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
→Antivax article: It has been my observation that those who embrace one fringe theory tend to embrace multiple fringe theories.
Line 645: Line 645:


While I am not surprised that already extant [[anti-intellectualism]] and distrust of government have allowed the far right to recruit and radicalize previously liberal-leaning subculture members, how does that concern Wikipedia? We already have rules in place against the promotion of [[pseudoscience]]. [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 09:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
While I am not surprised that already extant [[anti-intellectualism]] and distrust of government have allowed the far right to recruit and radicalize previously liberal-leaning subculture members, how does that concern Wikipedia? We already have rules in place against the promotion of [[pseudoscience]]. [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 09:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

::As it says at the top of this page, '''"Discussions related to fringe theories may also be posted here''', with an emphasis on material that can be useful for creating new articles or improving existing articles that relate to fringe theories." General knowledge about the direction the antivax movement is taking is certainly a discussion related to a fringe theory, and knowing the above will be helpful to editors who are working on improving our antivax-related articles.

::Might I suggest a better tactic? If you don't think someone should be talking about something, wait a bit and see if the discussions dies down. Jumping in and telling other editors what to do is likely to result in a longer discussion about the topic that you think other editors should not be allowed to discuss.

::In my experience, the most effective way to not talk about something is to not talk about it. Also in my experience, the best way to avoid reading comments that you think other editors should not be allowed to make is to simply stop reading mid-sentence as soon as you figure out what is being discussed and skip to the next section.

::Unless you are tied to a chair with your head in a clamp, your eyes taped open, a self-refreshing Wikipedia feed on a monitor, and the Wikipedia Song blaring into your ears, nobody is forcing you to read and respond to any comments on this noticeboard, so if you feel that your time is being wasted, you only have yourself to blame.

:: If you ''are'' tied to a chair, etc., let me address your captors: First, keep up the good work. Second, please take away their keyboard. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 11:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

:It's interesting to see how a bunch of previously unrelated ideas have become tied up with right-wing politics. I've been tracking [[Mark Steele (conspiracy theorist)]] and [[Kate Shemirani]]: Steele started his life as a anti 5G woo-hoo merchant. Shemirani was previously a "natural nurse" who railed against "toxins" in the atmosphere. At a protest last weekend, both were echoing right-wing style political talking points. --[[User:Salimfadhley|Salimfadhley]] ([[User talk:Salimfadhley|talk]]) 10:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
:It's interesting to see how a bunch of previously unrelated ideas have become tied up with right-wing politics. I've been tracking [[Mark Steele (conspiracy theorist)]] and [[Kate Shemirani]]: Steele started his life as a anti 5G woo-hoo merchant. Shemirani was previously a "natural nurse" who railed against "toxins" in the atmosphere. At a protest last weekend, both were echoing right-wing style political talking points. --[[User:Salimfadhley|Salimfadhley]] ([[User talk:Salimfadhley|talk]]) 10:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

::Indeed it is interesting. I wounder if the far right will take up any other traditionally left-wing fringe theories such as GMOs, people without specific medical conditions being harmed by peanuts or gluten, power lines causing cancer, etc. It has been my observation that those who embrace one fringe theory tend to embrace multiple fringe theories. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 11:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:12, 21 September 2020

"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.

    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:

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

    Article alerts


    Did you know

    Categories for discussion

    Featured article candidates

    Good article nominees

    Requests for comments

    Articles to be merged

    Articles to be split


    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acupressure mat

    This AfD may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleted walled garden includes:

    See also Pranamat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy (help! - typo?) 09:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Triphala

    See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) above.

    "Studies using Triphala report antibacterial, anticancer, antiobesity, antiarthritic, anti-inflammatory, and hypolipidemic properties. Triphala also shows neuroprotective effects against methotrexate-induced damage..."
    "The presence of these active constituents has been attributed to its in vitro antiproliferative activity against cancer cells."
    "In traditional Ayurvedic medicine, triphala is believed to be useful for numerous disorders. According to the Charaka Samhita, taking the Triphala Rasayana (Triphala with honey and ghee) daily has the potential to make a person live to a hundred years, free of old age and diseases. The physician Sushrut indicates that the formula is useful for treating ulcers and wounds. The alleged uses of Triphala include: gastrointestinal problems, inflammation, gingivitis, hypercholesterolemia, cancer."

    Wow. Another herb that cures cancer. What a shock. I know it's true because I read it on Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    What dietary reasons? I'm curious. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    UFO sightings in South Africa

    Apparently the wildest UFO claims are accepted at face value in South Africa. At least that's the way a lot of this article reads. I've pruned out the most egregious fringe sourcing (e.g. some fantastical stuff, like this), but a lot of copyediting remains to be done by those with time on their hands. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I took a quick look, and "a lot" is an understatement. I haven't a lot of time, but I'll try to help. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding Black triangle (UFO) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as it's always been a shady article with extraordinary speculation and the above article links it, that reminded me of it... —PaleoNeonate – 03:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    On it. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, also to LuckyLouie, —PaleoNeonate – 07:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    "European American" style question

    An editor pointed out to me an increasing trend in people attempting to use "European American" rather than "white" in various Wikipedia articles. On my advice, he has initiated a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#European American vs. whites, white people, white Americans, or Caucasians. I note this here because of recent fringe efforts to insert uncommon descriptors similar to "European American", such as the recent discussion of "Northwestern European" as a group identifier. I think this is the same sort of thing. BD2412 T 04:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Does this then exclude Jews for instance? I've also noticed this trend. Doug Weller talk 13:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't delved into it that deeply, but you could ask Mitchumch (here, or in the linked discussion). I wouldn't be surprised, though, since the phrase is apparently inclined to exclude those from Northern Africa or the Middle East. BD2412 T 03:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I also don't know. Mitchumch (talk) 09:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    BrownHairedGirl I would like your input on this issue. I'm aware of the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 1#Category:American people of African descent discussion. How does that discussion impact the following categories like Category:European-American society, Category:European-American history, Category:Eastern Europeans in the United States, Category:European Puerto Rican, and Category:European American templates? Please see this list for instances of "European-American" in category titles. Should that discussion affect the following template Template:European Americans and articles like European Americans, Eastern European Americans, Southern European Americans, and Northwestern European Americans? There appears to be a very large number of instances of the term "European American" on Wikipedia and sister projects here. Mitchumch (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping, @Mitchumch.
    This terminology plugs into two big themes of American society:
    1. The U.S. is a settler colony, and American culture attaches great significance to ancestral origins, which are widely celebrated both in the USA and in some of the countries which exported their people. (e.g. Ireland makes a big fuss over Barry from Moneygall).
    2. The U.S. is a racially divided nation, with a history of slavery and a type of apartheid. That racial divide is described in many ways, one of which is by ancestral origin: "African American" vs "European American", which means black vs white.
    Wikipedia accepts categorisation by national origin as ethnicity. For various complex reasons, Wikipedia categorisation accepts "African American" an ethnic term, and accepts categorisation on that basis ... but categorisation practice deprecates "European American" as a racial categorisation.
    This is complex stuff, as we try to find neutral terminology to describe a bitterly-fractured society, while also reflecting widely-used terminology. It's a delicate balance.
    I think that at category level, we have it right. The reasons why "African American" is ethnic but "European American" is racial are subtle and complex, but broadly right.
    However, usage in articles is a more complex issue than the binary choices involved in categorisation. I suggest the articles should follow the reliable sources for that article: if the sources commonly describe someone as "European AMerican" (or "Northwestern European"), then the article can use that term. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    BrownHairedGirl I'm somewhat confused. For categories, is this list acceptable? Mitchumch (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mitchumch, if we apply the principle agreed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 1#Category:American people of African descent, they should exist only as container categories. If that leaves them empty, then WP:C1 applies.
    However, I think a full CFD discussion would be advisable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ayurveda lead paragraph

    Input is needed at this discussion on the talk page of Ayurveda. Crossroads -talk- 05:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I restored the version without the alt-med POV pushing. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Good; thank you. I expect there will be more complaining about it however. Crossroads -talk- 06:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest that editors working in this area remember the phrase "nonsense on stilts." -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 11:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    On a related note, this seems to be almost entirely unsourced. I count a dozen “citation needed”s, and what sourcing there is is either primary or what looks like a directory site, lists of textbooks, and a list of awards of some sort (hard to tell because the links don’t seem to work). Brunton (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    On another related note, given the performance of ARBCOM in the recent past, could somebody tell them that they cannot change reality on this subject and there will be ripples in the space time continuum if they try to decide against reality! -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    One wonders how many arbs sympathize with this WMF affiliate's mission to "decolonize" Wikipedia by "center[ing] indigenous ways of knowing,...plural ways of knowing". Crossroads -talk- 18:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be a question to ask of candidates next go-around. In the meantime, arbcom have no jurisdiction over content. Alexbrn (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, that's a good idea. Crossroads -talk- 20:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Roxy the dog: Can you link to the arbcom connection? I feel like I'm missing something. jps (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll see if I can find it. I'm not very organised. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 22:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    here -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 22:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! This should have been linked sooner! I hope my contribution sheds light on this subject.
    To wit: Yes, ayurveda is pseudoscience. Yes, DS apply. No, it is not necessary that we beat people over the head with this demarcation. No, I do not want arbcom trying to decide what is or is not a pseudoscience (not even when it's obvious). A full case could be asked for it disruption continues. jps (talk) 01:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    RFK Jr. and COVID-19 conspiracy theories

    Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    This article needs some updating. RFK Jr. has always been on the problematic antivaxxer side of things, but since the pandemic he's gone full-blown conspiracy theory. I'm not sure if we have enough sources yet to WP:LABEL him in Wikipedia's voice, but we certainly have enough that document his support of conspiracy theories that we ought to make some attempt to explain that's what he's doing. I tried to start that.

    I also think that the monstrosity that is COVID-19 conspiracy theories may soon warrant a separate article from the place it is now hosted at "Misinformation". Related, but perhaps a separate issue.

    jps (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Kate_Shemirani

    Editors may wish to contribute to a draft page I have recently created. Kate Shemirani| is a promoter of fringe-theories related to vaccine denial, COVID-19 and 5G radio networks. She is due to be presenting a protest in Central London the weekend after next, and is likely to be in the news again quite soon, I therefore thought it would be helpful to create a page that summarises some of the secondary sources which have recently mentioned her. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/11 Predictive Programming

    If anyone can check to see if 9/11 Predictive Programming is substantially similar to the deleted "9/11 In Movies Theory" page, that would be helpful. XOR'easter (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    They were substantially identical, and both were created by User:Zerolandteam385, whose specialty seems to be crappy conspiracy theory articles, mostly about a conspiracy-theorizing priest in Greece. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)02:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. See Nektarios Moulatsiotis and Paparokades. XOR'easter (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Roger A. Pielke Jr.

    Roger A. Pielke Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Extensive edits on 1 September 2020 have made this article into uncritical support of Pielke's views, largely sourced to Roger A. Pielke Jr.. My expertise on this is very limited, but my understanding is that it's questionable to say; "Pielke has done pioneering work for several decades showing that rising wealth and property, not climate change, is the main factor behind the rising cost of natural disasters." Think this needs expert review.

    On a topical note, apparently today the NSF "announced that it had awarded Pielke and an international team of investigators a Rapid Response Research (RAPID) grant to investigate how seven countries used scientific advice to address the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic. . . . dave souza, talk 21:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This edit definitely fails WP:RS and WP:SPS. This one strays beyond the lines of WP:PRIMARY. This edit removes text that could have been fixed instead (see [2]). This edit is WP:SYNTH, not to mention that the h-index has well-known problems and that we generally don't include them in scientist biographies, since they change over time and depending on who's calculating. So, yes, these edits do generally seem to have taken the article in a worse direction. XOR'easter (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I am pretty concerned about EnvironmentExpert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This looks a lot like an account that is intended to game Wikipedia rules. Perhaps the person behind this account can put our minds at ease, but having been active in these areas for some time, I'm a bit concerned that essentially every edit so far may be problematic. jps (talk) 00:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I have reverted essentially every edit that this user has made so far as a POV-PUSH. Could someone warn them about discretionary sanctions? I'm also concerned that this may possibly be either a paid account or a sockpuppet. jps (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit summary of this change (that I pointed to above) correctly noted that the text had named the wrong politician. I have restored a fixed version and provided an additional reference. XOR'easter (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. This is hard to deal with. jps (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    See also: Michael Shellenberger. jps (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I am EnvironmentExpert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). What is your concern, exactly?

    You write, "This looks a lot like an account that is intended to game Wikipedia rules."

    No, it's not. I have contributed in good faith to several Wikipedia pages.

    "Perhaps the person behind this account can put our minds at ease, but having been active in these areas for some time, I'm a bit concerned that essentially every edit so far may be problematic. jps (talk) 00:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)"[reply]

    You have presented no basis for your concerns either about my edit or about me.

    You write, "I have reverted essentially every edit that this user has made so far as a POV-PUSH."

    I welcome other Wikipedia editors to look into your arbitrary action here. You've offered zero justification for it.

    Thank you for responding, User:EnvironmentExpert. Let me clarify a few things:
    1) Obviously, Wikipedia has been a venue where controversies have played out for almost 20 years. We are very used to dealing with new approaches and new ideas. I hope that you will help us write more accurate articles on Wikipedia, but you need to do this carefully and right now it looks like you are approaching the edits from an WP:AGENDA, which, if I may be so bold, is problematic to say the least.
    2) Wikipedia doesn't just take single pieces of literature as you are doing and declare, "BUT MINORITY REPORT SAYS THIS". We have to be WP:MAINSTREAM with proper WP:WEIGHT. Your edits, as indicated, did not seem to do that. So we need to see what we can incorporate and how. Right now, there is an obvious bias seen in your edits that does not comport with WP:NPOV.
    That's all for now, but there is a lot we need to do if we are going to involve edits like this into Wikipedia.
    jps (talk) 00:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I appreciate that, and hope you appreciate that I am a new Wikipedia editor, but also one that has followed the controversy very closely. I do not believe my edits were outside of the mainstream. IPCC comes to the identical conclusion as Pielke on climate change and natural disasters. The controversy with Holdren was poorly explained. I explained it and its context. Holdren's criticism is represented, which is the balance you seem to be seeking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnvironmentExpert (talk • contribs)

    This is not correct. Pielke's claims are WP:FRINGE and the controversy with Holdren was not poorly explained in terms of the WP:MAINSTREAM understanding. Wikipedia is not in the state to do revisionism. Also, this strikes me as a classic example of WP:GEVAL. Pielke is, whether he likes it or not (and he certainly does not), on the outside looking in. jps (talk) 11:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't Increasing exposure of people and economic assets has been the major cause of long-term increases in economic losses from weather- and climate-related disasters (high confidence). Long-term trends in economic disaster losses adjusted for wealth and population increases have not been attributed to climate change, but a role for climate change has not been excluded (high agreement, medium evidence). from the IPCC (p. 9) be the mainstream view? The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados (Boruff et al., 2003; Pielke Jr. et al.,2003, 2008; Raghavan and Rajesh, 2003; Miller et al 2008; Schmidt et al.,2009; Zhang et al., 2009; see also Box 4-2). (p. 269) I count 25 cites to Pielke Jr. in that report, why is the IPCC citing someone with fringe claims and "on the outside looking in"? fiveby(zero) 15:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The IPCC SREX report should be a reasonable summary of the 2018 state of the science, and it clearly doesn't look the same as what the article said: "Pielke has done pioneering work for several decades showing that rising wealth and property, not climate change, is the main factor behind the rising cost of natural disasters." That view has been contested, for example Schmidt et al.,2009 concludes that costs "excluding socio-economic effects show an annual increase of 4% per annum. This increase must therefore be at least due to the impact of natural climate variability but, more likely than not, also due to anthropogenic forcings." Pielke's arguments have been strongly criticised in the past. Fringe claims do get examined in IPCC reports when they're published in suitable journals, the IPCC has to respond to criticisms raised by member governments, so him being cited isn't in itself proof of mainstream acceptance. . . dave souza, talk 18:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Dave souza, looking at the wider set of contributions, I am wondering if this should go to AE. There's a lot of "don't look at the man behind the curtain" going on in those edits. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They're currently inactive although I now issued the standard DS/Alert. —PaleoNeonate – 02:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy, had a look at some of the contributions from User:EnvironmentExpert, very active from 24 August to 2 September then stopped. In the other articles edited, keen to play down effects of human-caused change, to a large extent reducing undue gloom. Noticed at Talk:Natural disaster a tweet being proposed as a source, a reply rightly pointed to Wikipedia:TWITTER. Don't know if AE is appropriate. . . dave souza, talk 10:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Dave souza, Xoreaster rightly calls out the problems with the article edits, what is the need for WP:FRINGE here? The assertions by you and jps are simply unsupported. Ignoring the "pioneering work" fluff, the edit you quote is mostly inline with the IPCC statement. The citations to Pielke within the report are made to support IPCC conclusions, and not as you state some examination of fringe claims. Notice that within the report both Pielke and Schmidt's work you point to are both used in support of the very same conclusion, namely that long-term trends have not been attributed to climate change. The IPCC report provides a big tent, finds common ground and carefuly words its conclusions to report with high confidence. The numerous citations to Pielke are evidence of mainstream acceptance for at least some of his work. You can point to disagreement about shorter term trends, criticism and conflicting conclusions: but differing methodologies, conclusions, criticism and disagreement—even in most cases being proven wrong—should not be labeled fringe, but in most circumstance a contribution. WP:FRINGE should be applied for departing from proper methods, or maintaining a conclusion with no evidence or despite overwhelming contrary evidence, not for disagreement when a role for climate change has not been excluded is the most that can be reliably stated.
    The above does not apply to Pielke's popular work and blog posts, or any other edits by EnvironmentExpert, just this blanket characterization of Pielke as WP:FRINGE. fiveby(zero) 18:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    fiveby, think your dispute is with jps rather than myself, I've not made a "blanket characterisation" but have noted that it's not been shown that Pielke's position isn't fringe. In support I've cited Trenberth, K. E. (25 November 2010). "Fixing the Planet?". Science. 330 (6008). American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS): 1178–1179. doi:10.1126/science.1197874. ISSN 0036-8075. and one of the papers cited in the IPCC quote you gave. As the same report points out, attribution is hard, and takes time. In the circumstances, for the IPCC to conclude a role for climate change has not been excluded (high agreement, medium evidence) is a pretty strong statement. It's not enough to justify "were all doomed", but equally it doesn't justify "In reality, the numbers reflect more damage from catastrophes because the world is getting wealthier. We’re seeing ever-larger losses simply because we have more to lose".[3] For all his hedging, Pielke doesn't seem to concede that uncertainty carries significant risk. He's fond of quoting Munich Re, and by coincidence in Talk:Natural disaster selective quotations were taken from this article dated 2020/07/23 which is actually careful to note that climate change is likely to play a role in increasing risks. [on second thoughts, getting offtopic] I noticed "There is always the chance of a benign wildfire and/or hurricane season. But since background conditions indicate the potential for a more active wildfire season in California and elevated hurricane activity in the Atlantic, it is more important than ever to be well prepared". Though largely about variability, interesting in light of current news. . . . dave souza, talk 00:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't blanket characterize anything. I was referring to very specific claims that were included. jps (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying that point, which I'd not properly appreciated. Looks like we're in agreement about specific claims. . . dave souza, talk 20:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting. Expect Roger will let the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission know it's just an illusion, as the world getting wealthier. . . dave souza, talk 21:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Eco-anxiety

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eco-anxiety

    Looks like fringe political machinations to me!

    jps (talk) 00:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure who this is directed at, but eco-anxiety has received widespread media coverage including by Washington Post and has been documented quantitatively through several surveys that I linked to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnvironmentExpert (talk • contribs) 02:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The place to make this case is at the link above. This is a noticeboard that just points out where discussions are happening. jps (talk) 11:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Coming soon ... Quantum-anxiety. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to restate my comment in the AfD: Psychological effects of climate change currently redirects to a rather lengthy section in Effects of climate change on human health. I think the appropriate resolution is to break this out into a separate article at Psychological effects of climate change, and selectively merge this article into that one. BD2412 T 17:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If eco-anxiety survives AfD a possible rename target would be psychological effects of environment degradation, perhaps, that could either remain separate or eventually merge in psychological effects of climate change... —PaleoNeonate – 00:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Environmental psychology is a thing. "Eco-anxiety" is a buzzword that means something different every time it is used, as far as I can tell. jps (talk) 02:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    A good reason it should be covered under a better name, —PaleoNeonate – 05:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    If this seems strangely familiar to anyone besides me, it's because Climate Psychosis was up for deletion last year. The result was to merge into it's less woo-woo cousin: Eco-anxiety.
    At the time, I don't think I realized that the two articles had been created at roughly the same time, but I guess that doesn't matter. ApLundell (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The AfD closed as a merge, so the fringe content needs to be cleaned up. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Mark Steele (conspiracy theorist)

    Editors may wish to review Draft:Mark Steele (conspiracy theorist). Mark Steele will be speaking at a protest in London on the 12th of September, hence I felt that an article about this subject may be useful to readers. All review is welcome. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This article has been published now. Thanks to all those who reviewed it. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Jackalopes and Bigfoot in Idaho

    Re: Castleford, Idaho. I doubt the cited book counts as a reliable source, but is it acceptable to include mentions of bigfoot and jackalopes in articles about places where they have been claimed to have been seen? ϢereSpielChequers 09:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    From the source: "Readers will learn about a Seattle man's contact with a group of aliens that landed in Ballard; ponder the claims of two Washington men that Elvis was an extraterrestrial breeding experiment; hear about an Oregonian's extended discussion with Bigfoot..." So, not a WP:RS for factual assertions. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Gosh. A "city" with a polulation of 226. Did they count the dogs? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    People's Mujahedin of Iran

    The following sentence was removed from People's Mujahedin of Iran on the basis that it is WP:FRINGE and WP:EXCEPTIONAL:

    Here's the subsequent Talk page discussion. Based on what's in that discussion, would others agree that O'hern's claim is WP:FRINGE? Or could this be included in the article with attribution? Thoughts? Thanks! :-) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the problem here is that certain sources being considered are not at the highest standards of reliability. Try to look more widely into this, is my suggestion. There are hundreds if not thousands of books written on this history. The discussion should be about which sources are acceptable. Perhaps this discussion is better had at WP:RSN. jps (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to say it is not true, but I cannot find any other sources supporting the assertion. - Location (talk) 03:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "Iran's Revolutionary Guard: The Threat That Grows While America Sleeps" by Steven O'hern and published by Potomac Books

    Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation

    Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Book by Ian Stevenson. The article looks a bit crank-friendly to me, but I could be wrong. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The book certainly seems 'cranky', though the article seems pretty good, not generally as negative as these articles sometimes get. Likely it is one to keep an eye on, as i could see some folks getting fired up and adding lots of non-sense. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually read the book many years ago while writing a rebuttal to a chapter about heaven and hell in a hyper-religious book by rightwingnut D. James Kennedy. I recall that the author struck me as an honest researcher who presented a collection of cases that would support reincarnation being the best explanation for the whole collection taken together (coincidence could explain each individual case), but was careful not to make that conclusion outright — a fact that the credulous cranks like to ignore.
    I haven't reviewed the sources in the article, but it's worth keeping an eye on to ensure that it continues to report only verifiable reliable-source reporting about the book. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    David Berlinski

    David Berlinski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    May need more balance. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It's too bad that the best reviews of A Tour of the Calculus that I've found were blog posts [4][5]. XOR'easter (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's decent I think, although there's a CV-style writings collection. If there's any good review of The Deniable Darwin out there it may be worth covering or mentioning perhaps (its claims of lack of evidence are themselves wanting)... —PaleoNeonate – 07:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Afterlife

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

    Has a "Science" section. I don't think all of it is actually science, but I can't tell if any of it is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It's just a short summary of the consciousness after death article. It's appropriate to summarize it in afterlife. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The current section (I didn't look at the history) seems to summarize related WP:DUE conclusions of neurology and evolutionary psychology, —PaleoNeonate – 07:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding: there's the "if"/question about if the mind is a product of the brain and its physical neurology, but it's probably acceptable considering all the literature on philosophy of mind... —PaleoNeonate – 07:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation

    Greetings. Can you tell me if IHME is a reliable source? The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation model has been used along with dozens of others by the US government to project outcomes. It has been widely cited and widely criticized. This is for COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. I did not find it listed in the archives here or at the reliable sources noticeboard. I previously posted this question to WT:MED and was advised to try here. Thank you in advance. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Dubious. In April 2020 The IHME forecast that the United States will not suffer even a single death from coronavirus after June 21 2020. In August 2020 the IHME projected 295,011 COVID-19 deaths in the United States by Dec. 1, 2020.
    --Guy Macon (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It depends on what you want to use it for. Any prediction of the future is based on the underlying assumptions, and their modeling has only been as good as 1) the current knowledge of the disease and its treatments at the time, and 2) the assumptions on which they have based their model. These assumptions are not made obvious in the presentation of their predictions. Some of their modeling has been reasonably close, some not so much, because some of the assumptions have been good, some not. As an example, as Guy points out, they predicted the virus would be snuffed out, but this was based on assumptions that the virus had not already achieved undetected widespread community spread, that the testing and tracing regimens in place would be able to keep up with and then get ahead of the infection rate, and that Americans would be willing to follow a level of public health intervention (such as lockdowns and social distancing), none of which proved to be the case, so this proved a very bad prediction. More recently they have been a lot closer, but it still goes up and down as they adjust for public behavior. That doesn't make the model unreliable, it makes it only as good as the underlying assumptions, but for Wikipedia purposes, it makes the conclusions WP:CRYSTAL, as are any such projections. On the other hand, when they present such things as current available hospital and ICU beds by state, those are just the product of data collection, not modeling, and should be reliable. So, what do you want do you want to put in an article that you think IHME would be a good source to cite? Agricolae (talk) 00:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you both. I would like to cite the following two things and would be happy with just #1. Certainly IHME has come under heavy and deserved criticism, but they are pretty quick to make corrections. Guy Macon found two excellent critiques in lay language (Stat, and NPR). To them I would add Jewell et al., an early critique originally from April 14.
    1) "An IHME model in late August 2020 projected that nationwide deaths would exceed 317,000 by December 1 if people did not wear masks, but 67,000 lives could be saved with 95% universal mask-wearing.[1]"
    Maybe it is better for projections to leave out the deaths and just talk about possibly 20% more lives saved?
    2) "On July 30, the University of Washington Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) projected 230,000 deaths by November 1 assuming the general population would maintain its then rate of mask-wearing.[2] On August 27, IHME projected 317,000 deaths by December 1 assuming the general population would maintain its then rate of mask-wearing.[3]"
    Please see what you think. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "Health Highlights: Aug. 28, 2020". US News & World Report. August 28, 2020. Retrieved September 2, 2020.
    2. ^ "Latest UW model projects 230,000 COVID-19 deaths in United States by Nov. 1". KOMO News. July 31, 2020.
    3. ^ IHME (27 August 2020). "COVID-19 Results Briefing: United States of America" (PDF). IHME. Retrieved 28 August 2020.
    I suspect that this is impossible to predict given the information we have. If so, I would expect the popular media to glom on to anybody willing to make a prediction no matter how bad it is and publicize it widely.
    Here is my advice. Don't cite any Covid-19 predictions that don't come from peer-reviewed science from an organization with a proven track record of successfully predicting infections, deaths, etc. for several previous time periods.
    Instead. I advise putting together some material that reflects the following sources:
    --Guy Macon (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two separate issues here. Were you to cite that IHME made such and such prediction, then their press release doing so would certainly be a reliable source for the fact that they did so, but I don't quite follow the point. If you want to compare this in the article to an actual outcome, or to a different predication from a different date, that would be WP:SYNTH. If you don't want to make it explicitly, but want to lead the reader to a specific conclusion, you are better off finding a secondary source that explicitly draws the comparison you want, and citing that instead. If you just want to present it for its own sake, it is more a question of whether any particular IHME prediction is really noteworthy. I guess I would go further than Guy and say don't cite any COVID predictions, even peer reviewed ones, because behavioral changes and changes in our understanding of the viral epidemiology are so outpacing the review process as to make papers meaningless before they are published. Stick to secondary sources for this. Agricolae (talk) 08:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A literature search for this project inside this one article would take me a week and likely longer. My school starts tomorrow morning so I can't invest the time to evaluate even the first one of Guy Macon's suggestions! I started reading "Wrong But Useful" and found they only cited Jewell et al. on IHME. Heaven help us with Dr. Atlas in charge at the White House and the opposing editor in charge of our article and he now wants to disallow all "mainstream media." That pretty much wipes out any possibility of Wikipedia using a secondary source citing IHME. I'm going to leave you guys here. KUTGW. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, when I wrote "I advise putting together some material that reflects the following sources" I was not implying that the sources mention IHME, even though some do. I was suggesting that if we follow the sources we will add well-sourced content that say that making such predictions is extremely hard to do, that most real scientists don't even try, and that all such predictions are suspect. They do make for excellent clickbait, so there is that...   :(   --Guy Macon (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy, et al., I think it would be far more helpful if you continued this conversation on the article's talk page. You might search for the word "vaccine" as a way to orient yourselves to the discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Very clever Waid, you know that "vaccine" is a trigger word round here!! -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 09:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Merits the awesome smile: —PaleoNeonate – 11:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Folk belief

    Folk belief appears to be a euphemism or academic synonym for superstition. Would it be a suitable candidate for redirecting/merging/deleting? GPinkerton (talk) 05:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    If by superstition you mean anything not in the mold of modern science, sure. Dicklyon (talk) 06:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Is Beauty in the mold of modern science? Or Poetry? Or History? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's the same thing. Superstitions are irrational beliefs by modern people that may have descended from folk beliefs. But in their time, it was rational to adhere to them. For example, folk medicine provided cures for diseases. Many of them contained active ingredients that modern medicine has isolated. For example, Canadian aboriginals drank a bitter tea that contained vitamin C in order to prevent scurvy. TFD (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree that many folk beliefs are effectively superstitions, there is extra context related to folklore that is probably worth keeping separately. It's appriopriate for the article to include a mention of superstitions (it currently does). Maybe a better merge target would be folklore... —PaleoNeonate – 01:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to see it as the other way around, superstition as a pejorative way of describing folk belief/religion/practice, etc. I don't believe that rationality is a good yardstick for definitions of beliefs, most people just think what they think, they don't categorize it down. Plus, many people who hold folk beliefs themselves will describe others' beliefs that they do not agree with as superstitions. I'm just not sure it can be used in a neutral fashion. I do want to match what the sources say, however. Edit: I also wanted to add that superstitions, folk beliefs, whatever they're called, aren't really fringe. In fact, they tend to be very commonly believed. AnandaBliss (talk) 12:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Fringe" does not mean "few people believe it". Climate change denial and creation science are fringe, and both are very popular, especially in the USA. Homeopathy and ayurveda, which are very popular, especially in India, are fringe. Conspiracy theories about Jews are fringe, but very popular, at the moment especially in Muslim countries, but also, for the last two thousand years, especially in Christian ones. And so on.
    Yes, superstitions are definitely fringe. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess that depends on what definition of fringe you're going with, but I'm not sure how something can be on the edges and popular at the same time. What puts it on the "fringe?" This is me asking out of my own ignorance, it's not a topic I'm very read up on. Again, it depends on what the sources say, but superstition is just a plain loaded word (to me) without substantive differences from folk religion or belief. It reads far more like an accusation than a description, as seen when no one wants to call their own beliefs superstitious. AnandaBliss (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that superstition is often used (including by the superstitious) to dismiss other people's beliefs. It however also has a proper use and a number of folk beliefs are superstitious. There's been a tendency in the literature to avoid the label even when correctly used about some beliefs when part of a large religion's culture. Folkore is of course more general than only such beliefs too, it includes some history, art, traditions, like for religions... I already wrote it before and I could be wrong, but my impression is that folk belief might best be merged in folklore, considering it's also mostly a stub... —PaleoNeonate – 01:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fringe theory: "A fringe theory is an idea or viewpoint which differs from the accepted scholarship in its field." --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Superstitions are a form of folk belief, specifically, belief in a certain limited sort of magic. But there are lots of other folk beliefs that do not fall into that pattern or where the line is blurry, such as weather maxims and folk medicine. Merging to folklore is probably a good idea. Mangoe (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Folk belief is one of many varieties of folklore, and what is known in popular discourse as "superstition" is just a variety of folk belief. English Wikipedia's folklore article is currently extremely bad and in dire need of a total rewrite, and I very strongly advise against any push to merge folk belief into it. Folk belief just needs expansion and folklore just needs to scrapped and rewritten from scratch. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's also how I see it, some folk beliefs are certainly superstitious but the scope is wider... —PaleoNeonate – 01:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Aajonus Vonderplanitz

    Given that this included references to Natural News and The Townsend Letter, I suspect there may be a few issues. One obvious one is that 2/3 of the sources are a single book. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    "He claimed to have discovered raw meat's putative healing capacity when fasting in the wilderness, where a pack of coyotes killed, tore open, and offered him a jackrabbit, then watched him until he ate it." sounds like it's lifted directly from the B510s of the Motif-Index of Folk-Literature. A lot of it reads like Scientology's claims about L. Ron Hubbard's early career. There is also a disconcerting tendency to give the subject's age rather than a year. GPinkerton (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted my assessment at its talk page for now (and included some of your criticism there), —PaleoNeonate – 01:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Microchip Is The Mark Of The Beast Theory

    Good old-fashioned woo-woo nonsense. Moulatsiotis in one of his interviews in 1995 said that "In the future, a mark will be most likely made, it will be a chip, a biometric ID or a scanner in the forehead". Judging from what Moulatsiotis said his predictions were probably right. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Old-fashioned indeed, it's part of New World Order conspiracy theory culture, —PaleoNeonate – 11:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Biorhythm

    It's a theory now! --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, as creationists would say, "it's only a theory"....
    I'm actually surprised that Biological rhythm isn't called "Biorhythm"; I thought that was the common term. At least it was when the topic came up in my college psychology class in the 1980s.
    As for the pseudoscience thing, "Biorhythm theory" is as good a name as any I suppose. At least the article states up front that it's pseudoscience, and expands on that in the body. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My impression is that it could be renamed to Biorhythm that is now a redirect to it, it was only moved recently in August 2020, —PaleoNeonate – 01:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And it seems that Biological rhythm is a list of more scientifically accepted uses, with Biorhythm about Fliess' use, —PaleoNeonate – 01:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: Input welcome at Talk:Biorhythm theory § Recent move —PaleoNeonate – 05:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Varginha UFO incident

    I have never seen an article sourced entirely to ufologists and sensational news items, until now. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hemolithin

    From the way this article is presented, you'd think there's some good new evidence for extraterrestrial life and whatnot. Sure, some people are skeptical, but as long as we can cite churnalism sites in WikiVoice, then we can up-play the significance of it. A previous AFD for this back in March came to the conclusion that it's likely bunk, but still notable bunk (although there was some call for draftification too), but you wouldn't really get that from the current state of the article. I removed one egregious FRINGE vio, but I'm just not really good at this stuff. If anyone feels like taking a closer look, it could probably use it. Thanks in advance, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I took a stab at cleaning it up. The sheer amount of science churnalism is quite dispiriting at times. XOR'easter (talk) 07:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Unani medicine

    At Unani medicine, see this, this, and my edit. More eyes will be needed. That same editor has also made some changes at Ayurveda. Crossroads -talk- 04:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Now another editor is saying the source isn't good enough. Thoughts? Crossroads -talk- 05:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your additional source there, it's very succinct, —PaleoNeonate – 03:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Henriette Mertz - pseudoarchaeology called "ancient history research

    Fringe archaeology book, needs a cleanup, and I don't care what Wikidata says, we shouldn't be calling her any kind of history researcher. David Childress is a terrible source, as is William F. McNeil. Visitors to Ancient America. The Evidence for European and Asian Presence in America Prior to Columbus - see this review.(scroll down). Doug Weller talk 17:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Where to start . . . to refute her claims of Atlantis by saying that a 1436 map actually shows Cuba or Hispaniola is itself extremely problematic, but a quick search didn't turn up anyone criticizing her works except other fringe authors preferring their own fringe alternative. Agricolae (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If no mainstream sources cover her, per WP:NFRINGE should an AfD be started? Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henriette Mertz. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YAD06

    This AfD related to discussion here which led to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hockey stick controversy, and deletion with a redirect to Hockey stick graph. The YAD06 article is a minor aspect of a very minor aspect of that controversy, if deleted it could be briefly merged into the hockey stick graph article, but would need care to avoid undue weight to a fringe claim. . . dave souza, talk 11:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Efficacy of prayer needs a review

    Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Sigh. What a trainwreck. I don't even know what the subject of the article is supposed to be about. jps (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there are numerous RS on this subject. So whatever was described in these sources. My very best wishes (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is these sources describe very, very different approaches to the phrase. We run the risk of WP:SYNTH. jps (talk) 00:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    according to Conservapedia, prayer works just fine. Only for Christians, though. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Explains the lack of Lamborghini's in my garage. Oh, and world peace. O3000 (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's only because you didn't donate enough to your pastor, or that your request wasn't "according to His will" (1 John 5:14) [Humor] —PaleoNeonate – 04:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, even the laughter is good for your health. My very best wishes (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking back over the article history, I think the problem is that the lead was rewritten several years back to drop in a giant confusing paragraph that basically defined prayer (as though that was the actual topic) and which said it's complicated over and over in various ways. Prior to that the article was pretty clearly a straightforward one about studies on the efficacy of prayer, which is what the body still reflects, so I've mostly rolled back the lead to that one (with some tweaks to try and preserve improvements from in-between - there's probably still a lot more that can be done, and probably some other stuff from the old lead that could be tweaked or stuff I revived that ought to be removed, but that impenetrable first paragraph had to go.) I'm especially bothered that that lead rewrite essentially buried the core point of what WP:RSes say on the subject (summarizing major studies on the efficiency of prayer) under a massive rambling paragraph that was mostly both uncited and not reflective of anything cited in the article. The one cited bit - sources trying to explain away the repeated negative results by arguing that prayer is not testable - should absolutely not be presented before the summary of the studies they were replying to, if it goes in the lead at all. --Aquillion (talk) 04:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      "sources trying to explain away the repeated negative results by arguing that prayer is not testable" - well it isn't.
      testable
      /ˈtɛstəb(ə)l/
      adjective
      A phenomenon is "testable" if a scientific study of its existence yields the result you want. If the study later turns out to be faulty or irreproducable, the phenomenon ceases to be testable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand the Studies on intercessory prayer is only about the alleged medical benefits of the prayer, whereas the Efficacy of prayer is about everything. For example, a believer will pray to get a parking spot for his car, for success in his business or whatever, which may or may not be successful. This is a much wider subject. But I am not familiar at all with the literature in this area which does exist [7]. Personally, I would not be surprised if prayers worked well for many people simply because the prayer can help someone to focus on his or her goals, to get rid of bad habits, etc. And of course it might work in the opposite, bad direction, as has been exploited by leaders of various cults. My very best wishes (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      My very best wishes, and the main difference is that intercessory prayer has been studied by those who evaluate bogus medical claims, and found to be bullshit, whereas prayer per se is still largely subject to the same rigorous assessment that most people give their horoscope. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Or that the requests were realistic, i.e. "please make the pain stop", when statistically most pain is temporary. Or that it's also psychological self-coaching: "Help me to cope, remain patient and calm", etc. —PaleoNeonate – 00:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, I am not saying that the efficacy of prayer for improving health was scientifically proven. I am only saying that personal beliefs of people, including prayer can affect significantly what they do and how they feel, hence the prayer may be efficient (or the opposite) for that reason and in that sense. Everything depends on the definition of "efficacy". That does not contradict any science. Something like psychology of religion can be legitimate science. My very best wishes (talk) 01:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeffrey Mishlove

    Jeffrey Mishlove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    This article was previously deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Mishlove. jps (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thinking Allowed (TV series) can't seem to find a good source that this was actually distributed by PBS, probably was but should be more if stations bothered to broadcast. fiveby(zero) 23:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I remember seeing the program some late night. I imagine it wasn't a very expensive buy. In any case, wonder if this might be the most notable feature of the fellow? jps (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The pictures used there are on Commons and claimed to be the article author's own work and under CC, but I'm not really sure. If they are not, the editor knows how to prevent these immediately getting deleted... —PaleoNeonate – 02:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    A riddle

    Q: What do the Genesis flood and Homeopathy have in common?

    A: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/antedilution

    --Guy Macon (talk) 00:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we ever really know what crashed at Roswell?

    Some dispute over this at Roswell UFO incident. Specific proposal was to say[8] "debris was found" rather than that a balloon crashed. Alexbrn (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes. Yes we can really know what crashed at Roswell.
    -Guy Macon (talk) 04:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The current lead sentence of that article is terrible.
    Not because there's any doubt that it was a balloon, but because the lead sentence tries to debunk the woo-woo explanations of the incident before even explaining what the incident was!
    The "incident" is that debris was found.
    Lead with that. The balloon is not the topic of the article. The topic of the article is the event in which the debris was found. ApLundell (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A balloon crashed. Starting off by saying that a balloon crashed may be less dramatic, but it is clear. XOR'easter (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No it's not clear. It obfuscates it.
    The incident of interest is the discovery of the at-the-time unknown debris. It's not about a balloon crashing any more than it's about a real UFO crashing.
    You wouldn't start the Loch Ness Monster article talking about boat wakes and doctored photographs. You start by describing the notable thing. ApLundell (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    From the serious sources, the "incident" is of interest because of how a mundane balloon crash, err, ballooned into a big thing decades later because of some hack authors and conspiracists who cleverly aligned themselves with the US zeitgest, which was receptive to such things because of the culture of suspicion fostered by Watergate &c. Alexbrn (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's still not about the crash. Nobody actually cares about downed balloons.
    The incident of interest and notability is the **discovery** and what that caused. The physical thing at the center of the incident isn't really that interesting except to people obsessed with owning the conspiracy nuts. Unless you're trying to mock the nuts, the physical thing is just a real-life MacGuffin, and it's a weird and confusing way to open an article. ApLundell (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Good RS is not interested in the "discovery" no matter how many stars you put round the world. A rancher found some bits of wood, tin foil and sticky tape from a balloon crash. Big deal. What's interesting is: first, how the army spun the news to deflect from their true activities, and then how this nothingburger ballooned, decades later, into being a big thing with a credulous and conspiracy-hungry public. Our closing down any fringe perspective straight away is good style, entirely in line with the spirit and letter of how we are supposed to treat fringe topics on Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The bigger issue as I see it is that the first sentence was a bit out-of-the-ordinary when it comes to the way we normally start articles. I tried to rectify that, no doubt satisfying no one. jps (talk) 03:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Nice. Alexbrn (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Bupleurum chinense

    • "One of the active components of Chaihu, saikosaponin-d, exhibited anticancer effects via autophagy induction. See linked article for reviews of the pharmacological findings for the roles of autophagy in the pharmacological actions of Chaihu and saikosaponins."
    • "Consumption of B. chinense may increase the risk of liver damage. This formula should not be taken without a prescription from a licensed practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine"

    ...Really? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 04:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing reliable there; have gutted. Searching, there seem to be a couple of decent WP:MEDRS (PMID 27693772 & PMID 23975682). Alexbrn (talk) 05:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Joseph D'Aleo

    Joseph D'Aleo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Contains the guy's views about climate change, but no mainstream science. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Vast stretches of that page can be trimmed due to their reliance on primary sources. XOR'easter (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Living things in culture/Human uses of living things

    Does anyone else find this nav template name and collection of links odd, as well as the associated article Human uses of living things? It all seems rather WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACKed to me. The template has a section for "dinosaurs" with multiple associated links. It makes me wonder if this is some sneaky way to to get "kinds" and "types" from ID into the 'pedia. I'll be happy to be proved wrong if it's not the case, I haven't done a deep dive of the edit history (and don't have time to, I ran across it as the only nav template at the bottom of the article on Toad), but it just seems suspicious to me. Heiro 18:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this is very weird. It was also listed as GA, but I could find no review. jps (talk) 03:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the gorilla suit for? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 03:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And why are all the others missing? --mfb (talk) 04:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Patterson-Gimlin film. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A little funny IMO... So dinosaurs are well, "used by humans", because we make depictions (it doesn't seem to be a claim that we coexisted, but, it's still remote to depict it as human uses, the list could grow infinitely with such inclusion criteria). —PaleoNeonate – 08:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the article about a notable subject or just a conglomeration of subjects? Doug Weller talk 10:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot find anything similar in any reference work. It looks completely novel to Wikipedia. Then I see the GA review and I'm a bit bemused: Talk:Living things in culture/GA1 jps (talk) 13:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, a conglomeration of potentially infinite disparate subjects WP:SYNTHed together. That somehow passed GA. Heiro 14:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The GA was rubberstamped by an sockpuppet account User:HalfGig. It needs to be relisted and removed. I am concerned that User:Chiswick Chap may not have known about this. Perhaps he can comment. jps (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I've taken my gorilla cossy off now. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As to the question of if this is a Fringe issue, while the whole thing struck me as odd, I brought it here because at first glance the layout and division of "types", especially with the inclusion of dinosaurs as living things with modern humans, it made me wonder if the whole thing was connected to this : "Created kind", from Intelligent design propaganda. At the time I didn't have the time at the moment to fully investigate the creation and expansion of the template and article. Initially I just wanted a second opinion on that issue. Apologies if the issue belongs elsewhere. Heiro 18:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to apologize. At least we're dealing with this now. I think this is a pretty massive WP:SYNTH violation. I may just take it to AfD. jps (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Javanese contact with Australia

    This new but obscure article may need some more eyes. Obscure theories of contact/discovery pop up on wikipedia from time to time, and unless closely examined they then find themselves set in stone. I have prompted the author.Nickm57 (talk) 05:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • @GPinkerton: Makassan contact with Australia is indeed very well documented. The problem with this new article is that all of it appears to be original research by just one WP editor - a cobbling together of disparate material to equal the desired outcome. There is no history of "Javanese contact with Australia" before the Makassan contact. Some of the spurious claims made include, for example - Indigenous Australians taken as slaves to Java from the Tenth Century. The sources listed are impossible to check and there are no English language sources that make the same claim. Or no sources are used – observe the commentary beneath the Dieppe Map illustration. This appears to be the editor's own. Attributions to real historians are made that are misleading. The very last reference is to a short 2012 Kompas.com (an Indonesian newspaper) article that seriously misrepresents Professor Regina Ganter's work on Makassan influence in northern Australia. The second last reference infers Campbell MacKnight, who wrote the classic on Makassan contact with northern Australia in 1976, states something like "by the time Makassar people contacted Australia the Javanese presence seems to have been diminished or gone." Except his book makes no such claim. I note the article's one author has been previously cautioned about original research by @Doug Weller:. This article is a train wreck, and meantime the author has stopped editing. Nickm57 (talk) 02:17, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Trump 2024: The World After Trump

    A new film about that will happen if Trump isn't re-elected. I wouldn't post it here if it hadn't suggested that the AntiChrist will come, and that's surely fringe. Doug Weller talk 09:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    So, Americans soon have to choose between Trump and the Antichrist? That's a really difficult decision. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes. --Hob Gadling (talk)
    Turns out it's just a YouTube video and its website and Facebook page are begging for sponsors to pay for screenings, see Talk:Trump 2024: The World After Trump. I don't see notability myself. Doug Weller talk 12:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It will most likely become more than just a YouTube video if it hasn't already. Paul Crouch Jr. is perfectly capable of ordering a run of DVDs and selling them online and in Christian bookstores, of buying time on religious cable channels, and of arranging screenings at fundamentalist churches. All standard marketing for videos of this nature, and not in any way an indication of notability. Basic principle: if you can buy it, it isn't evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy Macon, I look forward to the review of this on God Awful Movies. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a general point, this hints at at a growing problem whereby if some fringe folk can get a film/documentary made, then by dint of its notability it gets into Wikipedia where then a "synopsis" can be used to deliver a fringe payload. We saw this recently with an abortion docudrama ISTR. It may be good to have something in the fringe guidance about this. Alexbrn (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I have AFD'd it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. Sources shown: Washington Times and CBN news which seems to be Christian Broadcasting Network "at the forefront of the culture wars since the network’s inception in the early 1960s". Looks like a Deep State production promoted by very fringy outlets. . . dave souza, talk 14:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I wasn't bold enough (but also have not had the time to look for more sources yet), but when I saw NWO predictions and "political documentary" my impression was "propaganda film"... —PaleoNeonate – 19:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's just what they want you to think!   :)   --Guy Macon (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And don't forget the glasses, for tinfoil hats only help so much, —PaleoNeonate – 14:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You had me at "written and directed by John Carpenter, starring Roddy Piper"... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence

    There is a disagreement between me and User:General Iroh, the Dragon of the West about whether or not Richard Lynn, Edward Dutton (anthropologist) and J. Philippe Rushton should be cited at Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence.

    Dutton and Lynn are both closely tied to Mankind Quarterly and both have been involved with neo-Nazi groups such as Washington Summit Publishers and Red Ice. At Race and intelligence, the work of this group is handled carefully and contextualized by more reliable sources. In this article they are just added to the pile of sources, which suggests the article has deeper issues. Grayfell (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I added one source by Dutton and one by Rushton, respectively - the Lynn source was already cited by the time I started editing that article. In either case, I would argue that all three sources ought to be included as they shed light on perspectives essential to the article. It is true that they're a bit controversial, but what scientist researching these topics isn't? Preferably, we could come to an agreement on wording further emphasising the uncertain nature of this topic, Ashkenazi intelligence, without removing sources we may personally find undesirable. By the way, feel free to contextualise all you like, if you can find any reliable sources refuting their claims. One final comment: It's a bit funny how you describe publications featuring Jewish authors like Michael H. Hart as "neo-Nazi". Iroh (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @General Iroh, the Dragon of the West: Michael H. Hart is a white separatist and white nationalist and has been associated with various other white nationalist figures, such as Jared Taylor and Richard Spencer (differing from other white nationalists mainly only in the area of anti-semitism). He certainly qualifies as fringe. Skllagyook (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    (edit conflict)Sure, look at the article on Michael H. Hart as an example if you want. Hart is published by Richard B. Spencer.
    There are a lot of controversial figures in this field, but... the idea that these specific figures are "a bit controversial" is a comical understatement. Very few psychologists have their emeritus status revoked. Very few theology majors go on neo-Nazi podcasts to promote racist versions of anthropology. Shifting the burden on to more reliable sources to bother and "refute" these claims is a function of pseudoscience. Grayfell (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, let's examine the contents of these sources. I can begin with Dutton since you didn't choose one.
    Dutton argues that Ashkenazi Jews do indeed have the highest average IQ of any ethnic group, but that their disproportionate successes may also be explained by their high general factor of personality (GFP) and/or positive ethnocentrism. His paper is really a response to a response by Nathan Cofnas to Kevin MacDonald. Cofnas acknowledges that high Ashkenazi GFP has been found by Dunkel et al., and furthermore does not fully dismiss the possibility than Ashkenazim may be more ethnocentric than for instance non-Jewish Europeans, though he does not think they are "extreme[ly]" or "uniquely" ethnocentric. Are all these people fringe neo-Nazis, too? Iroh (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    All these people are fringe. Whether they are neo-Nazis or not, I leave for to another venue to discuss. jps (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, but to clarify why I mentioned this, Nazism's views on Jewish people is a based on scientific racism. Involvement in neo-Nazi movements is not incidental to being fringe. Instead, it's another demonstration of it.
    That Dutton defends Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist) further shows that this his views of "Jewish intelligence" are based on fringe pseudoscience. As for Cofnas, I recommend this article for background, if anyone is curious. Grayfell (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Even Cofnas and Dunkel? Lol. Is there anybody but Noam Chomsky who is not fringe? Anyway, I don't really feel the need to argue the Rushton source right now as his findings on high Ashkenazi IQ during early testing are backed by Cochran et al. (in fact, the latter should be restored immediately as it directly contradicts a claim by The Guardian). As for the Lynn source, I need some more time to familiarise myself with it to be comfortable making a more definitive statement on it as I wasn't the one who added it.
    All in all, my central point stands: If you accept that these allegedly fringe sources ought not be removed from articles like The Bell Curve since they're contextualised by left-wing sources, you can't have them removed from the Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence article just because you couldn't find any left-wing sources to contextualise them there. Iroh (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh great, Grayfell doesn't think Cofnas is fringe. That means this source should not be off-limits, right? Iroh (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Cofnas' work on this topic is fringe. Per the link I cited, Nathan Cofnas met Dutton at the London Conference on Intelligence, and both have ties to the Ulster Institute for Social Research which is a racialist "think tank" run by Richard Lynn. Cofnas is part of the same walled garden.
    Context comes from reliable sources, regardless of ideology. Your opinions on "left wing" sources introduces a WP:GEVAL problem, but still has very little to do with reliability or fringe. Grayfell (talk) 23:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How can you not consider Cofnas reliable when your own source portrays him in a positive light and criticises MacDonald's remarks on his Jewishness? It seems to me you just aim to shut down the whole discussion around Ashkenazi GFP and ethnocentrism. Can you at least see how the Cochran et al. "factoid" on early IQ testing is relevant to "contextualise" the Guardian's claims, or is contextualisation a one-way street only?
    By "left-wing", I was referring not to politics but rather environmentalism as opposed to hereditarianism. Iroh (talk) 23:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That source doesn't simplistically portray Cofnas in a positive light. Cofnas had some valid points, which is why his essay dunking on MacDonald was popular. Being popular isn't the same as being reliable, and disagreeing with someone who is fringe doesn't mean that he cannot also be fringe.
    Consensus on Wikipedia is that any proposed genetic link between "race" and "intelligence" is fringe, for a variety or reasons. Therefore, per many tedious discussions, race and intelligence is not simplistically about "environmentalism" vs. "hereditarianism". Many self-described "hereditarians" have the good sense to reject the shoddy statistics of Richard Lynn, and there are plenty of "environmentalist" academics who push fringe perspectives on environment. Reducing this to a left-wing/right-wing issue is confused, arbitrary, and inflammatory.
    In "Cochran et al." that et al is doing a some heavy lifting. Gregory Cochran is controversial, and his coauthor Henry Harpending was fringe and was (yet again) an associate of Richard Spencer, who is a neo-Nazi. Regardless, this discussion is about Lynn, Rushton, and Dutton. Shifting the discussion around to other people is a distraction. Grayfell (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with this article is that it relies on primary sources, i.e., isolated studies, without explaining their degree of acceptance in reliable secondary sources. There is a neutrality issue too. The article says that whether or not the subjects have higher intelligence is a matter of controversy, without explaining what the mainstream view is. Climate change and evolution are also matters of controversy.
    If you can get a reliable secondary source that discusses the controversy and use primary sources properly, then the problem of rs problem will be reduced. But to answer your question, I would only use their writings in reliable secondary sources, which is AFAIK nothing.
    TFD (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lynn, Dutton and Rushton are all fringe figures who should not be cited; we can rely upon secondary sources to report upon them and evaluate their statements. And, to concur with Grayfell's point, fringe figures do indeed have disputes with others on the same fringe, whether it's arguing over the location of Atlantis, the proper way to build a perpetual-motion machine, or whatever. XOR'easter (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    XOR'easter, the way the article is written, the theory is not treated as fringe but mainstream controversial. IOW half of experts would agree, the other half would disagree. You need to fix that first. I agree that fringe theories should only be presented using reliable secondary sources. The only time I would use a primary source would be if it were directly quoted in a secondary source. If we provide more, then we risk violating OR and neutrality. If readers want to read Lynn et al they can get their books and papers. TFD (talk) 11:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a single "expert", hereditarian or otherwise, who does not belive Ashkenazi Jews have "higher average intelligence than other ethnic groups"? Iroh (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I prefer primary sources on scientific issues as they tend to be more fact-based and less subverted by politics, but I've come to understand Wikipedia prefers secondary or even tertiary sources. I can respect that. Surely we should be able to find some non-primary sources properly summarising the hypotheses and controversies around Ashkenazi intelligence. Iroh (talk) 10:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Please also respect the Wikipedia consensus, which arose from lengthy discussion of the sources, that claims of genetic differences in intelligence between racial or ethnic groups are fringe, i.e., not supported by mainstream science. See [[9]. NightHeron (talk) 11:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait a second. Every single scientist who has ever researched the topic has found racial/ethnic differences in intelligence - the uncertainty lies in to what extent those differences are due to genetics vs. environment (numerous interracial adoption studies and countless twin studies have been carried out in pursuit of answering this question as well as the broader question of nature vs. nurture vis-à-vis intelligence). But this discussion is about Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence in particular. Iroh (talk) 11:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone please warn this user about discretionary sanctions. I just reverted them again for POV-pushing. Looking at their contributions, I'm afraid we may need to ask for a topic ban at AE. jps (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hahaha. I didn't even add a new source, I just expanded on the article's main source, Cochran et al. ("contextualising" claims made by The Guardian). Per Grayfell, "this discussion is about Lynn, Rushton, and Dutton. Shifting the discussion around to other people is a distraction." To put it plainly, if that source is a "fringe POV push", almost the entire article (as it stood before I started editing it) is a fringe POV push. Yet apparently numerous times the article was nominated for deletion and rejected. Iroh (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at my contributions, less than 5% are about Ashkenazi intelligence, and less than 10% are about intelligence in general. Let's try to resolve this issue in a civilised manner rather than running around trying to "topic ban" each other. Iroh (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you are not a sockpuppet. Some of your commentary is reminiscent of User:Oldstone James. jps (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I scrolled through some of their contributions, and I have to say I'm feeling a little insulted. Not because you correctly noticed that we have taken interest in similar topics, but because their level of English literacy is far below mine. But no, I am not a "sockpuppet". On an unrelated note, I just told GirthSummit "[a]s for my occasional use of sarcastic language, that's probably a generational issue more than anything. My guess is I'm also a bit more neurotypical (i.e. less autistic) than most Wikipedia editors. Anyway, I'll try to cut that down as to avoid coming off as inflammatory." Iroh (talk) 12:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, upon further inquiry, his vocabulary doesn't seem too poor to me (still of course below my level); it's rather his grammar to which I would object more often than not. Furthermore, he apologises a lot. I doubt I could ever apologise that much unless I had raped or murdered somebody. Iroh (talk) 13:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    New sources

    All right, now I've had enough of "edit warring" and off-topic discussions for months to come and then some. Let's start presenting and examining some non-primary sources so we can improve this article in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines (with which I like to belive I have now familiarised myself quite well). Iroh (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the fringe theories noticeboard. This is the place to discuss the topic as it relates to WP:FRINGE. There appears to be consensus that these sources are fringe and should not be cited without context. Your comment suggests that you want to drag this out by discussing sources in general, but the article already has its own talk page.
    Your willingness to go to bat for fringe sources, however, is relevant to this board. You've barely edited that article, and only for a couple weeks. Further, your account is less than a year old. Unless you do have some prior experience with another account, it's very odd for you to presume this will last for months to come.
    As for your abrasive and dehumanizing comments about being neurotypical, and you casual use of rape and murder as rhetorical devices, I suspect behavior like this might end up at WP:ANI sooner or later.
    Further, this edit from a couple months ago restored a context-free quote to Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi. This quote is pretty much only ever mentioned by advocates of the very fringe Kalergi Plan hoax, so that's also a big red flag. Grayfell (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, should other sources be discussed at the article talk page then?
    Oh, I don't presume this particular argument will last for months to come, however I do expect to keep editing Wikipedia every once in a while. I've just grown tired of these nonsensical, substanceless back-and-forths.
    Do you belive I regard autists as less than human? If not, my comments are not at all dehumanising; please do not follow the example of contemporary discourse by using that term so casually, in effect relegating it devoid of meaning like has already been done with nigger, etc.
    I use rape and murder as rhetorical devices all the time for the same reason I know the Kalergi plan is really more of a meme nowadays - because I am a young person. It's really that simple. However it is true that Kalergi envisioned an all-encompassing race of the future (though I commend the other editor for removing the Quotes section altogether, Kalergi's views and predictions are already covered (with more context) in the rest of the article). Iroh (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    David Legates

    With the recent appointment of a climate change denialist the article may need review and watchlisters... [10] [11] —PaleoNeonate – 20:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    1 degree warming between 2000 and 2100, very interesting prediction. We had half of that in the first 20 years, that leaves the other half for the next 80 years? I can totally understand why SciAm endorsed a political candidate for the first time. --mfb (talk) 06:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Too bad they didn't endorse the one who listens to science...[12][13] --Guy Macon (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Familiar name, one of the deniers involved (as an additional author) in the Soon and Baliunas controversy. For some reason that's not in the Legates bio, despite use of the paper by the Bush administration's Philip Cooney, a lawyer who had formerly been a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, to justify his editing the draft first Environmental Protection Agency Report on the Environment to remove all references to reconstructions showing world temperatures rising over the last 1,000 years. My goodness, could that happen nowadays? Can't sort it myself fi the near term due to other commitments, so will be grateful if someone can cover that topic in the Legates bio. . . dave souza, talk 20:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      You originally shared the second link I posted above (found in the FTN archives). Thanks for that as it helps to understand the context, —PaleoNeonate – 05:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Walter Russell again

    Can anyone else cast an eye over recent edits to the article and talk page? Brunton (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like it is in much better shape than the last time I reviewed the article. jps (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The article, maybe. But the Talk page... --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    New chronology (Fomenko)

    A number of changes have been made to this article by User:Cjbaiget. Some seem to be improvements, but I'm not sure about two. One is a statement by Sergey Glazyev, a dubious source at best - why should we use it? The other is:

    "Nowithstanding this, some relevant figures from both the professional and academic archeological circles like Swedish archeology professor from University of Łódź, Martin Rundkvist, claim that "professional dendrochronology is still almost entirely a black-box in-house endeavour, that is, it is still not a great science".[1]"

    This is odd because Cjbaiget's next edit has the edit summary "Source has a single author and doesn't claim to represent any syndicate of critics, nor has the credentials to do so. Erroneous and misleading use of the plural form amended." Also most of the source (and I think it's a reliable source given the author) is critical of Fomenko but you wouldn't know that from its use. Doug Weller talk 15:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello Doug and others.
    About Sergey Glazev, I find it a quite relevant Russian political figure whose words can have direct consequences on the "Reception" among the public of the subject matter of the article. "Reception" is precisely the section I've added his quote, from an all-russian mainstream Newspaper.
    About Martin Rundkvist quote, in the source provided you'll find mentions to other dendrochronologers.
    Please I'm willing to explaing everyone of my contributions to interested parts.
    Thanks, Cjbaiget (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The user today added this link, which is a blog, to the article. I do ot see how it is a RS. May be the author published elsewhere, but in the given form I am afraid it fails WP:RS. Someone needs to present them for arbiotration enforcement.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I forgot to attend some of your concerns. I was not paying attention if source was critical or favourable with Fomenko, but to Dendrochronology, which is the topic of the section where is contained. Edit summary is exactly: "Relevant opinion from an *actual active scientist and archeologist* about the reliability of current dendrochronology, to put contrast to some wikipedist's opinion based on a 13 year old publication on the paragraph above, for which I have tried an amend accordingly."
    I honestly think that the previous mentioned paragraph is dismissing the evidence for scientists who dissent from some dendrochronology praxis. I can give more examples, but I don't feel that anyone is interested.
    Regarding the blog, it belongs to the scientist making the claim, I just simply can't understand what could be wrong with this??
    I support the arbitration enforcement proposal, to be judged by the rationale of my contributions and not from the perception current editors have of them.Cjbaiget (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding Martin Rundkvist I'm not sure if the concerns come from the source provided or the scope of the assertions by him made. Another, perhaps valid but older source is maybe respected "Scienceblogs", which also has its own wikipedia article with a favorable description.
    In 2010 https://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/2010/03/17/dendro-dissidents the same accusation is made after a longer explaining:
    "I mentioned published dendro curves. The rub here is that most dendro data are never published. They are kept as in-house secrets in dendro labs in order for these to be able to sell their services to archaeologists. So when the amateurs challenge the professionals' opinion, all the latter can reply is "We know we're right but we can't show you how we know". And that is of course an unscientific approach to the issue."
    But I find the source I have provided more desirable by beign more recent and belonging directly to author, then WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, but also because accussation is reinstated with more explicit and understandable words, meaning not only that situation has worsened from his point of view, but that continuing talking about it is also more urgent.Cjbaiget (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that one professor's blog is not a good source for attempting to cast doubt on the refutation of Fomenko. It is out of place for starters and probably WP:UNDUE emphasis on one opinion. Even further under cutting the point (which attempts to under cut the under cutting of Fomenko so we're in a whirl of undercuts here) is that Rundkvist actually urges professional archaeologists to use dendro-dating. The full quote from that blog post is: Professional dendrochronology is still almost entirely a black-box in-house endeavour, that is, it is still not great science. Field archaeologists: when you saw your wood samples for dendro, get two samples and send one to the amateur community! They practice open data sharing." the "black box" Sundkvist objects to isn't scientific quality but data sharing. The edit, therefore, is dishonest in its form and should be reverted. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but again, this section talks about dendrochronology, not Fomenko. It's also not obvious to me how using a well-defined sentence among a text is a "dishonest edit"?? that would be the case if the context took to another conclusion, which is not. Please don't accuse me of dishonesty so easily. Author has made similar claims at other places, this is the shortest and direct accusation. Please provide proof that quotes have to include entire paragraphs, which interests me the most. We are risking falling into censorship also.Cjbaiget (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cjbaiget:, it's very simple: By truncating the quote, you used it to support the idea that an expert in the field is saying dendrochronology is "not science". The very next sentence in that original statement makes it clear that the expert is saying the exact opposite thing. This is borne out by the rest of the piece. There is no conceivable way that your truncation was accidental -- it was a specific decision of yours. This is intellectually dishonest; the use a source to say something other than what the source actually says is a violation of, among other things, the WP:NPOV and WP:OR policies. I hope that explains things fully. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Cjbaiget--Ymblanter (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "Dendro Dissidents" [1]
    @Eggishorn:I asked for proof that quotes have to come from entire paragraphs, not your more than questionable opinion. I have not truncated any text, I have recorded a whole sentence from it, period to period, which fits perfectly the definition of 'quote' unless you can prove otherwise, not by obfuscated elucubrations. I'm not intellectually dishonest, please don't insist on this subjective perception of yours.Cjbaiget (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course there is no 'proof' (whatever that is supposed to mean) that says a quote must consist of an entire paragraph. This does not, however, change the basic principle: when one uses selective quoting to convey an impression different than that conveyed by the entire text, it is either being very sloppy or outright intellectual dishonesty (maybe both). This does not depend on the amount used - depending on the quote, one might carry the true implession of the whole by quoting a simple phrase, yet one could also mislead when using an entire paragraph (for example, if the paragraph is presented as an intentional strawman that is then knocked down in the next paragraph). To avoid intellectual dishonesty, one must convey the spirit of the full original context, no matter how little or how much of the original text is used in the quote. Agricolae (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your remarks. It's very obvious to me that, from the stance *attributed* to me in this trouble, I would prefer *a longer quote*, which thoroughly explained my *purported* point of view. So, being this discussion derived to intellectual honesty manifestations, please submit an amend with the whole paragraph as quote to the article. Cjbaiget (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There are multipe solutions to this: not including it as WP:UNDUE, including only the part that supports the source's conclusion, including both parts if WP:DUE and doesn't result in WP:FALSEBALANCE... —PaleoNeonate – 01:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for those relevant observations, which I find the first objective and reasonable objections to my edit. I just want to ask: Why it is necessary to raise them after a conflict about this is so heated, and not just after the edit? My guess: me not being aware of your concerns, but more importantly, opponents not applying WP:AGF to me.
    Now, I just want someone please explain to me, and sorry but this is the only place I can realistically expect an answer: how previous paragraph to which my edit was trying to complement, achieves conformancy to WP:UNDUE, WP:DUE, WP:FALSEBALANCE... etc?Cjbaiget (talk) 11:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    List of topics characterized as pseudoscience

    Can someone take a look at the article and recent editing? In response to my asking what the sources say on the subject of "brainwashing", I got this response:

    There is a large number of sources, and they say a lot of different things (I think the lead of our page summarizes them well). For an outside tertiary summary source, one can look at EB: [14]. It does not say anywhere this is pseudoscience. [15] --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    QAnon in the United Kingdom

    See Talk:QAnon#New section for QAnon in the United Kingdom. Scary. Doug Weller talk 14:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It'll be a tax-exempt religion within decades then ... GPinkerton (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Li-Meng Yan

    I wasn't sure whether to post this here or on BLPN, I decided to post it here but would urge editors to remember this is a BLP. Anyway I'm concerned that the article Li-Meng Yan seems to be getting into coatracking territory at it has a lot of info on a pre-print. While this pre-print has apparently generated a lot of media attention including comments from notable experts I'm unconvinced we really need to cover that level of detail in a biography. I guess it was has received enough attention that it probably should be mentioned, and we obviously also have to reflect the fact it's thoroughly rejected, but I would suggest maybe 3 or 4 sentences at most. How do others feel? Nil Einne (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Is she notable for anything else aside from the Pre-Print? Might be worth taking the article to AfD and merging the pre-print content to Misinformation_related_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic#Accidental_leakage_theories. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 12 § Li-Meng Yan ← previous AfD, for reference. Hit the DataflowBot top 20 articles by edits and editors for this week, and has been in the top 1000 views for at least the past week. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 19:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Terrain theory

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

    Has this rival of germ theory been resurrected? --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    That was fun. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 19:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirected to germ theory denialism. XOR'easter (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Better. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 20:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm on a mobile device so can't be bothered to try and fix it but Antoine Béchamp suggests people proficient in dark field microscopy are GTDs. Nil Einne (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well okay I removed the worst bit, but the whole thing looks to be a sourced to a book which talks about medical Vietnam and actively suppressed so I think it needs more work. Nil Einne (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Love Jihad conspiracy theory

    Love Jihad is a conspiracy theory alleging that Muslim men target women belonging to non-Muslim communities for conversion to Islam by feigning love. High-quality reliable sources, including academic publications, describe Love Jihad as a conspiracy theory.

    The Wikipedia article on Love Jihad, for some time, did not explicitly label Love Jihad as a conspiracy theory, which caused the article to be in violation of WP:PROFRINGE. I have attempted to address this in Special:Diff/978047396/979186634 by adding the conspiracy theory descriptor to the first sentence, but the remainder of the article (particularly the example farm in the "History" section) still portrays Love Jihad as a plausible theory, rather than a confirmed conspiracy theory.

    One solution is to introduce more content cited to peer-reviewed academic sources rather than relying solely on popular press. This would provide the appropriate weight to the scholarship that counterbalances the sundry unconfirmed allegations that are reported in the media.

    If you have any other suggestions for improving this article, please feel free to share them. — Newslinger talk 23:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    If you're in the mood for some humor, see this Twitter thread. Click "Show this thread" at the bottom to see the entire thing. — Newslinger talk 23:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I never knew there was such a thing as a "Lutyens lifestyle" ... until today. GPinkerton (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I remember of this article, although I've not been patrolling it recently. It used to always accumulate news with editorials to suggest that it's an actual thing. —PaleoNeonate – 14:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is a disaster, and I have never really found the time to clean it up. Unfortunately, the media has thrown the term around in cases that do not meet the definition as presented (for instance, forced religious conversion after marriage), and presenting that material in a manner compliant with NPOV will take some work. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love Jihad (3rd nomination). --Guy Macon (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleting the article would resolve the WP:PROFRINGE issue, but I'm uncertain about whether this is possible under the general notability guideline. Another option would be to draftify the article until it's up to par. I'm also fine with improving it in article space, gradually replacing the existing content with new content supported by higher-quality citations. — Newslinger talk 18:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like Rustam Fan (talk · contribs · count) has removed the conspiracy theory descriptor from the article in Special:Diff/979473860, causing the article to violate WP:PROFRINGE again. The discussion is at Talk:Love Jihad § Lead. — Newslinger talk 03:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Antivax article

    --Guy Macon (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    While I am not surprised that already extant anti-intellectualism and distrust of government have allowed the far right to recruit and radicalize previously liberal-leaning subculture members, how does that concern Wikipedia? We already have rules in place against the promotion of pseudoscience. Dimadick (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    As it says at the top of this page, "Discussions related to fringe theories may also be posted here, with an emphasis on material that can be useful for creating new articles or improving existing articles that relate to fringe theories." General knowledge about the direction the antivax movement is taking is certainly a discussion related to a fringe theory, and knowing the above will be helpful to editors who are working on improving our antivax-related articles.
    Might I suggest a better tactic? If you don't think someone should be talking about something, wait a bit and see if the discussions dies down. Jumping in and telling other editors what to do is likely to result in a longer discussion about the topic that you think other editors should not be allowed to discuss.
    In my experience, the most effective way to not talk about something is to not talk about it. Also in my experience, the best way to avoid reading comments that you think other editors should not be allowed to make is to simply stop reading mid-sentence as soon as you figure out what is being discussed and skip to the next section.
    Unless you are tied to a chair with your head in a clamp, your eyes taped open, a self-refreshing Wikipedia feed on a monitor, and the Wikipedia Song blaring into your ears, nobody is forcing you to read and respond to any comments on this noticeboard, so if you feel that your time is being wasted, you only have yourself to blame.
    If you are tied to a chair, etc., let me address your captors: First, keep up the good work. Second, please take away their keyboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's interesting to see how a bunch of previously unrelated ideas have become tied up with right-wing politics. I've been tracking Mark Steele (conspiracy theorist) and Kate Shemirani: Steele started his life as a anti 5G woo-hoo merchant. Shemirani was previously a "natural nurse" who railed against "toxins" in the atmosphere. At a protest last weekend, both were echoing right-wing style political talking points. --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed it is interesting. I wounder if the far right will take up any other traditionally left-wing fringe theories such as GMOs, people without specific medical conditions being harmed by peanuts or gluten, power lines causing cancer, etc. It has been my observation that those who embrace one fringe theory tend to embrace multiple fringe theories. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=979550437"