Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience

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

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

If you mention specific editors, you should notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so.
Deploy {{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion.

Please also notify any relevant Wikiprojects to encourage an increased visibility for the discussion.

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

Additional notes:

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

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

Article alerts

Did you know

18 Oct 2024 – Tyromancy (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Jonathan Deamer (t · c); see discussion

Redirects for discussion

26 Oct 2024 – Picric acid (homeopathic remedy) (talk · edit · hist) →List of homeopathic preparations was RfDed by Trovatore (t · c); see discussion

Minor-attracted person

The article appears to be citing deeply unreliable literature, including this critical criminology piece that claims that attraction to minors is merely a form of sexual orientation akin to being gay or straight. I attempted to BLAR, but was reverted by the page's creator. Additional eyes to review the citations for fringe would be appreciated. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per the result of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Minor-attracted_person, I would recommend creating an AfD for the article. The creator, who only started editing in late March, seems to be a SPA, as all of their edits relate to pedophilia in some way. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

per google scholar the term definitely does have some use in Academia, mostly within the last few years, but I assume this is massively dwarfed by other studies that just use paedophilia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now up for deletion again. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Minor-attracted_person_(2nd_nomination). Not really a good nomination rationale, and seems to be trending towards keep. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You could have tagged me here. I would not have seen this discussion if another editor had not linked it in the current AfD.

Anyway, if you have an issue with the sourcing, consider making a source eval table or something similar to prove your point. Show us HOW the sourcing is bad, instead of just saying that it is; nitpicking a single source does not count as a substantial evaluation of the article. Besides, as I told you yesterday, this Critical Criminology source was used only a single time, to make a single statement, that had nothing to do with saying that pedophilia is a sexual orientation. The the statement that this source was supporting was the idea that the term minor-attracted person had some variations. That source was so insignificant that after the discussion that we had yesterday, in which I tried to be cordial and agreed with you that Critical Criminology did not need to be included there, I removed it from the article and didn't have to change a single word of its body because there were other reliable sources that supported that same claim relating to the variations of the term "minor-attracted person". I already told you yesterday in your talk page that the idea that pedophilia is a sexual orientation is fringe and that I had never supported that idea, it was pretty dishonest of you to come here writting this topic in a way that suggests that I had made a claim that I never actually did, especially after I had already told you in your talk page that that was a position that I never held. If you want to criticise me or the article (both of which fine), please be clear in your critique and don't nitpick a just a single source from the article. And don't accuse me of having written things that I never had. 🔥 22spears 🔥 23:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've repeatedly cited the author of that same piece multiple times in the article, including in the article's use of A Long Dark Shadow, "I Would Report It Even If They Have Not Committed Anything": Social Service Students’ Attitudes Toward Minor-Attracted People, and "I’m Not like That, So Am I Gay?" The Use of Queer-Spectrum Identity Labels Among Minor-Attracted People. This is an extremely WP:FRINGE set of sourcing in the article—it ain't limited to the most egregious one that's been noted above. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's not about the journal anymore, it's about the author? Why do you keep changing you accusations each time I respond? Again, I never used any source coming from this journal or this author to promote any fringe theory, the source was to make statements regarding etymology, most of which could and often are already supported by better sources not related to that journal or author. 🔥 22spears 🔥 16:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Red-tailed hawk, thank you for bringing this up. The article has multiple SPAs involved with it lately, some of which have similar usernames, and feels like a POV fork. See also stigma of pedophilia created by 22spears and other articles in the topic area. It really needs closer eyes on it. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC) PS see also List of pedophile advocacy organizations in which I had to remove links to two different such groups, and in which an SPA described a group as "advocat[ing] for at least some age of consent reform and circulat[ing] alternative child sexual abuse testimony". Mmmkay. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query: it's been a year or two since I've looked at any of the research surrounding this (as it's very tough reading it for obvious reasons), but isn't minor-attracted person just a euphemism for paedophilia? If that's still the case, then shouldn't this at best be a redirect to the paedophilia article or relevant subsection? Because it seems like this is maybe a WP:POVFORK . Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely seems that way to me. That's what I argued at the AfD. It looks like we're dealing with a few highly motivated SPA accounts in this topic area right now, and some pretty glaring signs of socking. If anyone has tips that could be assembled into an SPI case, feel free to let me know by email. I'd be happy to put together cases. Generalrelative (talk) 02:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree with Sideswipe. Roxy the dog 19:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Same. DFlhb (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, something's up. Bon courage (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If memory serves, Flyer22 used to keep an eye on the paedo/hebe/ephebo-philia articles to weed out the sockfarms. They are unfortunately departed now, but perhaps folks who worked with them might be able to check? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand that argument. It appears to be an article about the term itself, not an article about pedophilia. If it was discussing pedophilia it would be a povfork, but it seems to be literally just discussing the phrase "minor-attracted person", which the article on pedophilia isn't? Endwise (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I've said the same at the AfD. The idea that this is a fork does not match with the actual contents of the article. small jars tc 22:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this needs to be part of a larger discussion on whether journals that specialize in critical theory and related subjects should be deprecated for not relying on empirical evidence, and instead attempting to conform to an a priori politically desired conclusion. Partofthemachine (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

missed the chance to drop a comment in the AFD. Will state here: we have an article on coprophilia (sexual attraction to feces), if people wanting to normalize this as an orientation wanted a separate article at feces-attracted person, that would amount to the same thing, and would surely not fly. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Alderney UFO sighting

Oh dear. This one slipped past our "radar", it seems. Full of absurd credulity and terrible sourcing.

@JMK: who is the main author. Might be worth checking those contributions as well.

jps (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you know what?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Alderney UFO sighting.

I think we should WP:TNT this. jps (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This note has been accused of being WP:CANVASSing. Further machinations continue at both the article and the AfD. I have also found a small discussion in a UFO forum encouraging people to comment at the AfD to get it kept. Sigh. jps (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ජපස, did you see the Journal of Scientific Exploration article "Unusual Atmospheric Phenomena Observed Near Channel Islands, UK, 23 April 2007", a little bit more discussion than Clarke has in The UFO Files? fiveby(zero) 20:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For sure. I'm not particularly enthused that Clarke, an expert in (check notes) folklore, is declaring that this nothing burger was "unusual atmospheric phenomena". It might be, but it also might be, I don't know, window glint. When it is only eyewitness testimony of UFOs, attempting to say anything about the situation is basically impossible. jps (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You both know this, but I note for other readers that the Journal of Scientific Exploration is a mouthpiece of the unquestionably pro-woo Society for Scientific Exploration, and as such should not be considered a reliable source for anything. An examination of some 2022 issues reveals that it promotes perpetual motion machines, parapsychology, the Loch Ness monster...and I think I'll end the list right there. The only question I have is whether it is more laughable than Rudy Schild's Journal of Cosmology. You know, the journal with "scientific" articles that claim to have discovered extraterrestrial life within meteorites. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To its credit, JSE sometimes publishes skeptical takedowns. It's pretty unusual, though. JoC is (was?) only propaganda and even published bizarre cartoonish slander against PZ Myers. Completely different league. jps (talk) 23:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the JoC remains is. Make way for The Ultraterrestrials and The final confirmation of the existence of multicellular life in aqueous habitats on the moons of Jupiter. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UFO sightings in South Africa

Same author, similar issues. Sourcing is atrocious. I notice some have been active cleaning things up, but a lot of cruft remains (sourcing to obscure newspaper articles, trade journals, and even Lonely Planet).jps (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Giants

I'd appreciate third opinions on these two newly created articles and their respective DYKs:

I'm concerned they gave more credence to this fringe theory than is warranted. – Joe (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that reports of 10 foot tall giants from newpaper articles from 1885 (!) should be stated in Wikivoice. Tewdar 12:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond at Template:Did you know nominations/Giant skeletons (United States). I’ve done as much as I can tonight. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I started both of these articles. They are well sourced and accurate. I am disappointed in the rapid fire AfD !votes and the gigantic stop sign shutdown of the DYK nomination. Clearly like minded people are being called to action with this notice so I mentioned it at both the DYK nomination and the AfD. Bruxton (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glancing over it there seem to be multiple issues related to sourcing and accuracy. For instance: The first sentence states the wrong centuries. The bulk of the article cites tabloid articles. The "Background" section isn't about the background, and starts with "As early as 1859 it was reported", when the Columbus Dispatcher source you use later says "as early as 1845". Hypnôs (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Hypnôs:, what you describe are WP:SURMOUNTABLE issues. And I think the bulk of the RS is from newspaper articles. No redlined sources. Bruxton (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tabloids are usually questionable. They are not redlined, but that's the case for most non-reliable sources. Hypnôs (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding of article sourcing seems well out of whack to what would be expected per WP:RS. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There might be a very good article titled giantology, but it ain't this one. fiveby(zero) 00:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at Giant skeletons (United States), and as others have mentioned, it seems to be mostly sourced to poor quality tabloids or newspapers. It doesn't look like it was seriously discussed in high quality sources. With that problem, it's looking like it may be an AfD candidate if not major pruning. Curious what others think here. KoA (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with thinking of Giant skeletons (United States) as a possible AfD candidate. Its notability is certainly questionable in that it lacks high quality sources. Summarizing old tabloid and newspaper articles does not give the topic notability. Maybe change the title and remove all outdated material sourced to articles written between 1868 and 2020. Wikipedia is not a repository for indiscriminate information. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. At least two U.S. presidents believed this and it was influential for 1800s North America. The article is just missing context (that scholarly sources would provide). The significance of these giant skeletons being found in Native American burial mounds is that the white power structures embraced the narrative that a primeval race of people (white, giant, or both) built the impressive structures in the Mississippi river valley, and were then exterminated by the Native Americans (who were in reality the descendants of the mound builders). Doug Weller covered it in Archaeology and racism on Wikipedia (dope article btw). Jason Colavito released a book on it a couple years back, which looks dope but I haven't read it. I think Edwards Watts covers it in Colonizing the Past: Mythmaking and Pre-Columbian Whites in Nineteenth-Century American Writing. There are also scholarly sources that connect the white supremacist mythology of the 1800s to some of the modern conspiracies and hoaxes like Contested Indigenous Landscapes: Indian Mounds and the Political Creation of the Mythical "Mound Builder" Race. Bruxton, have you come across this stuff yet? I think the context would improve the article. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 03:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjjiii: Thank you for the comments and the ping. I appreciate your efforts and interesting comments above. At the moment KOA and Brunton have erased all the background/news articles from Giant skeletons (United States). I tried to restore the research as necessary background but at this point I have to walk away from this article so I do not get in trouble for edit warring. I have attempted to invite the editors to the talk page but was unsuccessful. FYIL Doug Weller came to my talk page and said he thought the Giant skeletons "article is a good one and a useful addition to Wikipedia". I will read the article he started which you referenced above. Have a great week! Bruxton (talk) 04:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjjiii: — If someone were to use the sources you provided this might turn out to be a much better article. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 13:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Same as giantology, the good content here is description of the pre-20th erudite arguments for existence of a giant race or that humans were larger in the past. Add to giant first, then sub-article if needed. Afd this after the current runs its course? fiveby(zero) 16:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pathological science has been nominated for discussion

Category:Pathological science has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion re: how to word DJT's mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic at Talk:Donald Trump

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Donald Trump § Testing and unproven treatments (Misinformation) in the lead. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 15:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC) — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 15:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some users have expressed a desire to remove the current mention of promoting "unproven treatments" or spreading misinformation re: treatments from the lead of Donald Trump when discussing his COVID response. Any and all outside input would be appreciated in properly determining what is WP:DUE inclusion here.

@KoA@Jayron32@FormalDude@Slatersteven @other FTN regulars who have been interested in this talk page in the past — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 18:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Authorship of the Petrine epistles

This is about [1]. Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The scholarly consensus seems quite clear and putting a minority theory in the lede is WP:UNDUE/WP:FALSEBALANCE. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The diff you point to is a simple misrepresentation of the source. Once an editor does that, it should be just WP:RBI instead of having to argue with them. fiveby(zero) 14:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indian psychology

Indian psychology appears to be yet another article on transpersonal psychology. It has no apparent connection to anything of any actual scientific value, and from the citations it seems like it may just be the invention of a few isolated people. Is there anything worth salvaging or should it be AfD'd? - car chasm (talk) 08:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories

Not surprisingly, it's a giant stew of WP:FRINGE theories, mostly sourced to fringe sources, with very little in the way of response to most of them. I've tagged the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely needs a heavy overhaul. Lots and lots of obscure proFRINGE content all over the place. Will take a look when I get a chance, but cannot do it alone — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 18:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History for anyone looking at Kennedy conspiracy theories. It's probably the gold standard when it comes to demolishing kookery of that sort. Most well stocked library systems will have a copy. Ad Orientem (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeesh, what a mess! Needs a major overhaul, perhaps organized roughly-chronologically through Gallup polls 1963-64, Buchanan 63, Lane 66, HSCA, Marrs & Stone, etc; Refuting each's claims as they get more elaborate. Feoffer (talk) 22:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A. E. Wilder-Smith

A. E. Wilder-Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is there a source saying that this creationist was a three-star general? I find nothing useful on the net. Only German Wikipedia, which is not RS, and obvious copies of it. IPs keep adding the general bit and deleting other stuff. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He claims so in his autobiography. Oh that's already on the talk page. Had to be some kind of rank equivalency and not a real rank. fiveby(zero) 16:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am finding no records for a Wilder-Smith of such a rank (or anything approaching) in British service in those years. I also doubt its a rank equivalent, in a uniformed medical service a three star equivalent would likely be the top dog and there is no indication that Wilder-Smith ever was such a top dog or even served in a uniformed medical service. There is no such thing as an "advisor" "with the rank of a three star general," not within NATO and not anywhere to the best of my knowledge. All things equal I think Wilder-Smith is telling a fib, there really isn't another logical conclusion. In general this probably means that we can't use him for WP:ABOUTSELF (there are a lot of other extraordinary achievements in that bio, all seemingly sourced to Wilder-Smith himself). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grover Furr

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

New activity by new user, "proving the truth", removing "negationism" and moving the article towards something Stalin would have liked. That is not necessarily bad, depending on whether there was really an "anti-Stalin bias", but it may need checking by historians. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A new user with the username "TheVictoryOfTheProletariat" making blatantly pro-Stalin edits?

I think you're perfectly safe just blatantly reverting them. Remember, AGF isn't a suicide pact, and this user is not worth wasting your time on. 2601:18F:107F:E2A0:3C73:875F:3BDB:E988 (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nazario Collection

A fringe mess, not sure what to do to fix it. Doug Weller talk 09:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no knowledge of the stones, but it seems like they're either notable because of their actual historicity or, if the mainstream consensus is that they're a hoax, that's notable too. Other than that, I think it needs a good copy edit. Do you have specific concerns? voorts (talk/contributions) 02:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts I find the article confusing - as you say, it needs a good copyedit. Not sure about some of the sources either, eg Haaretz - unless Ruth Schuster is an expert, I don't think we should use it. Or El Nuevo Día - or any of the media sources which seem to be most of them. Not sure about the YouTube video by Reniel Rodríguez Ramos which is used 39 89 times. There's a whole section sourced to Barry Fell. Minor things such as calling someone a scholar. I wish I had more time. Doug Weller talk 09:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps tagging the article with {{cleanup rewrite}} and {{POV}}, and starting a discussion on the talk page might be the way to go if you don't have the time to start fixing things up yourself. For the sources, maybe RSN can weigh in before tagging the article (or appropriate sections) with {{unreliable sources}}. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The pieces have been studied by several PhDs in archeology and other legit scientific fields, several have been dated by C14 by legitimate institutions, this is not “fringe” by any meaning. This is not a Ron Wyatt situation. The term “lost civilization” does not refer to Atlantis or anything of the sort, but to an Amerindian group that has yet to be further documented in the Antilles. The article makes it clear that Reniel Rodríguez actually falsified the “European origin” hypotheses, but you can’t write a piece about something that was discovered in the 1800s without mentioning the backstory and the priest is not mentioned as an authority in archeology. If you want to copy edit it or remove Haaretz go ahead. That particular reference is merely there to source a specific point in time and in it he actually distanced the pieces from an European origin. But do not get rid of those that are from the Instituto de Cultura Puertorriqueña (government), Centro de Estudios Avanzados (academia, the “YouTube video used 39 times”) just because you are unfamiliar with them or the topic. El Nuevo Día is Puerto Rico’s main newspaper, with a longstanding editorial board, no notable political leaning and decades of distribution, its reliability should be self-evident. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 12:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About calling C.B.F. Walker a “scholar”, I have no issues with it being removed, but the man is a prolific author in his field and his work in the British Museum justifies using the term IMO. Barry Fell is never called a “scholar”, I specifically used the term “author” when referring to him to make it clear that he is not an authority in the subject. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Old School WWC Fan I don't think any newspaper is reliable for archaeology, something I think we've discussed at that Wikiproject. People get misquoted, news articles get outdated but without academic sources we don't know that, etc. I don't think we should call anyone a scholar - note that even the most famous people with PhDs are not called Dr. in their article (there may be some, there shouldn't be per our MOS. I don't see the point of a large section on Fell. Doug Weller talk 13:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like this is really an WP:RS dispute. Maybe this should be moved to the article talk page for other editors to weigh in, and failing consensus there, RSN could be consulted. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Old School WWC Fan, other than a biography of Alice Loughran de Santiago, i can't find anything actually published by Rodríguez Ramos concerning his work on the collection. Do you know of anything? fiveby(zero) 15:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are several, “La huella femenina en el coleccionismo arqueológico de Puerto Rico” (link) is one, the initial catalogue of the authenticated pieces (link) is another. There are also articles in recent issues of the Instituto de Cultura Puertorriqueña’s magazine as well, but I don’t think they are online. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, yes "La huella femenina..." was the biography i was referring to, which is certainly usable for the history of the collection. That is an interesting story and i think very appropriate for WP. But you do understand the concern, so much of the content dealing with an investigation that is as of yet unpublished, and relying on news accounts and a video? Revista del ICP up to 2021 is available but not searchable. Do you know any publication dates for any articles? fiveby(zero) 16:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now at WP:RSN#Nazario Collection and use of YouTube (and the media) Doug Weller talk 14:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of the Holocaust

Most commenters agree that this isn't a WP:FRINGE issue, as the idea that the Holocaust encompasses more than just Jews is not a fringe view, but nor is it the consensus either. Further discussion of the topic should be made at Talk:Holocaust or WP:NPOVN. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

At the suggestion of Aquillion [2] let's discuss the scope of the Holocaust because there has been an "underlying disagreement[] in the topic area." In scholarly works, is it a fringe view to define the Holocaust as something other than the Nazi genocide of European Jewry?

In scholarly works, I understand that the Holocaust is demarcated as the Nazi genocide of ~6 million European Jews during World War II. In popular culture (and in Wikipedia) there are occasional statements that the Holocaust includes other Nazi mass killings, including the Roma people, homosexuals, Slavs, Soviet POWs, etc. While equally awful, and thoroughly documented, these other Nazi mass murders are related to but distinct from the Holocaust. Several have their own names, and each should have its own article, including: the killing of Romani people (Porajmos ), Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany, euthanasia of the disabled (Aktion T4), execution of the Poles (Polish decrees, Intelligenzaktion), the German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war, Nazi mass murder of political opponents (where is this article?), and the persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses.

To be clear, articles about the Holocaust should, when appropriate, mention these other killings as highly relevant context, and link to them. The demarcation between different Nazi mass murders should be clearly explained. For starters, we could improve the clarity of Names of the Holocaust, which presently seems a bit muddled. Jehochman ^Talk 13:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing 'fringe' about this. The question as to whether the term 'Holocaust' should only be applied to Jewish victims of Nazi mass killings has been a matter of scholarly debate for many years. A debate about appropriate terminology amongst those who all agree that the events occurred involves no 'fringe theories' at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any high quality sources that give a broader definition of the Holocaust? Your opinion is in conflict with the lede of Holocaust, which says, The Holocaust was the genocide of European Jews during World War II. Jehochman ^Talk 14:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, disputes about terminology are not 'fringe theories'. There is no 'fringe theory' to discuss. As for what the Wikipedia article says, wasn't question as to how exactly the article should be worded the reason this was raised in the first place? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/holocaust says (my emphasis): the Holocaust : the killing of millions of Jews and other people by the Nazis during World War II.

The Britannica encyclopedia article at https://www.britannica.com/event/Holocaust begins (again my emphasis): Holocaust, Hebrew Shoʾah (“Catastrophe”), Yiddish and Hebrew Ḥurban (“Destruction”), the systematic state-sponsored killing of six million Jewish men, women, and children and millions of others by Nazi Germany and its collaborators during World War II.

As far as Poles are concerned, the Britannica article mentions that: Following the invasion of Poland, German occupation policy especially targeted the Jews but also brutalized non-Jewish Poles. In pursuit of Lebensraum, Germany sought systematically to destroy Polish society and nationhood. The Nazis killed Polish priests and politicians, decimated the Polish leadership, and kidnapped the children of the Polish elite, who were raised as “voluntary Aryans” by their new German “parents.” Many Poles were also forced to perform hard labour on survival diets, were deprived of property and uprooted, and were interned in concentration camps. Further down, the article mentions the Jedwabne pogrom.

I am not saying this to advocate defining the Holocaust one way or another, just to illustrate that there are indeed high-quality sources supporting this point of view. Andreas JN 466 16:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minority opinions are not fringe, this is not the proper forum for this discussion that would be NPOV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: I believe after your recent research spree you probably have something intelligent to say here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence is a bit like a sponge, which can soak up a lot but if you wring it too much, it dries out:) I agree with Horse Eye's Back that the NPOV noticeboard is the place for this, if anyone is keen. I'm busy still slowly reading and rereading lots of books and articles collected on this and until I've worked my way through them, I'm tempted to reserve my opinion. I'd be interested in seeing this examined however by others, as long as it doesn't just develop, as would be likely, into a RfC quick- glance-then-vote process. The problem is deep and the query legitimate, and, if one good collateral effect of the G&K hullabaloo was to examine this point exhaustively, demanding that we go through the RS specifically discussing this issue, we would be in the latters' debt.Nishidani (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your perspective is excellent. I agree that we should do a deep dive. Jehochman ^Talk 15:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just discuss what is the most policy compliant way to frame the Holocaust on Wikipedia. Arguing whether this is FRINGE, or NPOV, or whatever is not the point. Aquillion recommended this board, so I stopped here first. Let's see what the uninvolved have to say, shall we? Jehochman ^Talk 15:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about no? There is no 'fringe theory' to discuss, and raising the question here inappropriately implies that there is. The NPOV noticeboard is clearly a better place to ask whether due balance is being applied to different usages of terminology in scholarship, and on what the scope of our article should be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I lean towards a "teach the controversy" style of maintaining policy compliance. I would suggest that the most practical solution would be to make a page for Holocaust as a term where the history, historiography, and scope of the term can be extensively covered without having a disruptive impact on all of the articles you've mentioned. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's not controversy among respectable academics. If you think there is, show sources. Jehochman ^Talk 16:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(EC x 2) I'm sorry, are you attempting to solicit input from uninvolved editors are are you sealioning? Because you're going to have to choose one, if you want a productive discussion to happen you can't attempt to derail it at every turn. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is correct to dismiss any WP:FRINGE aspects out of hand. I would certainly take a very hard look at any work which defines the Holocaust as something other than the Nazi genocide of European Jewry depending on why the author chose to do so. I'm sure you're very aware of the issues here and don't need them pointed out. If I were to see something such as Holocaust victims outside of WP i would be very skeptical of the author. I'd ask why in the hell aren't you giving me and adequate explanation in the lede and "Scope of usage" sections. Just linking Holocaust trivialization doesn't cut it. Names of the Holocaust the same, i'd say inadequate instead of muddled. The objections here are a significant viewpoint, and after reading such articles i should clearly be informed as to what those objections are. Think you may be getting some of the responses here based on the way the question was presented. fiveby(zero) 16:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what the leading, highest quality source says: The Holocaust specifically refers to the systematic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of six million Jews. However, there were also millions of other victims of Nazi persecution and murder. In the 1930s, the regime targeted a variety of alleged domestic enemies within German society. As the Nazis extended their reach during World War II, millions of other Europeans were also subjected to Nazi brutality. (emphasis added) [3] I cannot find any reliable source that declares the Holocaust to refer to the other victims of Nazi persecution. The Holocaust is specific to European Jews as the victims. This is why I call the "broad view" fringe -- no academic source is presented that defines the Holocaust otherwise. Jehochman ^Talk 16:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, did you see the Britannica quotes I posted above? Andreas JN 466 16:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It should probably be note that the Holocaust Encyclopaedia Jehochman links above includes its (excellent) article on the 'Genocide of European Roma' as one of nine 'must read' articles at the top of each web page. It evidently considers that documenting the often-neglected Roma genocide as central to its purpose. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A simple question. What exactly is under dispute here? Which specific wording, in which article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I asked whether the "broad view" of the Holocaust including all Nazi victims, versus being specific to European Jews, is a fringe view, or perhaps a minority view. This question impacts dozens are articles related to the Holocaust, including the lede of the flagship article. We need to understand how to deal with this view across this topic area. Perhaps somebody smarter than me can restate the questions more effectively and set up a new thread, here or in a more appropriate place. These are details. What's important is getting to the bottom of the question. Jehochman ^Talk 16:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RS generally for some decades limited the definition of Holocaust to what Nazis did to Jews. Historical overviews of the development of this definition (see my page) show that there was (a) in the early post war period indeterminacy as to what term to use, with various terms vying for ascendancy,khurbn,(the Yiddish term used by the (Eastern) Jewish victims) shoah (the term that was eventually favoured in Israeli usage by the Yishuv), holocaust (extermination, genocide etc.etc.) These had different denotational ranges, khurbn etc., referring to 1941-1945, shoah to 1933-1945. 'Holocaust' eventually, in the 1980s, won the day in the Anglophone world, taking on the restrictive sense of the Jewish victims, whereas earlier (since 1944) it had a more general sense of all victims of the Nazi exterminatory programme. From the late 1990s, a number of academics with either a background in holocaust studies or in genocide studies (the two fields had a competitive relationsship) began to revive the idea that the term 'holocaust', in so far as it defined the topic ethnically as applying only to half of the victims, was conceptually inadequate. As it is 'Holocaust' is predominantly used of the Jewish holocaust in major sources, with a vast number of studies that accept the way the term underwent this restrictive definition. The problem is that the holocaust as now taught and discussed, habitually includes passing mention that other groups, gypsies, the disabled, Rom and Sinti, suffered the same fate in the same manner by the same racial logic, while Poles and Slavs, half of the victims are rarely mentioned even in this concessionary tweak to the definition institutionally established by the 'holocaust industry'. Since an emerging scholarship does consider Slavic peoples also as victims of the same machinery that murdered the Jews, the question arises as to NPOV, i.e. is there a neutrality imbalance caused by our faithful dependence on a definition which excludes 5 million+ people of non-Jewish background from the process of Nazi extermination. What do we do, then, as wikipedians? Nishidani (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the thoughtful comment. I wish our article Names of the Holocaust was half so eloquent. I think we can do a better job explaining all the nuances. Jehochman ^Talk 17:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would, at the very least, strongly object to: ...definition institutionally established by the 'holocaust industry', along with other framing of the question. fiveby(zero) 18:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no one is proposing that. It is my way of summarizing a lot of evidence, starting with the fact that President Carter was the subject of a vehement campaign of abuse when, hailing the opening of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, which he had decided to finance with federal funds, he spoke of 11 million victims whose suffering was to be commemorated there. The USHMM, also on pressure from Israel, set about removing mentions of Poles, or the Armenian massacre. That moment marks a major shift towards the institutionalization of an ethnospecific definition of the holocaust. I have no interest in mentioning this kind of thing in an article, but editors should try to grasp backgrounds and contexts.Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the Holocaust article and found this version. It made no mention of Poles in the lead – even though it mentiond Romani people, Soviet urban residents and Soviet POWs.

The section on the death toll created the impression that all in all, 285,000 non-Jewish Poles died at the hands of the Nazis. That figure was seven to ten times too small. Andreas JN 466 18:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wartime death rate was higher for non-Jewish Belarusians or Russians living under German occupation than non-Jewish Poles. Neither Kay nor Gerlach, or other sources cited in the article, suggests that Poles as a group were targeted by Nazi mass killing practices. It is also the case that not all civilian deaths during the war can be attributed to mass killing. For example, Kay's figure for Soviet civilian victims of Nazi mass killing is millions less than Soviet civilian war losses. He does not argue that Poles, Belarusians, Russians, etc. were targeted for mass killing as a group, rather certain subgroups were targeted for particular reasons. (t · c) buidhe 23:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, you seem to be asking that we start a thread where we come to some specific conclusion regarding multiple articles, without actually saying what the problem is with any of them. I don't consider that appropriate. There has been discussion, certainly, at Talk:Holocaust over the question of scope, but I can't see much evidence of any impasse over it, or any reason to think that the lede doesn't reflect current scholarship. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, in terms of how wikipedia works, the provisory resolution of this issue would be (a) to retain holocaust in its restrictive sense, for that is how the term came to be used. This means no major overhaul of the article (b) since a significant minority view exists that would extend the meaning to include the massive number of Slavic peoples whom the same Nazis aspired to, and did, massacre (by the way, one Nazi project for the post-war was to eliminate 20 million French as well), a tweak to the lead, with a short paragraph, duly sourced, noting the dimensions of not only the Sinti/Rome, homosexuals, disabled murdered but also the Polish and Russian casualties, Kay puts them at 5 million+, with a brief explanation that the the article will concentrate on the Jewish victims, would allow a quick interim fix. In the future, the weight of scholarly focus may well change - there are some indications it already is, but for now we should accept that RS dictate that this is about Jewish casualties, while taking due care, for that extraordinary number of people who hear about the holocaust every year (in my country for a full week) with mentions of gypsies and homosexuals but nary a whisper about the Slavic massacres, to correct the misprision caused by an understandable systemic bias in RS. We are, ultimately serving a global public, not (which is the tendency of RS) articulating a Eurocentric perspective, and the fact that in Eastern European countries resentment of this systemic bias feeds into antisemitic attitudes (i.e., the idea that wikipedia like other Western sources reflects Jewish interests, which are antagonistic to a fair representation of the equally tragic plight 'we' suffered - this is the impression I got from looking at some bad editing in the Polish-Jewish articles. Repugnant but, like all things one dislikes viscerally, something that requires attentive study to grasp why (not justify) people can get this impression). Nishidani (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there are reliable sources that document the persecution of Slavs and others not currently mentioned in due proportion to weight, per our usual rules, I would support adding that content and framing the murder Jewish genocide as part of a larger pattern. Something to the effect of, "What Nazi Germany did to the Jews in the Holocaust was part of a larger pattern that also affected these other groups..." I support documenting history in a way that gives equal attention to all groups around the world. I don't necessarily agree to redefined what "Holocaust" means, but we can certainly mention the plight of these other groups, link and develop appropriate articles about those atrocities as well. Maybe this larger pattern of Nazi German atrocities against various "out" groups needs to have a name? I think parties on all sides are quite sensitive about their history. Jews don't want to be sidelined, and Slavs want their victims to be documented and remembered. In that regard, both sides are right. Jehochman ^Talk 20:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My interests always lie in source bias, and the way historical paradigms come and go. One example that bears on this:

When an international collective memory of the Holocaust emerged in the 1970s and 1980s, it rested on the experiences of German and west European Jews, minor groups of victims, and on Auschwitz, where only about one in six of the total number of murdered Jews died. Historians and commemorators in western Europe and the United States tended to correct that Stalinist distortion by erring in the other direction, by passing quickly over the nearly five million Jews killed east of Auschwitz, and the nearly five million non-Jews killed by the Nazis. Deprived of its Jewish distinctiveness in the East, and stripped of its geography in the West, the Holocaust never quite became part of European history, even as Europeans and many others came to agree that all should remember the Holocaust. Timothy Snyder, Bloodlands, 2010 p.377

Even there, many might disagree with Snyder, since his general thesis is that the holocaust as a Jewish tragedy must be contextualized within the larger dynamics of the massive murderous wave of violence that affected East Europe from two empires, the Soviet and the aspiring Nazi empire. To treat events here in an isolated topical approach, by ethnos, nation or geography, is to lose sight of the larger entanglements of the two totalitarian powers. I happen to agree with Snyder, which is why I find most articles, however well documented, largely evasive of serious sociohistorical understandings. I don't think these proposals will get anywhere, so I'll shut up.Nishidani (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hear from Aquillion, if they think there is really some "problem" which needs solved at FTN, or are we are all just overreacting. Their comments in Talk:The_Holocaust#Article_scope_redux seem very reasonable and make me think otherwise. fiveby(zero) 20:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my position is what you see there (ie. the broader definition is a minority opinion, and so probably shouldn't be the first thing in the lead of the relevant article or what decides its overarching structure, but is not fringe, so it shouldn't be excluded entirely), with the caveat that that's just based on my initial impressions of the obvious sources and my recollection of what I was taught, not a detailed examination or anything. My comments suggesting that someone could bring this here were premised on them doing so if they think it's fringe so that aspect could be settled (since that was how I interpreted Jehochman's comments in particular) and because, if we can reach an agreement either way, that will at least set some basic definitions which might be helpful in terms of how we evaluate sources going forwards, or at least avoid constant rehashes of the same questions. If I felt it was fringe myself then I would have brought it here myself, rather than suggesting that anyone who does believe it do so. --Aquillion (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think Nishindani's explanation might be correct, that usage has changed over time. I think we can say who includes other victim groups in the Holocaust scope, if we can identify notable scholars who take that position. We should also say when that was if it has changed over time. In any event, I agree that we should identify the other persecute groups and link to those articles because context is important. So maybe this is not quite fringe, but it could be a minority opinion if those sources are found. Jehochman ^Talk 22:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jehochman: The fact alone that Britannica uses the wider, non-exclusive definition (and has done so for decades) surely lifts it out of the realm of "fringe". Andreas JN 466 23:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica is a garbage source for any articles about historical events, in my experience. I've found many inaccuracies there, which is why I cite the scholarly literature almost exclusively. (t · c) buidhe 23:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust published by Columbia University Press in 2012 distinguishes four definitions of the Holocaust that enjoy scholarly support. It states that the trend has been towards greater inclusiveness and itself adopts a non-exclusive definition. It argues that scholars defending the various definitions should be given a respectful hearing. Andreas JN 466 23:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another tertiary source, published more than 20 years ago. (the actual publication date is 2000, not 2012). Anyway, this article is about a definable topic, not what various people might refer to with the word "Holocaust". (t · c) buidhe 23:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that practically all scholarly books that define their subject as "the Holocaust" are referring to the mass murder of Jews. No one denies that the Nazis murdered many other people who were not Jewish. Even Snyder, discussed above, actually wrote a book specifically about the Holocaust, which he defines as referring only to Jews. This is why I created the article Mass killings by Nazi Germany (now redirected). However, the central issue is that Wikipedia article is not about the term "Holocaust" and what different people might use it to mean, but a specifically identifiable topic that is the clear primary topic for the term, which would be the mass murder of Jews during World War II. (t · c) buidhe 22:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed ad nauseum on the article's talk page. The broader definition of the Holocaust is unquestionably a minority opinion, but it is not fringe. I don't think this discussion belongs here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support a close of this discussion, this isn't productive or leading anywhere, or the right venue for this discussion. Make an RFC on the talk page and notify the relevant wikiprojects if you need a broader consensus - car chasm (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the primary fringe issue with respect to this question is the handling of Holocaust denial. But questions as to the precise definition of the Holocaust (with a capital "H") do not seem to be fringe excepting that there are those anti-Semites who argue that Holocaust remembrance is a part of wider conspiracy theories relating to "Jewish cabals" and the like. To the extent that these fringe theories are what we need to discuss and identify, this board is relevant. Otherwise, terminology about what particular Nazi abuses are or are not part of the Holocaust is something I don't think the expertise of this board can help with. jps (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust denial has been understood as a fringe theory for as long as I can remember. Anyone promoting that kind of racist drivel is almost always blocked, often summarily. That said, I don't think that is the subject of this discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have posted a notice of this discussion on the article's talk page. That really should have been done right away. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a general scholarly consensus that the scope of The Holocaust relates to primarly the Jews; although in the end the name is a bit generic - Polish scholarship increasingly prefers a specific and not ambigious term "Zagłada Źydów" ("the destruction of the Jewry"), and you can see that the interwiki from The Holocaust for pl goes to pl:Zagłada Żydów. What I am concerned with is that the (arguably, minority, but due) point that the term can be used to describe suffering of some other groups, or even that it this term is closely related to such concepts, has recently been pretty much removed from our TH article (see Talk:The_Holocaust#Relevant_content_recently_removed_(Other_victims_of_Nazi_persecution)). Pl wiki article has a section dedicated to the "broader use" (pl:Zagłada_Żydów#Szersze_znaczenia), something that our article seems to ignore completely. I don't think this is a way to write about this neutrally... and the "broader meaning" is hardly a Flat Earth-level fringe view that we should totally ignore. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any Fringe issues in this discussion. This is not the place. These are due weight issues. As was stated earlier, the NPOV noticeboard is the appropriate place. Or the article's talk page. I support closing this discussion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Orientem please withdraw your notice of this discussion from the article's talk page. See my comment just above this one.----Steve Quinn (talk) 04:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Steve Quinn If/when the discussion is closed, which I support per my comment a little north of here, I will remove the discussion notice. But until then, this obviously pertains to the subject of the article and the notice is appropriate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem to really be a discussion about fringe theories - no-one seems to be arguing that these killings (either of Jewish or other groups) did not take place, but rather how to refer to them, and what the scope of articles should be. This isn't really the best place to have discussions about content and scope of articles, and such discussions need a properly drawn up and advertised RFC.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is this discussion about the scope of the Holocaust, or about the scope of The Holocaust? The difference is explained here. In my opinion, the problem is fully artificial, and it is a result of the fact that Mass killings by Nazi Germany was converted to a redirect, whereas in reality it should be a summary style article and a mother article for The Holocaust. That will resolve all problems.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Salvatore Pais

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

This article on a aerospace engineer could use some more eyes - especially whether the article should speculate that Pais invented technology used in UFOs and whether we should link to youtube videos claiming that. MrOllie (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube links and Forbes contributors are not considered reliable sources. Another red flag is that a number of WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims are sourced only to thedrive.com. One would expect wider attention for such allegedly groundbreaking technology. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking closer, I find myself wondering if this BLP fails WP:PROF. There are an awful lot of WP:PRIMARY citations to Pais papers and patents. The Popular Mechanics source mentions Pais, but only in passing within a discussion of the technology. The coverage is all about the speculative technology -- there are few if any details about Pais as a person -- not what you'd need for a BLP. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like a pass of WP:PROF to me: just a lab researcher with a not-very-high-profile citation record. So if he's notable, it's for the press attention to his (fringe?) inventions, not for scholarly attention to his scholarly publications. That said, if there is indeed in-depth independent coverage of his inventions, it would be appropriate to call him notable for that. That's exactly the sort of coverage one would expect to have of inventors, not the sort of puff piece about love lives and taste in restaurants (or as you phrase it "details about Pais as a person") that would be more appropriate to famous-for-being-famous celebrities. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Noakes recent edits

Tim Noakes (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Lots in play here: fad dieting, MMR/autism, hyrdoxychlooquine, and the assertion that COVID-as-bioweapon is now an "accepted theory". More eyes might help. Bon courage (talk) 07:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the low-carb movement there is a large group of 'public figures' including Tim Noakes, Aseem Malhotra, Malcolm Kendrick, Ivor Cummins, Marika Sboros, Gary Fettke, Maryanne Demasi etc that openly promote cholesterol and statin denialism but have branched out into advocating and supporting conspiracy theories about COVID-19 and vaccines. These figures have often made pseudoscientific remarks about vaccines on Twitter and have questioned COVID-19 vaccination. However, when they are pinned down on the subject they say anti-vax is a smear word and they are not anti-vax and they are being libelled as anti-vax and they are not anti-vax (!). The user Ratel has fallen hook line and sinker to this in the sense that he claims Tim Noakes is being attacked this way by critics, and is citing primary sources on the article such as "The Noakes Foundation" to defend Noakes. I suggest that we do not include such unreliable primary sources. Psychologist Guy (talk) 09:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Too many noticeboards: note that this issue is simultaneously at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, here. The BLPN discussion was opened slightly earlier, and is already long, so I suggest keeping the discussion there — though perhaps not, as I admit it may be a better fit here. Anyway, it surely shouldn't be in two places. Thoughts? Bishonen | tålk 10:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]
You could argue there are two aspects: the biographical and the fringe science ones. I am very alarmed that a new bit of BLP (~~WP:DENIAL~~ the text "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too") seems to being interpreted in a way that would require fringe figures to have a "right of reply" on Wikipedia to any criticism of their fringe theories. Bon courage (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, we need to tell Ratel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that this conversation is happening. I notice that their latest contribution to the article looks to be essentially a coatrack. What is more, they are arguing on the talkpage now that a letter from respected physicians of the University of Cape Town should not be included in the article because "It's just some members of the establishment "distancing themselves" from Noakes. We already know about this. And Noakes has extensively defended himself concerning that letter. It's going to clog up the article with repetition." I have noticed that no one has given them notice of arbcom restrictions. I will put a notice on their talkpage now as well. jps (talk) 11:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you WP:CENSOR a professor of medicine who is advocating a new approach to diet that he has found works, and whose theories incidentally echo good, current science from colleagues like Prof Richard Johnson and many others, you are damaging WPs utility IMO. If you think Johnson is fringe, then I will concede Noakes is too. If not, put your critics' words in the article, but don't censor. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amazingly, Dr Johnson, author of several books and author of an incredible amount of key medical research, is not on WP. I'm starting to see why. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, what relevance does Richard Johnson have to this discussion? I cannot find evidence that Noakes and Johnson are collaborators or that Johnson or Noakes has ever commented on the work/statements of the other. jps (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never said they were collaborators. Johnson is a much-venerated member of the current medical establishment, and yet his research is trending exactly the same way as Noakes. Johnson's latest books make almost identical recommendations, based on solid recent research, and nobody is calling him "fringe" that I am aware of. If he is not fringe, nor is Noakes. They even recommend the same dietary restrictions and daily carb limits! Do some research and you'll see I am right. It's just downright WRONG to put Noakes on a FRINGE noticeboard! Ratel 🌼 (talk) 12:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this relevant? AFAIK Johnson writes pop-science books, but he doesn't dabble in antivax, COVID quackery and conspiracy theories so why is he relevant to this discussion/noticeboard? Bon courage (talk) 12:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noakes has not dabbled in antivax, ffs, he linked to a tweet. That's his level of involvement. He has no core interest in any of the fringe stuff. Stop the witch hunt already. And BTW Johnson is not a pop-science write, he has around (700+) at GOOGLE SCHOLAR [4] . Ratel 🌼 (talk) 12:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is somebody that has been saying that there is evidence that vaccines cause autism since before the COVID pandemic started. MrOllie (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found a 140 page preprint by Brett Chrest which documents a lot of the anti-vax commentary coming from Noakes. Not usable as a direct source, but there seem to be some sources cited in that document which may be useful. jps (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can restate that he has retweeted/linked to stuff that is antivax, although at the same time expressing general total support for vaccination. I'm not sure what to conclude about that — I think perhaps because of his diet battles he likes mavericks and people who seem to be truth-tellers and whistle blowers, perhaps unwisely — or that it will add more to a BLP of a man who has never published in the field of vaccines and is known for sports medicine and diet. At some point it becomes a hatchet job on your part, no? Ratel 🌼 (talk) 12:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Our job is to inform the reader about what reliable sources say about a subject. That Noakes has aligned himself with vaccine misinformation and other dubious medical claims seems fairly well-documented. This also includes his continued advocacy of paleo-diets, atkins diets, etc. As is often the case, when someone starts going rogue in thumbing their nose at experts, there often is no bottom. We have seen similar stories to this many times before. I think our readers deserve to know about it. The exact editorial decisions for what wording, sources, and WP:WEIGHT to apply to such matters is wherein lies the rub. jps (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even the ridiculous unpublished paper you linked on this was equivocal in its findings, so your "fairly well documented" claim is OR. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 12:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What makes the paper "ridiculous"? What did you find "equivocal" in its findings? This isn't just Noakes "linking" to antivax sources. In many instances he parrots their talking points! This doesn't even require interpretation. It's just a fact. jps (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very common step when people's work isn't accepted by the mainstream, a signpost that their credibility is spiraling lower. MrOllie (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps they get peed off when ganged up on and start giving a thumbs up to other people that seem to be getting the same treatment? Ratel 🌼 (talk) 12:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be magnetising out beyond bio/medicine too.[5]

Noakes, an emeritus professor in the Division of Exercise Science and Sports Medicine at the University of Cape Town (UCT), uses his Twitter profile to regularly share posts opposed to Covid-19 vaccination (and associated conspiracies) and to promote climate change denialism and American right-wing views.

Bon courage (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He has removed that tweet. Do we need a section in his BLP called Offensive tweets? Because that's what all the accusations here amount to. His BLP is about his work and his discoveries. Some people like Musk and Noakes are their own biggest enemies on social media. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 12:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's more to it than that. He often repeats their claims in interviews as well. jps (talk) 13:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia mirrors what RS does. It seems the gays=pedos tweet garnered quite a bit of interest in several sources. Bon courage (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like others say here, we need to reflect what the reliable sources say. It seems he has recieved some amount of coverage in sources for fringe views, so his biography will have to reflect this (provided it complies with various policies etc.) Tristario (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're not kidding. I notice that his latest retweet is of Steve Bannon and Naomi Wolf having a conversation about "mass murder" via vaccination. jps (talk) 13:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think antivaxers are especially put-upon. Do you? The only justification I can think of for defending them would be to accept that they are making valid points. That sounds like antivax apology by another name. jps (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is more of an aside than directly related to the content, but that "report" is just a self-published source that was never intended to be published in anything else (it has been three years - if that really was a pre-print it should be in print by now) and the author was still an undergrad at the time. I think I'll need to be even more wary of OSF being used as a source from now on and be a bit more active in watching for it. - Bilby (talk) 09:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely don't use the report as a source for any article. On the other hand, the document has quite a few sources itself that can be used, and it is a pretty useful account of the relevant Twitter feed that is otherwise almost impossible to sift through. These people seem to Tweet without ceasing. Good to be aware of OSF uses across WP. Always verify the publication status... this goes for any preprint server (Researchgate, arxiv, etc.). jps (talk) 09:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True, but my assumption with pre-prints in the past as that they are used for an article that is accepted for publication, but you are posting the penultimate draft. This use of pre-print services for effectivly what would have been blog posts adds an extra degree of wariness. :) I don't have a problem with using the references, but given the lack of experience of the author I'd still be wary of completeness and balance, and whether or not everything used was correctly verified. A badly researched article can provide misleading sources. - Bilby (talk) 09:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, preprint servers do very little in the way of vetting as a general rule. This report is pretty amateurish in spite of its extensive length. To the author's credit, he includes lots of citations that, of course, would demand careful verification. The goal of the report is a riposte. It is certainly not anything I would describe as a dispassionate account. Doubtful that anything like that will ever be produced about Noakes's ideas. jps (talk) 10:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, but is the person in question an advocate of fringe theories? Does he publish papers or websites about them? Or does he retweet inflammatory stuff, perhaps for the attention he knows it will garner? (He's even admitted to doing this and enjoying the brouhaha, I can find the source tomorrow for this if you like). I suspect you are all falling for it. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a question for us. What do the sources say? Bon courage (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will get the source for the fact that he trolls people tomorrow. Real life beckons .... Ratel 🌼 (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be publishing fringe stuff in HuffPo rather than in journals.[6] Bon courage (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

His Twitter feed includes retweets of Real America's Voice, Jordan Peterson, antivaxers, apologists for the Russian invasion of Ukraine, COVID-deniers... if this is an elaborate troll act, it is one that is pretty one-sided. jps (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Noakes is also now advocating the carnivore diet with Shawn Baker [7]. None of this is trolling it's what he actually believes. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being a twit should be a CSD criteria for biographies. fiveby(zero) 16:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am convinced it would be better if quite a few of Wikipedia's fringe bios did not exist. But once they're there they're pretty much undeletable sadly. Malcolm Kendrick was an exception. Bon courage (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to AfD it. If a person is barely-notable enough that a press-release-style article could be written, but not notable enough that a proper, balanced overview could be written, then I'd say it's fair enough to go WP:IAR. Though WP:NPROF would make it an uphill battle. DFlhb (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that probably won't work, the accepted test for inclusion in the "sum[mary] of all human knowledge" has become notability via google search. fiveby(zero) 17:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinatingly, I think his co-author, Marika Sboros, has broken with him. Her Twitter feed seems like it is a direct response to Noakes's. She has even positively retweeted Alastair McAlpine which was the doctor she and Noakes were most angrily rebutting two years ago. Anyone have any more information on this? Sourcing is incredibly weak. jps (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marika Sboros is still very close to Tim Noakes and supports his dietary views (you can check her website foodmed.net), the only topic that separates them now is that Marika Sboros spends most of her time on Twitter criticizing anti-vaxxers. This was because 2 years ago she was criticized for making anti-vax comments herself. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She definitely used to be very close to Tim Noakes, but I don't think she is any more. I mean, she's commenting positively on McAlpine's tweets. This is the guy that took them to task. I checked her website and it looks like a transformation occurred about 2 years ago or so towards much more mainstream approaches. I have hearsay evidence that this break may have been caused because Noakes bought the claim by Donald Trump that the election was rigged and Sboros is adamant that this claim is a lie. I also see her tweeting that climate change is real. I think the split is real. jps (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editor ජපස supplied a link yesterday to an article in which Noakes clearly relishes the controversies he is able to create and the reactions he is getting. I'm not sure if Noakes is trolling, suffering dementia or merely very misinformed, but I am not in the business of defending him from criticism relating to any of: homophobia, climate or Covid denialism, alt-vax views, or anything away from the primary remit of human physiology in relation to diet. I was unaware of all the crazy and I thank you all for bringing it to my attention. However, I must disagree that even though his dietary views differ markedly from the generally accepted (for now) views of nutritionists, his views are therefore "fringe". They are not as fringe as you imagine. Once again I direct you to the emerging science on carbohydrates such as can be found in the studies published in the last 10 years. A good example of this is the research published by Prof. Richard Johnson, as I mentioned (if you are not comfortable with PubMed and journals, you can access his research findings effortlessly via platforms like YouTube). And he is one of many. There is a lot of foment on this topic at the moment in the scientific world, a lot of confusion and indecision. Nevertheless, I don't have the time to devote to bringing some semblance of fairness to Noakes's BLP here, pointing out his denials (which just get deleted) and providing more details of the diet he advocates (which is followed by tens of thousands of people in South Africa, BTW, many of whom claim to have lost significant amounts of weight), which also just gets removed within minutes of being inserted. There is some blatantly biased editing going on there, where some Noakes-critical material sourced to news24.com is allowed but when I use the same source for details of the "Noakes Diet" it is deleted. I cannot persevere in the face of this sort of arbitrary fuckery. I'm sure if I reinserted the diet with sourcing to the Noakes book on the topic, that too would be removed for some other specious reason. Maybe in the future, when and if Big Agribusiness allows the recognition of the source of the global obesity disaster as the recommendation (which Agribusiness has supported by funding studies) to eat large amounts of carbs, the editors here will start allowing these facts to be recorded in BLPs without labelling them as fringe. Meanwhile, I can now see why eminent scientists like Johnson have no page on WP. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 01:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Be a little introspective here. You have written what I think essentially amounts to a right great wrongs essay. Fad diets are fringe. Maybe you believe everything you wrote, but what you wrote is essentially WP:PROFRINGE until you find the WP:MAINSTREAM sources that back it up. Them's the breaks at this website. As others have pointed out, it is not surprising that Noakes has fallen off the deep end. I am glad that you are swimming against that stream. Keep kicking! jps (talk) 01:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reads like an apologia for fad diets. The science behind LCHF for obesity (Noakes' main schtick) is well-established and covered at Low-carb diet (TL;DR - don't believe the hype). Obviously we can't have Noakes' diet sourced to his own book because reflecting fad dietary advice is not encyclopedic or in any way aligned with the Project's goals. We also have an article on Healthy diet for the science there. Bon courage (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I find interesting here is that this argumentation is so close to the ones made at Talk:The Game Changers except there the argument was that big agri along with big meat and big dairy was stifling one-true-truth about the vegan diet. Same level of insistence, just the opposite side. It must be exhausting being a dietician. jps (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ ජපස The Low-carb diet page contains the researcher conclusion that "the rise in obesity prevalence may be primarily due to increased consumption of refined carbohydrates". Seems to run counter to the group-think I'm getting here. I also note that the low-carb article lacks a lot of recent research and findings that run counter to the idea that low-carb and low-cal essentially achieve the same ends and are equally effective. As I said, you conclude Noakes's promotion of the Banting Diet is "fringe" at your peril. The science is anything but settled on this issue. I know this makes absolutists uncomfortable, but sorry, that's how things are, for now. I will revisit this issue in a few years when these facts become more accepted and studied, and I have review studies to use as sources. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 02:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think I have an iron in this fire that I simply do not. Maybe you are right and all will be vindicated! A Nature paper will be published and a Nobel Prize in Medicine will be awarded! But until then, our hands are tied by WP:CBALL. Also, you seem to be adopting a much broader concern over this issue than that which started the conversation (about Noakes's biography). Might I suggest that you are perhaps running afoul of WP:ADVOCACY in this area? Nevertheless, I can totally get behind your idea that we should wait a few years to see if you're vindicated. I'm even willing to place a small bet on it. Ping me at my talkpage if that tickles your fancy. jps (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recently the American Heart Foundation published a review which ranked diets and the low-carb/keto type diets scored 31/100 for healthfulness, which was extremely low compared to Mediterranean and vegetarian type diets [8] which scored very high (80s and 90s). This source does need to be added to the low-carb diet Wikipedia article. I mentioned it on Bon Courage's talk-page. Basically if you care about your health you should avoid low-carb fads. Psychologist Guy (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, while above I compared the advocacy at The Game Changers to this controversy, that's only in the sense of rhetoric. There really is no comparison between the diets being advocated in terms of scientific support. Healthy vegan diets exist. It's hard to imagine a healthy carnivore diet. jps (talk) 10:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At ජපස — "It's hard to imagine a healthy carnivore diet." Are you a nutritionist now? I don't follow a carnivore diet, but some people do, or close to it, and seem to do okay. "Research shows it is possible to thrive on a very animal-heavy diet, says Clare Collins, a professor of nutrition and dietetics at the University of Newcastle. The Inuit people had a really low carbohydrate intake, a really low vegetable intake on their traditional diet, and they ate some stuff that we wouldn't eat, for example, they ate the organs of a lot of animals, they ate a heck of a lot of seafood, and they ate some of their meat raw, which is actually higher in vitamin C." Just sayin', we shouldn't be slamming articles like the Tim Noakes BLP because of our guesses at what's a good diet, or because western nutritionists have decided what's a good diet (one that has led to an epidemic of obesity and explosive increases in diabetes). I mean, if what we westerners are doing is so successful, we could then be justified in having the sort of confidence and disdain I'm seeing from the gaggle of "fringe"-condemning editors who have aborted my edits on Tim Noakes. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 02:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so upset? jps (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the fringe health topics to edit on Wikipedia, fad dieting is maybe the most fraught as editors are often very invested. Anyway, we have an article on Inuit diet which says, inter alia, "evidence has shown that Inuit have a similar prevalence of coronary artery disease as non-Inuit populations and they have excessive mortality due to cerebrovascular strokes, with twice the risk to that of the North American population". There are several LCHF articles which benefit from attention from fringe-savvy editors, such as Paleolithic diet, Atkins diet, Carnivore diet and Low-carbohydrate diet. (There are also fringe claims for plant-based fad diets, but that's another matter). Bon courage (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's so amusing for me to see editors labeling any attempt to diverge from the (current) obesogenic, diabetogenic "recommended" carb-heavy western diet as a "fad". And BTW, the Inuits' proclivity to stroke (in fact aneurysm) is a genetic foible (they have a unique genome), linked to the ingress of Western diet items into their lives in recent decades [9]. I'm not "invested" in anything more than giving Noakes a fair shake, and making his page about him and his ideas rather than the current accepted wisdom. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 04:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well better to be amused than upset, I'm sure. But for Wikipedia, the job is merely to reflect accepted knowledge disinterestedly, by which there are lots of fad diets and a good consensus on what healthy diets are. For WP:FRINGESUBJECTS the accepted mainstream knowledge has to be there for a NPOV framing, and fringe notions (like Noakes' various dietary formulations) not given a "free hit" without decent context. Bon courage (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, then give the facts in context, don't censor them. Tell people what he believes and the diet he promotes, then state that this is a fringe view, not mainstream, not generally accepted by nutritionists. Currently the page (incorrectly) accuses him of excluding entire food groups (which his published diet does not do) and labels it a fad. So he stands condemned, but readers won't really be sure of exactly what his diet entails, and why it differs from the mainstream. I really cannot see the need for this sort of harsh pre-emptive censorship of a senior academic's ideas, ideas with tens of thousands of followers and adherents (many of whom have stalled their diabetes and lost enormous amounts of weight). I can see no harm prevention in this censorship, in fact the obverse is more likely. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 06:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I know, it is obscure enough that no decent sources have bothered to turn a serious eye to this particular species of dietary nonsense. So the correct editing approach per WP:VALID is to omit it from Wikipedia. It's not "censorship" to be neutral. Bon courage (talk) 06:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"no decent sources have bothered to turn a serious eye" — are you kidding or just lazy? Ratel 🌼 (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serious - I've been looking for diet/nutrition textbooks which covers the Noakes diet, but so far have drawn a blank. It is covered in Matt Fitzgerald's Diet Cults book[10], which might be useful in a WP:PARITY way. Has anybody got this? Bon courage (talk) 07:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few minutes work brings up:

Long list of newspaper articles

https://www.latimes.com/world/africa/la-fg-south-africa-fat-hearing-20151125-story.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/body/going-against-grain-can-cutting-carbs-help-run-farther/

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/the-running-blog/2016/jan/19/high-carb-or-high-fat-the-running-diet-debate

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2831005/Just-eat-real-food-controversial-diet-encourages-fatty-foods-like-butter-bacon-high-profile-followers-say-weight-falls-off.html

https://www.timeslive.co.za/sunday-times/lifestyle/food/2017-07-15-fasting-is-a-key-part-of-banting-tim-noakes/

https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/south-africa/2017-10-16-noakes-calls-traditional-food-pyramid-genocide/

https://ewn.co.za/2015/11/24/Tim-Noakes-Banting-diet-saved-my-life

https://www.news24.com/News24/tim-noakes-found-not-guilty-20170421

Against:

https://www.heraldlive.co.za/lifestyle/leisure/2014-08-04-dieters-warned-of-health-risks/

https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/south-africa/2017-10-17-diet-genocide-no-noakes/

https://www.news24.com/news24/xarchive/archive_video/health/here-are-5-reasons-why-you-should-be-on-a-balanced-diet-and-not-banting-20140814

https://mg.co.za/article/2012-09-21-00-is-tim-noakes-the-malema-of-medicine/

https://mg.co.za/article/2014-07-09-00-bacon-and-eggs-diets-dont-make-you-lose-more-weight-researchers/

Describing the Diet:

https://www.thesouthafrican.com/lifestyle/the-banting-diet-what-is-it/

https://www.thesouthafrican.com/lifestyle/the-banting-diet-what-is-on-the-red-list/

https://www.thesouthafrican.com/lifestyle/tim-noakes-suggests-eating-only-every-12-to-24-hours/

https://www.thesouthafrican.com/lifestyle/banting-diet-basics-for-beginners-where-do-you-even-start/

Ratel 🌼 (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I said "decent sources". And for talking about dietary health effects that would need to be WP:MEDRS. None of those source are that, and some are worse than bad - WP:DAILYMAIL seriously? Bon courage (talk) 07:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And let's not forget the published studies (all review studies, btw):

As far as MEDRS, I think you are getting a bit confused. This is not a medical article, it's a BLP where we describe the ideas of a senior academic, well covered in the press, with review studies published (and some even featured as PMC articles). We include what his critics say for balance. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 07:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

... What his critics say for ~~balance~~ context Ratel 🌼 (talk) 08:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MEDRS applies to WP:BMI wherever it may be. I looked at your first link, it's by Noakes (not about Noakes) and from a dodgy publisher (Frontiers). So not WP:FRIND or of high-quality. The second article is from MDPI which is even worse than Frontiers, and the third is not a "review" as you claimed. I stopped there. Bon courage (talk) 08:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is not a review is a review, go back to Pubmed and check the top of the abstract. I did not say these studies are about Noakes, but that he has published studies on the topic. AFAIK WP does not exclude published sources in Pubmed because of impact factor, so your quibbles about open access is not germane, especially in a BLP (again, this is NOT a WP Medicine article). And as for WP:BMI, did you actually read it? What is not biomedical information? — Beliefs: Statements about patients' beliefs regarding a disease or treatment, including religious or spiritual beliefs; religious beliefs about causes or cures for a disease (e.g., information about the evil spirits causing mental illness); why people choose or reject a particular treatment (whether that treatment is conventional, alternative, or spiritual); descriptions of the underlying beliefs of alternative medicines. There is no hindrance to describing Noakes's beliefs. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, PMID:34290045 is a "viewpoint" by Noakes. Do we have any sources on Noakes' "beliefs" (other than about climate, gay people, vaccines, etc.?) Bon courage (talk) 08:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That study refers to various data sources, so NOT a primary study. It was published in Open Heart (official journal of the British Cardiovascular Society), so NOT a low-qual journal. It was made into a full article at the US Government's National Library of Medicine too. I really think it's time you put your personal animus against this individual to one side for the good of the project. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 08:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's published in Open Heart (a low-impact open source journal), not the (prestigious) BMJ, And it's a viewpoint article by Noakes. It would be a primary source for Noakes "viewpoint" for sure. Bon courage (talk) 08:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you need to have a read of review article, because you clearly don't understand what one is. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 08:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledged it is a "viewpoint" article. However it's in a very weak journal and is not about Noakes. So how is it relevant? Bon courage (talk) 08:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. The published studies are relevant because being review studies, not primary studies, they could even support a mention of his theories in a WP:BMI article like low-carb diet, never mind justify the inclusion of his allegedly fringe ideas in his own biography article. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 09:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source is too weak for use at Low-carb diet. As a rule of thumb an impact factor of 2 is a threshold, and in the topic area we have some much stronger sources. Re-casting it as a "this is what Noakes believes" source, i.e. primary, would not be appropriate. In an article about Noakes we need sources about Noakes and his work, not stuff by him. Bon courage (talk) 09:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have plenty of RSes on Noakes. In the South African context, there are few adults living there who do not know about him. He's one of the most well known people in the country. WP is not only for Americans. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 10:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"As a rule of thumb an impact factor of 2 is a threshold" — how strange, I can't find that policy at WP:MEDRS. 🤔 Ratel 🌼 (talk) 10:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bon courage said: "In an article about Noakes we need sources about Noakes and his work, not stuff by him". That's an interesting take on WP:BLPSELFPUB, to be sure. You seem to have your own ~~interpretations~~ "rules of thumb" on this place. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 10:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's called having a clue. Anyway, I see little point in continuing this. If there are some good sources on Noakes then great, they can be used. But for amplifying fringe view on diet your better bet would be to set up a fan site or something. Bon courage (talk) 11:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, I actually am not a fan of Noakes and I think he is way too extreme. I'm a fan of Dr Johnson and to a lesser extent of Dr Robert Lustig. These men are producing very persuasive arguments and research in this area, which would suggest these are not fringe ideas. My interest in this article has been spurred by having some vanilla edits to Tim Noakes rejected on what seem to be spurious grounds. The article should feature his responses to critics. His diet, with contrary views for context, should be detailed on his page. It's of general interest. Yet all the page currently carries are (incorrect) descriptions of his diet and lots of criticism and put-downs. He's been "cancelled", it seems, by the resident patrolling editors. This is neither fair nor encyclopedic. And I notice now that since there are no solid rule-based arguments against my proposed edits, I'm being threatened with a topic ban and my history from many years ago is being resurfaced, with suggestions that I am sock editing the article. This is pretty disgusting, low, schoolyard stuff. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ratel: What exactly are you trying to achieve here? There is enough evidence in this thread to make a pretty strong case for you to be topic-banned from Noakes because apparently you are so strongly in favor of promoting his ideas that you seem unable to bear any criticism of his dietary pronouncements. If that's not your end goal, what is? Wikipedia is not going to accommodate your right great wrongs approach. And it seems pretty clear to me that if you tried to change this, consensus would be against you. So what gives? jps (talk) 11:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was just now about to outdent and say more or less exactly that but deleted my comment as a waste of time. This subject being notable enough for an article is not carte blanche for an editor to freely insert opinions from the subject which have no coverage in any secondary source, against all consensus. Ratel is lucky they weren't blocked for WP:3RR. Definitely WP:STICK at this point. I notice some other medical topics in this user's edit history and am growing a bit concerned, not having reviewed the edits in detail yet. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't looked in detail but there's some history.[11] (so any review of editing history will need to encompass a lot of socks.) Bon courage (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"reely insert opinions from the subject which have no coverage in any secondary source" — NOT what I am trying to do, at all. Total strawman. This is becoming a classic example of wp:WIKIBULLYING Ratel 🌼 (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So use the secondary sources if they exist. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They do, and I shall. I don't need to use his own websites. And BTW even though I said above that I am not a fan of his because he is too extreme, I need to clarify that I mean in his own personal life (he maintains that he has now gone to zero carbs because of his very bad diabetes and carb sensitivity). But his published diet is nowhere near as extreme, in fact it's a pretty typical low-carb diet / Banting diet, so not that controversial. I'll get back to editing the article in the most balanced and contextualised way possible some time soon, too busy now. I think I know now what is allowable and not allowable there. Bye Ratel 🌼 (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm a fan of Dr Johnson and to a lesser extent of Dr Robert Lustig. These men are producing very persuasive arguments and research in this area, which would suggest these are not fringe ideas." This is the issue, you are supporting low-carb advocates who promote outright pseudoscience. Lustig promotes cholesterol denialism and has co-authored with Maryanne Demasi and Aseem Malhotra [12]. This isn't science and you know it. This is very much in the realm of fringe and pseudo-science. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liver King

This guy promotes a type of carnivore diet but only gained media attention after he admitted to steroid use. I am thinking it might be worth to take this to afd. Any thoughts about this one? Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any place that might be a good merge target? Carnivore diet perhaps? jps (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honesty, I think they pass WP:SUSTAINED, as there has been news coverage of him as recently as this month [13], significantly later than the steroid scandal. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this feels more like a recap of the whole thing that separate coverage no?... i have a vague memory of already having had this discussion but can't find it in my contribs—blindlynx 20:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive_90#Liver King --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It doesn't seem like a whole lot has changed in the last few months. There aren't my wp:rs about him since January and even the non reliable ones are all about steroid use—blindlynx 14:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They literally go around to his house and profile him. That's classic WP:GNG coverage. He still has a huge following still despite the steroid stuff. The article is getting nearly 1000 views a day [14]. I don't see a reason to delete, though obviously critical commentary by health professionals to his dubious claims about the benefits of eating raw meat should be added. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there is no reason to delete this article, my/our personal feelings about the subject aside. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it... It doesn't matter whether the coverage is of steroid use, humanitarianism, esoteric philosophy, or the size of his pinky toe... Significant coverage is significant coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing this [15] it would be best to expand the article. That's a very in depth paper about the Liver King published in the International Journal of Drug Policy. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Noetic Sciences

Proactively taking this here due to a potential dispute, but Institute of Noetic Sciences seems to be a rather clear-cut case of WP:FRINGE, no? I'm in the process of splitting out various parapsychology articles from well-regarded academic studies of consciousness in neuroscience, cogsci, and philosophy of mind and I've gotten a bit of friction here.

For what it's worth, the parapsychology people rarely use consciousness in the way that academic researchers use it anyway (interiority, basically), and mostly are either talking about reincarnation or perception, but it seems like parapsychology pages shouldn't be categorized or listed in with legitimate researchers either way per WP:ONEWAY. - car chasm (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unequivocally. IONS is a somewhat notorious outfit for promoting pseudoscience. jps (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the psuedoscience/medicine template. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Leary and Ram Dass as consciousness researchers and theorists

Can someone else try to explain to this editor (Carchasm) that Timothy Leary and Richard Alpert surely fit category:American consciousness researchers and theorists. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless we're also adding Richard C. Hoagland to Category:American astronomers while we're at it, no they don't. Writing books about all of the drugs you did in the 60s doesn't put you in the same category as Daniel Dennett unless your contributions are accepted by the broader academic community. - car chasm (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This comment shows that you do not know the two researchers relationship to the topic. Leary and Alpert did pioneering work in consciousness research and theory. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I supposed it's good we took this to this noticeboard since we disagree on this. To get everyone else's input - we would also consider the "pioneering work" Eight-circuit model of consciousness to be WP:FRINGE as well, correct? Considering the other names involved seem to mostly be involved with chaos magic and parapsychology rather than neuroscience or cognitive science this seems pretty clear-cut to me? - car chasm (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We didn't take Leary and Alpert here, I did, and now it seems you may be doing revenge editing by throwing an undue weight tag at Eight-circuit model of consciousness citing fringe. Do you really know who Leary was and the work he did? Please remove that tag and maybe consider taking a day (a week?) off to study Leary's full contributions to consciousness research and theory. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alpert and Leary were doing what they termed "consciousness research" those decades past, but I think now that is more properly aligned with altered states of consciousness and psychadelics. Today, this kind of research is more closely matching pharmacology instead of what is actually studied by those who are interested in consciousness. Even the most woolly philosophers (and, boy, are there some woolly ones!) do not consider Leary's or Alpert's ideas as being worth serious consideration. jps (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, even David Chalmers, who tends to be one of the more... "open-minded" philosophers of mind, doesn't mention Leary or Alpert in The Conscious Mind even once! - car chasm (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eight-circuit model of consciousness

This is an article that needs a clean-up, for sure. It also lacks contextualization and makes some pretty outlandish (in the sense of WP:ECREE claims! jps (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what led me to tag it was the number of seemingly outlandish biological claims, along with the association with chaos magic. I mean... psychic abilities? Quantum psychology? And it looks like almost all of the references are sources to the claimed originators of the theory. - car chasm (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may have influenced more pop music and movies than it has influenced actual academic research, but sourcing on this is pretty weak. There is so much written about Timothy Leary and his ideas and so little of it is useful for our purposes. jps (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The chaos magic information is a later adoption by others. The page is about Leary's theory and its main adherents during Leary's lifetime. Leary, as far as I know, is not considered fringe nor is this a fringe theory but another way of looking at consciousness. Theories don't have to be proven correct to be notable, they are theories, and this one, which seems more of a map and another way of ordering and explaining consciousness, is only part of Leary's research and ideas. If the current field shows little interest in the description and ordering outlined by Leary that just leaves more room for things like chaos magic to claim it but does not imply that the theory is without value. Hence, Leary fits the category which there is presently an edit war over (I've asked the editor to stop the war, but they continue), the totally applicable category "American consciousness researchers and theorists". Randy Kryn (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you do admit at this point that "the current field shows little interest" at this point, no? So little interest, in fact, that chaos magic has claimed it? I'm not sure how that wouldn't constitute WP:FRINGE, this is starting to look like WP:IDHT. - car chasm (talk) 03:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should have no say in these topics. You admitted above that you removed the pertinent category from Leary because you see him as a 1960s drug user and you are instigating an ongoing edit war (unless you've stopped). The page is about a model (the word is included in the name). Maybe the present field has an interest, I have no idea, just taking the word of commentators here. But labeling an adequate model as fringe when Leary himself is not considered a fringe figure (i.e. his ideas have merit) would be a misuse of fringe as a descriptor. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." - car chasm (talk) 03:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing to do with any of this, you're talking about a model. Nobody says a model has to be correct, just that its author is reputable and it has received commentary and explanation by others. A model is not a theory, it is a way of ordering and mapping. Signing off for now, so if you answer I'll catch it later. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably moot now since it appears the topic has such extremely limited acknowledgement in academic RS that notability is in question, but a "model" very much fits into the FRINGE definition of an "idea". JoelleJay (talk) 01:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reputation of the author really has nothing to do with whether a particular idea is WP:FRINGE or not. Our concern over the treatment of this idea has nothing to do with Leary's drug use. The evaluation is entirely based on the lack of WP:MAINSTREAM acceptance. Leary wore that as a badge of honor, so it's a little weird that this argument is happening here. Anyway, we label people based on how the reliable sources call them. As we have pointed out, Leary et al. are not referenced in reliable sources as consciousness researchers and theorists. They aren't mentioned at all. jps (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, chasm's concern about Leary was described above is that he was a 1960s drug user (and if that's all they knew about Leary before removing him from a broadly-named applicable category then there is the concern, because they quickly removed many others from various categories at the same time in a sustained edit run). I seem to have stepped into the lion's den by bringing this up here (and was quickly taken to ANI by chasm, apparently for doing so) to hopefully put more eyes on the question. Leary and his work may be outside of the mainstream (or he built a yacht and sailed right up it) but still seems to fit into the broadly-named category:American consciousness researchers and theorists (at least enough to not be dragged into ANI over an edit war when chasm ignored WP:BRD). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, in the broadest sense he was a "researcher" and a "theorist" about consciousness, but typically we ask for recognition from other qualified experts before affixing a category like that to a person. I wouldn't call the Dalai Lama a "Tibetan consciousness researcher and theorist]], for example. I think the standards have to be acceptance of the research work in the relevant academic field. I understand that "consciousness studies" is not as well defined as, say, physics, but it is a recognized academic pursuit. Like, you can get hired to be a professor in such and, while I cannot know for certain, of course, I suspect Leary would have been very proud not to be included in such a group. jps (talk) 12:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One more slight point here is that Leary was trained as a research psychologist who studied psychedelic drugs. These days, such academic research would not be called "consciousness studies". In the rough-and-tumble 60s, sure. But just because Alan Ginsburg says that you were a pioneer in the study of consciousness does not make that claim correct. I am reminded of conflicts over whether or not we would call Rupert Sheldrake a biologist or a former biologist. To be as clear as possible, we can definitely identify a point where Sheldrake stopped doing research biology and started pursuing parapsychology more-or-less full time. While he is lauded by his supporters as a pre-eminent philosopher of science, at no point have his writings been considered by experts in that field as being worthy of consideration (with possibly a few bizarre exceptions). Similarly with Leary, he proudly stopped doing research psychology and started pursuing psychedelics more-or-less full time. I think while he positioned himself as a philosopher of consciousness, there was never a point where he was recognized as such by the people who actually studied the concept in that way. I know that popular reputations diverge from that kind of analysis, but I see no alternative other than to adhere to a WP:MAINSTREAM interpretation of what a "researcher and theorist" is when it comes to such topics. jps (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for an actual discussion and not a knee-jerk reaction ignoring WP:BRD and being taken on a weird non-acid trip to ANI (where no donuts were to be found). Please see Timothy Leary bibliography for Leary's 1950s work on personality formation (arguably a key aspect of consciousness). As for being a theorist, the 1950s work also fits, as arguably does the model being discussed above on his 8-circuit ordering of personality and consciousness imprinting and Leary's work on psychedelics and consciousness which, I believe, he thought should be mainstream and, apparently at least in my limited knowledge of the field, either is at or moving towards that designation in current professional research and patient treatment. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the fringe. I searched APA PsycINFO, ProQuest Psychology database (limited search to journals), and EBSCOHost Psychology & Behavioral Sciences collection, full-text search terms were Leary and "eight circuit". Zero articles in the peer-reviewed psychology literature. (There are some unrelated retrievals, e.g. Eight Circuit Court of Appeals, and some irrelevant ones, e.g. a book review in the Fortean Times.) Eight circuit is so far beyond the fringe that nobody even bothers to mention it in passing. However the obvious conclusion is insufficient for Wikipedia purposes, it would be useful to find a reliable source which says so. -- M.boli (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any reliable secondary sources that discuss this to a degree that would ring the WP:N bell? -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: I found a Södertörn University paper that reviews the 8-circuit model, but that is just a thesis (not great). It also cites Swedish Wikipedia, so I'm not too enthusiastic about its reliability.

There's also an article in Антропологические измерения философских исследований, but gosh if I know how reliable that would be.

After even more digging, I did find some reviews of Robert Anton Wilson's books which purportedly explain the eight-circuit model:

Dibbell, Julian (7 December 1993). "Terminal identities". Village Voice. Vol. 38, no. 49. p. 28. EBSCOhost 9404060832. (which I don't have access to)
Hoffman, Eric (July 2021). "The Starseed Signals". Fortean Times. No. 407. London: Diamond Publishing. p. 59. ProQuest 2542755894. Retrieved 29 May 2023 – via ProQuest. (the aforementioned book review)
Davis, Erik (18 November 2015). High Weirdness: Visionary Experience in the Seventies Counterculture (PhD). Ann Arbor, TX: Rice University. ISBN 978-0-355-37478-0. ProQuest 1991053558. Retrieved 29 May 2023.

It's that third source I feel is the most in-depth on the topic. I don't have time to analyze it thoroughly, but it may be able to resolve some of what's in dispute here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that if the subject is entirely, or almost entirely sourced to non-RS sources, it may not pass our guidelines for inclusion. Right now the article is clearly PROFRINGE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the article as written right now is atrocious. However, I found some sources of varying quality (some are surely WP:RS) that I put on the talkpage out of which, perhaps, a new article might be written. jps (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

category:American consciousness researchers and theorists

Whew boy!

I just went through this category and removed a bunch of people. Found some rump areas of Integral theory, transpersonal psychology, process philosophy, and process oriented psychology that likely need weeding or demolishing, but I'm pretty spent for the time being. You might see a bunch of new AfDs as well.

jps (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ugh, upon further inspection that category is also full of people who are philosophers but don't study consciousness. There's one or more vandals who apparently think it's funny to mass over-categorize philosopher pages with a bunch of ridiculous extraneous categories, looks like "consciousness researchers and theorists" was one of their preferred categories to spam. - car chasm (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just finished spot-checking and removed a few more, as of this comment it looks like everyone of the people in there fits in the category as a WP:MAINSTREAM philosopher, psychologist, or neuroscientist who is a consciousness researcher. - car chasm (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Consciousness researchers and theorists and the other subcategories have now been purged as well. - car chasm (talk) 00:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I think this is excellent work. But this appears to be one of those many situations where different people use a technical word to mean different things. So since one of the things our article says about Timothy Leary (as far as I know accurately and centrally to his notability) is that his work was based on "optimism that psychedelics could help people discover a higher level of consciousness", is there a different category for people who use "consciousness" to refer to altered states of mind and who study that? Whether or not we classify this work as fringe, it obviously exists and has notable practitioners. We do have Category:Psychedelic drug researchers but there are other approaches than drugs to this topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The other common term I've heard for people like Leary is "psychonaut" which more generally refers to anyone who explores altered states of consciousness. We have a page on Psychonautics which is categorized under Category:Parapsychology, maybe we could have Category:Psychonautics researchers as a subcategory of Category:Parapsychologists and distinguish the two from each other in the category description? There is also Category:Psychonauts, which is used for a video game series with the same name, that could be renamed if people think "Psychonaut" is better than "Psychonautics researcher" for people like Leary. I tend to prefer "researcher" though, because "Psychonaut" by itself may also include people who do so recreationally. - car chasm (talk) 05:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Carchasm: Category:Psychonautics researchers has been created. Feel free to populate this category as you see fit. Also take a look at the parent categories for this one. Add more if needed or change it. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mind Machine

From a roundabout trip through the links, straight to AfD? fiveby(zero) 20:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as fringe, but I suspect these have generated enough outside interest to pass WP:N. They don't seem to work though and anything implying they might be usable for therapeutic purposes should probably be purged. - car chasm (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link, all i was seeing for real sources was old spam, Bruce Conforth and Thomas Budzynski hawking his own line of products. fiveby(zero) 21:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Celia Green

Found in my travels through Category:Parapsychologists, appears to have been a vanity page. Unfortunately, the personal website linked at the bottom told a very different story, which made me look closer at the sources and claims on the page and revealed a number of citations to unpublished theses that may or may not actually exist, along with essentially no secondary citations. The institute she's a director of appears to be an independent research group rather than anything formally affiliated with Oxford. To AfD? - car chasm (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Afd. I'm not seeing coverage of her in independent sources and therefore fails GNG. She does not fufill the criteria for ANYBIO. And I don't see any indication that she passes the professor test ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for Afd - car chasm (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft article about Brainspotting

Hi folks. See Draft:Brainspotting. I'm inclined to accept it - it seems to be neutrally written and on the face of it the sourcing looks adequate, but not really my wheelhouse so thought I'd flag it here in case there are any concerns about the sourcing. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is "Brainspotting" capitalized in the article? A gerund like this, even a neologism, would not normally be capitalized AFAIK. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the typography - I'm sure that the article can be improved, I'm just posting here to see whether folks think that the subject is notable, based on the available sources, and whether the draft article does a good enough job of presenting the information neutrally. I should add a bit about the history - the article was deleted following an AfD in 2009, and again a couple of times per G4 after it was recreated in 2017/2018. The current draft is substantially different from previous versions. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't sure if I was missing something about how the term was being used. I checked secondary sources and most seem to use lower case as one would expect. I also corrected that he "claimed to have discovered" for one thing MOS:WTW and for another it is not as much a discovery but an invention or development. A therapy technique isn't a discovery. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are concerning sources there: MDPI, Medical Hypotheses, and Grand's book published by Sounds True. But the author seems to know how to use them appropriately for neutral content. I think it would probably be best if this were merged into EMDR, but would first ask PenguinyPenguiny how they feel about that. fiveby(zero) 15:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether 'Sounds True' is intended to put one in mind of the disparaging phrase 'sounds legit'? Girth Summit _(blether) 15:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Hypotheses is pretty much a never-use journal (for Wikipedia). Bon courage (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to use MDPI journals is: "find a better source instead". They are 'caution' (WP:MREL) at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Their International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health journal in particular has a distinction of recently being delisted from the Clarivate indices, so it no longer has any impact factor at all. The topic here is human health related, so I think we should be looking towards WP:MEDRS, not reporting on our own lit-search of primary sources. The use clearly is cautious, identifying that there is an article in the journal but the journal or study is dubious. But instead we should require a secondary source to support those critiques of these specific studies (otherwise WP:SYNTH). DMacks (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the draft is competently written (not pro-fringe) and the sources are well-used. Given how it's written, and given that 6,000 clinicians were trained in it, I think it's desirable to have this article in mainspace. Though I haven't evaluated notability and my argument isn't based on policy. DFlhb (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How Conflicts and Population Loss Led to the Rise of English Wikipedia’s Credibility

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely worth reading and is germane to this noticeboard. Also, this article links to this research article [16], which is also worth reading. I haven't finished that one. One issue the research paper covers is how Wikipedia's endogenous institutional changes over time became supportive of anti-fringe, anti-pseudoscience, and anti-conspiracy theories. It covers how our consensus interpretation of NPOV wound up favoring this view to become a space that produces accurate information. Personally, I thought Wikipedia was always this way. But, apparently in the beginning, it was not. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found Table 1 in the research article quite interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating to see a paper so directly support the apocryphal "Sanger Effect" (the idea that who isn't editing anymore is as important as who is). If I can offer a single critique of the piece it is that the author overstates the case for their primary argument (although much more of interest to political scientists than wikipedians who are likely more interested in the other lines of argumentation): "First, change was not caused by the entry of new actors, but rather the loss of actors." and while I agree that "disproportionate exits early on highly consequential" I think there is more to the story and I welcome follow on research. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disliked the author's conflation of contentious topics (e.g., American politics, conspiracy theories, and pseudoscience). Overlapping of course, but his story of changing reliable sources is basically choosing New York Times over New York Post. Comparing AP2 and pseudoscience, i would say the latter is by far the greater success story. But i wasn't around for the big fringe fights of old. fiveby(zero) 18:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you weren't around for the big fringe fights of old then I wouldn't worry your pretty little head about anything, you don't have any real impact on wikipedia after all. Its a good paper, but its got a hole you can drive a truck through there. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was intending a compliment there, but in all honesty your response is probably the most helpful i've ever encountered on WP. fiveby(zero) 20:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is written above: "Its a good paper, but its got a hole you can drive a truck through there." That is true about any published paper. No matter how well done any publication is, they all have their shortcomings. Otherwise, there would not be room for followup research. Paul H. (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have seen over the years, editors pushing a fringe idea will naturally leave after their fringe advocacy is resisted because they only came to Wikipedia to advance their pet fringe idea. It's not like they want to contribute to the encyclopedia in a general way. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't the case in the GMO subject where we really needed topic bans to get fringe pushers to stop. Obviously subject-dependent, and I've seen plenty of more isolated cases like you describe too, but it was nice to see that area documented in the supplemental material in this paper at least. KoA (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so he did look at Intelligent Design. And the American Civil War. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the real problem starts in some areas when fringers get support from other fringers and imagine that a potential local consensus is going to lead to them prevailing (perhaps with a permachange to Wikipedia's overall stance). I think that was the problem with GMO, and we see it lingering for some COVID topics. In other areas (fake cancers cures, paedophilia, medical stuff generally) I think over the last decade the consensus has become tighter and clearer and it's very difficult to a WP:PROFRINGE editor to make progress. Bon courage (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a natural result of what is and isn't fringe being fuzzier with new topics which don't yet have a long history of established scientific consensus. With the more settled topics everyone who is editing in good faith knows where the line is and what side to stay on. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Same with race & intelligence, or rather there what was needed was a series of indefs and constant sockpuppet patrolling. Generalrelative (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively they become sock masters and live forever as a ghost in the machine, we certainly have some still pushing fringe content more than a decade after being pushed out for fringe advocacy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SARS-CoV-2

SARS-CoV-2 (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Lab-leaking going on on the Talk page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Somatic psychology

From the article: "It is based on a belief, from the principles of vitalism, that bringing sufficient awareness will cause healing."

New section because it's not directly related to parapsychology but I found it listed as a specialty of one of the parapsychologists along with a whole bunch of other altmed. Doesn't seem to have any clinical trials backing to it, or to have escaped the orbit of psychoanalysis, so it's not clear how much is poor epistemic hygiene vs outright quackery. - car chasm (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence's source doesn't mention somatic psychology once; are you sure about the vitalism claim? The term "somatic psychology" is so generic that I doubt the term pseudoscience can apply to the overall topic, rather than to specific beliefs and practices. DFlhb (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I expected that such a generically-title article would be filled with SYNTH/OR and after checking most of the sources, that seems to be the case. Would appreciate if someone could double-check me on this. DFlhb (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit more digging - From pubmed it looks like "Somatic Psychology" sometimes refers to a specific discipline, like in this paper and a review of that paper. I was initially thinking AfD for lack of coverage, but there seem to be a few books and review articles written on the topic as well. From reading the descriptions, it seems to be altmed (as the lack of coverage in pubmed implies) and most of the authors on scholar seem to lead back to an author who practices psychoanalysis, integrative therapy, or transpersonal psychology.

This all leads me to believe it's still pseudoscience on top of the SYNTH and OR currently in the article - the term "somatic psychology" itself doesn't seem to have been widely used at all before 1998. If people think it would be fairly uncontroversial to say that none of the linked sources are WP:RS on the face of it, and that the topic lacks any critical coverage then I think it can go to AfD, but regardless almost all the current article content, most of which is sourced to articles written prior to that, likely needs to be purged. - car chasm (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about Healthline at RSN

See discussion as to whether Healthline should be deprecated or blacklisted. I've added comments noting their dubious commercial ties, SEO optimized articles of questionable value, and endorsement of pseudoscientific concepts like Qi.

In 2019, Healthline was purchased by Red Ventures. In a 2021 NY Times article, a former Red Ventures employee said it is “all about profit maximization” and was going to earn commissions on referrals from Healthline. ScienceFlyer (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Valtorta

Does archeological work conducted in the 1990s prove that Catholic mystic's Maria Valtorta descriptions of her personal conversations and time travel with Jesus are historically factual? And does this mean that we can discard otherwise reliable sources who do not treat these claims as true events? We have a user, @Yesterday, all my dreams...:, advancing just such a theory at User:Yesterday, all my dreams.../Review1 and on Talk:Maria Valtorta. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Advice to "Horse Eye": read first, type later. What I wrote on the talk page was: "It is already written in the books by La Greca and Mattriciani in Italian. ... I would not even attempt to enter that into Wikipedia now, but someone else will in the future." My guess is that someone will try to add that to Wikipedia in about 5 years. And they will have opposition and debates and all. But given that it is not in any article, nothing to do. As for my "personal space" I can type there that the earth is flat, but as long as it is just in my personal space, it is for experimental purposes. No need for any one to bust an artery. End of discussion. And have a good weekend. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as 'personal space' on Wikipedia. Start a blog somewhere if you feel the need to write such stuff. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back The community has generally shied away from conflating religious belief with fringe theories as described by the guideline. As that is intended to deal with claims of fact that are either objectively and provably false, or widely labeled by reliable secondary sources as fringe beliefs (or some functionally similar language). That said, we stick to what reliable sources say about subjects, especially controversial ones. In the case of specific claims of a religious or supernatural nature, I would opine that it is acceptable to include statements from religious sources that are widely recognized, such as the Holy See when discussing matters related to Catholics and that religion. So this is probably not the right venue to address what may be a concern over NPOV editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"And that becomes even more obvious in view of Valtorta's superior knowledge of the unexcavated archaeology of Galilee and Bouflet's lack of knowledge of the subject as demonstrated by the example discussed just below." appears to be the sort of thing that falls under fringe no matter whether its religious or not. Yesterday, all my dreams... is claiming that Valtorta's had knowledge of unexcavated archaeology. They are using that supernatural claim to cast doubt on the validity of a secular source (and any other source which doesn't take the position that Valtorta in fact has knowledge of the unexcavated archaeology of Galilee). That is remarkable and fringe. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Horse Eye": I am not claiming that as my theory. It is written by Fernando La Greca (prof of ancient history) etc. and Mattriciani et al in their books. The books can be ordered on Amazon. But at some future point I would go to WP:RSN and argue that Bouflet is not a reliable source. I have just read 2 xhpters of his book, 4 or 5 more to read before I go to WP:RSN. So wait and see what they say there. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you want to open a section for La Greca and Mattriciani et al's publishing? It looks to be primarily in Open Journal of Social Sciences which is a predatory journal run by Scientific Research Publishing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No chance. No way. Not yet. I was refering to the books, not articles. And as I have said, I am not ready to discuss or debate this for inclusion in articles at this time exactly because it is so controversial, and gets people blood pressure to extreme levels. As I said, no rush. But Bouflet should have mentioned that item in his book if he disagreed with it. My point was that it is highly unlikeluy that he had heard of David Ussishkin because he is a modern historian. End of discussion. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't find that La Greca and Mattriciani et al have primarily published about this topic in a predatory journal to be relevant to a discussion about whether their (and apparently your) view is fringe or not? The ones that aren't in Open Journal of Social Sciences are in the SCIREA Journal of Sociology which is another predatory journal. Were these books published by reliable publishers? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look, all this debate would have been hypothetically relevant if I had wanted include this "exceptional claim" in a Wikipedia article within the next few years. No way. Let someone else do that. My point has been about the incompetence of Bouflet about not noticing it, just as he missed half of the places agave was mentioned. I am not going debate this with you further because it will last forever. That exceptional claim is controversial, but Bouflet's lack of familiarity with archaeology is not. At the very least he should have attempted to discredit La Greca etal. as you are trying to do. My guess is that at this point you know more about La Greca than Bouflet! He did notdiscuss then because he did not know about them, just as he did not know that vanilla existed in ancient Judea. That is all. Anyway, I am off for the weekend. See ya... Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Except you did... You posted a condensed (but still 8,000+ byte) version of that user page to a content discussion on the talk page[17] calling the disputed content a "pathetic little sentence" and directed people to your user page "I have explained some of them here, and there is much more to come." and made explicit claims about the validity of her archeological knowledge "the cat is out of the bag about what Valtorta wrote in 1946 in section 479 of her book regarding the five towers of Jezreel. Everyone can figure out that this was confirmed by excavations in 1991 by Ussishkin and Woodhead, as I explained here." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaaaaah, I am just about to leave... But for the sake of your blood pressure I will delete the link to my review. Your cardialogist can thank me later. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated attempts at fringe-ifying Bigfoot

Those of you have been around here a while know that Wikipedia has long had a problem with a lack of folklorists and, as a result, we've had a lot of very poor coverage of folklore topics with the exception an amount of our coverage of myths (a genre of folklore). Sadly, coverage of folklore—everything from traditional jokes to recipes and local legends—continues to suffer on the site and attract references to whatever people find on the internet rather than, say, peer-reviewed material from scholars.

One problem this results in is a repeated attempt to inject fringe approaches from various subculture into articles, primarily the pseudoscientific subculture of cryptozoology. It wasn't long ago that one could find references to the subculture in every nook and cranny of any folklore critter on the site, usually bundled with the subculture-coined word cryptid (a pseudoscientific term coined by cryptozoologists in the early 80s to avoid the words like 'creature' and 'monster' and instead to mean 'this monster may be hiding somewhere and may be waiting to be found by we cryptozoologists').

One big magnet for this kind of pseudoscientific approach has long been Bigfoot. While the article there remains quite a mess and badly needs a source review, I've attempted to keep the introduction in line with WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:PROFRINGE when I can check in. Unfortunately, emic (basically 'in-subcultural-universe') terms keep creeping in from users in the introduction. This includes referring to the monster with cryptozoology's pro-fringe cryptid terminology and while emphasizing the importance of the subculture.

More eyes would be very welcome.

The best outcome here would really be a complete rewrite using only WP:RS from specialists, because the current article is by and large highly misleading about the development, popularization, and cultural status of the creature. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion and a bunch of definitions from WP:RS from me here. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to the word "cryptid", I think that word has long since leaked out of containment on the internet and become a catch-all for "Creepy folktale creature". I don't think cryptozoology is the first thing that comes to mind when that word is used anymore. --Licks-rocks (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, IMO the distinction there is largely generational. To one generation using the term signified belief and was a distinction from mythical/fictional beings and to the next its just another category of mythical/fictional beings like angel or alien and its use is universal both among those who subscribe to the fringe/woo and those who don't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has defined cryptid, e.g.; "Cryptids are animals that cryptozoologists believe may exist somewhere in the wild, but whose present existence is disputed or unsubstantiated by science." Until cryptid is redefined as a catch-all for a creepy folktale creature or just another category of mythical/fictional beings like angel or alien, the present definition ("a mythical creature") in the Bigfoot article is more accurate and less confusing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) You're confused, Wikipedia doesn't define anything. We don't do WP:OR. I'm apparently also confused because nothing you just wrote appears to be in response to what I wrote, we agree that "a mythical creature" is the appropriate wording and I never said nobody believed in it anymore I actually said the exact opposite ("among those who subscribe to the fringe/woo and those who don't"). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Contemporary use of cryptid, not that it matters given our WP:RS, but I see no evidence that cryptid is more common than it was in the 90s. It's probably less so, given Wikipedia's changed coverage, and its heyday may have been the 90s, when media was more likely to promote cryptozoologists as experts. Yet according to Google Books Ngram viewer, cryptid may as well not exist when considered next to monster and creature. The vast majority of readers will have never encountered this word and it may well be waning in uncritical use. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made an argument to that effect on the talk page. regardless of our difference about the exact usage of that word in current culture, I think we have a decent consensus that it does not belong in the lead of the article. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thats interesting, I find it kind of shocking that you think the heyday of "cryptid" was before the fringfication of the History Channel and Discovery Channel. Our average reader is under 30 if I remember correctly so its likely that the vast majority of readers have encountered that word. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aw Jeez, sorry for the confusion. If the indents suggested I was talking only to you and you alone, when I intended much more of a general statement, I apologize. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to make the point that no matter which reading of cryptid you choose "mythical creature" is still the most appropriate phrasing, there is no reason to use cryptid as the core description in the lead either way. Apparently that was lost in translation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not an argument for this discussion, but if anyone missed Why Wikipedia Is So Tough on Bigfoot, it's quite interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not an argument for discussion or comment to any specific editor, but it’s great to see Bloodofox interviewed in the media. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alina Chan and lableak

There is an ongoing discussion here Talk:Alina Chan#Those who hypothesize conspiracies to explain natural phenomena are called conspiracy theorists. that maybe of interest to this noticeboard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty surprising Lindsay Beyerstein's review[18] of Chan's book isn't cited on that article. (Add: I used it in the LL article; predictably it didn't last long.[19]) Bon courage (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eight-circuit model straw poll

There is now a straw pole taking place that may be of interest to this noticeboard. The straw pole is intended to determine what to do with the "Eight-circuit model" page. It seems we have reached a point of decision on the talk page. The straw pole is here. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The related previous discussion is here ---Steve Quinn (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Francevillian Biota

I've been getting pushback at Francevillian Biota from my rewriting of the article. To summarise, a team of authors, headed by Abderrazak El Albani, have published various papers since 2010 claiming that centimetre-scale radial structures found in the Francevillian B Formation in Gabon, dating to around 2 billion years ago, represent the oldest known eukaryotes and multicellular organisms. However, when you look beyond this particular set of authors and papers, coverage of the structures is much more critical and there doesn't appear to be a consensus that these represent fossils. e.g. [20] [21]. Given the extraordinary nature of the claims made in the papers by El Albani et al, I don't think they can be taken at face value, as people at the talkpage seem to want to. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a brief discussion about the validity of the Francevillian Biota in a blog post, Fossil Friday: How an Austrian Scientist Concocted a New Domain of Life called Gabonionta by Günter Bechly. Although the blog itself is not citable, it provides ciations and links to reliable peer-reviewed papers, which are useful. The critical papers are either open access or can be found using Google Scholar. The cited papers do provide evidence that there exist serious reservations about the validity of the Francevillian Biota. Paul H. (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution News is an organ of the intelligent design organisation Center for Science and Culture, which makes me leery of them, though, Günter Bechly, despite his pro intelligent design views, is a well respected paleoentomologist, and I don't doubt what he is saying here, which is corroborated by my own research. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the background. I was unaware of the connections. I looked through GEOREF, GEOREF in Process, and GeoScience World, and found only papers by Dr. Abderrazak El Albani's team. Looking through the Web of Science, I found nothing new in the way of useful papers and a negligible number, if any at all, of citations of any of the Francevillian Biota papers by other paleotology papers. Paul H. (talk) 04:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Anthony Fauci

The Real Anthony Fauci (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

New article about RFK Junior book. Belongs on watchlists. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Quiet Epidemic and chronic Lyme disease

A new article has been created for a conspiracy theorist film The Quiet Epidemic, which was created by the anti-science chronic Lyme disease movement. I have raised concerns that it does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements and that there are no reliable sources to use for the article. The article's creator @WikiTryHardDieHard has also made edits to the chronic Lyme disease article to include a credulous film review. See talk page discussion). ScienceFlyer (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to answer any questions. I was going to write a synopsis of our disagreements, but it don't want to misrepresent the details. Suffice it to say the Chronic Lyme disease is a controversial topic. User:ScienceFlyer does not believe that it exists. My lived experience has informed me in the opposite direction. A small number of scientists and doctors agree with me. The larger medical community does not. So is life. None of that should necessarily matter because Wikipedia is a neutral platform. As editors, we have tasked ourselves with provided an accurate, unbiased encyclopedia for the world. Let us continue to that end. WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's neutrality does not extend to giving any and all opinions equal consideration. In the situation where the reliable sources explain something to be one certain way, the only thing Wikipedia can do is pay attention to those sources. This is biased against the unreliable sources and things such as lived experience which are not documented in reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia. This means that we cannot really approach the subject in the way you are hoping that we would. It's simply not the way Wikipedia works. jps (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, chronic lyme is not a "controversial topic"; rather, there's broad agreement it's not a real diagnosis and the whole thing is bound up in health fraud. It's not really going to be possible to write a neutral article about this film until a decent source gets its teeth into it (maybe SBM will?). Bon courage (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read the NEJM article cited for the claim that Chronic Lyme Disease is a fraud. The article does not support that claim. Join me on the Chronic Lyme Disease talk page for a discussion about it. WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned my personal experience. I was simply explaining my particular interest in the topic and personal bias. I'm well aware that it is an unreliable source. Here is the real question as I see it: Does the veracity of a movie preclude it's inclusion in Wikipedia? To me the answer is obvious, given the twenty-five movies tagged under Category:Pseudoscience documentary films. WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ScienceFlyer Take a look at that "talk page" link. It doesn't seem to be working. WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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