilli and also Pepijn van Erp

Been discussed lots here.

Due to some recent likely socking, I looked at both of these carefully and revised both extensively, trying to raise source quality. Please have a look... Jytdog (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Helene Langevin

• Helene Langevin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is to be the new director of NCCIH [38]. Her article says things like "She is best known for discovering cellular and molecular mechanisms involved in the field of acupuncture." Are there such mechanisms? News to me. Our Acupuncture article says nothing about it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

It was a sentence penned by a rather notorious acupuncture POV-pusher some time back. Her actual work is much less demonstrative of any mechanistic claims (since health outcomes of that "tingly" feeling are lacking) and, because of that, somewhat more interesting than some discovery of "how acupuncture works". It's no exaggeration, however, that this line of inquiry is the absolute best hope that acupuncture believers have going for them if their goal is to turn into something like chiropractic "mixers". But because of this it shows precisely how based in wishful thinking acupuncture really is. jps (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Manuel da Silva Rosa puffery

Manuel da Silva Rosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - newest edit is just puffery, eg mentioning an IT contract he once had, suggesting he doesn't work for Duke (which he still does so far as I can tell), etc. Doug Weller talk 13:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

New SPI/possible socks on Talk:Eugenics

New editors who do not edit elsewhere, one of which has been independently identified as a sock of Mikimikev (User:Doctor Nimrod, renamed account, commented at Talk:Eugenics#No_true_scotsman as User:Richard Lynn 8.

The sole goal seems to promote eugenics as science, despite long-standing consensus. This is very disruptive and prohibits discussing any of the real issues, and has totally stalled any improvement of the article. Carl Fredrik ^talk 15:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I've watched the page (surprising I hadn't done so already). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Mantell UFO incident

Someone has added "new information" to the Mantell UFO incident article. It's a NICAP report from a ufologist named Francis Ridge, who claims to have "proven" that the object Mantell spotted couldn't have been a balloon, and essentially argues that the case is still unsolved. Someone has also removed Philip Klass's finding that weather balloons were launched in Ohio on the day of the Mantell incident. Just thought I'd mention it here in case someone wants to check and see if it looks like a credible addition. 70.145.229.162 (talk) 22:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)