Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

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

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

Article alerts

Today's featured articles

• 27 Sep 2024 – Ethics (talk · edit · hist) will be Today's Featured Article; see blurb

Did you know

• 09 Sep 2024 – Seed oil misinformation (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Dan Leonard (t · c); see discussion

Articles for deletion

• 14 Sep 2024 – Rumpology (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Piotrus (t · c); see discussion (0 participants)
• 11 Sep 2024 – Cadborosaurus (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Piotrus (t · c); see discussion (4 participants)
• 04 Sep 2024 – Ex-Muslim activism in Kerala (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Spworld2 (t · c) was closed as delete by Liz (t · c) on 11 Sep 2024; see discussion (2 participants)

Categories for discussion

• 13 Sep 2024 – Category:LGBT-related conspiracy theories (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by BlasterOfHouses (t · c); see discussion
• 01 Sep 2024 – Category:Empirical evidence (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Smasongarrison (t · c); see discussion
• 07 Sep 2024 – Category:Ethically disputed judicial practices (talk · edit · hist) CfDed by Marcocapelle (t · c) was closed; see discussion
• 07 Sep 2024 – Category:Ethically disputed educational practices (talk · edit · hist) CfDed by Marcocapelle (t · c) was closed; see discussion

Redirects for discussion

• 16 Sep 2024 – Template:MBTI Archetypes (talk · edit · hist) →Myers–Briggs Type Indicator was RfDed by Steel1943 (t · c)
• 16 Sep 2024 – Template:MBTI Cognitive Functions (talk · edit · hist) →Myers–Briggs Type Indicator was RfDed by Steel1943 (t · c)
• 16 Sep 2024 – Template:Mtbi instrument (talk · edit · hist) →Myers–Briggs Type Indicator was RfDed by Steel1943 (t · c)
• 13 Sep 2024 – Bobby Brainworm (talk · edit · hist) →Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was RfDed by Traumnovelle (t · c); see discussion
• 29 Aug 2024 – Template:MBTI Instrument (talk · edit · hist) →Myers–Briggs Type Indicator was RfDed by Paradoctor (t · c)

Good article nominees

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

Good article reassessments

• 06 Sep 2024 – John R. Brinkley (talk · edit · hist) nominated for GA reassessment by Kimikel (t · c) was closed; see discussion

Requested moves

• 09 Sep 2024 – Superseded theories in science (talk · edit · hist) move request to List of superseded scientific theories by Zxcvbnm (t · c) was moved to List of superseded scientific theories (talk · edit · hist) by DaxServer (t · c) on 16 Sep 2024; see discussion

Articles to be merged

• 14 Aug 2024 – Occultism in Nazism (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Esoteric Neo-Nazism by Piotrus (t · c); see discussion
• 30 Jul 2024 – Look-alike (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Doppelgänger by Belbury (t · c); see discussion
• 13 Jul 2024 – Peter A. Levine (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Somatic experiencing by Klbrain (t · c); see discussion
• 23 May 2024 – Thirteenth floor (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Triskaidekaphobia by Awesome Aasim (t · c); see discussion
• 03 Mar 2024 – Superstition in Islamic tradition (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Islam and magic by VenusFeuerFalle (t · c); see discussion

Articles to be split

• 08 Jul 2024 – List of common misconceptions (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by WhatamIdoing (t · c); see discussion
• 23 Sep 2023 – Witchcraft (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Skyerise (t · c); see discussion

The General Crisis

Somebody added a link to this hypothesis on European history to the Ming / Qing Transition article, where it's certainly inappropriate, but something about this article is setting off my fringe theories sense, and I'm not quite versed enough in European history to identify quite what. Eyes on this article might be good. Simonm223 (talk) 09:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Don't be too hasty: the article's first cite (viewable as a pdf if you go back a version) clearly counts the Ming breakdown as a major part of the general crisis, along with 18 other events in Asia, Africa, and the Americas. The article is not exactly FA-quality but if the subject itself were fringe I don't think Rjensen would have contributed a section. Smowo (talk) 04:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Demons in Sahaja Yoga

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

There's some disagreement about how we should handle this. From the source [Coney, Judith (1999). "Chapter 6: A woman's role in Sahaja Yoga". Sahaja Yoga – Socializing Processes in a South Asian New Religious Movement. Routledge. pp. 119–144.]:

She has attributed this loss of regard [of women] to the increasing decadence of the age of Kali Yuga and to the machinations of demons who are intent on dragging human beings to hell. However, she views the Western feminist tradition as another route to damnation, on the grounds that it has meant that women try to behave like men rather than being true to their own gender.

An editor is opposing making any mention of demons because it is apparently scandalous. More eyes welcome. Alexbrn (Alexbrn) 05:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Looking for more like-minded types here I see Alexbrn? You said it was "weird" and I'm arguing that is your primary motivation for including this from the source. I'm happy for you to create your own new section to put the founder's statements and views on demons into proper scholarly context. Including it in the section on the role on women is irrelevant and only for the sake of sensation.

All this is while you are insisting on including a quote with no scholarly discussion and deny the insertion of scholarly discussion and another quote (in context) from a scholarly source. As pointed out, your behaviour is tendentious and your are not attempting to create a balanced article but instead are engaging in a hatchet job. Freelion (talk) 05:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

As noted by Harizotoh9 when this came up here earlier this year[1], one of the problems with this page is WP:SPAs and fans trying to whitewash the topic. This is more of that, I think. Alexbrn (talk) 05:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

As noted on the talk page, providing accurate information from reliable sources is not whitewashing – it is consistent with policy. However, obstructing the provision of context in an article for the purposes of POV is bad, very bad indeed. Freelion (talk) 06:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

People can view the article history and judge for themselves which edits "provide accurate information from reliable sources". Here is your edit:[2]. Alexbrn (talk) 06:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

What is "provocative" about that quote and why is it irrelevant where she sees the source of something important? --mfb (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

And what is unscholarly about p. 122 and p. 123 ? This seems to be the same book but another edition, those two pages appear relevant. What would you consider more scholarly about the topic that should be used instead (non primary)? Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 13:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Freelion: Are you going to answer these questions from other editors? Alexbrn (talk) 13:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

In answer to PaleoNeonate, I don't have a problem with those two pages from the Coney source, in fact I'm trying to include more info from those 2 pages to provide context. The contentious part I think is the aside that Coney mentions about "Attributing the loss of respect for women to the increasing decadence of the age of Kali Yuga and to the machinations of demons who are intent on dragging human beings to hell.". It's an aside in the Coney source and secondary in importance to the point she is making about the different descriptions of the roles of women by Shri Mataji. I feel it unnecessary to include those words for the sake of "providing weirdness" as Alexbrn seeks. In any case, Alexbrn has created his own new section on demons in order to further his purposes. Shall we continue the discussion on the talk page? Freelion (talk) 04:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Cult allegations

We have have the WP:SPA trying to remove cult allegations from the article. More eyes on this would be welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 06:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:SPA?! Another mischaracterisation! All my edits have been discussed but Alexbrn is refusing to engage reasonably on the talk page. Rather he is being dismissive and pushing his own POV. As I've said on the talk page, the source Alexbrn has chosen is questionable. Furthermore the text from the source has been cherry picked and inaccurately summarised. I have removed this pending further discussion but Alexbrn is reverting multiple edits which relate to other parts of the article, without discussion. Freelion (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Most of your edits and ~100% of the edits since April have been about Sahaja Yoga. How is that not a SPA? All the edits have been discussed, you seem to be the only person who likes your edits, you keep repeating the same things over and over again to fight against well-sourced information that other people consider relevant. I can understand that Alexbrn gets tired of replying to the same stuff for the 10th time. --mfb (talk) 05:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Mapinguari

Over at Mapinguari, which I've rewritten from scratch, we've got a couple of cryptozoologist users (one invited from a cryptozoologist board) attempting to present, for example, founding figures of the subculture as simply 'zoologists'. It's the typical sort of shenanigans we see in these corners, but this article is pretty obscure and could use some more eyes. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Also note behavior like this. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Ennedi tiger

With one potential exception, currently Ennedi tiger is entirely sourced to fringe sources, all of them cryptozoologists. I'm looking to rewrite this article, but I have yet to find a single reliable source on the topic. Anyone know of any? :bloodofox: (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I've punched it through Google Scholar and the only stuff I can find are cheetahs and crocodiles (which aren't even mammals). Trying with "smilodon" didn't work either. I am wondering if this fails WP:N. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, same here. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Tagged for notability. Should this proceed to AfD? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Kundalini

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

Somewhat related to Sahaja Yoga (section above), this currently looks like a big ball of religious woo to me, based largely on primary and/or in-universe sources. There doesn't seem to be a great deal of decent secondary sourcing so not entirely sure what to do with this. Alexbrn (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't personally see it as particularly problematic. It makes it fairly clear that we're not saying "this is what happens" in Wikipedia's voice, but "this is what people who believe in it thinks happens". Any article on a religious concept is by definition going to be 'in-universe', particularly something like this that doesn't have any particular relevance to non-believers so won't have been written about extensively by anyone other than believers. ‑ Iridescent 16:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Canvassing on Facilitated Communication and RPM

I'm not sure which Wikipedia user this is - but she states she was topic banned for FC and RPM. This article was brought to my attention yesterday where (near the end) she asks for people to "step up" and mentions several AfD discussions. Including one that I had voted on which is why this article was brought to my attention. https://theaspergian.com/2019/07/10/fc-rpm-and-how-wikipedia-became-complicit-in-silencing-non-speaking-autistics/ Sgerbic (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

As one of those involved I hardly know what to say. Nor sure it is canvasing though, so much as self serving misrepresentation.Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

This is what the blog says "At this time, three articles have already been deleted, and Wikipedia editors are currently considering the following others for deletion (that I’m aware of): Tito Mukhopadhyay, a non-speaking autistic author who uses RPM “The Mind Tree”, Tito Mukhopadhyay’s second book “Autism is a World,” the Oscar-nominated documentary featuring Sue Rubin (whose page has already been deleted)

Expect more to come if no one steps up." So it isn't exactly saying "go vote in the deletion discussion" but it is pretty obvious by the statement "expect more to come if no one steps up". Just sayin' Sgerbic (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Sgerbic, see User_talk:Anomalapropos#Topic_ban. ∯WBG^converse 18:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

OMG that was something else to read. Actually I learned a lot reading the whole thread and I've been editing for years. What frustrates me so much is that the new person kept asking questions and people kept responding with policies to read. The new person is clearly confused and everything could have been handled so much better with clear explanations. I know it seems like its a time waster to have to explain over and over to someone. But in the end it would have saved a lot of time overall. Plus that one specific editor might have caught on and became an outstanding editor (probably outside of fringe topics) they clearly understand the importance of Wikipedia. Thanks for sharing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgerbic (talk • contribs) 19:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

From your description of what went on there Susan, I thought I must have been involved, but couldn't find my name on that page. But that is exactly what I do. For me to try to explain policy would be silly when I can say "read this" that's what we mean. It even has a handy summary highlighted in easy to understand language. Should I regret asking you to marry me? ;) -Roxy, the dog. wooF 21:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

That was tried, more then once.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not really a matter of misunderstanding policy, it's refusing to even consider the fact that the sciency-sounding thing they've been believing for years isn't actually scientific. If a person has been scammed into believing that a flim-flam medical procedure is legitimate, it will take more than a few paragraphs from a well-meaning Wikipedia editor to make them understand that it isn't. ApLundell (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The sentences containing the The-Aspergian author's main mistake are these:

Let’s be quite clear: the evidence did NOT show that every single message was influenced by the facilitators. It is only possible to show clear facilitator influence in a situation where the facilitator knows information that the communicator does not.

In situations where both of them have access to the same information, you simply cannot conclude with any certainty that the facilitator is influencing the message. There’s no way to know.

So, every time it is possible to say who did it, it was the facilitator. Arguing that it could have been the autistic person in the cases where it is not possible to tell is like arguing that Carl Sagan could have had an invisible dragon in his garage. Classic argument from ignorance.

And the conclusion is "I say this with absolute certainty as someone who actually read the damn studies myself: there is NO actual evidence that either FC or RPM are “pseudoscientific” or “debunked” methods." - As if simply reading something would be enough to automatically understand it! There is no "actual evidence" against Sagan's dragon either.

So, no, this person will not even be convinced that the opposition may have a point. Not by Wikipedia editors giving sound reasons, nor in any other way. Fallaciously generated "absolute certainty" prevents it. Topic ban (at least) was unavoidable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

They also state the test backwards, don't they? The usual method of debunking is for the patient to know something, but the facilitator doesn't know it. And then test to see if they can successfully communicate that information. And they never can.

The fact that this essay-writer doesn't even explain this properly exemplifies how they're fuzzy on the science and don't care. They just care about their imagined justice. (Which they ironically achieve by supporting abusers and exploiters.) ApLundell (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes page contains undebunked "Obama is Muslim" allegations

I don't have time to fix this. Can someone add RS text and clarifications to the Pipes article, noting that Obama is not in fact a Muslim, so that the page is compliant with WP:FRINGE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The article also fails to clarify that that this dude is a fringe figure. The page makes him seem like a serious and credible scholar. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I’ll start by saying I don’t know anything about this guy, first I heard his name so my initial impression could be wrong, but... Just because he expressed a single fringe viewpoint in 2008 about Barack Obama does not mean he should be described as a fringe figure. The first question would be, does he continue to believe Barack Obama was once a Muslim? Does he hold other fringe viewpoints? I definitely agree that neutral mainstream sources should be added that debunk the Obama used to be a Muslim theory.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• I've killed the entire section for now as a clear violation of WP:BLPSPS; too many of the sources there were self-published and contained claims about a third party, which means we'd need secondary sourcing. Debunking makes sense, but runs into WP:SYNTH issues unless we can find secondary sources directly analyzing what he said in particular; IMHO the proper approach when a source makes an obviously-controversial claim about a third party that has little secondary coverage to provide context or analysis is to omit it entirely or limit it to the bare minimum. It could possibly be cobbled back together into that bare minimum (one or two of the more cautiously-worded ones are op-eds rather than self-published, though anything cited to his personal website has to be left out), but with almost no secondary coverage I'm not sure it passes WP:DUE for an entire section in any case. I moved the one secondary reaction to the reactions section. For the more general question of how Pipes is characterized, we would need to find more sources first. --Aquillion (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• Good job.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Post-classical history

Should the article Post-classical history "imply" or give "any weight" to the transoceanic human contact theory based on sources about potatoes, chickens and word familiarity that some think is fringe science ?

pls see Talk:Post-classical history § Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories

.--Moxy 🍁 06:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Many WP:RS Fails Over at Talk:Thylacine#Unconfirmed_Sightings_Section:_Very_Poor_Sources (an FA-class article)

I've noticed a bunch of random Youtube videos and website declaring—in bolded comic sans—"THIS IS WHERE WE BEGAN TO BE SUSPICIOUS OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA" over at Thylacine#Unconfirmed_sightings (discussion: Talk:Thylacine#Unconfirmed_Sightings_Section:_Very_Poor_Sources). Since this particular FA-class (!) article seems to be a playground for edit warriors and pseudoscience-peddlers, I'm requesting more eyes. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Area 51

Area 51 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some new additions to article regarding the latest Internet phenomenon: As of July 14, 2019, more than 844,000 people signed up to attend the Facebook event, “Storm Area 51, They Can’t Stop All Of Us“, in an attempt to “see them aliens”. Another 740,000+ people said they were interested in the event. The spokes women of the United States Air Force, Laura McAndrews stated that government officials knew about this particular event. She stated in a press release to The Washington Post: "(Area 51) is an open training range for the U.S. Air Force, and we would discourage anyone from trying to come into the area where we train American armed forces. The U.S. Air Force always stands ready to protect America and its assets". Cited to WaPo, however IMO, this could be WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTism. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Have to agree this doesn't belong at this time. Assuming there that anything significantly really happens things may be different but that's exceedingly unlikely and in any case irrelevant to us until and unless it happens. Nil Einne (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what kind of regulations the United States miitary has. In Greece an unauthorized entry into a military facility requires its guards to shoot you first, and arrest you later (if you survive). Even military personnel have to identify themselves before being allowed to enter. Dimadick (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

And a new article Storm Area 51, They Can't Stop All of Us appears to leave out the fact that it's being treated as a joke in media coverage. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

send it to AFD. Blueboar (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Just put up for nomination. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

More eyes are needed at this new article now due to edit warring and avoidance of gaining consensus on the talk page for new edits. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

London Conference on Intelligence - looks whitewashed

Some whitewashing and something about a 2018 conference in Skanderborg is mentioned in the lead although there are no details about it in the article, there seems to have been an attempt to keep it secret. Look at this in Google translate. Doug Weller talk 13:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Patrick Moore (consultant)'s views on global warming

You are invited to participate in the ongoing discussion about whether and how to include repudiations of the fringe views of the subject of the article Patrick_Moore_(consultant). --JBL (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Cryonics

There are now two discussions at Talk:Cryonics where editors are invoking WP:FRINGE.

One is about whether or not Cryonics is a "Pseudoscience".

The other is about whether the procedure is performed on "corpses", "dead bodies", or "legally dead bodies".— Preceding unsigned comment added by ApLundell (talk • contribs) 00:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

There is a rather long discussion at TALK:cryonics which should be read as prelude here. A further difficulty is that pseudoscience and fringe science both have talk pages which apparently are not the places to decide whether practices are "pseudosciences" or "fringe sciences" (or protosciences or whatever) for purposes of WP. There is a WP:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases but it's historical. The list of things that WP considers fring science is at fringe science but discussions of the content are not at TALK but at the WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard (WP:FTN) right here. Finally, I found it. In the process of getting here, I have been accused of WP:FORUMSHOPPING and had discussions closed behind me. Thank you all for your consideration and help, there. I had a dire template about sanctions places on my TALK page about what happens if you make yourself annoying in one or more of these areas. It also does not mention WP:FTN. Accoding to protocol, it is supposed to be placed by an uninvolved Wikipedia administrator, whereas it was actually placed by an involved WP plain editor. Such regard for process! Then, I was accused of WP:COI. A nice assumption of Good Faith. And finally somebody had to mention WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in case, during my 13 years at WP, I hadn't yet seen this essay. Much appreciated.

The difficulty is that dispite discussion about pseudoscience and fringe science, we still don't have good definitions of them. If one claims one is doing science ("Behold! My water-burning engine!") but what you are doing is fraud or mistake and not science, then there is no difficulty. You can prove it right now. But if one is freezing corpses in case the future can extract memories from them, then one must know the future to judge if the idea is crazy, or even if the crazy idea counts as "science." What claims must be made, and by who?

One editor insisted that claims by a cryonics ad agency that doesn't do cryonics, count. Then insisted that claims made by a cryonics company that DID say it was doing science and then retracted the claim, should still count anyway (that idea is that "science" here is not praxis). A number of PubMed sources were hauled out, then discarded because many of the scientists had something favorable to say, and thus proved themselves unreliable, QED. No WP:RS, there. A few people (Gorski) said no laws of physics were broken, so the chances were not quite zero. How low must they be? Does Gorski know? A cryobiologist named Hendrickson had a fiece argument against cryonics from the view of work with roundworms, but this argument was with mind uploading as a route to cryonics revival. And yet WP does not regard mind uploading to be fringe-- his essay should go there. A 2002 article from the Guardian in the UK features a cryobiologist named Karlsson who says cryonics is "generally regarded as pseudoscience." This is used without name attribution in the article lede ("it's good enough for me" opined one editor). But one of Karlsson's reasons turns out to be the policy statement of the Society for Cryobiology which changed its position long after 2002, in fact in 2016. Yet editors of the cryonics article would not let the newer 2016 statement be inserted into the article. Another cryobiologist (K. Hayworth) is of the opinion that cryonics is a "theology." I have not attempted to insert this opinion in the lede as a Wiki-voice statement, on cryonics, like Karlsson's. I think it would violate some policy on not directly demonstrating WP hypocrisy by making an edit you know won't survive. Still, there is clearly a double standard at work here. As with the mind uploading and many other science-future speculation articles on WP where the "lede voice" isn't so sure of itself that the article is about a stupid practice that hasn't a chance of ever coming to pass. So-- comments? SBHarris 07:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Something can be both religious and pseudoscientific: I think cryonics fits this bill (as does, say, Reiki – categories are not mutually exclusive). We can usefully expand on the religious aspect in the article. According to our pseudoscience article pseudoscience consists of "statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual, but are incompatible with the scientific method", so cryonics fits in nicely. And more to the point, we have sources saying so. Despite the fact you have got your contacts at Alcor to edit their web site to try and help you win your imagined argument, in fact you're going to need a time machine (another possible future tech?) to erase Alcor's long form in this matter (e.g. see this statement from the Alcor president in 2004: "We are one step closer to legitimizing the science of cryonics ..."[3]). Cryonics proponents try to pass their offerings off as "science" all the time. Alexbrn (talk) 07:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

They do indeed, but they generally mean the word in its more-general and older meaning of praxis (formal science, etc). Political science, library science, Christian science, and so forth. Things never meant to trigger the moniker of "pseudoscience" (Although I once heard a college freshman, who should have known better, complaining that political and library science people were putting on airs, and should be renamed or defunded). A science is a set of techniques-- a craft not art. Since this use is very much more common in UK English, are you are from there (as is Alcor's president) I am a bit surprised you're being so slow on this point. I would be interested in statements from cryonics organizations that they are in possession of scientific facts, which the rest of the scientifically-literate world knows are actually incompatible with the scientific method-- any more than is the stuff in the mind uploading and faster than light articles, which I am going to continue to insist as my benchmarks until you treat them similarly. (As Mr. Gerard, who seems to have a philosophilcal problem with transhumanism, threatens any time to do. And yes, that would be David Gerard of RationalWiki. He hates walled-gardens and enjoys pruning back other people's. ;'p. )

Indeed, since religion is such a difficult word and broad word, there are things that religions and pseudosciences. I know (as I said) some cryonicists who believe with a reglious fervor (and I know some Democrats and GOP memebers like that, too). And there is Scientology! I'm merely asking to see Cryonics' version of the E-Meter. It should be testable (using the methods of natural science) against their claims, and their claims should fail-- much like homeopathy or energy healing. As you say. So it should have such a thing, no?

Otherwise, why can't you and WP just treat these cryonicists as poor sods with a busted hard-drive and be done with it? "I'll bet I can fix this thing" "I'll bet you can't." All that's argument is fine. The problem is when Wikipedia says flat out that it's pseudoscientific to think you even might. That's far over the top.

Finally, Ken Storey did NOT say that cryonics was a "religion." He said it was a "theology." If Storey was literally correct about that, it would hardly imply that cryonics is a pseudoscience. Theology is the study of the divine (which dispite etymology, may or may not involve god(s)). Theology is taught at academic universities. It's another of those praxis things that end with "-ology". [4] But why the hell are we treating Storey as expert and "reliable source" on ANYTHING, least of all the beliefs of cryonicists? Since it appears he has no idea the meaning of the English terms he is using. Storey seems a fine scarecrow-argument-maker, and I petition the court for him to be recognized as an expert at that. SBHarris 00:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The cryonics people cut the heads off corpses, drill holes in the skull, try to squirt antifreeze into the brain, then freeze it in liquid nitrogren. That is the reality. They describe this as "the science of cryopreserving and caring for terminal patients". If you don't think the cryonicists view is fringe, that's your right, but if you keep pushing it on Wikipedia you are likely to end up sanctioned. Alexbrn (talk) 06:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Sbharris has been forum-shopping this question to article space, in [5] - thankfully it was reverted [6], but messing about with article space to try to win a Wikipedia policy argument is definitely time to consider application of sanctions - David Gerard (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

"Thankfully, it was reverted," you say? "Thankfully"? Else the dire consequence for WP would have been WHAT?? A needed clarification of policy? It's not exactly an assumption of good faith to accuse somebody who adds a "please clarify" template to a policy statement, of "forum shopping." To me, doing that looks like the encouraged WP:BRD, as it gets quickly to a goal. In fact, it doesn't even look very bold, which the B in BRD is supposed to stand for. So, we're working on a chilling effect around all this BRD stuff, I gather? Also the templating and different rules for "pseudoscience" stuff are meant to get around WP's usual process for insertion of material, as in mind uploading? How else to explain it? Do we have any instances of mind uploading? No. Are there believers that mind uploading will come to pass? Yes. So, is it a pseudoscience to argue for mind uploading? Should we BAN them? Or just topic ban them? It's so delicious to think about banning.

Let's have a closer look at this instance, shall we? Since you brought the matter up, after all. The policy statement in question is this (no cite): "Pseudoscience, however, is something that is not scientific but is incorrectly characterised as science." To which I added . The reason is quite frankly that we need to know by whom! If a practice is characterized as a "pseudoscience" by its enemies, should they even count? Or should they be allowed to perpetrate a straw-man? Ken Storey, a critic, says cryonics is "more or less a theology." And scrubbing away the niceties of definition between theology and religion: "there is really no difference between cryonics and any other religious organization." here. Which if WP accepted his expertise on the matter, would put Wikipedia into the same category as Roman Catholicism and we shouldn't be having this conversation (if we believed Storey, anyhow). Of course, he's not content, as he's not quite sure what he's dealing with. "According to Cryobiologist Dr. Kenneth Storey, when discussing cryonics, the line between religion and science becomes blurred and rational thought processes sometimes go out the window." So don't we need the answer to that template I added? The critics don't like it, but we knew that. The advocates and practitioners have varying degrees of confidence, sometimes zero (I gave the example of J. Bedford, the first cryonics practitioner, who didn't think it would work at all). So now what?

Skeptic (U.S. magazine) which ran the Storey article above, has had opinions on baloney detection and (helpfully) how to tell science from pseudoscience (full disclosure-- I myself have in the past published a number of articles for SKEPTIC, including a very long one on HIV/AIDS denialism, which I accused of being.... a pseudoscience. That is, I took the orthodox line.) I can't quote Shermer's full article, but it is here. After giving 10 ways to help tell science from pseudoscience, Shermer says at the end that it's not always perfectly clear: Clearly, there are no foolproof methods of detecting baloney or drawing the boundary between science and pseudoscience. Yet there is a solution: science deals in fuzzy fractions of certainties and uncertainties, where evolution and big bang cosmology may be assigned a 0.9 probability of being true, and creationism and UFOs a 0.1 probability of being true. In between are borderland claims: we might assign superstring theory a 0.7 and cryonics a 0.2. In all cases, we remain open-minded and flexible, willing to reconsider our assessments as new evidence arises. Wups, Shermer thinks cryonics a bit more plausable than UFOs and creationism. So now what? Is Shermer, the expert on Skepticism, to be our litmus? Or Storey who knows about hibernation? Or Hayworth who knows about brain preservation? For this, we need a policy clarification and some people willing to put in some thought, and some words, and some citations. Not Gerard, whose idea is that BRD is forumshopping and baliff, gag all the defendent's arguments in case one makes sense.

And finally, yes, Alexbrn I know it bugs you that sometimes they cut corpses' heads off. In the 1960's it bugged people that they cut corpse's hearts out (for transplant into priviledged middle-aged businessmen). At the same time, I suspect it would make no difference at all in your arguments or complaints if they didn't. So why bring it up? It's not germaine to the main problem of whether cryonics is mutton sold as lamb. Do they lie about the decapitation? That would be important. Pseudo means something. Again, it does not mean weird as in mind uploading. "Pseudo" means that what they tell you they do, is not what they actually do. SBHarris 01:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

So you now agree that "Corpse" and "Decapitation" are the correct words? Progress. ApLundell (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing totally WRONG about them-- they just have the wrong connotation, and better terms exist. People have been resuscitating what they named as "corpses" and "dead bodies" for centuries, with better or worse success.[7][8]SBHarris 04:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

We can all agree that cryopreserving people, whether legally living or dead, in anticipation of possible future revival is a fringe idea that is only endorsed by a very few scientists. However not everything that's fringe is pseudoscientific. The San Diego Frozen zoo was established in 1972 ("At the time there was no technology available to make use of the collection, but Benirschke believed such technology would be developed in the future."). Physicist Gregory Benford endorsed the idea of a frozen "Library of Life" in 1992. Animals from some cryopreserved extinct species have since been recovered by cloning, although much of what is being collected is still being done in anticipation of future technology. The initiative was very speculative 1972, but surely not pseudoscientific because the hypothesis that cryopreserving tissue could help save species was not inconsistent with physical law and is testable over long time scales. The field of De-extinction remains controversial, but is not tagged as pseudoscience. Noted expert on fringe ideas, Michael Shermer called cryonics a protoscience, not pseudoscience, in his book Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseuodoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of our Time. If in lieu of analysis based on pseudoscience definition, we are to rely on citations of authoritative sources to make a WP article classification, wouldn't Shermer carry high weight as a source? Shermer has spent more time investigating cryonics than anyone I've seen quoted calling cryonics a pseudoscience, as evidenced by the many times that Shermer has written about cryonics, and not kindly either. Is not the cleanest way to resolve the inconsistency between the cryonics article and the mind uploading article to classify both as Protoscience? Certainly cryonics raises many more contemporary ethical concerns because people are actually paying for it, but that's separate from the intellectual status of the intrinsic idea. Would the cryonics article be classified differently than the mind uploading article if it was merely a theoretical proposition? Cryobiologist (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure Shermer is the greatest source when we have actual expert scientists giving their view. And in any case in his later book he apparently became rather more sceptical, quoting Mehmet Toner describing the idea of reviving cryonics "preserved" brains as a "ridiculous concept".[9]. Cryonics is an obvious pseudoscience and should be described as such. Alexbrn (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

That Shermer believes "it's extremely unlikely" that anyone cryopreserved to date will be brought back is the point. Despite always and still believing that it's extremely unlikely, Shermer classifies cryonics as protoscience, not pseudoscience. Did you catch that bit toward the bottom of the page you linked in which Shermer actually corrected an technical error made by cryobiologist Mehmet Toner in commenting about cryonics? Shermer knows more about cryonics than Toner, or for that matter Karlsson, (in this case knowing that higher concentrations of cryoprotectant don't necessarily form ice during rewarming) because unlike Toner, Shermer is a member of the Brain Preservation Foundation advisory board and acted as a witness and judge in the winning of the Brain Preservation Prize in which a large animal brain was structurally vitrified at cryogenic temperature. There are only about 200 people in the world who would call themselves cryobiologists (there are no degrees in cryobiology), and the number working in the field of organ cryopreservation can be counted on the fingers of one hand. If you further condense the fraction of them who have published on brain cryopreservation specifically, you might finally have a real expert on some of the issues. This raises the question: If offhand comments of cryobiologists, rather than detailed writings of philosophy of science experts who have studied pseudoscience and beliefs of cryonicists specifically (Shermer), are to be relied upon, then what if I quote cryobiogists who comment on cryonics without dismissing it? What if hypothetically there were even actual organ cryopreservation experts (not merely cell freezing experts) with sympathetic views toward cryonics? I understand that the natural inclination is to dismiss them because it's "obvious" that cryonics is pseudoscience so we only need to consider quotes that support the obvious, but what makes that obvious is precisely the question before us. Why isn't it obvious that De-extinction or Mind uploading are pseudoscience? Or even manned interstellar travel? If someone started selling $100K tickets to Alpha Centari, pledging to send one of your ancestors there, that would be ethically questionable, but it doesn't make the basic idea that people may someday travel to other star pseudoscientific even if it is very unlikely. Pseudoscientific is another level of crazy beyond that which is merely unlikely, fringe, or protoscientific. Pseudosciences like Homeopathy depart from actual physical law. Not every idea that's crazy to pursue and unlikely to work conforms to the definition of pseudoscientific. Pseudoscience isn't a general purpose pejorative for crazy ideas. Consider that if it's used that way, its clear meaning and utility will be degraded just like "weapon of mass destruction" no longer means what it used to. Cryobiologist (talk) 05:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Shermer has had some funny ideas and no relevant standing in the field, yes. As to why cryonics is a pseudoscience, I am not going to repeat myself again. Alexbrn (talk) 08:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Shermer is a leading skeptic. His opinion is relevant on issues of pseudoscience. —Wikiman2718 (talk) 12:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

So far as I can see, Shermer is a controversial and divise figure within sceptical circles. We would need some secondary sourcing to give context to anything he wrote. As it happens David Gorski (a sceptic who does have medical training) has commented on Shermer's cyronics views.[10] Alexbrn (talk) 12:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

1) I don't think that Michael Shermer is controversial as a skeptic. As far as I can tell, he is as reputable as any skeptic there is. I'd need to see some high quality sources to convince me that I'm wrong. Additionally, he is against cryonics, but he doesn't think that it is a pseudoscience. 2) Gorski argued that cryonics was infeasible, but explicitly stated that it may not be impossible. This is inconsistent with the classification of cryonics as a pseudoscience and consistent with the classification of cryonics as a questionable science. The opinions of two top skeptics now support this view. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

You would need good sources to say it's not a pseudoscience; OR and synthesis don't work here. Pseudosciences don't need to be "impossible" (see acupuncture, ghost hunting, etc.) Alexbrn (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Pseudoscience needs to be impossible or disproven. If he said it is not impossible, that fits Wikipedia's definition of questionable science rather than pseudoscience. That's not OR or syntheses. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 13:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Now you're just making stuff up. Many pseudoscientific propositions simply cannot be disproven. Let's follow the sources rather than failing logic. Alexbrn (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Pretend for a minute that nobody ever started freezing anybody. What if instead an Ivy League neuroscientist just speculated that if a preservation method good enough to preserve the neural connectivity of the brain could be developed then that might be sufficient for future revival of that brain. Then what if a top expert in organ cryopreservation published a paper in the journal Cryobiology, the actual journal of the Society for Cryobiology, showing that this could be done in mammalian brains. He/she would even show that it could be done in large brains, completely avoiding ice formation in the process. Any expert opinions, whether prior to or in ignorance of this work, expressing skepticism at the possibility of such preservation would be rendered irrelevant. Like Mind uploading, some transhumanists then begin to speculate whether human brains preserved by such or similar methods could be "uploaded" or otherwise revived in the future, consistent with what the Ivy League neuroscientist originally said. In this hypothetical scenario nobody is actually being cryopreserved. People are just speculating, proposing the idea. Is the pure idea of cryopreserving brains with contemporary technology and scanning/uploading or reviving them in the future, as just an idea, intrinsically pseudoscientific? Was it pseudoscientific from the moment the Ivy League neuroscientist first proposed it? If so, then why isn't Mind uploading as an idea also tagged as pseudoscientific? Can we agree that as a matter of philosophy of science that if an idea is proposed that's consistent with known physics, especially if proposed by noted scientists and supported by experiments by other noted scientists, that this by itself is not pseudoscience? What people do in the name of an idea, and charge large sums of money for, is a philosophically separate question. It's the difference between a scientific conference on exobiology and a UFO convention. Cryobiologist (talk) 01:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Breathwork

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

Hi, My edits are constantly being reverted on the above article by a specific user. In his last revert he claimed that the Cochrane review source I used did not was not related to the article. The review was of Yoga "Pranyama" (breath control) techniques. Breathwork is the new age term for "Pranayama" and so they are the same thing. He did not know this and reverted my edit (again).As I pointed out to him I don't believe that he has sufficient knowledge on the topic to be able to add any meaningful contributions to the page. Please review the talk page on the Breathwork article for more details. Can I please get an admin to take a look. Thanks Darwin3881 (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I think you would be more successful if you first tried to write some prose which fairly summarized the Cochrane Review you are trying to include. Essentially, the review only sees "psychological benefit" which is to say that there is no evidence for physiological or immunological benefit beyond those that correlate with improved mental well-being. Also, realize that this article is on a broader class of ideas than just those of pranyama. Certainly pranyama is a prominent form of breathwork. jps (talk) 11:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, and our Breathwork article is a bit of a composite, focussing on the ultra-woo Reichian-like strands of breathwork (not something Cochrane concerns itself with). Pranayama is a different article again (less woo-ish woo). Alexbrn (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Robert Schoch

Can people comment either here Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Robert Schoch or on the article talk page about the issues raised, remembering it's a BLP. (Please don't comment here as a split discussion will just be confusing.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Sphinx Water Erosion Hypothesis

This report is in reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphinx_water_erosion_hypothesis and sub-reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard?fbclid=IwAR3MJbZ9DGOCcx2a8fuHnJJbpgsMa5Ladws-lQv-T8JitJ4icoXawy-Dfgg#Robert_Schoch

This content of this page is being used to justify the term "fringe theory", which is a pejorative term to prejudice readers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_theory)

The content of this page is misleading in inaccurate, yet it is being used an internal reference to label the work of Dr. Robert Schoch as "fringe claims"

Incorrect/misleading claims made on this page

1) Hawass replied: "Of course it is not possible for one reason …. No single artifact, no single inscription, or pottery, or anything has been found until now, in any place to predate the Egyptian civilization more than 5,000 years ago. Response: The iconography of a couchant lion/ess clearly predates dynastic Egypt and can be found in protodynastic grave goods in Abydos in tomb Uj and B 1/2 (see Dreyer/DAI)

2) A different argument used by Egyptologists to ascribe the Sphinx to Khafra is the "context" theory, which notes that the Sphinx is located in the context of the funerary complex surrounding the Second Pyramid, which is traditionally connected with Khafra. Response: Were the hundreds of mastabas in the western and eastern cemeteries of G1 made in the "Khufu context" during the time of this king? No. By far most date to much later times and from the 103 mastabas made during Khufu's time, most stayed empty. The context theory has us believe that adjacent monuments must have been built in the same time. Far from!

3) Apart from the Causeway, the Pyramid and the Sphinx, the complex also includes the Sphinx Temple and the Valley Temple, both of which display the same architectural style, with 100-tonne stone blocks quarried out of the Sphinx enclosure Response: Where in Schoch's model does he dispute that the temples and Sphinx were made in different times? On the contrary.

4) A diorite statue of Khafra, which was discovered buried upside down along with other debris in the Valley Temple, is claimed as support for the Khafra theory. Response: This sort of evidence is actual fringe. Intrusive burials and usurpation of statuary are well known in ancient Egypt.

5) Reader agrees that the Sphinx Temple and Valley Temple are closely associated with the Sphinx, as is the Causeway and even part of the Khafra Mortuary Temple, but suggests this evidence merely indicates these structures also predate Khafra and does not link the Sphinx in any way to Khafra Response: The only link between causeway and temples is the drain channel from causeway into the Sphinx ditch. The inference is that the causeway came before the Sphinx. What is being left out here completely is what Melinda Hartwig, Rainer Stadlemann, and others have long noticed: The causeway avoids the Sphinx suggesting it came later. This debate in other words hinges on the drain channel versus the strange direction of the causeway.

6) Rainer Stadelmann, former director of the German Archaeological Institute in Cairo suggests Khufu, Khafra's father, was the builder of the Sphinx [20] and contends Khafra's Causeway was built to conform to a pre-existing structure which he concludes, given its location, could only have been the Sphinx.[12] Lehner's official website also offers a similar argument based on an Archaeological sequence of structures built in the area. Lehner points to the way several structures in the area incorporate elements from older structures, and based on the order in which they were constructed concludes that the archaeological sequencing does not allow for a date older than the reign of Khafra. Response: No. This is incorrect. Lehner like Lacovara believe the causeway came before the Sphinx because the builders would not have made a drain channel for rain run-off to flow into the Sphinx ditch. Lehner and Stadelmann are at odds. If Stadlemann is correct, the entire Khafre Theory built on "context" collapses.

7) Hawass points to the poor quality of much of the Giza limestone as the basis for the significant erosion levels. He has concluded, from the present-day rapid rate of erosion on the Member II surface of the Sphinx, that "[t]he eleven hundred years between Khafre and the first major restoration in the Eighteenth Dynasty, or even half this time, would have been more than enough to erode the Member II into the deep recesses behind Phase I restoration masonry" Response: Modern day erosion is distinct from the erosion of the Sphinx and its enclosure. Modern day erosion is caused by salting which has two main causes" rising ground water and air pollution. Salting is a modern era process which cannot explain the vertical erosions. For reference see: http://www.stone.rwth-aachen.de/limestone_cairo.pdf

8) Peter Lacovara, an Egyptologist and curator at the Michael C. Carlos Museum at Emory University, Atlanta, assigns "some of the erosional features" on the enclosure walls to quarrying activities rather than weathering, and states that other wear and tear on the Sphinx itself is due to groundwater percolation and wind erosion Response: Wind erosion does not cause vertical channels, where is the proof of this? Where is Lacovara's photographic evidence of wide-spread quarry marks in the vertical erosion channels of the enclosure walls? Why is this process not seen on the walls of the mastaba of Kai and Khentkaws and the rock-cut tombs on the west end of the central field? Where are the positive and negative controls for this opinion?

Omissions: 1) Schoch states that other structures and surfaces on the Giza Plateau are made from the same band of limestone as the Sphinx enclosure, but they do not show the same erosion as the walls of the Sphinx enclosure Response: Specifically, the rock-cut tombs at the west end of the central field and the mastabas of Kai and Khentkawes for example. Same rock, different decay.

2) The seismic refraction data collected by Thomas Dobecki and Robert Schoch which corroborate the Water Erosion Model of the Sphinx.

3) Textual evidence of an older Sphinx: Seyfzadeh, M., Schoch, R. (2018). The Inventory Stele: More Fact than Fiction. Archeological Discovery, Vol.6 No.2, PP. 103-161. Seyfzadeh, M., Schoch, R., Bauval, R. (2017). A New Interpretation of a Rare Old Kingdom Dual Title: The King’s Chief Librarian and Guardian of the Royal Archives of Mehit. Archeological Discovery, Vol.5 No.3, PP. 163-177.

Conclusion: This entire page was stitched together based on incomplete and inaccurate information by editors who do not know the details of the evidence. Yet, the "fringe" label is being used right at the top to bias readers from the get-go against a model they are thus not allowed to evaluate on its scientific merits, but based on opinions by those we are supposed to trust, the scholars. If there is a fringe standard satisfied here, it is being presented by the other side, the trusted scholars. This page, in turn, is then used to label Schoch's claims as "fringe".

This is what should be done: If Wikipedia cannot procure an adequate evidential base for this page, then drop the "fringe" label. There is absolutely no need for it and it only reflects poorly on the higher level editors whose ostensible intention then appears to be the squelching of an honest debate out of the gate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.237.169 (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

"Fringe" means that it is a view or theory that is dismissed by mainstream experts.

Whether or not those experts are correct is not something Wikipedia is interested in debating. As an encyclopedia, our job is to document what mainstream experts think about a topic. ApLundell (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Response: No that's not how the editors are using fringe. By your definition, Rainer Stadelmann, Vassil Dobrev, and Melinda Hartwig all support fringe theories since they don't agree that Khafre built the Sphinx. The term "fringe" is purposefully used to taint contrarian evidence and prejudice readers. If Wikipedia is not interested in debating who is correct then why is Wikipedia taking sides by applying labels to positions taken in a scientific debate? Makes no sense.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.237.169 (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Please make sure to sign your posts. Also see WP:FORUMSHOPPING (while this noticeboard is appropriate for the topic, this is also already at WP:BLPN). —PaleoNeonate – 22:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

British Israelism

Don't know if this is the right place but British Israelism. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Nudge squidfish/twinkleoptions

User talk:Nudge squidfish/twinkleoptions (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

In the very least, WP:NOTHERE. -LuckyLouie (talk) 02:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Page CSDd and user reported at WP:ANI, —PaleoNeonate – 23:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Race & Intelligence

See Talk:The 10,000 Year Explosion#Pattern of edits where an IP is saying that User:Grayfell's edits are attracting (inadvertently) supporters of the hereditarian perspective. An eye on recent edits by the IP at Henry Harpending would be useful. Doug Weller talk 17:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

As I've said elsewhere on that talk page, this editor has a history of baiting controversy in support of human biodiversity pseudoscience, and has actively taken advantage of their shifting IP address to create confusion. This editor has a self-declared, mild conflict of interest with Michael Woodley, who is part of the same walled-garden of racialist hardliners as Harpending. More attention to these articles is always welcome.

For background, the IP has repeatedly implied that my edits to Gerhard Meisenberg got Meisenberg fired from his school, but the IP has nothing to back this up with other than apparent first-hand knowledge. The article has always mentioned, since before my participation, that Meisenberg's journal, Mankind Quarterly, is widely regarded as racist pseudoscience. The journal's abysmal reputation is undeniable, and its most fierce apologists would have us see it as a badge of honor. Meisenberg, by the way, created multiple sock puppet accounts to edit his own article and post long-winded screeds at Talk:Mankind Quarterly about the nefarious "political agenda" of mainstream science, etc. I don't think this is the same as the IP (although I could be wrong), but it's still one of the many problems these articles have faced. Grayfell (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Is it OK to describe a 9/11 conspiracy theorist as such in Wiki voice?

There is a dispute about this on Abby Martin. See[11]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• Additional background: Ms. Martin's previous support for 9/11 Conspiracy Theories is well-documented in the body of the article. The contention seems to be whether her now-disavowed support requires mention in the lede. She was not widely known for her 9/11 views, nor was she especially well-known in the movement itself, afaik. Eaglizard (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• If the high-quality reliable sources (particularly multiple reliable sources) clearly describe a person as a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, and there is no conflict in the reliable sources on this point, then yes, of course that descriptor can/should be stated (and appropriately cited) in the encyclopedia's own voice. Neutrality^talk 23:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• The question here doesn't seem to be whether "it's okay", but whether this person's past affiliation with 9/11 groups is relevant enough to her reasons for notability to put in the article lead. Since the section on 9/11 conspiracies is just a tiny portion of the article, it doesn't seem like it's worth devoting one of the 3 sentences in the lead to discussing it. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• Before you made your comment, another editor had removed a bunch of content from the body of her article about her 9/11 Truther past. Her past in the 9/11 Truther movement is the largest section of the body, with the exception of her criticism of the Russian annexation of Crimea. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oh, I should've looked at the page history. Still, the even before the removals, the 9/11 section isn't very long relative to the whole article. I think the point I was trying (and failing) to make is that the dispute on the talk page seems to be whether to include language about her time as a 9/11 truther in the lead, rather than whether she should be called a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• In the lede? Not unless other biographies do. In the body, as a former and repudiated one? For sure. Guy (Help!) 14:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Daniel in the lions' den

This is about [12]. Source seems pretty WP:FRINGE and WP:SPS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Quick comments. I briefly reviewed both those two sources and, perhaps more relevant, the source used in the main WP article on Daniel, re historical versus legendary. Short version: I don't see any evidence to treat vision.org as a reliable source. My Jewish Learning on the face of it looks slightly more robust BUT there are other issues - the cited source there is firstly, an extract from a book not written for the website; and the source is actually rather complex - it appears to be indicating that there are historical figures called Daniel, but does not clearly state that the Daniel of the biblical story is a specific one of those historical figures; indeed it seems to (rather indirectly) imply the opposite. In contrast, the cited source for the main claim that scholars agree that Daniel is not a historical figure, offered in the WP article on Daniel, does indeed say exactly that: "it is the consensus of modern scholarship that this Daniel never existed". So I think the edit in Daniel in the lion's den is not appropriate and should be reverted. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Fringe science - who decides?

• Talk:Fringe science#Who decides? —PaleoNeonate – 06:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yet another manifestation of the cryonics forum shopping going on (see above Cryonics section). Alexbrn (talk) 08:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Seed cycling

Seed cycling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Most of the sources are about menstrual cycles in general and not about "seed cycling". However, there's enough search results that I don't feel comfortable AFD-ing based on notability. Thoughts on how to repair this article? power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

International Conference on Cold Fusion

• International Conference on Cold Fusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This has large numbers of references to New Energy Times (newenergytimes.com), which is definitely not a WP:RS. I propose to remove these references unless anyone objects. Guy (Help!) 14:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Yonaguni Monument

See recent edits and talk page. I don't have the energy or time (new young dog) for this. Doug Weller talk 14:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

There is a chapter here and a podcast that might help? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I will try and make time for this. Unfortunately, the watchlist tag somehow got unchecked and I have been totally oblivious to all of the editing and talking that has been going on. Paul H. (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

A new, open access book is Archaeology of the Ryukyu Islands: A Regional Chronology from 3000 B.C. to the Historic Period by Richard Pearson, 2018, University of Hawai'i Press. Paul H. (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

More Jesus in India stuff from a new editor

This[[13] is totally undsourced, (and copied from a 2005 source, the "Academic Kids Encyclopedia"[14] whose contact, about, and discliamer links take you to blank pages. Its home page was updated in 2013. A new article, Mai Mari da Ashtan has no sources at all. Some of it is copied from here or [15] and I've deleted it. I also reverted User:Medz here[16] today. Doug Weller talk 10:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Any Russian readers? Need help evaluating new source for Dyatlov Pass article.

An interesting theory has been added to the Dyatlov Pass incident article.

Apparently it's possible that "Arctic Madness" contributed to the accident. It's sourced, but given the article's tendency to attract wacky theories, I'd appreciate it if someone familiar with Russian could evaluate the reliability of the source.

Thanks. ApLundell (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Who is that guy? Google translate of the article just describes him as "a resident of Nizhny Tagil" - not as an expert in anything. --mfb (talk) 22:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Israel Shamir

Talk:Israel Shamir#RFC: should we include claims by Shamir that he was a paratrooper and worked for the BBC and Haaretz which originate from his personal website could interest this board.Icewhiz (talk) 05:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Graeme Park ghosts

Graeme Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It strikes me that the existence of ghosts must be the longest running fringe theory around. What is a ghost any way but a dead person walking or flying around who(?) can't be observed by any normal means?

In any case I usually delete ghost stories attached to articles on historic houses. Quite often these seem to be promotional material for "ghost tours" (at $40 per ticket in this case). Sources can exist, e.g. in local newspapers, but often they have their tongues firmly in cheek or are simply promotional.

The specific case is here. Would somebody take a look at this and revert the reversion if I'm not mistaken that the existence of ghosts is a fringe theory?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 11:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done The source is a local news story concluding with a promotion of a $40 ghost tour. Citing a huge section of text to such a poor quality source is WP:UNDUE. -LuckyLouie (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Fresno nightcrawler

Fresno nightcrawler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article claiming alien creature seen in Fresno, CA — cited to a crowdsourced website called Odyssey online and The Sun tabloid. Likely an AfD candidate? - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fresno nightcrawler. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The REAL reason

The REAL reason for the Iraq war? Saddam Hussein 'had stargate portal to alien world' --Guy Macon (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Lipozene

Our Lipozene article need some attention. This fat burning pill is heavily advertised on TV with claims like...

• Clinically proven to help you lose weight!
• Still eat your favorite foods.
• No change in exercise required.
• Numerous studies have proven that the active ingredient in Lipozene will help you lose weight.

...but the fine print says "RESULTS NOT TYPICAL. ENDORSER USED LIPOZENE IN COMBINATION WITH DIET AND EXCERCISE AND WAS RENUMERATED". --Guy Macon (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Cleaned up the junk, and after that it was apparent there's nothing distinctive about this brand of supplement (in comparison to the many other Glucomannan supplements). Have redirected to Glucomannan. Alexbrn (talk) 07:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that was the right move. With the exception of the statement that Lipozene was a branded version of Glucomannan made by . . .whoever, the remainder of the content was actually about generic glucomannan, not specifically Lipozene. Agricolae (talk) 07:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Yup, I considered rescuing that nugget of info, then decided it was probably undue (why name one supplement?) Alexbrn (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)