Jump to content

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Knuteson (talk | contribs)
70 edits
Line 440: Line 440:


: I find it ... interesting ... that a brand new editor would be able to create a properly formatted article after 5 days and ten edits. The rest of his posting history ( {{userlinks|Knuteson}} ) is also ... interesting. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 23:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
: I find it ... interesting ... that a brand new editor would be able to create a properly formatted article after 5 days and ten edits. The rest of his posting history ( {{userlinks|Knuteson}} ) is also ... interesting. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 23:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

::What exactly are you implying? [[User:Knuteson|Knuteson]] ([[User talk:Knuteson|talk]]) 00:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:04, 1 November 2019

"WP:FTN" redirects here. For nominations of featured topics, see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates.
    Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
    Shortcuts
    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:

    To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    Article alerts


    Categories for discussion

    Featured article candidates

    Good article nominees

    Requests for comments

    Peer reviews

    Requested moves

    Articles to be merged

    Articles to be split


    DISC assessment

    DISC assessment seems to be based on a number of questionable and irrelevant sources. I suspect that this page has been amped up because one of the companies used as a source is actually a vendor of a software product based on this obsolete theory in psychology. --Salimfadhley (talk)

    Ivar Lovaas

    Check this guy out. This is what his article looked like before I got there. Lovaas beat autistic children and shocked them with cattle prods in attempt to make them "normal". He reported great success, finding that 47% of autistic children became "indistinguishable from their peers" and their IQs even went up. However, all this is based off one study. The study contained fewer than thirty people, and he didn't even bother to randomize his trials, which allowed him to put all of the kids that were destined to improve in the treatment group and those that were not in the control group. He did basically the same thing to gay people too. He also claimed to have cured the gay children, and he presided over a bunch of gay conversion clinics, some of which are still in use today. Even though his claims were thoroughly debunked, they are cited as facts by his supporters, which even include a former US general surgeon. His methods are still in use today (but adapted to be legal), and form the basis for most early autism interventions.

    Lovaas always said that his interest in psychology was inspired by the nazis. It shows. This is going to take some major clean-up.

    Note-- The article has been reverted to its previous state by User:Alexbrn. Here is the pre-revert version.

    Relavent article

    There are likely more articles affected by this problem. If you find them, feel free to edit my comment and add them to the list.

    Related reading

    --Wikiman2718 (talk) 01:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks to be some really suspicious sourcing forming the backbone of the Lovaas article, an "essay" by Kathleen P. Levinstein and stuff from "The Sun" magazine. Presumably this will get removed if the article is improved. Alexbrn (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If you must continue to oppose everything that I do here, go ahead and challenge it. Maybe you would prefer that we relied more heavily on this source. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Err what? I didn't check the edit history, just the article - I don't suppose any watchers of this noticeboard want poorly-sourced articles. Just looking now, rather than being some kind of Nazi kook, it seems decent WP:MEDRS sourcing rather supports Lovaas's work, e.g. PMID 21464190. So why is this at WP:FT/N? Alexbrn (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That paper found that his studies were "limited by methodological concerns", which is a polite way of saying "completely invalid". In article citations conclude that his research is so flawed that no conclusion can be drawn. Regardless, the article doesn't even doubt that his methods can alter autistic behavior. It simple gives due weight to the question of whether or not we should. That you have chosen to stand up for this guy is proof that you will oppose me on everything I do.
    Now, if you don't mind, I'll be AFK for some real life things. Don't reach any kind of consensus without me. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think people will take you seriously if you recommend we read something from the Fail? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    More tag teaming by User:Roxy the dog. You two had better give it up, or I will take the pair of you to ANI for harassment. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a good point: Recommending the WP:DAILYMAIL at this noticeboard is an ... interesting approach. Alexbrn (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It certainly would be, it I had recommended we cite it in an article. But seriously-- are you two even pretending you aren't a tag team at this point? --Wikiman2718 (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a noticeboard fgs. You know, where people post things for other people to read. Yes? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 22:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m just saying. When I see one of you, I can bet I’ll see the other. Alexbrn decides to join the Third Reich, and Roxy the dog is right behind. I can’t imagine why— unless it’s because of their stance on animal rights. —Wikiman2718 (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    They're both regular posters on this noticeboard. Maybe there is some sort of conspiracy going on, but this thread isn't evidence of one. - MrOllie (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s not their having posted that’s suspicious— it’s their stance. These two would stand up for the fringe research of a wanna-be nazi just because I am pushing against it. If you want to see a great example of editing to hold a grudge, check out the talk page of cupping therapy. —Wikiman2718 (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh dear, it's all gone full WP:GODWIN. I had a quick look at this "nazi" thing and see some problems in our article. It says Lovaas was a "farm worker" in the 1940s, and that he "often said that the nazis had sparked his interest in human behavior". Yet from the source[1] it seems he (aged 13 in 1940) and his whole family were forced to work on a farm by the nazis during the occupation of Norway, and this is the context in which his interest was sparked (the source also says Lovaas thought "he could have turned Adolf Hitler into a nice man had he gotten him to UCLA by age 4 or 5"). Incidentally, it's a problem that sections of the source are copy/pasted verbatim into our article, let alone that this is done out of context in a way which spins the source.

    It seems to me the fringe problem here might be in Wikiman2718's stance towards this topic, rather than the topic itself, for which there appears to be plenty of sober RS (e.g.[2] - from which it seems Wikipedia is buying into the popular press "oversimplification" of his work, even going to far as to include copyright pictures from a sensational piece in Life magazine which this obituary mentions was seen as misrepresenting his work). The whole thing savours of WP:RGW. Alexbrn (talk) 04:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    There was never any accusation in the article or on this talk page that Lovaas was a nazi. However, it is well-verified that he did say his interest in psychology was inspired by the nazis. That "sober" source you cited is an obituary-- a complete whitewash of his life. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 04:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You wrote: Lovaas always said that his interest in psychology was inspired by the nazis. It shows. [my emphasis]. When it seems in fact his interest inspired by the nazis was how to stop such human behaviour. The article should make this clear. Your calling his obituary a "a complete whitewash of his work" rather shows you have a POV here, and by golly have you pushed it in the article! Alexbrn (talk) 04:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That statement you quoted is from this talk page, not the article. Stop trying to confuse the issue. I have already shown that his research is debunked, both in the article and on the talk page. Your attempt to show otherwise only added to the evidence. And that's not even to mention the inhumanity of the whole thing. Do you think it's a good idea to use electric shocks to change kids behavior? Because that's the POV you're endorsing. The guy also did experiments in gay conversion therapy, but the way. When homosexuality was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, he objected and proposed that it be returned there. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 04:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, so you admit you were implying he was a nazi on this page: progress. ABA seems a bad idea: a lot of that work is now discredited and of course Wikipedia needs to be plain about that. But that is not the point here. As Wikipedia editors it is not our job to have POVs and parade them in articles. What you have done with this article is turn it into a crude hit piece which fails to capture what decent RS is saying (and there is plenty of decent RS). Alexbrn (talk) 04:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol. I specifically stated that he was not a nazi. Just inspired by them. Please stop trying to misrepresent me. The article is reflecting the reliable sources-- not the WP:PROFRINGE nonsense that you would have us add. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 04:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Facepalm Facepalm So what were you referring to when you wrote "the fringe research of a wanna-be nazi"? Alexbrn (talk) 04:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    He is a wanna-be nazi in the sense that his research resembles theirs in its brutality. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 04:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Riiiiight. At this point I'm going to disengage and hope other editors can step in (if they can bear to follow the above). Alexbrn (talk) 04:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Rewind

    In view of the sensationalism, source misrepresentation, original research and copyright violation I'm seeing, I have performed a major rewind[3] of this article back to a prior state. I dispute the POV approach Wikiman2718 has taken. More eyes welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 05:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The article now promotes his debunked fringe claims as truths, and makes no mention of his physical abuse of autistic children or his involvement in gay conversion therapy. Nice job, Alexbrn. I'm putting together an ANI report against you tomorrow. This harassment has gone too far. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 05:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. with regards to the free use photos, you have no right to delete them before I have a chance to rectify the error. --Wikiman2718 (talk)

    Effective Altruism

    Relevant discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Template:Effective_altruism - more eyes needed from outside the EA/LessWrong/transhumanist subcultures - David Gerard (talk) 08:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Just curious why this would be considered a fringe theory? I've seen the name come up here and there and just read the article, and while I'm seeing a criticism section, nothing there makes me think fringe theory. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The name sounds good, but the subculture of that name is heavily linked to the LessWrong rationalist and transhumanism subcultures, and "EA" the subculture keeps assessing "give all your money to avert Roko's basilisk" as an incredibly valuable charitable endeavour - David Gerard (talk) 07:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to trigger a long discussion, but I think it's important to point out that David's claims are simply untrue. The subculture of EA is not "heavily linked" to the LessWrong rationalist and transhumanism subcultures. The EA movement came into being when Giving What We Can was created by two Oxford professors, Toby Ord and William MacAskill. Several other individuals (Peter Singer, Nick Bostrom, and others), organizations (GiveWell, The Life You Can Save, and others) and internet forums (LessWrong, Felicifia, and others) were also influential. No effective altruism organization or prominent effective altruist has ever said "give all your money to avert Roko's basilisk" or anything remotely like that. To learn more about what causes effective altruists support, you may want to take a look at the latest version (2018) of the Effective Altruism survey. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 12:43, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Your claim is trivially false, in a WP:RS no less. The mosquito nets/AI-risk dialectic is extremely well documented. EA is saturated with fringe elements from these subcultures, which is why it's 100% on topic on this noticeboard, and the promotional tendency of the subculture completely fits that mould - witness the EA advocate who just literally claimed in the linked discussion that me not being an EA advocate constituted a conflict of interest. Claims that the weirdy bits don't exist or are unimportant are understandable, but don't match documented reality - David Gerard (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    David, your original justification for characterizing effective altruism as a fringe movement was that EA "keeps assessing 'give all your money to avert Roko's basilisk' as an incredibly valuable charitable endeavour." In my comment, I pointed out that this claim is simply untrue: the quoted passage does not remotely describe the views of any EA organization or prominent EA; it is a complete fabrication. By way of reply, you point us to a Vox article by Dylan Matthews that in no way supports that remarkable allegation. The phrase 'Roko's basilisk' doesn't appear at all in the article, and nowhere is the view that one should give all one's money to avert "Roko's basilisk" discussed or referred to, let alone attributed to the EA movement.
    As for the person "who just literally claimed in the linked discussion that me not being an EA advocate constituted a conflict of interest": the user in question never accused you of having a conflict of interest, nor did he object to your not being an EA. This is what he said: "Being the original author and an ongoing maintainer (1, 2 3, 4) of the snark-article on this topic in a famously non-NPOV wiki makes you an advocate on this topic, and it seems disingenous to pretend otherwise." Pablo Stafforini (talk) 02:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "It doesn't agree with my personal world view" doesn't make something fringe. The article doesn't discuss Roko's Basilisk at all. An existential risk from AI is something different, and it is certainly not a fringe view. --mfb (talk) 08:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    From looking at some sources I don't think EA can be classed as fringe. However, it does look like our article suffers from some POV issues: from reading it (and especially the lede) one doesn't get the impression - which I got from RS - that this movement is seen as in some senses problematic. Our articles packs the criticism away in a WP:CRITS at the end of the article, a hallmark of POV. To get a flavour of what I'd be expecting to see in a more neutral article, see https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12176 (which is cited, but not in a way which brings out its argument):

    [While EA is] understood as broadly welfarist, consequentialist, and scientific in its outlook, the movement is vulnerable to the claim that it overlooks the importance of justice and rights, is methodologically rigoristic, and fails to isolate the activities likely to have the greatest impact overall. In most cases, I have shown that effective altruists are able respond to these objections, though sometimes this would mean changing their modus operandi in significant ways.

    Alexbrn (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter Fenwick (neuropsychologist)

    Article takes the stance that Blackmore's reasoning is wrong, because someone disagrees with it. Should it? Does anybody here know more about this? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Original research and undue. I have removed it. 81.147.137.6 (talk) 12:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Reincarnation

    Could some editors please take a look at the Reincarnation article? I think that much of the last couple sections seems quite credulous, and for instance they also contain semi-approving statements cited to Carl Sagan and Sam Harris which I doubt are a complete or accurate summary of their views. Sunrise (talk) 05:49, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Reincarnation#Academic research into claims of reincarnation is pretty bad, but Ian Stevenson#Support is even worse.
    (I used to believe in reincarnation, but that was in a previous life. This time around I don't...) --~!Guy Macon (talk)
    You should have seen what used to be there. Anyone who can clean up the stuff dealing with UVa "perception unit" and Stevenson's successor Jim B. Tucker would be appreciated. jps (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Tim Noakes

    South African doctor noted for early sports/diet work later expounding more controversial views about diet and dipping a toe in vaccination issues. An IP from Johannesburg has been adding content about antivax saying that Noakes "simply raises questions where appropriate and based on the scientific evidence, about the safety and efficacy of certain vaccines".[4] Also some BLP issues. More eyes welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 12:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    He's talking about us, isn't he?

    Gorski that is. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    "I was a skeptic of Wikipedia at first (albeit, I point out to Mr. Null, never a “Wikipedia skeptic”), but now I grudgingly conclude that if people like Deepak Chopra, Mike Adams, Gary Null, and Joe Mercola hate Wikipedia’s coverage of them, alternative medicine, medicine, and vaccines so much, maybe Wikipedia’s doing a pretty good job after all, at least with respect to these topics."

    a Quote. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    That's high praise! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Lawyer letter

    Final Demand for Removal of “Biography of Gary Null” from Wikipedia

    Related:

    --Guy Macon (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you know if the Foundation referred them to the reply given in Arkell Vs Pressdramm? Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Or if they had Mike Godwin write a reply [5]? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to see if I can squeeze the phrase with all appropriate respect into my sig. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Ritual Ears and Tiwanaku

    The below report discussing "Ritual ears" at the Tiwanaku Site appeared in the Tiwanaku article at Revision as of 11:47, 14 October 2019.

    Arnaiz-Villena, A., Alonso-Rubio, J. and Ruiz-del-Valle, V., 2013. Tiwanaku (Titikaka Lake, Bolivia) and Alberite Dolmen (Southern Spain) ritual “ears”. International Journal of Modern Anthropology, 1(6), pp.61-76. Paul H. (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Y-S.Ko

    I have asked this editor to stop their mass changes until I could get advice here. Roxy, the dog. wooF 00:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:Pseudoscience is confusing, because diverse topics characterized as pseudoscience (i.e. Alternative medicine), concepts related to pseudoscience (i.e. Charlatan), explanation about pseudoscience (i.e. History of pseudoscience) are mixed. There is also an advice "Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable. This category may require frequent maintenance to avoid becoming too large. It should directly contain very few, if any, pages and should mainly contain subcategories." in the article Category:Pseudoscience. I just followed this advice.--Y-S.Ko (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    So, you've created a new category called "Topics characterized as pseudoscience" and are in the process of moving things from the existing Pseudoscience category into that new category?
    I don't think that's the right thing to do.
    "Moved to subcategories where possible" is not the same as "create a new catch-all subcategory". It means that if there are a few items that can be grouped into an existing subcategory, that should be done. For instance, if an article is about an aspect of "parapsychology", it should be moved into that relevant subcategory. That way related articles are grouped together in an organized way.
    Creating a new catch-all subcategory just for the sake of doing so doesn't improve the organization of the category, it just adds extra complexity. ApLundell (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that Category:Topics characterized as pseudoscience is maybe better "catch-all" category than Category:Pseudoscience, because it can exclude articles such as History of pseudoscience, include only the real cases characeterized as pseudoscience.--Y-S.Ko (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Bad idea to have a wordy, indirect category like this. Categories apply to subjects (e.g. homeopathy) not to the abstraction we editors call our "topic" of homeopathy. It should be deleted and these edits reverted. Alexbrn (talk) 05:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. A category that catches 90% of the parent category isn't a good idea, we should revert the edits. --mfb (talk) 05:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I think Category:Pseudoscience is confusing, because diverse topics characterized as pseudoscience (i.e. Alternative medicine), concepts related to pseudoscience (i.e. Charlatan), explanation about pseudoscience (i.e. History of pseudoscience) are mixed.
    2. Alexbrn wrote, "Categories apply to subjects (e.g. homeopathy) not to the abstraction we editors call our "topic"...", but there are many categories such as Category:Topics in the arts, Category:Programming language topics, Category:Factorial and binomial topics. Therefore, I don't think Alexbrn's position is not a norm of Wikipeida.
    3. Homeopathy itself is one of "subjects" included in the category "topics characterized as pseudoscience".
    4. Is "topics characterized as pseudoscience" just "abstruction"? There is an article named "List of topics characterized as pseudoscience". If "abstraction we editors call our "topic"" can make list, why not categories? (By the way, I chose the name "topics characterized as pseduoscience", because of consistency in article titles. There is "List of topics characterized as pseudoscience".)--Y-S.Ko (talk) 08:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the issue (for me) is it looks forky. Your using weasel words "characterized" that may be seen as trying to imply its in doubt they are.Slatersteven (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If "characterized" is only weasel word, then why are there the article whose main name is "List of topics characterized as pseudoscience" rather than "List of pseudoscientific theories"? (Personally, I think Category:Pseudoscientific theories is okay. I chose the name "topics characterized as pseduoscience", because of consistency in article titles.)--Y-S.Ko (talk) 08:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There are particular reasons for that article's title (see the Talk page history). Those are not relevant to the category name. Alexbrn (talk) 08:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if it was (and that would require at the very least an RfC), you moved quite a number of unambiguous pseudosciences (e.g. autism pseudoscience, free energy conspiracy theories, phrenology, quantum mysticism). That last gives me pause: the Chopra cult are attacking Jimmy on Twitter right now because we don't reflect the world as they wish it to be. Guy (help!) 09:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, "Why Does Wikipedia Want to Destroy Deepak Chopra?" is a legal threat. Besides, it makes very clear that Richard Gale, Gary Null and presumably Chopra are fighters against the pharmaceutical industry and are peddlers of Ayurveda and TCM. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a problem: "Category:Pseudoscience is confusing, because diverse topics characterized as pseudoscience (i.e. Alternative medicine), concepts related to pseudoscience (i.e. Charlatan), explanation about pseudoscience (i.e. History of pseudoscience) are mixed." What is better solution than making a subcategory, to solve this problem?--Y-S.Ko (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly it's now time for your edits to be reverted. You appear to be the only one who believes there is a problem. Are you going to do it, or should somebody do it for you? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 10:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Then, I accept revert, because majority's opinion is like this.
    2. My edits are already reverted.--Y-S.Ko (talk) 10:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Exception: In case of Psychoanalysis, my edit is not reverted.--Y-S.Ko (talk) 10:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Was too.[6] --Guy Macon (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If you request deletion of Category:Topics characterized as pseudoscience‎ it can be speedy deleted, if someone else does so it will take a week via a full deletion discussion. --mfb (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Bacopa monnieri

    Dietary supplement marketed as a supposed "nootropic" and as a treatment for Alzheimer's (attracting the ire of the FDA). Got some disagreement over categorization which could use more eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes indeed, Bacopa is well known to be a nootropic. And because some people/firms have made false claims does not make the whole plant a fraud and does not justify this categorization. 217.88.75.153 (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Source? Just because something is claimed to be a nootropic, doesn't mean it is. Alexbrn (talk) 11:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    How about this one: Neuropharmacological Review of the Nootropic Herb Bacopa monnieri
    Or you just might google for it. Want more? 217.88.75.153 (talk) 11:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you read that 'source' It doesn't say what you claim it does. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It says that Bacopa is a nootropic and that is does have health effects. So it DOES say everything I said. Or do you mean something else? 217.88.75.153 (talk) 11:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    On reflection, that might do in light of the fact Nootropics are defined (at least by WP) as drugs wich "may improve cognitive function". The Health Fraud category is apt however and the IP (sock?) is edit-warring. Alexbrn (talk) 11:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and the IP (sock?) is edit-warring. I am not and I was not, but even if I would this is not the place to mention it unless you want to bash and belittel me. And why calling me a sock? What did I do to you to deserve this? 217.88.75.153 (talk) 11:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit warring is a violation of policy, so is relevant (and yes you were engaged in it). Editors with accounts sometime edit logged-out (as an IP) as a way of WP:SOCKing to evade being identified. I suspected that may be the case here, since this topic has attracted controversy. If not, I apologise for impugning the no doubt good reputation of your IP address. Alexbrn (talk) 11:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Apology accepted. I know the problem with the socks myself, nevertheless. Sorry if I warred, that was not my intention. WP is not the only thing I currently have on my screen. 217.88.75.153 (talk) 11:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Time to let others chime in.Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    None of the sources (listed here) supposedly supporting bacopa as a nootropic provides sufficient evidence of cognitive effects in humans, and all are 5 or more years out of date, WP:MEDDATE, based on weak animal research and inconclusive human studies with small (invalidating) subject numbers and dubious designs (refs 7-9). "Bacopa as a nootropic" is a fringe theory about actual human brain effects yet to be shown in any rigorous way – a status many years from succeeding through the formal drug approval process that the FDA has under scrutiny in 2019 with public warnings about bacopa included among other health fraud scams (refs 2-4). --Zefr (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but that is just false. Bacopa is an internationally well known nootropic, and even in older links in the article it is called so. Please do your homework first. 217.88.75.153 (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, why did you rev all me edits about the species and where it grows? 217.88.75.153 (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Three WP:MEDRS reviews[1][2][3] find that bacopa improves cognition in healthy people. Of the three sources used to "refute" this claim, one says that the herb is untested for Alzheimer's[4] (true, but irrelevant). The second[5] is an FDA warning letter against a manufacturer who has made the unproved health claims that bacopa is "used to treat stomach disorders”, “to…stave off illnesses such as Alzheimer’s”, “…helps in protecting infants against neonatal hypoglycemia also known as low sugar”, “…reduces the risk of hypoglycemia in infants”, and is “…used to control blood pressure”. It is also irrelevant. The third[6] is an FDA warning letter to a manufacturer who has claimed that “…Bacopa Monnieri is a natural … anti-anxiety aid.” It is also irrelevant. No sources exist to refute the reviews. The herb has also been shown to increase the brain's production of serotonin and acetylcholine-- two neurotransmitters important for memory formation. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Kongkeaw, Chuenjid; Dilokthornsakul, Piyameth; Thanarangsarit, Phurit; Limpeanchob, Nanteetip; Norman Scholfield, C. (2014). "Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on cognitive effects of Bacopa monnieri extract". Journal of Ethnopharmacology. 151 (1): 528–535. doi:10.1016/j.jep.2013.11.008. ISSN 1872-7573. PMID 24252493.
    2. ^ Neale, Chris; Camfield, David; Reay, Jonathon; Stough, Con; Scholey, Andrew (2013-3). "Cognitive effects of two nutraceuticals Ginseng and Bacopa benchmarked against modafinil: a review and comparison of effect sizes". British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. 75 (3): 728–737. doi:10.1111/bcp.12002. ISSN 1365-2125. PMC 3575939. PMID 23043278. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    3. ^ Aguiar, Sebastian; Borowski, Thomas (2013-8). "Neuropharmacological review of the nootropic herb Bacopa monnieri". Rejuvenation Research. 16 (4): 313–326. doi:10.1089/rej.2013.1431. ISSN 1557-8577. PMC 3746283. PMID 23772955. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    4. ^ Affairs, Office of Regulatory (2019-09-04). "Unproven Alzheimer's Disease Products". FDA.
    5. ^ Nutrition, Center for Food Safety and Applied (2019-05-23). "Peak Nootropics LLC aka Advanced Nootropics - 557887 - 02/05/2019". Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. Retrieved 2019-10-15.
    6. ^ Nutrition, Center for Food Safety and Applied (2019-05-23). "TEK Naturals - 565026 - 02/05/2019". Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. Retrieved 2019-10-15.

    In assessing sources for medical content, competence in critiquing published reviews is required: WP:CIR which states: "Editors should familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's guidance on identifying reliable sources and be able to decide when sources are, and are not, suitable for citing in articles." Accepting refs 1-3 above as reliable MEDRS sources is plain gullibility and inability to see the studies included in the reviews as poor science unpublishable in rigorous journals. --Zefr (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    In assessing sources for medical content, competence in critiquing published sources is required: WP:CIR which states: "Editors should familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's guidance on identifying reliable sources and be able to decide when sources are, and are not, suitable for citing in articles." Accepting refs 4-6 above as reliable MEDRS sources is plain gullibility and inability to see that they do not address the disputed content. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment refactoring

    Please take this to ANI, I think there is a two way issue.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I have enough upcoming issues at ANI already, and this article is part of it (which is the only reason I have bothered to participate in this discussion). Good suggestion, but I'd rather just do it all at once. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard", Wikipedia, 2019-10-15, retrieved 2019-10-15
    2. ^ "Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard", Wikipedia, 2019-10-15, retrieved 2019-10-15

    Conspiracy theory

    Edit warring to add personal commentary to the lead, watering down mainstream viewpoints, redefining Occam's Razor, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Now at AN3 - link is here. Sunrise (talk) 05:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Christopher Langan

    Christopher Langan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I am trying to delicately write about this person who has been concerned with Wikipedia's treatment of him for more than a decade. In particular, he is famous for claims of a very high IQ which, of course, is something that is notoriously hard to verify because tails of the distribution and so-on. How we explain this in plain NPOV language seems to be hard to figure out [7]. Help doing so would be appreciated.

    jps (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Help! [8] jps (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Bastyr University

    Some dispute about the intersection of WP:BLP and this article's content (see also section at WP:BLP/N#Bastyr University). I think there are WP:FRINGE issues here which need careful handling ... Alexbrn (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I need help from the fringe theories noticeboard community

    Because of some ongoing health issues, I have been forced to limit how much time I spend editing Wikipedia. One of my essays (WP:YWAB is becoming popular, so I am asking for help in fixing obvious problems in some of the pages that essay links to. In particular, I would ask for help improving:

    So that they no longer need cleanup templates at the top.

    Any help with these or any other pages I link to in my essay would be very much appreciated. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia

    I was reading the The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia article, and it struck me as promoting potentially fringe ideas. I don't know very much about the subject, so I came here to ask what other people think of the article? Thanks, Darthkayak (talk) 07:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone working on this page should also make sure that our articles on Air America (airline) and Allegations of CIA drug trafficking accurately convey what the sources say.
    I just removed a WP:CIRCULAR claim (The Enonomist used Wikipedia as a source. Can someone with access to the paywalled site please replace "The New York Times also reviewed the book"b with some actual content showing what the NYT said about it?
    The topic of the US government dealing in drugs is a combination of some "they purposely brought drugs into the hood to kill off the blacks" conspiracy theories and some legitimate journalism documenting how the portions of the US government have at various times decided that the War On Drugs is far less important than Deciding Who The Leaders Of Other Counrties is. (Interfering with the elections of another country is only bad when someone else does it.) We need to take care to keep the legitimate journalism and keep out the conspiracy theories. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Annular Theory (Vailan Theory)

    Annular Theory (Vailan Theory) is currently a PROD. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Sign me up for the Annular World Association in Azusa, CA.[9][10] Highly praised by the Fortean Society.[11] See also International Fortean Organization. --mikeu talk 15:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Database of 18,000 Retracted Scientific Papers Now Online

    "Retraction Watch Database is designed expressly for finding out whether any given study is still legit. The next time you read an article or hear someone say, "studies show that talking is bad for you," you can head over to the site and see what's what."

    --Guy Macon (talk) 07:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    William Lane Craig has calmed down

    William Lane Craig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    After a heated few months, it looks like the interlocutors arguing about this article have settled down or burnt out. Our mediator had some health problems and seems to be waiting for some considerations of how to move forward. Perhaps this is a good time to ask you all for feedback. So far, we've worked on the infobox, lede, and the sections of the article down to "Molinism". There is still work to be done, but a lot of the concerns about this article may have been addressed, if perhaps badly. Input or help moving forward Talk:William Lane Craig/Mediation would be very welcome.

    jps (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Great replacement: move discussion on use of "conspiracy theory" in the title

    There is an ongoing move discussion regarding whether to move Great Replacement → Great replacement conspiracy theory. The discussion currently only has 4 participants, and has been relisted. Additional input would be helpful. Nblund talk 16:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Not the biggest problem in the world, but we could use some input

    See Talk:Intelligent design#Orange box overkill? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Solve this problem by awarding ten year veteran editors a "scroll past the yellow vomit" button. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    War against Islam conspiracy theory

    Is it just me or is there something wrong with this article? Doug Weller talk 08:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    What exactly do you mean? Xxanthippe (talk) 08:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    @Xxanthippe: much if not most of it doesn't seem based on sources talking about a conspiracy theory but about the "English-language political neologism of "War on Islam" which the article says was only popularized as a conspiracy theory after 2001 - although the source, pp. 559 and 560 of this book[12] seems to be referring to 9/11 conspiracy theories.[13] Doug Weller talk 15:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Many people use phrases like war against boys, war against christmas, war against emus, war against baking soda, war against the homeless, war against meat, war against nature, war against pyrex, war against vaccines, war against zebra mussels, etc. You need multiple high quality sources calling something a "war on" and calling it a conspiracy theory. There really was a Emu War, and Pyrex is just an example of someone making a cheaper product than they used to.[14] --Guy Macon (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    To me it seems like the title of this article is a neologism. What Guy Macon is referring to are mostly hyperboles, and most of those I never heard of. There is also a "this compares to that, so it is OK". Someone needs to see if the sources significantly cover the topic, imho. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The article only uses the phrase "conspiracy theory" twice, both times in the lead, neither has a proper source. I also looked at Conspiracy theories in the Arab world which says " Variants include conspiracies involving colonialism, Zionism, superpowers, oil, and the war on terrorism, which may be referred to as a War against Islam.[1]" I can't find "War on Islam" in the source although it does mention "war on terrorism".[15] I think what we have here is a lot of original research and a lot of assumptions. AfD? Doug Weller talk 17:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Steve Quinn has asked me to post the following as he is travelling without convenient access to Wikipedia: "Over at the Fringe noticeboard - "War against Islam conspiracy theory" - I'm glad you discovered this. A mish-mash like this doesn't belong on Wikipedia. However, I have not had the opportunity to review the sources myself. The reason I would do that is to see if anything is salvageable. I will endeavor to do that with the next 24 hours. Just reading your last post, 17:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC), I concur with AfD. I'm sure your assessment is accurate. I will have plenty of time to review the sources during the 7 to 14 day AfD discussion period." Doug Weller talk 09:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War against Islam conspiracy theory

    Pyramid power, Russian research and Alexander Golod

    There's an editing dispute at the article Pyramid power involving User:Elspru, User:Roxy the dog and myself over Russian research supposedly proving pyramid power. Looking into this I ran into Alexander Golod whose article is all about his work on pyramid power> Doug Weller talk 15:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I’m not certain, but I think I’m up to three reverts, and was coming here anyway. Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't say it proving, I said there is scientific research in favour of it. and linked the references Elspru (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    there was false statement on page saying there was no such research, I corrected this error by linking the research. Just because the researchers are Russian does not mean their published scientific research is not valid.

    I did not link any Alexander Holed you can if you like. Elspru (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Alekbrn so you denigrate minorities and deny the evidence? This is Science not reneissance philosophy. Science is based on Scientific Method. You are in denial if you are attacking me with baseless labels. Elspru (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    May be the references should be blacklisted. The book is self-published, but the journal is real, and if it really publishes such bullshit we really need to blacklist it as a source.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Discretionary sanctions alert posted.[16] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And this editor's personal attacks don't let up, even after a final warning. Take a look at [17] - the abstract says "It was established that the dynamics of volatile compounds from samples placed inside chambers is affected by the shape of the chambers. The mechanisms of this effect were analyzed. It was shown that the experimental results obtained previously are consistent with the theory. It was also shown that all phenomena observed in constructions of various shapes are described in terms of the known physical conceptions. Chambers with outside pulsating heating are variations of the known "Brown motor devices"." What are "brown motor devices"? I can't find any mention of them outside the article. And it's not clear that this has anything to do with pyramid power. It might be, I don't know, but in any case the paper has no citations. Doug Weller talk 17:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ymblanter I don't understand how proposing to blacklist a Russian Biophysics journal is anything other than pure racism. The results of the Scientific Method have no regard for your personal belief system, so while you may not accept some result, that just indicates you are in a state of denial, and has no bearing on the actual results. Elspru (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Doug Weller, the reference is to Brownian motion, "brown motor" is a mistranslation. The brownian motion is modified by the form of the geometric container. There is nothing mysterious about it. Elspru (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been a while since we've had much really good batshit insanity. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reported this editor to ANI for their continued personal attacks. I do agree that there's nothing mysterious about brownian motion being modified by the shape of the container, that's just not pyramid power though. Doug Weller talk 20:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just n oting that the editor was blocked. Doug Weller talk 19:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Budwig diet

    Biochemist who later became famous for a supposed "anti-cancer" diet. Article appears to be under attack from a mini sock farm. Could use eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I've checked the debate and the article history. It's meatpuppets, looks to me like an enforcement issue. Heptor (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Astrology

    Requesting input at Astrology (talk discussion here). The issue under dispute is whether the article should be in Category:Pseudoscience. Thanks, Sunrise (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Two promotional Theosophy articles up for deletion

    Other problematic articles created by the same user SERGEJ2011

    I could list twenty more, but I will stop there. This is also a long-term abuse issue. 81.147.137.6 (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • If nothing else, these articles need the attention of a good copy editor. The writing is quite clunky and at times hard to follow. Are these perhaps translations of articles taken from non-English Wikipedias? Blueboar (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent find! The user SERGEJ2011 states on their userpage they are "interested in Theosophy" and has a quote from Blavatsky, the founder of the type of Theosophy being discussed/promoted in these articles. The pages you list above say on their talk pages they are translated from Russian Wikipedia articles, which have also been authored by SERGEJ2011 and many of which are up for deletion there.
    SERGEJ2011 has a near-singular focus on the topic of Theosophy ([18][19] and data therein). As an example of these articles, Theosophy and visual arts has a whopping 98.9% authorship by SERGEJ2011. [20] The religion in question appears to be very small as seen by Theosophy (Blavatskian)#Demographics.
    I haven't thoroughly examined the articles, but from what I can tell so far, it appears likely that they consist of whatever little material on theosophy could be cobbled together from reliable sources, along with lots of sources from the religion itself.
    Although these articles have a veneer of scholarship, it appears very likely that these articles exist to promote this religion, and that they contain, or by their very existence are, WP:UNDUE weight on the ideas of this tiny group. There does seem to be at least some original research (which is absolutely not allowed) as well. Given all this, I would not at all be surprised if most or all of the articles listed above qualified for deletion on TNT, GNG, and/or UNDUE grounds.
    I do know this has happened before where a single minded user creates a bad article on a favored topic, or a web of them, that has a veneer of being well-sourced but is actually no good. (Some examples: [21][22][23]) So, I hope that while the spotlight is turned on this matter, we can examine and remedy it however is appropriate. -Crossroads- (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If you check the archives, issues have been raised about this editor before, several times. Yet nothing is ever done about it. He creates about 6 of these Theosophy articles every year, sometimes more. An admin needs to look at this. 81.147.137.6 (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Theosophy and literature, this article reads as spam to me, it is like a promotional list and most of the references are not reliable. 81.147.137.6 (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Annular Theory (Vailan Theory)

    De-prod'ed by the page creator without explanation. I suspect that it is not a wiki-notable fringe theory, as fringe theories go. XOR'easter (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Dhul-Qarnayn

    We've discussed Dhul-Qarnayn before. I'm hoping that some people here are familiar with it, because User:Aminamin1 is changing it radically. Despite my warnings they are adding material to sourced text that doesn't seem to be in the text, adding unsourced material with pov language, etc. I've reverted them before and may again when I finish this, but they don't seem to care. Here's the diff since they started - take a look at what happened to the reference {{sfn|Wheeler|2013|p=16}} - it now is attached to completely different text and the original text it sourced has been deleted. Doug Weller talk 19:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Now there's a second editor adding unsourced. The first editor tells me he's translating from the Persisn version of the article. Doug Weller talk 21:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Quackwatch apparently not a reliable source for living people?

    Quackwatch has been removed from this article List of food faddists. See talk-page. 81.147.137.6 (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Bilby keeps doing that, why? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    According to WP:RSP, Quackwatch is self published. According to WP:BLPSPS, we should "never use self-published sources...as sources of material about a living person". Quackwatch is fine for attributed criticism, as Barrett is a respected expert, and it is very good for criticising psuedoscientific medical claims, per WP:PARITY - we're just limited in how we use to to make factual claims about a living person. So what I've been doing is replacing the self-published Quackwatch sources used for living people with non-self published sources, [24], [25], [26], if at all possible, so we can be compliant with BLP. - Bilby (talk) 08:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And according to dozens of prior debates here, it is a reliable source for discussion of quacks and quackery. Your determination to be fair to charlatans as always does you credit, but as so often you err too far on the side of deference to them. Guy (help!) 08:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not removing the names - just looking for a source that meets BLP. And I do think Quackwatch is reliable, just that it needs to be used with caution in regard to factual claims about a person, as opposed to attibuted critcism of people and their ideas. - Bilby (talk) 08:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's time that they are taken to task for disruption. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    For following BLP? We went through this issue a year ago - which took a strong stance about the use of self published sources in fringe BLPs. - Bilby (talk) 09:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a topic ban on fringe would do the trick. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ISTR we had all this drama before on the basis that Science-Based Medicine was apparently an SPS. It isn't.[27] And neither is QuackWatch. In light of the linked RfC's result, such removals would seem problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 09:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    SBM isn't self published, so I don't have any particular issue with using it on that basis. When I ask supporters they say that Quackwatch is not self published, detractors say that it is. So I'm going by WP:RSP as a neutral source, which describes it as:
    Quackwatch is a self-published source written by a subject-matter expert. Many editors believe uses of Quackwatch should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and some editors say its statements should be attributed. A 2007 Arbitration Committee finding describes Quackwatch as a "partisan site". As it is a tertiary source, it may be preferable to use the sources cited by Quackwatch instead of Quackwatch itself. Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources should be considered.
    I'm ok with using it where attributed, which is what happens most of the time, and in most cases it is fine. But in a list of "People who are x" we can't attribute it individually to Barrett, so a different source is prefered. - Bilby (talk) 09:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have an issue with a source take it to RSN, but yes he is correct BLP forbids SPS,. We really do have to apply policy to everyone.Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, but is Quackwatch an WP:SPS? It is a network of people, has an advisory board, a legal team, and issues corrections and updates. If Science-Based Medicine is not SPS, what is it about Quackwatch that's different that makes it one? Alexbrn (talk) 09:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So lets see a case for its an SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:CRYBLP. The goal of BLP protections is to make sure that poorly sourced material is not added to articles. Making a determination that a particular source is poor or, in this case, an WP:SPS is an editorial decision like any other. In this case, it seems clear that the consensus is that QW is not such a source, so there is no problem using it. I take a very dim view of people who WP:CRYBLP to hide their editorial bent. jps (talk) 10:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm absolutely ok with using Quackwatch in this way if the community consensus is that it is not an SPS. But at the moment, the consensus as expressed on WP:RSP is that it is. - Bilby (talk) 10:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    perhaps a block? Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    wp:blp is a policy, cry BLP is not and so does not trump it. Now if QW is not an SPS the question has been addressed, but lets not just ignore policy when it suits us.Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If the information at WP:RSP is accurate than Bilby actually has a point. I'm no fan of quacks, but we do have to address how we treat BLPs impartially. Suggest it might be worth going to WP:BLP/N for a clarification. Simonm223 (talk) 12:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    RSN might be better, as this hinges on is it an SPS, but certainly there are issues here that need addressing sensibly.Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think, regardless, it's premature to be calling for any disciplinary action. Simonm223 (talk) 12:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Wholly agree, the OP is based upon policy, it needs clarification before you jump to sanctions.Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have raised this issue over at the BLP/N [28] 81.147.137.6 (talk) 13:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Old Testament

    See Talk:Old Testament#Dogmatic stance. Please chime in. IMHO, the sources I have offered are impeccable. For the record, I was accused of WP:FRINGE for saying that "covenant=contract". My sources are:

    and presumably (I did not check it):

    From the titles, at least three of those books seem to be introductory works for lay people. That doesn't invalidate them at all, but it makes them less of an authority than academic works for academics, especially on fine semantic details like the one you're debating. ApLundell (talk) 07:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not even claim that they represent WP:RS/AC or majority view. I'd simply settle for "not fringe". WP:RULES say WP:PRESERVE, so the WP:ONUS is upon those who want to say "covenant isn't contract". I found a source for WP:ENEMY: Berlin, Adele; Brettler, Marc Zvi, eds. (17 October 2014). The Jewish Study Bible: Second Edition. Oxford University Press. p. PT194. ISBN 978-0-19-939387-9. I.e. it is me who will introduce the source to the article.


    • Berman, Joshua A. (Summer 2006). "God's Alliance with Man". Azure: Ideas for the Jewish Nation (25). ISSN 0793-6664. Retrieved 31 October 2019. At this juncture, however, God is entering into a "treaty" with the Israelites, and hence the formal need within the written contract for the grace of the sovereign to be documented.30 30. Mendenhall and Herion, "Covenant," p. 1183.
    So, this WP:VERifies the claim that Herion said "contract". Adding another source:
    Now the WP:RS are just too many and from scholars of such reputation that it is ludicrous to accuse me of WP:PROFRINGE. Count this WP:RS too:
    Not sure why the discussion was moved from the article to here, but in all my years of study it has been made clear that a covenant is not a contract. No sources. No interest in discussing here either. I have alerted an appropriate project about the discussion and pointed it to the article's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


    Tgeorgescu, you were the first one to throw around accusations of WP:FRINGE.
    You started by claiming that your version was so widely supported that any academic papers that contradicted it were Fringe.
    Now you will "settle for" an acknowledgement that your own version isn't fringe.
    I think it's clear that this is an ordinary content dispute, and FRINGE is just being tossed around as a hyperbole. This doesn't belong here. ApLundell (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The Holy Quran and Science Conference

    Declined prod; seems not wiki-notable (and having a conference be notable is an uphill task to start with, I'd say). People who have experience in religion/science overlap material might want to weigh in. XOR'easter (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Philosophy of conspiracy theories

    Appears to be a WP:POVFORK of Conspiracy theory that gives primary weight to opinions that express the idea that conspiracy theories shouldn't be denigrated because, philosphically speaking, it's possible some are not unwarranted. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I find it ... interesting ... that a brand new editor would be able to create a properly formatted article after 5 days and ten edits. The rest of his posting history ( Knuteson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ) is also ... interesting. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly are you implying? Knuteson (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=923977273"