Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:20, 19 October 2020

Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience

Before posting, make sure you understand this short summary of relevant policies and advice and particularly the guideline on treating fringe theories. Also, check the archives for similar discussions.

We can help determine whether the topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately and impartially. Our purpose is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but to describe them properly. Never present fringe theories as fact.

If you mention specific editors, you should notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so.

Search this noticeboard & archives Lowercase sigmabot III will archive sections older than 20 days

Additional notes:

Discussion of fringe theories will only depend on coverage in reliable sources. Medicine-related claims must comply with more stringent sourcing requirements, but we also generally prefer academic sources.
We are not a forum to discuss fringe theories as such. Our goal is to improve articles about them, or create new ones if needed.
For concerns about neutrality in articles not about fringe theories, use the neutral point of view noticeboard. Report article content that appears to violate the no original research rule at this noticeboard.
Paste {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section when your concern was addressed. Deploy {{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion.

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

Article alerts

Articles for deletion

22 Jul 2024 – Family Constellations (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by ජපස (t · c); see discussion (8 participants; relisted)

Redirects for discussion

11 Aug 2024 – Anti universe (talk · edit · hist) →Antimatter was RfDed by Web-julio (t · c); see discussion
08 Aug 2024 – Güija (talk · edit · hist) →Ouija was RfDed by Mwwv (t · c); see discussion
06 Aug 2024 – Classical homepathy (talk · edit · hist) →Homeopathy was RfDed by Cogsan (t · c); see discussion

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]

Richard Lynn, Edward Dutton (anthropologist) and J. Philippe Rushton are not suitable sources for the article given their racialist nature. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:41, 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]

Of course there are! The vast majority of experts acknowledge that we don't even have a validated definition of intelligence that allow anyone to be able to make declaration of the average intelligence of ethnic groups. Wow. jps (talk) 02:10, 11 October 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 [[1]. 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]

If you compare the word "autists" to "nigger", call the Kalergi Plan just a "meme", and childishly use rape and murder to score points in an argument, you will eventually be blocked for 4chan style trolling. Grayfell (talk) 07:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I merely urged you not to overuse the word dehumanising in the manner that nigger is overused nowadays. Use a word too much and too randomly, and it loses its original meaning, or even worse, any meaning. Anyway, please refrain from engaging in ageism. Iroh (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously though, I'll try to avoid making potentially inflammatory analogies in the future. Still trying to learn about and adapt to the Wikipedian climate. Iroh (talk) 23:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What climate are you from where any of that behavior is acceptable?? JoelleJay (talk) 01:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cochran and Harpending, again

To avoid WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at an obscure article, I would appreciate additional eyes. Specifically, this is regarding these edits by me, which Iroh has reverted.

These edits removed this source, which was the key source for the bulk the article.

Cochran, Gregory; Hardy, Jason; and Harpending, Henry (2006): "Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence" (PDF). Journal of Biosocial Science 38(5):659–693 SEP 2006, University of Utah.

As I said on the talk page, this was heavily over-represented without significant support from reliable secondary sources. Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending's work should be supported and contextualized by sources, not editors. Cochran and Harpending's credibility as a reliable source is disputed by many other academics. Further, this source is almost fifteen years old. Since then,more research has been done, and more information about Harpending and Cochran's extremist and pseudoscientific views has come to light (easy-to-find sources on this: [2] [3]). Any update should contextualize this based on newer sources, but fringe sources are not a good starting point for a controversial topic. Grayfell (talk) 07:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I previously remarked on the article talk page, there is an entire section - Criticism of the genetic explanations and debate - devoted to "contextualising" the Cochran et al. paper. Feel free to add even more critical soruces, just don't remove existing reliable ones. Again, you can't just remove the Genetic explanations section and leave the criticism/debate section intact - then they're ostensibly criticising thin air! As you've noted many times, context is important. Also, please don't start a new discussion involving me without pinging me. Iroh (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

No, not that AfD, but I can see why it might be confusing:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence (2nd nomination).

jps (talk) 06:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spillover into Nobel Prize articles

These sources seem to have spilled-over into mentions of the Nobel Prizes. We have Cochran et al, Charles Murray, and now Richard Lynn (again!) being cited at List of Jewish Nobel laureates.

Jews#Contributions now includes a lengthy, extremely vague paragraph supported by Cochran et al, as well as an opinion from Charles Murray. As I said on that article's talk, most of these sources don't unambiguously support this content even if they were usable. Both of these sections were added by User:Maxim.il89 who has also repeatedly copy.pasted this into Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence. Grayfell (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, just for the record, no one actually "promotes" that theory - I think this theory is ridiculous, false, there's no such thing as genetic superiority, and I can explain Ashkenazi success in terms of historical circumstances.

HOWEVER, this pseudo-scientific theory exists, and because it exists, it makes no sense to erase information about its existence.

This guys removes basic information like the fact the overwhelming majority of Jews winning the Nobel Prize are of Ashkenazi ancestry, it's just a fact, statistics - it's definitely relevant to an article dedicated to Jewish Nobel Prize winners.

I started discussion on the talk page, I tried reasoning with him, I feel like for him it's more of a matter of ego to make a point.

Obviously this theory is nonsense, however... "Jews" are not a single, homogeneous group. Nobel Prize winners of Jewish ancestry are overwhelmingly Ashkenazi. No, it doesn't mean that silly theory is true, but it's a statistical fact. Maxim.il89 (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxim.il89: Instead of attacking my motives, discuss the issues.

As you may expect, Wikipedia has dealt with pseudoscience in the past. We directly describe fringe theories like this as pseudoscience to readers. We do this so we don't inadvertently promote misinformation. Merely mentioning a fringe theory's existence is not enough, we need to give enough context to readers for them to be informed about the topic. Your edits failed to do this. Your edits implied that this routine statistical information "prompted" a theory. This isn't necessarily true, but regardless, you didn't explain that this theory is based on racial superiority and rapid evolution, nor did you explain to readers why this was controversial.

Additionally, why are you citing pseudoscientific sources for this? Did you know who Richard Lynn and Charles Murray were when you cited them? Grayfell (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I offered you to collaborate, I said I'd be happy to see an edit from you where you bring up the percentage of Ashkenazi Jews without those sources or without the theory, I'm all for compromise, but you seem to just want to edit war here.

Go ahead, I might be inexperienced on Wikipedia, but I know the topic of Ashkenazi Jews is relevant to the Jews winning Nobel prizes article - come on, show me how it's done, because all you do is remove.

I used the word "controversial" about this theory, you want to add more info on that? Context? Go ahead. It's obvious this theory is crap.

You have to cite pseudoscientific sources when discussing a pseudoscientific theory. I mean, good luck writing an article about Nazism without using Hitler as a source for it. Maxim.il89 (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Invoking Nazism here, of all places, seems very odd, but okay. ...good luck writing an article about Nazism without using Hitler as a source for it. Stop and think about that for a bit, please. There are many thousands of in-depth reliable sources about Nazism. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, so we cite reliable sources about a topic to explain that topic. Instead, what you've been doing is sharing your own understanding of a topic based on unreliable WP:PRIMARY sources. This is a form of original research. I've tried to explain this to you on multiple talk pages, and if you presume I must be wrong anyway I don't know how else to collaborate with you. Grayfell (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is modus operandi for Maxim unfortunately. He is a good faith editor, but his ability to separate out what he is doing vs what people are saying he doing vs what wikipedia guidelines and rules say we should avoid is quite well documented on talk pages and the many argumentative discussions had. As it stands, I agree with you Greyfell. Koncorde (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, invoking Nazism here isn't odd, because Nazis believed in "scientific racism," and this theory is just that, trying to use statistical achievements to build some weird theory of genetic superiority.

However, as this article exists, and this theory is promoted by many (I mean, let's be honest, I grew up in Israel... a huge percentage their believes in this theory of superiority), this information is relevant.

Those sources are reliable in the sense of describing the point of view of those who support it, and that's all it is, an opinion, a non-scientific (or pseudo-scientific) opiniono.

Again, there are many links on the topic, I'm totally pro editing it, changing it, changing references, I literally said, show me how it's done. This is not sarcasm. I've said it many time.

But all he does is remove it, not edit it, not change, remove. He was told on the Jews page this info is relevant, he still continues removing it.

All I'm trying to include in the article about Jewish Nobel prize winners is the fact the overwhelming majority of them are Ashkenazi, it's not an opinion, it's a fact relevant to the article. If you have a better way to source or formulate it, I'll be happy to see it, no sarcasm, again. Maxim.il89 (talk) 10:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are reliable in the sense of describing the point of view of those who support it — which is not "reliable" in the sense that we need sources to be reliable. After years of reading documents from creationists, UFO enthusiasts, homeopaths, perpetual-motion mechanics, relativity denialists, etc., etc., it becomes clear that fringe authors are not reliable sources about their own positions. They lie. They shift the goalposts, hide their motivations, pretend to be scientific in one venue and abandon the pretense in another. Sorting through the mess is often a thankless task, and it is not what Wikipedia is suited for. We rely upon other analyses to do that for us. XOR'easter (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again. Be it an article on UFOs, Satanism, or any other ideology, those who believe in it are used as sources, it's just that the criticism against their views is also included. I've already edited my formulation, but he's not edit warring because of the formulation. Maxim.il89 (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What you are describing is WP:GEVAL. Fringe sources are only used as WP:PRIMARY sources, and only with extreme caution. That's what we are all trying to explain to you. This is based on WP:PROFRINGE and WP:DUE and a lot of other policies. This is the consensus on Wikipedia based on many, many past discussions. Your edits did not explain that this theory was fringe. Your edits instead implied the theory was legitimate by offering random flattering statistics stripped of all context. If your goal was to explain that the theory was fringe, you made a serious mistake.

Above you say that scientific racism was trying to use statistical achievements to build some weird theory of genetic superiority. You added the statistical achievements to the article but completely failed to explain why this was pseudoscience. Grayfell (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote controversial, and then I removed all references to this theory from other articles, what is the issue now? I am trying to compromise. Maxim.il89 (talk) 11:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of your most recent edits re-added "controversial" after multiple editors had removed it. Or were you talking about this edit, where you added two completely unreliable blogs as sources, at least one of which includes young-earth creationism and links to neo-Nazi propaganda? Oh look, you restored both of those things again while I was typing this. Grayfell (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the sources which are unreliable - it's one sentence with like 6 references, the bad sources, remove them. I even added "citation needed" to it. Maxim.il89 (talk) 08:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mind blowing concept; Stop adding the bad sources... Koncorde (talk) 08:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why hasn't WP:JUDAISM been alerted about this discussion? I remedied this omission.[4] Debresser (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because, in my opinion, the guy doesn't want people who might disagree with him to take part in the debate. Just my opinion. Maxim.il89 (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think people wouldn't agree with him? Koncorde (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because a few people across different pages have already told him that the information, even if could be better formulated, is relevant. Maxim.il89 (talk) 08:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I count one who has vaguely referred to the theory (his name is directly above this), but not your cited content, and one that has referred to the broader pseudoscience article which is currently in AfD. In contrast there are at least 6 or 7 named editors disagreeing with you about the significance or relevance. Koncorde (talk) 08:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What "guy"? This discussion seems to involve multiple people. I don't know how many of them are male/"guy"s but any one of them as well as any editor who isn't a guy, including you whichever category you fit in, was free to notify any relevant Wikiprojects. If editors were concerned about canvassing, they could have asked here first. Unlike say required notifications of the editor/s your discussing at noticeboards, there's no particular editor who is required to notify Wikiprojects. Therefore if there was a failure to notify Wikiprojects, it's on all participants of this discussion except for Debresser when it comes to Wikiproject Judaism and editor's gender identity is also irrelevant when it comes to said failure. And me for said Wikiproject since I'm fairly sure this is the first time I'm commenting. TLDR; it's not because the guy anything, but because you neglected to do so, "you" being anyone who participated in this discussion before Debresser notified. Nil Einne (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is pseudoscientific to mention well-established statistical facts? Please avoid WP:Bias Grayfell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.5.219 (talk • contribs)

Pretending that these are "well-established statistical facts" devoid of all context or nuance makes this a loaded question. I have very little patience for that game, and as I've already said many times for this issues, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Ignoring the context of a source to imply that this is a bland "statistical fact" is cherry-picking. Look at what reliable sources are actually saying, not what you wish they were saying. Grayfell (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Love Jihad conspiracy theory

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

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. —Paleo Neonate – 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]

The deletion discussion was closed with no consensus. I've started a new discussion at Talk:Love Jihad § Academic sources to continue article development. — Newslinger talk 04:33, 29 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]

In my mind a "conspiracy theory" is a story of powerful, shadowy figures manipulating events to hide the TRUTH. Something you can have a laugh about and mostly harmless to all but the gullible. Seems like unfortunate wording as "harmless" does not apply. I'm not well informed on the subject, but WP's coverage of Hindutva and the BJP looks simply inadequate. fiveby(zero) 14:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With a Press Freedom Index ranking of #142 (out of 180 countries), the state of the Indian press is not exactly ideal. When academic sources are available (as they are for this topic), these sources can address the deficiencies in the coverage published in the popular press. — Newslinger talk 15:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Academic sources do not adequately address current legal proceedings on active cases of alleged love jihad, but instead focus on the narrative of right-wing groups. Consider the work of David Strohl, and Tyagi and Sen. It is debatable whether academic sources can address these deficiencies currently. This article’s focus seems to be heavily on what Hindu groups in India consider love jihad to be and their perceptions. Rather the framework should focus on whether forced conversion is a reality or not. As such, the term ‘jihad’ in this context needs discussion, which is currently lacking (and if it is lacking in general, that should be spelled out in the article). There is also a heavy focus on perception in India but not much mention of forced conversions of Hindus in other South Asian nations, especially women and how it relates to this topic. The motive of the alleged forced converter is key, as it will determine whether or not this is a hoax. Liberalvedantin —Preceding undated comment added 16:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Academic sources from reputable publishers are considered the most reliable sources. The highest-quality reliable sources (including academic sources and news sources) describe "Love Jihad" as a conspiracy theory, so the Love Jihad article does as well. It is not the role of Wikipedia editors to try to prove whether a theory is credible or not; that would be original research. — Newslinger talk 15:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon Coleman

There are signs of edit warring at Vernon Coleman. The subject is a British former medical doctor best known for his self-published books which make a number of fringe-sounding claims. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Sidney Hyman

Edward Sidney Hyman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stumbled on this bio of a doctor which makes the bold claim that "Diseases that are thought of as distinct and unrelated such as hypertension, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, inflammatory bowel disease, dermatomyositis, nephrosis, glomerulonephritis, lupus erythematous are variants of a single disease stemming from the same bacterial cause." The article attributes several other inventions and discoveries to him but it is all referenced to primary sources (his own papers and patents). I think this could use more eyes (and possibly an AfD). Spicy (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now AfDed. Agricolae (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a valid response to an article that is well-sourced and demonstrates compliance with notability criteria. His late-career ideas of a purported "Systemic Coccal Disease" may well be fringe but that is no more grounds for deletion than it would be grounds for deleting Linus Pauling for advocating Vitamin C megadosage or Peter Duesberg (perhaps more analogously) for his HIV denialism. We lapse into AfD too quickly as a facile response to legitimate fringe concerns. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article that only cites the subject's own publications, as is the case with this one, is not in compliance with notability criteria - read those notability criteria again and note that the word 'independent' is prominently featured. Agricolae (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to jump in and agree with Agricolae here; literally every source currently cited in the article is authored or co-authored by the article subject. That, to me, fails notability. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're telling me you think that Nature isn't independent of Hyman? That Lancet isn't independent? That the succeeding authors that cite him aren't independent? I'm fairly sure those are and that any definition that attempts to exclude them is ad-hocism that is not a general AfD or notability standard. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources are written or co-authored by him, there's not even an independent obituary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that authoring articles in those publications doesn't make him per se notable--rather, we should be looking for a secondary source that says, in essence, "Dr. Hyman is important because he published in these important publications." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)We are telling you that anything Hyman writes is not independent of Hyman - that his papers were published indicates that the editors/reviewers found their subject was (at least nominally) notable, but does not demonstrate that the person who wrote the paper is themselves notable. As to succeeding citations, there is not a single source in the entire article that Hyman didn't write himself, so again no notability is demonstrated. There is nothing ad hoc about this. It is right there as a basic criterion for notability of a person, that they received significant coverage in multiple independent (of themselves and each other) sources. Those most basic criteria fail to be met by the article as it currently exists. In short, we need a reliable source about Hyman written by someone who isn't Hyman, and there is a stark absence of such a source in the current article, which only cites things he himself penned. Agricolae (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been hanging around AfD for literally years and I've never seen journal articles published in major journals called not independent or not notable. The journal articles are not, and never have before in my experience, been treated as sources about the article subject. If you want to talk abou basic criteria, please re-read WP:NACADEMIC. By the very fact that this person has published in those journals they satisfy the standard which specifically calls out this type of evidence of notability. I honestly don't get this level of resistance other than as an attempt to purge a fringe proponent against the policy as written. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To help me understand better, could you specify which of the 8 criteria of WP:NACADEMIC are fulfilled here? I would be grateful. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And no, simply having published in Nature and Lancet is not one of these notability criteria for academics. Agricolae (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the argument that "The journal articles are not, and never have before in my experience, been treated as sources about the article subject" because in this case they are being used as sources about the subject; they are the only sources for the subject's entire biography (well, except for the parts that are unsourced). It is true that for academics we accept being cited by other researchers as evidence of notability and that we are more lenient on the need for independent sourcing than we are with other categories of biographies (we allow faculty bios, obituaries from affiliated organizations, etc.). But even if it's decided that notability is satisfied, there are issues with WP:OR, WP:DUE and WP:MEDRS when an article is based solely on the subject's own writings.

Someone's own papers and patents cannot be used to say they were the first to discover or invent something; that would require an actual review of the literature. If the only sources available are the academic's own publications, how can one decide what is and is not sufficiently important to include in their biography? Without a secondary source that puts his life and work into context that is just engaging in OR. And finally, a medical claim is a medical claim regardless of whether it is in a biography or a "proper" medical article, and case reports and research studies from decades ago cannot be used to make claims about the causes or mechanisms of diseases in Wikipedia's voice. Spicy (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Journal articles published in major journals can be evidence of notability. They are not, however, the kinds of serious, in-depth reliable sources we need to write a biography necessarily. jps (talk) 15:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this entirely. While the articles, to me, suggest notability, they fall short of establishing it by themselves. As ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GMO discussion at NPOVN

Editors at this noticeboard may like to be informed of and weigh in at this discussion: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Genetically modified food controversies. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miracles can happen

A little help. Clearly there are many Muslims who believe in miracles. Clearly there are few who are not Muslim who think these miracles are well documented. Compare literally any other religion on Wikipedia.

jps (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The other multiverse

Editors at this noticeboard may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multiverse (religion).

Unserious side question: If all the parallel universes are part of the multiverse, then what entity contains all the multiverses? Crossroads ^-talk- 04:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... It's trying to combine Religious cosmology (which needs work), Plane (esotericism), and some similar articles like Heaven, but using a term from science/sci-fi that... just doesn't quite fit. Those religious cosmologies wouldn't view those places as other universes but as a broader part of the existence (which the observable universe would only be a small part of).

And multiverse ideas usually use the term "multiverse" to describe the collective universes. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Visible Ink Press

The publisher Visible Ink Press claims that In our 28 years, we've published nearly 400 titles and currently publish about ten titles a year. All have been exclusively references [5]. However, this seems to include titles such as "The Illuminati: The Secret Society That Hijacked the World" [6], "The Government UFO Files: The Conspiracy of Cover-Up" [7], and "Lost Civilizations: The Secret Histories and Suppressed Technologies of the Ancients" [8]. Any idea how to address this from an WP:NPOV on the article page? power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki:, I'm wondering why we need an article about them at all. Of the seven sources in the article, I see 3 self-references, two directory entries, an interview with the owner in industry press, and a one-paragraph notice in an independent RS. Looking for other sources brings up booksellers and more directories and some passing mentions but nothing actually about the company. I'm tempted to AfD this. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If a minimum of WP:OR is allowed it'd be possible to include links to [9] and [10] with a mention that they also publish books about conspiracy theories. On the other hand, I fail to find independent sources discussing Visible Ink Press, I instead find book directories and stores that include books by that publisher. —Paleo Neonate – 06:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe theories about the president and Covid-19

Areas to watch: Misinformation spikes as Trump confirms COVID-19 diagnosis --Guy Macon (talk) 11:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, White House outbreak of COVID-19 is 10h old, so a "Conspiracy theories about..." article is way overdue. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theories about the White House outbreak of COVID-19 - what, still red? Material would be there. 1 2 3--mfb (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carleton S. Coon

I'm not happy with all the changes here[11], particularly the many times an obituary was used in ways that seem to promote him and the major deletion of "In1961 non-fiction writer Carleton Putnam published Race and Reason: A Yankee View, a popular theory of racial segregation. A special session of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists voted to censure Putnam's book. Coon, who was then the president of the association, and was present at the meeting, asked how many of the participants had actually read the book; only one hand was raised in response. Coon resigned in protest, criticizing the meeting for representing scientific irresponsibility^[1] and arguing its actions violated free speech.^[2] Coon published The Origin of Races in 1962." I'll tell the editor. Doug Weller talk 12:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Pat Shipman (1994). The Evolution of Racism: Human Differences and the Use and Abuse of Science. Harvard University Press. p. 200. ISBN 0674008626.
^ Academic American Encyclopedia (vol. 5, p.271). Danbury, Connecticut: Grolier Incorporated (1995).

I'm not sure why you've decided to raise this here of all places, since none of my edits were remotely related to "fringe theories", and consisted solely of fleshing out the article with accurate information from a reliable source (which had been used heavily in the article before). Perhaps you'd like to explain which Wiki policies you think they violate? Note that "making Doug Weller happy" isn't one of them. And you clearly didn't read the diffs that clearly, or you would have seen that I didn't delete that passage, I just moved it to a more appropriate part of the article. Thanks. Ya hemos pasao (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific racism is not supported by modern anthropology or biology. It is inaccurate to present this consensus as the view of a minority (WP:YESPOV, Special:Diff/981606945: "by some modern anthropologists to be pseudoscientific"). WP:PSCI is also policy related to fringe theories so it's in this noticeboard's scope. —Paleo Neonate – 07:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that I didn't notice the move of some content, but my point about the overuse of one obituary still stands. And Coon's ideas are considered fringe today. Doug Weller talk 10:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to User:Joe Roe for greatly improving the article. Doug Weller talk 10:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution of Christians

I part-rewrote the lead to Persecution of Christians to attempt a more neutral tone, but the body of the article, especially the post-Cold War section, could use its sources examining and its tone in places distanced from its subject. The introduction of that section starts with some commentary from neutral observer Benedict XVI (ret'd), and ends with a conclusion that uncritically backs the ex-papal claim Christians are (win?) "the most persecuted religion", (prize at the) 2019 (awards?). GPinkerton (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a much more neutral to move the article to Treatment of Christians. Of course it's possible to find examples of Christians being persecuted, but I don't there's any way we can have a neutral article by cherry-picking just those examples. This article has got to be a POV fork of something. Wikiman2718 (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are "Persecution of X" articles for all the major religions, including Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, etc. Do you think those articles should also be moved? Persecution of Christians is an observable and verifiable phenomenon, and has been for millennia, and of course it's possible to write an article that describes the phenomemon in a neutral way. And the fact GPinkerton is raising this at FTN, suggests that he believes the persecution of Christians is a fringe theory, which itself would be a fringe theory. Ya hemos pasao (talk) 01:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It implies no such thing. I have identified quite clearly what I think one of the fringe theories is. I don't think there's any benefit in moving the page. GPinkerton (talk) 02:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was very obvious. But now GPinkerton has probably been added to the list of persecutors of Christians, together with Nero, Diocletian, and Richard Dawkins. Because "persecution of Christians" is defined by some as "any type of disagreement with a Christian". That is at the base of the fringe theory in question. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution happened in the past and still exists at some places and times, the issue with this kind of article is indeed that there also exists a persecution complex causing a tendency to accumulate irrelevant material. The solution is to only include obvious examples that are mentioned in reliable sources and to avoid apologetic ones... Free expression, the separation of church and state and criticism of religion is out of the scope (except of course where totalitarian/radical actions prevent expression, like imprisonment or more; then one should also take in consideration if it's "Christianity" or particular groups or individuals and why, i.e. Christian terrorism and abuse by individual members or leaders, like fraud and sex crimes, exist). —Paleo Neonate – 15:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To call it a POV fork, you would need to find the other prong first. No, this is a legitimate article. The book series Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums, which has looked at another side of Christianity, is legitimate, so this is too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"To call it a POV fork, you would need to find the other prong first." There is a partial overlap with the Christian persecution complex. Dimadick (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are problems with that article, including large chunks of text primary-sourced to Christian advocacy groups. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Political ponerology

I noticed this article after seeing this edit.[12] The book in question is published by Red Pill Press, clearly a fringe publisher.[13] The introduction is written by this fringe writer.[14] She's mentioned in Thomas French who wrote about her and her website is an EL there. She's used as a source for Theodore Illion who claimed to have discovered an underground city in Tibet and in Succubus.

Back to "political ponerology". There's in article in Psychology Today by Steve Taylor (author) which briefly mentions it as an example of "pathocracy" and another in Sri Lanka's daily business paper.[15] It's also mention in Salon[16] and that article seems pretty convincing evidence that it's not fringe.

So, should it be cleaned up and also restored to Ponerology despite its intro by a kook? Doug Weller talk 10:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mika, Elizabeth (2017). "Who Goes Trump? Tyranny as a Triumph of Narcissism". In Lee, Brandy (ed.). The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) just a bare mention
Hughes, Ian (2017). Disordered minds : how dangerous personalities are destroying democracy. Zero Books.
Andregg, Michael (2015). "EVIL IN CIVILIZATIONS AND SOLUTIONS". In Celinski, Marek J. (ed.). Crisis and Renewal of Civilizations. Nova. One of the pioneers in this area was a Polish survivor of Nazi Germany, then Communist occupation, named Andrew Lobaczewski. But his book on Political Ponerology is very difficult to read. It claims to be a product of a larger group of mostly Eastern European scientists who struggled to understand totalitarian systems with deep roots in that region that resulted in so much killing during the 20th century. So they were highly motivated, but much of their original material was allegedly lost. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

Not much to inspire confidence, nothing in academic sources so far. fiveby(zero) 16:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If sources are difficult to find that criticize his view that biology was a main factor, it's likely undue, especially if it's sourced to primary Łobaczewski material... —Paleo Neonate – 16:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That Salon author Paul Rosenberg saying "A long-suppressed book, published just over a decade ago" is a red flag, when it was published 1984, 1985, 1998[17], and 2006-2013[18]. Suppressed usually just means ignored. fiveby(zero) 16:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Watering down MEDRS - proposal suggestion

Watchers of this page may be interested in Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Biomedical Sciences: An idea to identify acceptable primary research for citations (in addition to citing reviews). People who watch this page may wish to comment -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Cayce

Edgar Cayce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nascent iodine (dietary supplement) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I left the Cayce article unattended for a few months (Watchlist too long), and POV edits crept in. I reverted some, but the article would probably profit from more eyes. Also, Atomidine (or rather, the article it redirects to, Nascent iodine (dietary supplement)) seems to be in need of work. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas ibn Firnas as a pioneer of aviation

The lead states, with sources (2 the same person) that he was a pioneer of aviation, yet the article casts strong doubts on the story of his alleged flight. This doesn't make sense and I'm not convinced that the sources are adequate. Maybe I should go to RSN, but this seems more of a fringe issue. Doug Weller talk 15:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Hezârfen Ahmed Çelebi, also an "aviator". GPinkerton (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I've been meaning to try to improve it, but it hasn't happened yet. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just reworded the start to reflect what is in the sources. A couple of the sources look to be good, especially the article in Spanish from the 1960s but I don't suppose it's easy to access. There's nothing intrinsically weird in the notion that a 9th century polymath might have had a go at a bit of hang-gliding with limited success. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller, GPinkerton, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, and Itsmejudith: This is what Lévi-Provençal mentioned in his Encylopaedia of Islam (2nd edition) entry, "He was even a distant precursor of aviation, thinking out a sheath furnished with feathers and mobile wings; had the courage to put it on, to jump from the top of a precipice and to hover in the air for a few seconds before falling—escaping death by a miracle." -TheseusHeLl (talk) 22:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheseusHeLl: feathers and mobile wings that's not aviation and flying like that only works in cartoons and the myth of Daedalus and Icarus. It would be charitable to call it gliding rather than outright falling. This no more a precursor to aviation than were Da Vinci's unbuilt and unflyable machines. GPinkerton (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but that's your pov. If a reliable source like EI2 and a reliable medievalist like Lévi-Provençal said that "He was even a distant precursor of aviation", so this view should be represented in the article. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between falling and flying is very slight, but noticeable at the end. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduphobia in academia

I discovered this (and related page Hinduphobia in Academia) while doing new page review. It's unclear to me whether Hinduphobia is a legitimate, recognized term, as all the sources seem (as one might expect) POV-pushing. Would appreciate any guidance on this. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, those are really two separate articles with the exact same title save for capitalization. At least one has to be a WP:POVFORK. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the timing, this article looks like an attack on the academic sources cited in the Love Jihad article. See #Love Jihad conspiracy theory for details. — Newslinger talk 10:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hinduphobia in academia. jps (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changes at Orgone

Can anyone have a look at this change of content, tone and source at Orgone, accompanied by this wall of text on the talk page? - DVdm (talk) 23:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While the IP does a surprisingly good job at sussing out the various arguments in the Talk page history, and their appraisal of the overall content is pretty reasonable, I think they are giving too much credibility to one-off primary sources to rebut the pseudoscience label. The lack of comprehensive, independent, peer-reviewed research is a testament to the idea's lack of validity and experimental rigor and its consequent dismissal by later generations of scientists. It was a brief money-making curiosity rooted in an ultimately pseudoscientific theoretical foundation. That's all. JoelleJay (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The IP first needs to respect WP:BRD and WP:PA. --Hob Gadling (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joelle and Hob, thanks for comments and restore. - DVdm (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Tuberville

There is a discussion between me and Korny O'Near and how to describe US Senate candidate Tuberville's position on climate change (only God causes climate change/nobody will be able to feel it in the next 400 years), Talk:Tommy_Tuberville#Content_sourced_to_InsideClimate_News_should_be_restored. Editors here may be interested. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

‘So Frustrating’: Doctors and Nurses Battle Virus Skeptics

[19] --Guy Macon (talk) 19:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did the Maya meet the Vikings? A Yale professor seems to think it's likely

Really embarrassing as I'm a Yalie. Valerie Hansen [20] Doug Weller talk 10:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have sources saying this? I have not read the book.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just skimmed a bit and yes, the author really has sunburnt Norsemen in the Yucatan, as proven by some watercolour paintings of some 1000-year old paintings which can be construed as showing yellow-haired people (and not just Mayan artistic convention) and a boat with planks, which apparently is unthinkable to a civilization that can build buildings much higher and grander than the Vikings ever did. GPinkerton (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we find sources, we can add them into the article about her.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She's a historian of China. An awful warning to what's happening when you succumb to the pressure to write popular books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmejudith (talk • contribs)

Well, sure, but lots of academics put out theories of various kinds in their books and writings. It seems to me that is an essential part of both the scientific and history-writing process. Other intellectuals and academics will deal with such, and provide subsequent evidence for, or counter-evidence against, such theories. Personally, I have no idea whether there might be some historical "evidence" of a Viking boat getting down to the latitudes of the Maya. But I sure wouldn't think that someone's embarrassment at being a fellow of that university would be relevant. Wikipedia should just be following that which is verifiable. We don't really do very well at discerning "truth." Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lost in the mall technique

The criticism seems fringey to me, but I am not a psychologist. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The authors of the criticism papers were inserting their papers into the article. [21]. jps (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Ray Griffin

Griffin sent a representative to argue for him to remove the "conspiracy theorist" label, and the representative has asked why all the people who watch the article are not coming to discuss him. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great Barrington Declaration

Great Barrington Declaration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An open letter from anti-lockdown proponents, that appears to have received a universal raspberry from mainstream scientists. Add to that a rumour doing the rounds that the declaration's true greatness is being censored by Google, and we have a rich fringe cocktail. Editing seems to be hotting up so could probably use eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New additions need reviewing. GPinkerton (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Single-purpose accounts named for bogus signatories are now quibbling over the presentation: the apparently non-fictional User:MadScientistDoctor and the definitely real and entirely not at all fake User:DoctorBananarama22. GPinkerton (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're going a bit overboard here, read the comments by James Naismith: At one level this declaration is a statement of a series of scientific truths and as such is non-controversial...That said, the declaration omits some rather critical scientific information that would help better inform policy makers...It is absolutely proper that scientists offer their best advice to government, especially perhaps, when that advice differs from the mainstream, as this does...Humility and willingness to consider alternatives are hallmarks of good science.[22] This is not "a bunch of rogue scientists...analagous to vaccine denial, climate denial, creationism, etc." fiveby(zero) 19:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the actual Declaration is not important; it's the diverse traction it's received in fringe quarters and the predicable furore over the "let-anyone-and-his-dog sign the damn thing" attitude to the "expert" signatories and the mutually exclusive (ir-)realities inhabited by a Guardian journalist and former Daily Mail's political editor-at-large and far-right Brexit Party chairman Richard Tice's girlfriend-journalist. GPinkerton (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GPinkerton, see also Project Steve. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Big if true: Koch brothers nefariousness again: Ahmed, Nafeez (2020-10-09). "Climate Science Denial Network Behind Great Barrington Declaration". Byline Times. Retrieved 2020-10-10.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) GPinkerton (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Open letters are meaningful when the people signing them are meaningful. When the letter writers crow about the sheer number of signatories, that's a huge WP:REDFLAG, Project Steve. jps (talk) 02:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uhmm, of course it's true, American Institute for Economic Research is linked right in the first sentence. Maybe there needs to be some additional text explaining this is a property rights/free market think tank? Surprising you think it's surprising. (Why doesn't that author just say upfront Atlas Network). fiveby(zero) 02:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fiveby, 70% of the AIER article was sourced to their own website. Normal for articles on think-tanks, there are a bazillion of them and they are often funded by the same people. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, I was just a little surprised that with 'Economic' in the name, and a libertarian slant this wasn't obvious from the git-go. GPinkerton is right that the article needs some context to explain. Not the Koch funding, but as David Naylor said it will: "...enliven the libertarians who object to public health measures on principle..."[23]. It ain't like this was from Kaiser, the motivation behind the organization should be understood. Just saying it's Koch funded doesn't do that. fiveby(zero) 22:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fiveby, I agree. "part of the Atlas Network of libertarian think-tanks" might cover it. People think that Wikipedia invented citeogenesis and fact-washing, but we're decades behind the libertarian right. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is again filled with uncited editorializing … GPinkerton (talk) 05:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And with drive by IPs making (ahem) "Grammar" edits like this it's looking like it might be a good idea for the article to be semi'd. Any uninvolved admins watching here? Alexbrn (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked yesterday but was declined. GPinkerton (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

of interest The Gorsky take. ADDED Though I see from the article history that Alex is ahead of me, as usual. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Predictably, the "WHO caves to free-market economics" non-story is now being added to World Health Organization's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. GPinkerton (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GPinkerton, it's not the WHO, it's one dude. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG Thanks, I am fully aware, I have already made that point repeatedly on the talkpage of the Great Declaration. I just wanted to notify others that this fringe spin on Nabirro's interview is cropping up elsewhere too. GPinkerton (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the Great Barrington Declaration listed in a section in WP:FTN? Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 01:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relatedly

Criticism of the British government response to the COVID-19 pandemic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) now exists and appears pro-fringe. Gupta, Toby Young, Peter Hitchens all rife, with a for-and-against layout and Screaming Lord Sumption going unopposed. Some apparent attempts to smuggle the Mail in through third-party sources. Worth looking over; it certainly needs overall improvement. GPinkerton (talk) 08:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have blanked and redirected it back to the main article, as it would be a blatant POVFORK. Alexbrn (talk) 08:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexbrn: Surely the correct main article is British government response to the COVID-19 pandemic GPinkerton (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that would be better. Alexbrn (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was Trump "potentially infectious" on October 10 (the day of his balcony speech)?

On White House COVID-19 outbreak, I added mention of the White House rally on October 10 where Trump spoke unmasked to a 2,000 person crowd. I characterized his status as "potentially infectious" based on The Independent. NYT goes even further, saiyng "might be contagious to those around him".

This change has been objected to, because "President Donald Trump’s doctor said Saturday the president is no longer at risk of transmitting the coronavirus." I have argued we should include the Oct 10 event along with the doctor's claim, but that suggestion has been rejected. Feoffer (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feoffer is WP:FORUMSHOPPING because he didn't get his way at Talk:White House COVID-19 outbreak#Edit request: Oct 10 event where the consensus was overwhelmingly against his change -- mainly because he tried to insert a claim that "According to medical experts, Trump was potentially infectious during the speech" when the attached source said "President Donald Trump’s doctor said Saturday the president is no longer at risk of transmitting the coronavirus". There are no fringe theories involved in any of this and thus this section should be hatted as being completely off-topic. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources agree Trump may still be infectious. Sources:

WaPo headline: "Trump says he’s not contagious. Health experts say that’s not certain." source
Snopes/AP: "Trump Still Contagious? Experts Say It’s Impossible to Know"President Donald Trump said he doesn't think he's contagious anymore, but medical experts say that's impossible to know. "source
"Trump flagged by Twitter after tweeting false claim that he's not contagious and is now immune to COVID-19" source

COVID denialism falls squarely within the rubric of FRINGE. Feoffer (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is speculation by people who have not examined Trump about whether he is infectious. The best source about that it here:[24] but speculation that the actual MD who performed the tests is wrong is not "COVID denialism" nor is it a fringe theory. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Native white Australians

Would welcome any input on this from the fine people at FTN. It looks like a WP:POVFORK of Currency lads and lasses, but I'm not sure. (I posted at WP:AUSTRALIA as well.) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looked like it was an attempt at writing an article like Old Stock Americans as it pertains to "Nativism" like American ethnicity....however the concept is not developed at all in the article and uses a loose connection to the term.--Moxy 🍁 15:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We already have Anglo-Celtic Australians and European Australians, which is surely plenty. GPinkerton (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Moxy, GPinkerton, redirect now removed … AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Put up for deletion or merger of about 10% of content?.--Moxy 🍁 04:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly not sure. There is indeed a book apparently about the subject, but all other uses of the term in reputable scholarship seem to be generic/non-technical uses from which WP:SYNTH would be the only way to build an article. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times article on overcoming anti-vaxxers

First lesson: Don't say "anti-vaxxers". In all seriousness, the Vaccine Confidence Project is not just an exercise in double-speak but one in information delivery. That is something we should be good at. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eggishorn, Nah. Just ban them. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Food aid and overpopulation

I'm not sure what to make of Aid#Food_as_a_means_of_increasing_carrying_capacity_and_undesirable_population_growth. (Or, rather, [25], as I have at least temporarily removed the relevant content.) It looks either WP:UNDUE or WP:SYNTHetic, but at least some of the sources do seem to have been legitimately published. Would appreciate any comments (and apologies for spamming FTN lately). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked the idea that there isn't enough food to feed the world's population is a fringe view, and the idea that food distribution is often disrupted in an attempt to commit genocide by starvation is mainstream.

Genocide by starvation does reduce global population, but then again so does thermonuclear war and plague -- heck,[26] every serial killer and suicide cult are doing their small part to reduce world population. The idea that this is a Good Thing is about as fringe as it gets. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No that's wrong, overpopulation is a serious problem and consideration of it is not fringe. Any relationship to food aid is obvious nonsense though. GPinkerton (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guy said that the idea that starvation, thermonuclear wars, plagues, serial killers and suicide cults are good things is fringe. Not that consideration of overpopulation is fringe. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What Hob Gadling said. Just because something is a real problem. that doesn't mean that every proposed solution to it is good. The logical progression "Something must be done about overpopulation. Genocide by starvation is something. Genocide by starvation must be done" is flawed.

It turns out that there is a solution that doesn't involve murdering millions of innocent people:

"A broad consensus has developed over time that as incomes rise, fertility tends to fall. There is little debate about the causal relationship between rising prosperity and declining fertility. Generally speaking, there has been a uniformly high correlation between national income growth and falling birth rates, and between family incomes and fertility. Economists and demographers for the most part agree that important ingredients of improved living standards, such as urbanization, industrialization and rising opportunities for non-agrarian employment, improved educational levels, and better health all lead to changed parental perceptions of the costs and benefits of children, leading in turn to lower fertility. In other words, there is no longer much debate about whether or not improved economic conditions, whether at the family level or at the societal level, lead to lower fertility."

Source: Population, poverty and economic development Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2009 Oct 27; 364(1532): 3023–3030.[27]

--Guy Macon (talk) 08:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

I'm looking for editors who deal with difficult content disputes, and I thought of y'all. Please see Wikipedia talk:Consensus#No consensus in article pages, recent edits. The main concern is that WP:NOCON and WP:ONUS might be telling different stories about what to do when the discussion results in no consensus (i.e., a true no consensus, with an evenly divided discussion, resulting in neither a consensus to include nor a consensus to exclude – not a consensus against inclusion).

AIUI, ONUS says that if someone wants to include some content, and that content is disputed, and the result is discussion there's no consensus, the disputed content is removed, but NOCON says that under exactly the same circumstances, editors should revert to the WP:STATUSQUO (which could be either inclusion or exclusion, mostly depending upon how long ago the information was added).

It would be good for policies (a) to match each other and (b) to represent best practices. If you can help us achieve these goals, I would be grateful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trump administration political interference with science agencies - notice of requested move discussion

FYI, there is an ongoing requested move at Talk:Trump administration political interference with science agencies. Input welcome. Neutrality^talk 18:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Anatomy of a COVID-19 Conspiracy Theory

‘Film Your Hospital’ – The Anatomy of a COVID-19 Conspiracy Theory

Key quote: "The pandemic has fuelled at least ten conspiracy theories this year. Some linked the spread of the disease to the 5G network, leading to phone masts being vandalised. Others argued that COVID-19 was a biological weapon. Research has shown that conspiracy theories could contribute to people ignoring social distancing rules."

--Guy Macon (talk) 02:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gopi Warrier

is a best known as an expert in Indian Ayurvedic medicine. For some reason, lots of his YouTube videos are linked, and also quantum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like COPYVIO from the website about section. establish which came first, egg or chicken. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the material from there only seems to have been added to the article yesterday. Brunton (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the current status of the Ayurvedic Charitable Hospital? See footnote 14 of this. That’s over ten years old, so there may be more recent info available. Brunton (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth listing it at Copyright problems? Seems to be a bit of a backlog there. Brunton (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ALLATRA

New article on some sort of NRM. Looks fringe but what do I know about this sort of thing. Doug Weller talk 19:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced from the article that it's notable. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Griffith

We have an article for this guy Jeremy Griffith whom I suspect is some kind of quack/fringe scientist. His website www.humancondition.com just screams SCAM to me. His article here is completely uncritical of him and feels like it was written by a paid stooge. I would like somebody to take a closer look at this, I don't trust it. Kurzon (talk) 08:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He is far from being a household name, but he is known in Australia in certain intellectual circles. The article seems ok to me and covers the territory. Probrooks (talk) 08:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kurzon: Looks like yet another fringe scientist, with a fawning Wikipedia article based way too much on editorializing around primary sources. Although one decent source - a review in the Sydney Morning Herald - is cited [28] none of its extensive criticism makes it into our article. Funny that. Perhaps Doug Weller might know more ... ? Alexbrn (talk) 09:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article talk page the article was edited extensively by a paid sock farm who seem to have inserted a lot of the promotional material into the article.

I'm also slightly suspicious of Divinecomedy666, who's contributions seem to suggest a single purpose account focusing almost exclusively on Jeremy Griffith and anthropology. This same user has previously made a number of edits where they have inserted very promotional material about Jeremy Griffith into a number of related articles: [29] [30] [31]. It seems they have a conflict of interest with the article's subject? 192.76.8.82 (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Pat Shipman (1994). The Evolution of Racism: Human Differences and the Use and Abuse of Science. Harvard University Press. p. 200. ISBN 0674008626.

[2] Academic American Encyclopedia (vol. 5, p.271). Danbury, Connecticut: Grolier Incorporated (1995).

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 354: / Line 354: @@
 :{{u|GPinkerton}}, it's not the WHO, it's one dude. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]] - [[User:JzG/Typos|typo?]])</small> 22:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 ::{{u|JzG}} Thanks, I am fully aware, I have already made that point repeatedly on the talkpage of the Great Declaration. I just wanted to notify others that this fringe spin on Nabirro's interview is cropping up elsewhere too. [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 22:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
+<br>
+Why is the [[Great Barrington Declaration]] listed in a section in [[WP:FTN]]? [[User:Knowledge Contributor0|Knowledge Contributor0]] ([[User talk:Knowledge Contributor0|talk]]) 01:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 ==Relatedly==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards