Jump to content

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Fringe theories

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Moneytrees (talk | contribs) at 05:44, 20 July 2023 (→Genetics and educational attainment: Re Sandy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:FTN" redirects here. For nominations of featured topics, see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates.
    Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
    Shortcuts
    Before posting, make sure you understand this short summary of relevant policies and advice and particularly the guideline on treating fringe theories. Also, check the archives for similar discussions.

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

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

    Deploy {{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion.

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

    Search this noticeboard & archives

    Lowercase sigmabot III will archive sections older than 20 days


    Additional notes:

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

    Article alerts


    Did you know

    Articles for deletion

    Redirects for discussion

    Featured article candidates

    Good article nominees

    Requests for comments

    Articles to be merged

    Articles to be split

    Second American Civil War

    I am concerned about the state of Second American Civil War, which started out much more along the lines of World War III (broadly discussing a hypothetical future event), but has now become excessively focused on propositions that we are currently in the middle of (or at the outset of) such an event. There is, of course, a real-world fringe position (reflected in various low-level political commentaries) that such a state of affairs exists. BD2412 T 01:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't taken a look at the article, but there have been recent, fairly reliable articles that have seriously suggested the idea that the US is currently engaged in a cold civil war. This idea is being taken very seriously at certain professional levels, with some experts suggesting we have entered The Troubles kind of conflict in regards to what appears to be an irreconcilable difference of opinion between the ultra MAGA right wing (and the stochastic terrorism that emerges in their wake) and the establishment political process represented by whatever moderates are left in power at this time. If that power balance is upset in the next election, with the right wing vanquishing whatever is left, these experts suggest we are close to losing whatever democracy the US has left. Former president Obama has even recently commented about this. I understand some people are still not aware of how serious this problem is or appears, so it's understandable if you think the idea of a second American Civil War is still considered fringe in 2023. I would like to suggest that it is not. Viriditas (talk) 09:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Careful, you might piss off our resident MAGAts with language like that. 2603:7000:CF0:7280:E5B8:A4BD:3D4D:726C (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "we are close to losing whatever democracy the US has left" So there is mothing to worry about. The United States has been in a state of democratic backsliding for nearly a decade. You can not lose again what was lost years ago. Dimadick (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Viriditas: you forgot to link the articles. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This article needs some serious trimming. The "reinterpretations of past events" section is perfectly valid. But the rest of it? I don't know what can be salvaged. The biggest problem, as you've said, is that fringe editors have gotten to it and tried to present it as a current events article. But beyond that, it seems to use a lot of WP:SYNTH to present it like this, there's no rhyme or reason to what's actually included, a lot of it is just "here's something that some person said once", I'm seeing a lot of WP:PROCON/WP:HOWEVER, and of course there's the dreaded WP:INPOPULARCULTURE list. I'm thinking this is probably going to need a "consensus required" WP:CTOP sanction sooner or later. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The "In popular culture" section would be more accurately entitled "Second American Civil War in fiction" and could be broken off into an article by that name, it really isn't a pop culture section at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This needs to be deleted as serious WP:CRYSTAL since it sure as heck isn't history. We don't win points for prescience, and the exaggeration is obvious. Mangoe (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)\[reply]
    Yeah, I kind of missed that. I think that’s the best argument against it here. Viriditas (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Now up for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second American Civil War (2nd nomination) (the original nom was an April fools joke). Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Post-truth politics seems like it's starting to go down the same path. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Except it’s not. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    After the original article was deleted, someone redirected this to Second American Revolution and added the term to the lead, but that article is also nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second American Revolution (2nd nomination). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Single top for interdimensional hypothesis/being

    Do we really need two separate articles on interdimensional hypothesis and interdimensional being? Wouldn't it make more sense to redirect the latter to the former? Viriditas (talk) 09:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I guess there could be a single article, but right now the two articles deal with different things. ih deals with UFOs while ib deals with fiction. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 11:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The IB article is mostly WP:OR with only two references: a ufology book, and a book about Buffy the Vampire Slayer which I have not otherwise attempted to verify. Therefore, I'd suggest deleting that article. I have not attempted to assess notability as a literary trope or as a Spiritualist belief like that connection to the IH suggested in the Jeffrey J. Kripal source at the IH article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    With no further comment in 15 days, I have opened the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interdimensional being. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.#RFC_on_use_of_terms_in_first_sentence

    This RfC may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    NBC has called him "one of the world's foremost conspiracy theorists" [1]. That seems like a reference we ought to be using somewhere, but I'm not sure where. XOR'easter (talk) 23:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is still going on for a few more days, it looks like. XOR'easter (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Joe Donnell

    Article was just created based on the wacky fringe claims that he's been making on the QAnon grifter circuit. Not sure if the article should be kept, deleted, or fixed. I leave it here for the self-anointed experts to decide. Viriditas (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Donnell jps (talk) 12:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh my, a can of worms was opened that I had not realized! I misinterpreted WP:NPOL and I am amazed as what, apparently, is the status quo interpretation of that standard. Not relevant to this board, per se, so I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#WP:NPOL_BLP_issue. Never a dull moment! jps (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But we would lose this gem: "Donnell went viral after he described how he believed God revealed to him that there is a direct ley line from the Mount Rushmore National Memorial to Washington, DC, which God is going to break. He suggests that this is due to demonic forces that are using the monument as an altar, creating a portal that will allow communism to enter." -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I know. But apparently we will not lose it because the WP powers-that-be think that every legislator is notable. jps (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can only recommend taking it to AfD again under the auspices of failing GNG, or BIO, or BLP. The sources are mostly local/ regional but the coverage is not biographical. It's about his campaign and his fringe claims in The Hill. That means the coverage is mostly routine, if that can be argued in this instance. So, how can this be a biographical article or a BLP? It's more like advertisement for his campaign, now and in the future. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What parts read more like an advertisement than a biography? We can and should fix any tone issues on the page. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to the article itself as an advertisement for his campaign because much of the source material seems to be about his campaign. And, I was looking at the sources more than I was looking at the article. Hence, the article can be interpreted as an adjunct to his campaign. Also, the article presents him in a mainstream light which is good PR for him as a candidate and as a South Dakota legislator. But his stated views on Mount Rushmore as a demonic portal for communism present him in a much different light. This view indicates he engages in conspiracy theories and an editor in the above mentioned something about making the rounds in a QAnon grifter circuit. Anyway, all that is what I was referring to. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I notice you are one of his supporters or defenders? I say this because you Ivoted Keep at the AFD . Anyway, I am not going to do an AfD here in case you have that in mind. --Steve Quinn (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither supporter nor defender of him. I just edit biographies of state legislators. That's why I asked about fixing tone issues in the article. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Olavo de Carvalho

    Believed in a lot of crazy stuff, died from something he did not believe in. Discussion on Talk page about whether his ideas are allowed be sourced to SPS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Somehow he is not listed in Deaths of anti-vaccine advocates from COVID-19. Tercer (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A number of sources have been added in Portuguese. Editors familiar with which Brazilian sources are reliable or fringe would be helpful. Llll5032 (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Physics Essays

    I am not sure what the next step for Physics Essays is. It is an uncritical article on an obviously fringe journal. I asked on reference desk for reviews this journal's quality. However, nobody has succeeded. And since the AfD for the article was closed as "keep", I am at loss as to what I am supposed to do now. What is the protocol for dealing with a fringe article without any significant coverage? Ca talk to me! 15:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It's obviously a crackpot journal, so no physicist will waste their time writing a review about it. The difficulty is how to convey this to lay people, they won't be familiar with the bibliographic databases either, in order to understand that being included only by ESCI is a red flag. Tercer (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Some physicist out there ought to be willing to write down what everybody knows about Physics Essays and a few others. As long as they made no specific claims about individual living people, even a blog post or a page on a faculty website would be admissible. XOR'easter (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be very happy if a physicist other than me were to do that. Tercer (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Why is this an article? There are no sources about this low-impact journal. jps (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The consensus of the AfD was that WP:NJOURNALS was applicable and satisfied. It has always been low impact, but the fact that the people who calculate impacts did so for it means that it's worth recording. XOR'easter (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've complained about that indexing standard before, but have made little headway. I see literally no usable sources for this journal except for its inclusion in arbitrary lists. The closest I could find was a fringe physicist's blog where he complaining about another fringe physicist using the journal as evidence of publication. It's such bottom of the barrel scraping here that I am at a loss. This may be the example that shows why WP:NJOURNALS is corrupt. Anyone want to start a WP:VP on the subject? How about User:Headbomb or User:Randykitty? jps (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NJOURNALS asks that journals be catalogued in selective indices, the same indices that the whole academic profession uses to guide its business (for good or ill). Disparaging those amounts to rejecting the standards of the subject we're supposed to be documenting and substituting our own. (Do I personally want to burn down the academic publishing industry? Kinda, yeah. But that's a different hobby. Wikipedia isn't the place to throw Molotov cocktails.) The sources are present, reliable, and independent; stepping outside of the RS to find more will end up scraping the bottom of the barrel, whatever the topic. XOR'easter (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Plus, if you want to find coverage of Physics Essay in books, it certainly exists. Nothing I can access sadly. "Electronics World + Wireless World Volume 96, Issues 1647-1658" is a maybe, but it's from the 1990s when the journal made more sense. There's also some criticism of Harold Puthoff around. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not about disparaging indices, it's about whether there exist reliable sources we can use to write a sensible article. As Physics Essays illustrates, just because the journal was included in a selective index doesn't imply that such sources exist. Which makes WP:NJOURNALS fatally flawed. Tercer (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure why the current article isn't "sensible". Sure, it doesn't have a giant disclaimer that the journal is bunk (a disclaimer which the people who like fringe physics will either ignore or take as a badge of honor). That's suboptimal, but not disastrous. So, I'm not seeing the fatal flaw. There's a downside, maybe, that applies in rare edge cases — journals respectable enough to have been selectively indexed at some point but which are now evidently schlock while also not having that schlockiness documented outside of the occasional forum post. How common are those journals? Every guideline has edge cases, hard cases make bad law, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 23:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The current article claims it is peer-reviewed. The current article says it is publishing science. The current article heavily implies it is part of academic physics. None of this is true. Seems like it is doing a disservice to the reader to say as much, but apparently we are allowed (and perhaps even required if I read into the revert of my excising of these "facts" correctly) to say these things because this journal itself says it about them? In what WP:FRINGE world does this make sense? jps (talk) 02:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've argued at some length that the claim about it being peer-reviewed should be removed. XOR'easter (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For that I thank you. But look at the pushback! "Where is your source that argues otherwise?" The point is, we lack sources to such an extent that it makes it nearly impossible to write a factual article on the subject. Even a factual stub! jps (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't write articles to help crackpots. Who we should have in mind are people who don't already know about Physics Essays and read Physics Essays to find out. And we are not helping them right now.
    I don't think this is an edge case. The existence of reliable sources is the very foundation of Wikipedia. A guideline implying we should write an article without them is rather destructive.
    Think of a less contentious case: a journal that is indexed by Scopus and has an impact factor but is neither fringe nor influential, just irrelevant and uninteresting. I'm sure there are plenty of these. Why should we have articles about them? And, crucially, based on what could we write those articles? Tercer (talk) 06:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why shouldn't we have articles about them? The information to write them is available—citation indices are good for that much—and they could benefit the encyclopedia, e.g., by being linked from whatever sources we use that happen to be published there. (Even a dull journal can publish the occasional thing worth citing in one of our millions of articles.) The article Physics Essays isn't a page written without reliable sources; it's a page written without access to all the reliable sources that we wished existed. XOR'easter (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because Wikipedia is not a database. If there's no information about a journal other than what is on the citation index there is no point in writing an article. I think WP:NASTRO does the analogous job very well: it explicitly excludes astronomical objects that are only one entry in a large database. The corresponding article would be an eternal stub consisting of little more than the name, position, and magnitude. Tercer (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is another downside for editors who are trying to source a page or evaluate a claim of notability and do not realize Physics Essays is not an RS! I always check wikipedia when I come across unfamiliar journals as sources, and while we here know to be suspicious of indexing in ESCI or Copernicus, for most editors if WP says it's a peer-reviewed academic journal without noting any issues they're going to assume it's legit. JoelleJay (talk) 04:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    the same indices that the whole academic profession uses to guide its business (for good or ill). Disparaging those amounts to rejecting the standards of the subject we're supposed to be documenting and substituting our own. I disagree with this take as well. I think Wikipedia is at its best when it is extremely conservative in its standards for standalone articles. I want to see multiple sources written about a journal in serious, comprehensive fashions before writing an article on it. I don't want to just check to see something is on a list regardless if that is what tenure committees lazily do. jps (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before anybody starts an extended discussion about NJournals, it's probably worth while to have a look at the histories of that page and its talk page. Basically, each time there was an attempt to either invalidate NJournals or to elevate it to an accepted guideline (currently it's just a guideline), there are basically three groups of editors: 1/ Those who want to do away with it and require journal articles to adhere to GNG or be deleted; 2/ Those who argue that academic journals are what WP is based upon and that therefore all journals should be regarded automatically notable; and 3/ Those that support NJournals as it stands. Personally, I think that both 1 and 2 have undesirable effects and that the current praxis is a workable compromise. Personally, again, I'd tighten things a bit (getting rid of criteria 2 and 3), but that runs into the same "no consensus" situation. --Randykitty (talk) 21:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It should have been deleted because it lacks sufficient coverage in secondary sources. I've seen lots of non-notable articles survive AfD, so this is not unusual. There should be a deletion team that finds and deletes these articles.
      WP:NJOURNALS btw is just an essay expressing the opinions of whomever contributed to it. Since some editors take it seriously, you might consider changing it. While you cannot improperly canvass, if you use notice boards to get wider input it should have a positive effect.
      The article says nothing beyond what one would find if they went to the journal's webpage. In that sense, it's not doing any harm. And being fringe (I am unfamiliar with the journal) is not a reason for deletion. TFD (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      A "deletion team" that goes around deleting articles that explicitly survived AfD would be a massive overruling of community decision-making. XOR'easter (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      This is the problem with notability policies that end up thumbing their noses in the face of other established Wikipedia rules. To be fair, NJOURNALS isn't the only one that does this, but it seems pretty egregious that it is allowing an article to be written that claims without so much as a wink and nod that Physics Essays is a peer-reviewed scientific journal about physics. jps (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      See WP:VNT. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      C'mon. WP:TRUTHMATTERS. jps (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I envisioned something like Wikipedia:New pages patrol which goes around deleting or AfDing articles that do not meet policy. However, it does not include older articles.
      While you may describe a vote of 8 editors community decision making, these types of votes usually have little input beyond the people who created and contribute to the article. Then there are editors who routinely vote keep regardless of the merits. And they don't even have to persuade uninvolved editors the article should exist, just get "no consensus." Having more uninvolved editors weighing in would better reflect community consensus. TFD (talk) 13:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Should I send this to WP:Deletion review? There is now evidence that it is impossible to write a WP:NPOV-complying article on this journal. Ca talk to me! 13:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The point of DRV is to reevaluate whether an AfD was closed properly, not to relitigate the arguments made there. It's for deciding whether the closer misread the consensus.
    Nothing indicates that an NPOV article is impossible about this journal. The only problem is that no physicist has bothered to write down the obvious yet. NPOV means fairly reflecting what the reliable sources say. The article does that. If further reliable sources existed, they would probably have more to say, and our article would have to be expanded to reflect that. XOR'easter (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    NPOV is more about representing viewpoints published by reliable sources fairly. None of the listed sources provide any views about the journal, just general statistics. I interpreted it as violating NPOV because there is no views to represent, so we can not representing fairly [...] all the significant views. Ca talk to me! 14:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the issue, then. If no one has bothered to mention the obvious issue, then that means that the topic is likely not notable per WP:NFRINGE. That's, like, the whole point of our WP:FRINGE guideline. And now that's being superceded by WP:LOCALCONSENSUS about academic journals which is being run like a petty fiefdom without accountability. jps (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Incorrect. Until and when you have reliable sources that establish this journal is a fringe journal, NFRINGE does not apply. --Randykitty (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That has never been how this has worked for anything but fringe journals. Every other topic covered by WP:FRINGE does not demand a source explaining that the thing is fringe because fringe ideas are often ignored. When they are ignored, we consider the idea to be so obscure as to be non-notable. That's the way we have done this for more than 10 years. jps (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing indicates that an NPOV article is impossible about this journal. I disagree. I think the fact that we cannot even get the statement "peer-reviewed" removed from the article means that we are running into impossibilities here. jps (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia editors having a barney is a sign that the day ends in -y, not that an article is impossible to write. XOR'easter (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In this particular case there are no sources about whether the journal is peer-reviewed other than the journal itself. I think it's a clear case of impossibility, as opposed to a mere disagreement. Tercer (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, I see their point. They've deemed the journal worthy of a standalone article. WP:ABOUTSELF seems to cover the scenario where no other reliable source contradicts the claims of the journal. What's the alternative argument? That we can accept the indexing as a reliable source but nothing else? Then we end up with the stubbiest of stubs (which, to be fair, I tried, but I think I agree with User:Headbomb that WP:ABOUTSELF applies and I'm not sure that unduly self-serving is what is actually going one when the physics cranks who run that outlet are claiming "peer review" in their description of the activities of the place -- it's just misleading since it is obviously only going to go out to other crank or crank-sympathetic reviewers since literally no one else would ever agree to review for Physics Essays). jps (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be willing to argue that the claim of being peer-reviewed is unduly self-serving. And as I said somewhere in this mess of a discussion, I think it is WP:UNDUE for the MOS:LEDE given the state of the article. By the letter of wiki-law, the lede should be talking about how the journal was delisted from Scopus! XOR'easter (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, but until we have a source like "Delisting Review" that talks about delisting, I hesitate to say we can say anything about that given WP:OR. I wonder if WP:COMMONSENSE can be applied in this instance. I would argue "probably not" since it is directly relevant to a disputed claim (that the journal is garbage). jps (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ESCI requires that journal are peer-reviewed. Physics Essays is indexed in ESCI. That's one RS that considers ESCI to be peer-reviewed.
    Peer reviewed is an activity that happens. It does not necessarily imply quality or meaningfulness. A kindergartner asking their classmate for feedback on drawing is peer-review. So do cranks asking other cranks.
    The usual wording when the quality of the peer review is under question is something like "describes itself as a peer-reviewed journal, although the quality of the process has been questioned [citations supporting criticism of the peer review process at said journal]".
    Find these sources, and we can include them in the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You know and I know that peer review does not necessarily imply quality or meaningfulness. However, we ought to consider the perspective of readers who don't necessarily know that; including that bare descriptor in the article can send a misleading impression to an audience less acquainted with the possibility that cranks can "review" other cranks, that too many referees just skim for typos, etc. We don't need more sources just to drop the "peer-reviewed" descriptor from the text. While one could infer from ESCI that some kind of review process at least nominally happens, that doesn't obligate us to use the words. XOR'easter (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On WP:FRINGE itself, we describe a situation that is relevant here: Journal of Frontier Science... uses blog comments as its supposed peer review. In my reading, we might accept such a thing as peer review even though for most of Wikipedia's existence the WP:FRINGE guideline has asked us not to do that. I suppose you are hanging your hat on ESCI indexing, then, but... hmm... that kind of hoopjumping seems a bit WP:SYNTHetic to me. jps (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, by your own standards you need a source explicitly claiming that Physics Essays is peer-reviewed. Tercer (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And we have it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Only by syllogism.
    A whole lot is riding on (1) being assumed to be correct. And, moreover, such arguments have tended in the past to be frowned upon per WP:SYNTH. YMMV.
    jps (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (1) A reliable source says all the journals included in a list are peer reviewed.
    (2) A journal is on the reliable source's list of peer-reviewed journals
    (1)+(2) that journal is peer reviewed.
    Every claim back by any sources have the same supposed weakness you just 'unearthed'. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    We have specific reason to doubt Clarivate and Taylor & Francis's claims that all the journals conduct legitimate peer review and it is documented in our article Emerging Sources Citation Index. I am less than enthused that you have not acknowledged this yet. jps (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    NJOURNALS is an essay and carries zero weight in AfDs. So the fact that the keep !votes did not cite any policy or guideline should have been taken into consideration. JoelleJay (talk) 04:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I had forgotten about this wrinkle. It may be time to revisit a question of AfD or marking the essay as {{historical}}. We need to break the juggernaut that is the NJOURNALS LOCALCONSENSUS. jps (talk) 11:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles should always be based on reliable, independent, secondary sources. Topics that are not subject to an official SNG default to the GNG, which requires SIGCOV in multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources. If a topic is only sourced to primary or non-independent sources, like databases or its own website, it should not have a standalone page. If a topic under GNG does not have SIGCOV, it should not have a standalone page. The journal is clearly FRINGE, so that means the higher standards of FRINGE also apply. All of the issues above regarding how the wiki page only regurgitates what the journal says about itself are a great example of how it is not possible to write an NPOV article from primary and non-independent sources. JoelleJay (talk) 04:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid you're misreading WP:ABOUTSELF. All five criteria need to apply for a claim to be acceptable. And we have a hard fail at criterion 4, namely there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. Tercer (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'd say there is reasonable doubt there. XOR'easter (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that this clause is meant to apply mostly to impersonations on Twitter and the like. Or the odd case where someone appears on the talkpage of the Wikipedia article arguing that some factoid or another is wrong. jps (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, there is no doubt the Physics Essays website is authentic. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How about criterian 1? the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. (emphasis mine). Saying that a journal that claims to debunk Einstein every week is "peer-reviewed" without any additional clarification is an exceptional claim. When layperson(like me) first hears the word "peer-review", there is an expectation that the peer-review is meaningful unless stated otherwise. Let's take account of the readers. Also, this discussion just proves the usefulness of notability. We have so little coverage to work with that original research and NPOV violations are inevitable. Ca talk to me! 00:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the tag on the article is a good compromise so far. Other than that I don't see a solution for how to edit this article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The next step

    I believe a structured approach would aid in determining consensus. So far, I see these three possible options presented in this discussion. Feel free to add more options as needed. Ca talk to me! 09:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Option 1 - Remove the term "peer-review" as a descriptor
    • Option 2 - Consider the website of Physics Essays to be unreliable and remove all information sourced solely to that source
    • Option 3 - Delete the article
    • Option 4 - maintain current status
    • Oppose first three, support option 4, for the reasons explained ad nauseam above and at the article's talk page. Option 3 is, frankly, absolutely ridiculous given the resounding "keep" at the recent AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 10:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Status quo as detailed on the talk page and above indeed. If you have reliable sources that dispute/question the peer-review claim, then we can revisit this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging participants - @Tercer @XOR'easter @jps @Steve Quinn @JoelleJay @The Four Deuces Ca talk to me! 10:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 (but also okay with Option 1 and Option 3 and definitely not okay with the fourth one). I also think we need to look at redoing the AfD/marking {{historical}} for WP:NJOURNALS which has clearly become a place where WP:WikiLawyering reigns supreme. This is an essay masquerading as WP:PAG and I am appalled that it is being used to WP:POVPUSH for WP:FRINGE claims (even if this is just due to officious adherence to a set of policies essentially invented out of whole cloth without community input rather than something like WP:ADVOCACY -- but note that editors can end up acting as a WP:PROFRINGE advocate even if they aren't intending to do so). jps (talk) 11:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:NJOURNALS is a terrible essay, as it advises people to write articles without having reliable sources to based them on. It's a mystery why anybody takes it seriously or confuses it with an actual policy. I support deleting it. Tercer (talk) 12:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      According to the results of the last AfD (which I initiated seven years ago(!)), the appropriate move would be to gain consensus for marking the essay {{historical}}. I think it is a good idea to have a WP:RfC that did this. jps (talk) 12:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Reading through the deletion discussion, it turns out that WP:NJOURNALS was intended to be a guideline, which is why it is written as one. In the ensuing discussion it failed to gather support. Hence it should be tagged as {{failed}}. Definitely not as {{essay}}, as it was never intended as one, and not as {{historical}} either, as it that would imply it was at some point supported. Tercer (talk) 12:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, WP:PAGs are descriptive rather than prescriptive. Because there has been a concerted group of people acting as though there was consensus for these rules to operate, in point of fact that was how Wikipedia worked for a time. Marking the essay as "historical" is a way to tell people to move on from this while preserving the history where many discussions referred to this part of Wikipedia in their arguments. The time to have marked it as "failed" would have been when it failed to gain a consensus. Wikipedia, remember, works on a "fake it till you make it principle" in a lot of areas. Or, in this case, "fake it until people notice and start sounding alarm bells". jps (talk) 12:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support first three. Optimally we would delete the article, since we don't have reliable sources with which to write a decent article, but that seems unlikely given that it just survived an AfD. Barring that, we should remove all information that can't be reliable sourced, which means almost the entire article. At an absolute minimum, we need to remove the claim that it is peer-reviewed, because this is not true even according to Physics Essays itself!. In any case, the status quo is clearly untenable given the shitstorm going on. Tercer (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Physics Essays says this

      Articles submitted for publication will be reviewed by scientific peers. Realizing the interchangeable roles of authors and reviewers, the positive aspect of the reviewing process will be retained by providing the authors with the reviewers’ comments. Each author should judge which parts of the reviewers’ suggestions are appropriate to improve the quality of his or her paper. The editor, who is responsible for the Journal, will allow a large degree of freedom to the authors in this process.

      This there is zero evidence that this is not the case (and plenty that it is e.g. [2]). If it's a journal for crackpots (which it is), the peers are other crackpots, and give crackpot feedback. Or the peers give relevant feedback, but the editor allows the authors to ignore that feedback under the "a large degree of freedom" aura. That doesn't mean there is no peer review. It means it's questionable or meaningless peer review. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      When we claim in Wikivoice that a journal is peer-reviewed, the reader should assume that the journal is in fact peer-reviewed in the usual sense. Not that it's technically peer-reviewed, but actually has questionable or meaningless peer-review. Wikipedia is not a conman. Tercer (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      If it's a journal for crackpots (which it is), the peers are other crackpots, and give crackpot feedback. I am amazed that you are arguing this. Surely the peers relevant for peer-review of a subject are the experts in the subject, not the crackpots. The relevant epistemic community is never the community of crackpots. That this nuance is lost on indices is a shame, but we are under no obligation to repeat this mistake in our work here. jps (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 at minimum. WP:BURDEN comes into play here. The claim that this journal is peer reviewed has been challenged, and the standard to include information in an article (when challenged or likely to be challenged) is that it must be directly supported by a reliable source. It is not good enough to argue the negative (ie saying “but there are no sources saying it isn’t peer reviewed”)… we must prove the positive (by citing a source that directly says it IS peer reviewed). Blueboar (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 I'll accept option 1 and 2 as solutions, but my strongest support is on deletion. The AfD focused on whether WP:NJOURNAL is applicable or not. It is indeed applicable and passes the criterion listed. However, me and many other editors have attempted to find sources to no avail. The current coverage of the topic can easily exist in a directory of journals. This lack of sources leads to an wp:NPOV and WP:FRINGE violating article with no room for improvement. Besides, an essay cannot overpower an guideline unless in an exceptional circumstance, which I am not seeing here. And the notion that SNGs somehow trump GNG is completely untrue. NJournal even says it so: It is possible for a journal to qualify for a stand-alone article according to this standard and yet not actually be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. The new source added alleviates my concerns and provides reader with valuable context. I do still support option 2 though. Headbomb's argument is rendered null now since a reliable source discrediting Physics Essays has been found. I would not be opposed to a AfD renomination though. Others might have different ideas. Ca talk to me! 12:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3, second and third choice option 2 and 1. There is no policy-based reason for option 4. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 Delete. It probably survived AfD because the discussion attracted little attention except from editors who either sympathized with the aims of the journal or just routinely vote to keep if there are any reliable sources at all. This discussion shows that if it was brought to the attention of a wider audience, it likely would have failed AfD. If a second AfD is attempted, it should be publicized through advertising it on relevant project pages. Bear in mind that any efforts to bring the AfD to wider attention must follow WP:CANVASS. TFD (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3>Option 2>Option 1. This should have been deleted in the first place because there were no guideline-based !votes to retain it and no secondary independent coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 and Option 2. I agree "peer reviewed" should be removed based on the several discussions involved about how to deal with this article and per WP:BURDEN. Also, relying on the website for accurate information is not possible at this point based on our discussions and the articles it publishes. The website description of the journal about itself is obviously a sham, and Wikipedia should not support this. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 and option 2 for reasons I have argued on, by now, multiple pages. Option 3 would require overturning an AfD out-of-process. XOR'easter (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • XOR'easter, we have not a single source that questions this journal's peer-review procedure or its status as a fringe journal. Options 1 and 2 are based solely on the opinion of WP editors. Hence, options 1 and 2 boil down to original research. Our article mentions what could be sourced: it was dropped by Clarivate and Scopus and its current impact factor is 0.6. I can't image an author looking at our article and then deciding to submit his work there. It would be even better if we could find some RS criticizing its contents/review procedures, but as it is it's pretty clear that this is not a prestigious venue for one's hard work. But as long as we lack such RS, we should not remove "peer-reviewed". --Randykitty (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Randykitty, you have WP policy backwards… We can not state that it IS peer reviewed without a reliable independent source to support that statement. Ok, sure, I suppose the same is true the other way… we also can not state that it isn’t peer reviewed without reliable sources - but what that means is that we must remain silent on the question, and not discuss peer review AT ALL. Blueboar (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{WP:OR]]says things like The prohibition against original research means that all material added to articles must be verifiable. It does not say anywhere that you are not allowed to remove material. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • If a WP editor looks at what a journal publishes and then decides "this is crap" and based on that decides that peer-review at this journal must be non-existent or bad, then I call that original research. --Randykitty (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      But if we don't have a reliable source for such a contentious claim, it shouldn't be in the article. Editors make personal judgments all the time on whether a particular source is reliable, and it seems like no one here is arguing this journal is reliable, so we can't treat the journal's own claim that it is peer-reviewed as a reliable source for that fact. JoelleJay (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Also, I found this: However, «Physics Essays» is not a reputed scientific journal but rather a free forum where extravagant views on physics (in particular, those involving parapsychology) are welcome; as for «mainstream» physicists, they do not seem to take Radin’s claim seriously.[3] "Free forum" sure suggests a lack of peer review. JoelleJay (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Wonderful source! The published version is here, in issue #4, not issue #3 as the preprint claims. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I call that original research It does not matter what you call it. It only matters what the policies and guidelines call it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I tend to agree that WP:ONUS, among other things, gives a lot of preference for removing contentious claims from articlespace. To argue that a removal done of the basis of something like a due-diligence check of whether the aspects of editorial reliability are found at a particular source is "original research" is basically asking us to act like poorly programmed robots that rely on rules made up ahead of time rather than enacting common sense in the service of making an excellent reference work. We're not talking about penning an essay about the intricacies of attestations about peer review. We're talking about removing a label that has been questioned in good faith. jps (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Options 1 and 2. No need to overturn the AfD, but we should treat it as what it is. Actually, with respect to Option 2, I don't have a problem with citing it for attributions of opinion, just not for statements of fact. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC drafting proposal

    I have started a discussion about possibly marking NJOURNALS as historical. Please join it if you are interested. jps (talk) 13:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Piri Reis map

    The Piri Reis map is notable for incorporating a lost map from Columbus, the earliest European map of the Americas to survive in some form (Happy 4th of July to anyone reading in the US). It's also notable for a long-disproven hypothesis that it's an out-of-place artifact depicting an ice-free Antarctica.

    Over the past few months, I've rewritten much of the article. I realize it may be odd for an editor to post their own work here, but it seems appropriate to put this up for scrutiny as this board previously looked at the article. I imagine I've either reorganized, reformatted, or rewritten much of that. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    introduction looks sound! one question, in the following sentence, would a better word be "claimed" rather than "noted"?
    Some writers have noted visual similarities between places on the map and parts of the Americas not yet known to have been discovered.----Licks-rocks (talk) 11:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CLAIM is a WP:WTW. Sometimes it is appropriate, but if a better, less argumentative synonym can be found, that's usually preferred. jps (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the input, Licks-rocks. While cleaning up the intro, I've tried to make that section more clear. If it looks weird to you, I'm sure it will to others. It now reads Some authors have noted visual similarities to parts of the Americas not officially discovered by 1513, but there is no textual or historical evidence that the map represents land south of present-day Cananéia. I didn't use "claim", because it's not strange for someone to say, "That part looks like the Valdés Peninsula," as that's a kind of subjective evaluation. There's just no evidence that it represents the Valdés Peninsula, especially on a map where things like Puerto Rico, really look nothing like our modern understanding. Rjjiii (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Analysis of UFOs by Joel Achenbach

    I missed this article when it came out two years ago! It is truly excellent analysis that applies today. Would love to see it highlighted in some relevant articles: ufology, UFO, Pentagon UFO videos, Luis Elizondo, etc. jps (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Paywalled? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not as far as I can see. Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was able to get around the splash screen with Chrome+Just Read. There's probably a more couth way to do it through WP:RESOURCE. jps (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    https://archive.today/https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2021/08/11/stop-ufo-mania-no-evidence-of-aliens/ Rjjiii (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely (2nd nomination)

    Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely (2nd nomination).

    Of relevance to board watchers, I believe. Please offer your thoughts.

    jps (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Recovered-memory therapy

    Scientists who do not think one can recover lost memories in therapy are pedophiles, right? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Why does the username of the person writing that not surprise me? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He has now reverted four times.--2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:80DB:DADC:C6B5:DCE1 (talk) 07:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All of the user's contributions both here (Special:Contributions/StefanoProScience) and on the Spanish Wikipedia (es:Especial:Contribuciones/StefanoProScience) consist of POV pushing in this topic area. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He is still reverting without consensus. He has two edit warring notices now (one from JaggedHamster two days ago and one from me just now). Hopefully we can resolve this issue civilly. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is now a discussion of the proposed changes on the article's talk page. I invite you to participate in the discussion. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Red meat

    About 6 months ago there was heavy traffic to the red meat article as carnivore diet advocates were adding a new NutriRECS review, and another flawed meta-analysis that red meat does not increase cancer risk. Two of those users were blocked.

    The same studies are being added again by a new user. The NutriRECS review uses a different methodology and has been heavily criticized by health authorities as flawed, see [4] which includes Signatories by many cancer organizations rejecting the NutriRECS review. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Root Cause (film)

    Alerted by my brother, a dentist, I created this stuff in pt-wiki some time ago. Now this old fringe documentary with wild claims was recently created in en-wiki. More eyes needed. Cheers! Ixocactus (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over. If it is even notable in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It definitely is notable, because many sources talked about its misleading claims, but it may need a rewrite. Partofthemachine (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've cut down the article and brought it closer to NPOV Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Nearly every sickness is from the teeth." - Flann O'Brien, The Third Policeman. Brunton (talk) 09:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Ancient astronauts

    Acquired a slightly WP:WEASELy WP:CSECTION recently, which should be worked into the rest of the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I started overhauling that article. There are now excellent sources out there that we can use to improve this page. It's actually a great time to revamp this article. jps (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Attunement

    Attunement [5] needs a lot of work. It presents the nonsense ideas without criticism. Chamaemelum (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Specified complexity AFD

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Specified complexity may be of interest to this noticeboard. Partofthemachine (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter Zeihan

    A self-styled "geopolitical strategist" whose opinions are being used a lot to describe contemporary Alberta separatism. He is setting off my fringe guy warning bells. His credentials raise the question of where his expertise in Canadian politics comes from based on a bachelor's degree in poli-sci and a diploma in Asian studies. I haven't found much 'about' him but what I've found is critical of his predictions [6] demonstrate a tendency to make grand statements outside his areas of supposed expertise (such as regarding genetic sciences) [7] and frankly the better the venue the worse it gets Kirkus says of one of his books "The book has entertainment value, but some of the material should be taken with many grains of salt." [8] "His generalizations can seem oversimplified" says Publisher's weekly [9]. Everything I'm seeing about this guy suggests that his expertise should be taken with several grains of salt. (On a personal note, since he is advocating for the annexation of Canada's oil patch I rather hope his opinions are not mainstream within the United States as I'd prefer not to be "liberated" anytime soon.) Anyway before I go about de-Zeihanifying the Alberta separatism article I thought I'd check here and see whether there was a dissenting view of this broad political fortune teller. Simonm223 (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Annexation may be closer than you think. :) On catching a flight in Calgary for Atlanta last week, we were processed through security by U.S. TSA and Border Patrol personnel, and were treated as a domestic flight on arrival in Atlanta. Donald Albury 14:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Canada has allowed that for Canada-US flights for several decades, and not just from Alberta. Does not indicate an imminent danger of annexation. :) NightHeron (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I travel for business regularly and, yeah, Canada does allow American TSA agents to process Canadian travelers at airports. This is a matter of treaty and not an annexation threat. Any comment on the reliability of Zeihan for Canadian politics? Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The first two links are pretty bad. Kirkus and Publisher's weekly are fine but they're non-geopolitical experts so I can't interpret their comments as being about Zeihan's geopolitical expertise or lack thereof. More to the point, criticizing a general-audience book for lacking precision isn't much of a critique.
    Zeihan was Vice President of Strategic Intelligence for Stratfor, a very well-regarded outfit. I know, second-hand, that he was (is?) regularly hired by the DoD to give talks, which also strengthens his credibility. I really, really don't buy the idea that expertise has any link with degrees. I've never read his books, but I wouldn't count him as fringe at all. DFlhb (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Highest IQ in history

    I feel like it would be better for someone else to join the conversation at Talk:Adragon De Mello about whether this person's "projected IQ" (as personally projected and heavily promoted by his own father, and uncritically repeated by the Reader's Digest and a few similar sources that explicitly attribute the claim to the Reader's Digest listicle) is 400. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    They probably just omitted the error bar of +-350. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear. I thought Christopher Langan was the highest IQ in history. I guess we'll never know. I will join the conversation. jps (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    LGBT chemicals conspiracy theory

    Recently created article of relevance to this board. Raises BLP issues as well but I'll just list it here for now. There's been some dispute over tagging and BLP concerns. The sourcing seems weak or poor at times e.g. whole long and contentious paragraphs lack inline citations. Nil Einne (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this part of the famous Alex Jones rant, "they're making the frogs gay"? jps (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    RFK Jr is reheating it in his campaign. That may have sparked new interest. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that is indeed why the article was created. The creator has been involved in the RFK Jr article, and added stuff about RFK, but this was removed by another contributor. (These are part of the BLP issues I touched upon.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed what appears to be unsourced material from the article. Read my rationale here [10]. I also posted about this on the talk page [11]. Another editor made an interesting comment on talk about collapsing the article to about two paragraphs [12]. I agree. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree too. I'm not a fan of articles on semi-notable topics that inherently lack a recognizable title. Readers won't come across it, and will be better served by reading fact-checks or watching watching YouTube videos by credible outfits than by reading us. DFlhb (talk) 01:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Zionism, race and genetics

    Greetings. A recently created article has been marked for potential issues regarding neutrality and factual accuracy. We require additional attention from individuals who are courageous enough to engage in a potentially challenging environment. 88.12.182.175 (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    "a potentially challenging environment" What do you call a nuclear meltdown? A potential health hazard?[Humor] -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zionism, race and genetics. jps (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The AfD is unhelpful as it will slow down / delay the ongoing constructive discussion between editors on the talk page. There are a significant number of high quality and recent academic sources on this subject. As the IP says, it is a challenging (i.e. potentially emotional) topic, so care is needed. On Wikipedia we do not shy away from well-sourced topics just because they are potentially contentious. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are living in a fantasy of your own invention. This has nothing to do with contentiousness. This has to do with making shit up. Point to one place other than that Wikipedia page where "Zionism, race, and genetics" is considered a coherent, single topic. So far, you've just done a lot of WP:SYNTH. jps (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The page has been up 3 days. On being challenged about your familiarity with the sources, you assured the page you had read them. On a rough calculation that means you read 2,500 pages in less than three days. Well done. It's taken me several years to get a handle on that vast literature.Nishidani (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a very strange strawman. The article is a massive WP:SYNTH violation, both broadly and on individual sources. Throughout the article there are ideas attributed to sources that aren’t actually there, or the article cherrypicks from them to synthesize a new narrative. If there is any article that gives off the impression that it was built by searching for keywords in Google Scholar and slopping quotes together, it’s this one. Drsmoo (talk) 00:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I seem to have stumbled on a corner of Wikipedia that is inhabiting some bizarre parallel universe where Wikipedia is acting as an advanced college class (full of brilliant participants) rather than an encyclopedia. The idea is not to summarize 2500 pages of academic work in a term paper. The idea is to write articles that conform to basic standards of our WP:ENC. When I say I looked through the sources, that's exactly what I did: LOOKED THROUGH THEM. Close reading is what you would do to verify citations and facts in the article. Looking for big themes is what you do to confirm whether or not there is a coherent subject being discussed in a big way. Are there subfields of critical theory, for example, called "Zionism, race and genetics"? Instead, I found lots of dense analysis that could be used to fine effect as sources of various articles... but crucially nothing that seemed to indicate there was a coherent subject of the sort we would expect in an encyclopedia. Term paper topic? Why not? Entry found between Zionism, Christian and Zionism (disambiguation) in our index? Doesn't look like WP:ENC to me! jps (talk) 02:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    yeah, sure. . . There is no evidence you have read the sources, closely or otherwise.Nishidani (talk) 07:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    yeah, sure. . . by the way - WP:AGF is a behavioral guideline and WP:NPA is policy. You should have at least learned that with 92,000 edits. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's okay. I'm sure working in WP:ARBPIA for more than a decade will cause some to get a bit salty about outsiders coming in and using website procedures and jargon instead of, y'know, reading the books on the syllabus or whatever. jps (talk) 12:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I may be salty but I don't play to the peanut gallery. Nishidani (talk) 12:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I respect that! jps (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I have not read the article, nor have I read the arguments for and against deletion (and I'm not masochistic enough to do so). But I know which side of ARBPIA this article favors purely because of which editors are !voting in which direction. If the way an editor !votes correlates so strongly with one side that you can predict their !vote regardless of the specific issues or policies being discussed, then that editor is almost certainly a civil POV pusher and should not be editing in the ARBPIA area. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm inclined to the opinion that WP:GEVAL (not to mention WP:FRINGE) implies that simply because one side benefits and one side does not from a particular action at this website, that does not necessarily mean that we have a problem. Where things go south, I think, is when you end up with stuff that goes beyond our website's normal procedures for sifting through what is okay to show the internet and what is not. jps (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thebiguglyalien: Yesterday I "broke" my retirement to vote in that AFD specifically to rebut the conclusion you are making here today, because I knew editors would view it the way you viewed it. I'd recommend looking at the sources at the AFD -- just read the first sentence of the abstract of this paper, for one example -- because editors are misrepresenting sources. Anyone who says Zionism, race, and genetics, is not the subject of scholarly study is lying. There really is no other way to look at it. Levivich (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a difference between [Zionism]+[race]+[genetics] and [Zionism]+[race and genetics] and [Zionism and race]+[genetics] and [Zionism and genetics]+[race] and [Zionism, race and genetics]? Because I definitely see a difference. I assume that it is only the last example that we are considering for this article, and I do not see this as the subject of the sources (or even part of the sources) provided. If you think I'm incorrect in that, I think that makes me a fool rather than a liar. jps (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess the question, and the reason I'm fence-sitting on the issue to a certain extent is this question: Is does the literature that addresses the question of Zionism and race also address questions of genetics or just of heredity? Because genetics isn't exactly the same as heredity. That being said I'm sensitive that's a pretty fine hair to slice in an article in one of the most fraught areas of Wikipedia. I suppose the question then becomes whether this whole debate could be handily solved by just deleting the word "genetics" from the article title and retaining anything else sourced to RSes. Simonm223 (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a bit all over the map. The fact of the matter is that race and genetics is, according to the article creator, one of the idealized parent articles of this one (and perhaps that explains the bizarre lack of the Oxford comma). But that subject, we all know too well here at this board, is itself completely fraught not from the perspective of the WP:MAINSTREAM, of course, but because the race realists, that seem to be far louder than their size should allow, are very annoying about a lot of this stuff. These numbskulls (that is, the race realists -- not anyone in these discussions currently of which I'm aware) sometimes use Jewish genetics (as referenced by fiveby helpfully below) to try to say certain politically motivated claims and it is absolutely true that there have been feedback loops in some cases -- instances of this documented in a number of the sources in the article in question. But, my god, is that [Zionism] + [race and genetics] then? I think it is. But then maybe I'm splitting hairs. The question I keep coming back to is: why is this telescoping take trying to serve as a standalone article meanwhile, Zionism as racism is a redlink and people are arguing without irony that this is a separate topic from that? jps (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Zionism as racism" would be a very loaded title. It also would not cover racist Anti-Zionism. Maybe something like "Zionism and racism" would be an option? I think one of the problems with the current title is that it sounds like there is some kind of connection between Zionism and race and genetics. But as far as I understand it the article is about the use of race theory and population genetics in arguments about Zionism. As to the issue of using "race and genetics" I'm assuming that it is an attempt at bringing together different attempts at employing science to argue for racist Zionism or racist Anti-Zionism. Where racists tried to use race theory in the past they now try to use population genetics as a sanitized version of race theory. Please correct me if I misunderstood what the article is about. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see this acting on a kind of hierarchy of style at least. Use of genetics to support Zionism, Racial identity arguments in Zionism, etc., etc. I can think of lots of ways to include some sources and bits of content. But I read the article as is and I see something that tries to tie everything together and ends up looking completely unweidly. jps (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Or "Zionist racialism", but it also should clarify what far-right group embraces it... Another possibility is merging in a main article, if it's not notable enough to merit its own. —PaleoNeonate – 21:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not concerned with which side is "right" in this particular instance. I'm concerned with the editors whose !votes always just happen to be favorable to one side or the other, no matter what the policy issue is. Like I said, it's gotten the point where I can find an ARBPIA debate, look only at the usernames to see who supports and who opposes, and then I know which side the proposal favors. This happens in a lot of topic areas, but I've seen it in ARBPIA more than anywhere else, and I don't even edit in this area. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats a very simple minded way of looking at the topic area, and Id be glad to explain why on my talk page. But your comments arent really about the topic here, are they? nableezy - 15:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Noah Tamarkin's "Jewish Genetics" (wplibrary) from Oxford Bibliographies might be helpful here. fiveby(zero) 19:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I already have that bibliography and am using it, slowly. There's so much on this topic that some further drafting will be submerged by the extensive reading required, beyond what we already have.Nishidani (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Noticed the overlap when i started comparing the references. What's everyone's take on Genetic studies on Jews#History and Hypotheses, Jewish_ethnic_divisions#Genetic_studies, The_Invention_of_the_Jewish_People#Genetic_evidence, etc.? As an ill-informed reader i'm looking for the "for dummies" or charitably "general audience" version for summary context. Side-by-side Zionism, race and genetics and Genetic studies on Jews don't look complementary, but competing maybe? fiveby(zero) 22:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are legitimate critiques to be had for using genetics to establish group relations in ways that map to social/cultural connections. Classic examples include the problems with "DNA essentialism" arguments that a number of USians use to claim Native American descent (famously Elizabeth Warren got mucked up in that). Those are critiques that do not take issue with the empirical results -- just the interpretations. But the problem there is, then, that there is nothing else to be done when asking questions about who belongs where? It's all group dynamics and identity at that point. Which means you either accept the correlates as evidence or you argue that correlates mean nothing. I don't see a third way. jps (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Lewontin had some commentary on Ostrer, Falk, and Abu El-Haj here, and briefly here. Not helpful for the article, but probably worth the quick read. fiveby(zero) 02:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I understand it Zionism, race and genetics is about using genetic studies on Jews (and before that race theory) to argue for or against Zionism. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you would be mistaken. It is about the role that genetics and concepts of race have played in Zionism. That is a well studied topic and there is no reason to not have an article on it. Nobody, I hope, is claiming that the current version of this new article ticks all the boxes yet. When the article has reached a point of stability, the title can be revisited. In my opinion this complaint is unjustified. Zerotalk 02:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure how your comment relates to mine. I have never said that the article shouldn't exist and I never criticized the title (although I proposed a possible alternative above). And I don't think that your description of what the article is about is substantially different from mine. Was your comment directed at someone else or did I misunderstand you? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 04:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually after rereading what I wrote above I have to say that I did criticize the title, but not in the sense that the title is bad just that there may be better alternatives. But I don't think the title is of particular concern. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 04:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Have we not established here and in the AfD that this is NOT a fringe theory? This convo may be closed I think.Selfstudier (talk) 10:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think that's been established at all (or even maybe what 'this' is?) Bon courage (talk) 11:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The topics being discussed jut right up against fringe theories (in areas of race and genetics, for example) and it hasn't been established to my satisfaction whether the proposed article content will be able to avoid them completely, presuming the article is kept. There are still open threads in that discussion on questions of how pseudoscience and science are going to be demarcated in the article even as some of the involved users have said that it is important to reference or perhaps debunk certain pseudoscientific claims in the article (for example, those originating form scientific racism). jps (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Tamarkin above points to the tension between geneticists and anthropologist and the echos of 19th and 20th race concepts and eugenics in contemporary debates. These, i think, are well-known divisions in the literature and difficult content for WP, even before the "who belongs where?" of a contentious topic area. In the Afd it is mentioned that a problem exists in some current content and a discussion resulted in the decision to create a new article for an underrepresented perspective. I look at say Jewish_ethnic_divisions#Genetic_studies with the uncritical presentation of Ostrer and imagine i see the issue. But there is also some valid push-back against the solution.
    I don't know if that was a solid perspective from Lewontin, that the three main authors are taking some kind of genetic essentialism position, it's too short and vague to be really useful. But it does vaguely hint at a distasteful way the article could go: to present an important and valid perspective but then engage in the debate in a competing manner with other WP content. There are indication from the content that this is where the article is headed. The title and narrow scope which could lead to generating an essay rather than an encyclopedia article. The emotional involvement of the the Afd voters. The perspective of some keep voters, that this is important content, but not always endorsing the title, scope, or content i think shows that there is no real clear idea on how the article will end up serving the reader. The repetitive nature of the long selected quotes in footnotes, which seem to be trying to drive home a point rather than summarizing and making clear for the reader.
    It's a work in progress and is making use of high quality sources, yet i do think the keep voters and editors would do well to onboard the criticism of those seeing a potential train wreck of an article ahead. fiveby(zero) 16:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly a good idea to have some constructive rather than destructive engagement, on that we can certainly agree. Selfstudier (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And there's already the first WP:AE case. I doubt it will be the last. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Point of order: Wasn't the posting of this discussion in breach of WP:ARBPIA restrictions? Double checking the template, the "internal project discussions" covered by the ECP protections include AfDs, WikiProjects and noticeboard discussions, so this thread, at its inception, was a breach of WP:ARBPIA. And, based on the community time-wasting exercise this discussion and the associated AfD has become, I think we can see exactly why the CT restrictions cover noticeboard discussions. This was the sole edit of the discussion-launching OP, which is ... real interesting. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You're right. According to WP:ARBECR an ip editor should not have brought this here: "However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions." Although I think that in an ideal world having the discussion here would make a lot more sense than to take it directly to AfD. Unfortunately it seems that it is impossible to have a civilized and rational discussion about it on Wikipedia. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Misc antivax

    Some articles are moving towards an antivax-friendlier position today. --20:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

    Sent relevant user to WP:AE for a discussion. Sigh. jps (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    RS noticeboard

    There is a recently opened discussion that may be of interest to FTN participants [13]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Spoiler alert: It is about Journal of Parapsychology and Rhine Research Center. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a feeling these two articles would benefit from academic sources rather than regular news orgs. Most of them are parroting Rhine Research Center's words without secondary analysis. Ca talk to me! 07:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have a problem with your assessment. I also think these articles would benefit greatly from academic sources. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Macrofamilies, linguistics, systematic issue on Wikipedia

    Hello from the Linguistics Wikiproject. It was recommended in a larger discussion that I bring this up here, but there appears to be a fairly systematic issue with some more fringe elements of linguistics being presented as either fact, or in a more positive light than current scholarship would justify. That said, this is a weird one as it gets into the weeds of linguistics a bit, and I'm concerned that any attempt to be bold on my part will look reckless. I'm going to provide background information, but feel free to jump down to a tl;dr below:

    Background

    Historical linguistics is concerned with, in part, the genetic relationship between languages. Not all languages are related, and some families do converge at a proto-langugage. All languages which descend from that proto-language are considered related and a member of that family. English, German, Hindi, and Farsi are all Indo-European. Japanese is Japonic, Uyghur and Turkish are Turkic, etc.

    Historically, there have been attempts to link these families to each other. In the early half of the 20th century this was a bit of a wild west, but a few theories did eventually become popular which later, as more evidence from more out-of-reach languages emerged, resulted in those theories falling out of favour. This is the case for Altaic, which was a major theory and now there is fairly uniform consensus that it has not been demonstrated to be real, and many of the old lines of evidence have fallen apart. It does still have some support among a small contingent of academics, but it is absolutely not the mainstream. Likewise, most of the old grand proposals to link families together have fallen apart, particularly attempts to link most human languages. (Just as a footnote, some of them do end up working out, to be fair). While Altaic has enjoyed some tiny sliver of continued support, theories like Boreal, Nostratic, Proto-Human, and many others are so far outside the linguistic mainstream that modern scholarship doesn't even discuss them.

    Which leads to the main problem.

    It's pretty clear that there's been a years-long effort by people who are still into these theories to present them as real and still under serious academic consideration. This has resulted in a mess of articles presenting what are the field's equivalent of quantum woo as real possibilities. This doesn't appear to be some organized effort, and I don't think it's a conspiracy or anything, but I do feel like these articles have been skating by without linguists weighing in quite as much by virtue of them not really being taken seriously by the linguistics community. At it's most egregious, every single macrofamily proposed in this template is rejected by mainstream scholarship, and of those only Altaic is really a topic of serious discussion at all. I've run into issues when trying to clean up some of these articles, where I'm asked for proof that Nostratic is a fringe theory, for example.

    tl;dr

    A fringe corner of linguistics has spent years creating very reasonable looking articles on Wikipedia which misrepresent the current understanding of the field. I'd really like some help cleaning up these articles, getting them away from being, at best, 50/50 between scholarly consensus and the minority perspective and get them back in line with reality to be much more useful as encyclopedic entries. There's also an issue in that many of these articles are only very tentatively linked to the rest of wikipedia, so it's often hard to even find these articles. I honestly don't even know how possible it is for non-linguists to work on this particular project, particularly in cases like Altaic where there are still some serious respectable scholars who accept it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrenmck (talk • contribs) 05:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Since you already tried Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics last month, I guess we have a bit of a hole in the linguistic anti-fringe user space... --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You've come to the right place. Problem is, the scale of what you are talking about is not something we are equipped to handle at this board unless we are familiar with the subject at hand (which I manifestly am not). Where we can help you is with any pushback you get of the sort you describe, where I'm asked for proof that Nostratic is a fringe theory. If you find much gatekeeping going on and restoration of poor sourcing, etc., do come to this board and start a section. But you absolutely have license to go through and start cleaning house. My advice having done something similar with cosmology-related fringe work more than a decade ago (but, really, we're never done) is to try to figure out which ideas meet WP:NFRINGE (specifically on the basis of WP:FRIND) and which ones need to be removed completely from the encyclopedia due to epistemic closure. A small community of people talking to themselves without any WP:MAINSTREAM notice is a recipe for violating WP:WEIGHT. This game isn't always easy to figure out, but it is a good way to thread the needle. If you find there are certain accounts which are acting problematically, you can mention them here, but please tell them that you are doing so. I am heartened that you appear to be assuming good faith about the contributors not being part of an organized effort. If this is the case, it is possible or even likely that they will take the opportunity to learn and help curate better content. Good luck! jps (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not that no-one has replied in WT:LING, it was just less than two :) See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Linguistics#Uralo-Siberian_languages,_proposed_macrofamily_article? and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Linguistics#Requesting_help_with_cleaning_up_some_articles_and_AfD_concerns, where I expressed major concerns with certain aspects of the OP's endeavor, including the idea that Nostratic and Altaic are the only notable macro-family proposals, and all the rest should be dumped into a single article covering all the rest. Frankly, here I can see the pendulum swing to the opposite fringe. Quoting myself from the discussion:
    Attempts to be overly bold will appear as reckless also to people familiar with historical linguistics. We should by all means avoid the kind of zealotism familiar from blogs, forums etc. that are indeed largely crowded by people unfamiliar with historical linguistics.
    (For those who don't what my last remarks refers to: there's e.g. the Altaic hypothesis, which is a proposal with stable minority support, stable explicit minority rejection, and mainstream disinterest. Both the support and reject camp have sunk to the low of bashing their heads in public web forums with lots of trolling behavior, not excluding otherwise remarkable scholars like Alexander Vovin. Both camps have developed a faithful amateur fanbase, and debates among these fanbases are notoriously abysmally low.)
    That said, trimming, pruning, purging, tagging, also merging, PROD-ing and AfD-ing where necessary, sure yes. There is too much in-universe detail in many of these articles that might give the wrong impression about the acceptance of these proposals. But I don't support anything that goes in the direction of a priori rejection as if historical linguistics already has reached the saturation point of established and establishable knowledge beyond which only crackpots dare to go. This is not representative of how historical linguists look at these things.
    The OP has understood my concerns, so I am bit surprised how this noticeboard comes into play. For the record, WP has a number of competent mainstream historical linguists (or linguists with an interest in historical linguistics) who at one point have engaged in the question of long-range comparativism. If it is just for wider input regarding this project, let's ping them: @TaivoLinguist, Kwamikagami, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Kanguole, Uanfala, Florian Blaschke, Calthinus, and Sagotreespirit: (please ping others, if they come to your mind). Many of us have been just too lazy to tackle the obviously exisiting issues (@Taivo and I regularly look at Altaic languages, but rarely have the energy to do much beyond a deep sigh). –Austronesier (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mathglot: I had this feeling that my ping was incomplete. –Austronesier (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello again! A lot of this comes up as the result of a current RfC on Starostin's role in Wikipeida, where I'm trying to address just how systematic this appears to be. You raised some very good points, and it's one reason I'm trying to not procede alone, rather I'd like to build consensus and get some other linguists on board with edits. I encourage you to look at what I've done to the Altaic article recently, it's not my attempt to paint theories which don't have wide support as inherently fringe, rather I would like to make sure that there's less WP:UNDUE issues. Actually I see the Altaic one in particular as the most challenge because of its serious supporters. Likewise Nostratic has a lot of historical interest which will make an encyclopedic rewrite a bit of an undertaking. However, I'm unconvinced that, say Indo-Hittite needs to exist outside as a mention in Hittite. But I really hope it's obvious I'm trying to build consensus here.
    "where I expressed major concerns with certain aspects of the OP's endeavor, including the idea that Nostratic and Altaic are the only notable macro-family proposals"
    I'd just like to make sure that it's clear I acknowledged you had a point here. I don't think I'm fully qualified to evaluate all the macrofamily proposals, but I do think that most of what is on here probably is better suited by a reworking of the Macrofamily article. You can see what I mean in User:Warrenmck/sandbox, but also I wouldn't intend on moving forward with a bunch of merge requests without outside support and consensus, so please don't worry that I'm just plowing ahead with aggressive edits solo. Indeed, the reason I'm posting in the wikiproject, here, and in an RfC is because I think this is a big, important task which needs multiple people working on the quality and making sure that one person's based perspective (here, me) isn't coming through too strongly in the other direction in response to the issues that are here.
    "Many of us have been just too lazy to tackle the obviously exisiting issues"
    I'm not surprised! The reason I wanted to bring it up here is this does appear to have created an issue where attempt to clean one article around hindered by the mess of articles which appear to treat these topics with substantially undue weight. A good example of this was my attempt to AfD Allan R. Bomhard, which was initially met with accusations of me trying to "suppress the voice of an academic with a perspective outside the mainstream" which was completely missing the fact that we're talking about a mostly self-published non-academic. But his work had been elevated heavily on Wikipedia, which made making his status in linguistics clear look like I was basically soapboxing. Between that sort of thing and the references to low simmering edit wars going on for a decade on articles like the Altaic one, I think this needs to be a concerted effort to rapidly bring Wikipedia up to standard, because anything less is going to lead to two parallel realities existing in how the information is presented.
    Warrenmck (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But you absolutely have license to go through and start cleaning house.
    As @Austronesier has helpfully pointed out, my perspectives are biased as well. I don't think this is a project suitable for a single person's overview of linguistics. My background is historical linguistics, but, for example, I have zero basis to evaluate the relationship of indigenous languages in South America. Personally, my domain knowledge is mostly restricted to Polynesian, Semitic, and Indo-European languages. I definitely think that any effort to bring this up to an encyclopedic standard needs a small group working on it, at the minimum.
    Warrenmck (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm with jps on this. I am not qualified to help with the clean-up and don't have the time or interest to learn enough about the issue to change that. But I applaud your willingness to take on the problem and if you run into fringe push-back am willing to help. Looks like you already found one person who can help more substantially. But for concrete issues you can always post here. Of course ideally the issues should then be presented in a way where people don't need a PhD in historical linguistics to weigh the arguments. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course ideally the issues should then be presented in a way where people don't need a PhD in historical linguistics to weigh the arguments
    Unfortunately, I think that this may be the case here. Well, not a PhD, but at least a formal background. The only similar situations I can think of are where there's been a weighing in on content in edit wars involving fringe perspectives by arbcom such as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion. Since the edit war that exists in these articles is both temporally spread out and, frankly, appears to be in good faith all around, this isn't exactly the sort of situation arbcom is set up for. I tagged policies in my RfC because I genuinely think we've found a situation where Wikipedia's policies perhaps are insufficient.
    Warrenmck (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course you can dumb down things only so much. What I have in mind is mainly presenting sources by people who are obviously experts, ideally published by a notable scientific publisher who say unequivocally that the majority of scholars rejects a certain view. For example I don't have to understand a theory in theoretical physics to know it is rubbish when everyone from Bohr and Einstein to Hawking and beyond say it is rubbish. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, and here's where historical linguistics gets a bit screwy. Take Allan R. Bomhard, who is essentially self-publishing his continued work on Nostratic, which is undeniably a fringe theory in 2023. That didn't prevent him from eventually getting two seriously heavyweight printings, because in historical linguistics this kind of work can actually be valuable (it can make a case for a macrofamily with new evidence, it can highlight real relationships which were previously missed, such as the Sprachbund nature of Altaic, etc.). Of course, a deep dive through the academic response to that book will make its status a bit more clear, but the problem is that linguists end up essentially going "just trust me bro" on which sources to trust. That book is a particular pain with the way Wikipedia's source standards are set up, since it's not like Nostratic is taken seriously enough to have warranted a particularly serious rebuttal. But see the three failed AfDs to see how this situation is deeply confusing to people outside the field.
    Warrenmck (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to reply to @Mathglot here in response to a related conversation which was converging on this one, so as to not derail an article's talk page too much. This likely won't make sense unless you look there first, but it's pertinent if anyone really wants to follow these conversations closely.
    Very true, and we have WP:N and WP:PAGEDECIDE to deal with that. No special linguistic training needed for this step; can be done by bean-counters. This is not the part where domain expertise is helpful.
    I strongly disagree with this, due to my core concern. The articles have been made to look very reasonable, so it's not easy for someone without domain knowledge to be aware of what level of acceptance what they're seeing has. This is extra problematic when something was a historically important proposal but fell by the wayside over time; there's a gradient of sources attesting a theory that drops off, then we end up with the above comment where linguists don't exactly refute bygone theories in their papers as a practice. It's very challenging to look at Na-Dene languages (widely accepted), Dené–Yeniseian languages (which is on its way up with acceptance to a mixed degree), and Dené–Caucasian languages (likely bunk) and intuit where articles there weight in modern scholarship.
    Some of the difficulties that Snow_Rise points out are inherent to any non-hard science discipline; I've seen a similar type of step-carefully, who-is-mainstream, who-is-outside-it issue in sociological discussions.
    It's worth pointing out that, while not a hard science, the toolset historical linguistics tends to use is actually somewhat crunchy. There's increasingly statistical methods being used to validate these, as well. I'm not saying "therefore the scientific method", but "this is a little less interpretive than much of social science".
    I'm more familiar with hard sciences, where "first they laugh" paradigm shifts do happen and drive progress in the field.
    I think this historically that was certainly true, but it's gotten a little less true. In the early days of linguistics access to information on a language was much more challenging, so a single author could put forward a hypothesis on the basis of them knowing a language or having access to vocabularies which nobody else working on a language family did. This is why a huge number of the citations on these articles are from before the 1960s, as an aside. The Altaic article goes into quite god detail about how those sorts of issues got resolved and eventually lead to Altaic falling out of favour, as well.
    It's funny you brought up Chomsky here, because many of his core theories, while highly influential and benefitting the field hugely, didn't really turn out to be true. That's actually a fantastic example of how linguistic paradigms percolate to common knowledge terribly, which is the major issue with Altaic (the idea got out, the fall of acceptance did not). I think that's a good counterpoint for a lot of what we're seeing with these macrofamily articles. The field doesn't generally, accuse people of wasting time with proto-language reconstructions (though the use of mass comparison does elicit those responses). A theory can be wrong and still be the basis for something very valuable, which is sort of the situation we're seeing with Dené–Yeniseian languages coming out of prior theories. As such, people who publish fringier stuff tend not to be as ignored in the field than, say, in physics. That doesn't mean they're accepted as non-fringe, but rather a bunch of people are sitting on the sidelines waiting to see if anything good comes from it.
    The issue with looking at some of these through a first they laugh lens is you're seeing these theories well after that point in time. Proto-human went through a "first they laugh" and got followed up with laughing harder. Dené–Yeniseian languages is a direct conuter-point, where someone made a long range proposal and a large (though minority, so far) chunk of the community went "Well now, hold on just a second".
    A brief aside just to amuse anyone reading here, but I personally do think that long range historical linguistics is going to be blown a bit open by computational methods and we'll eventually see some of these theories come back to a small extent, in modified ways. As in I personally believe we'll see a genetic relationship between some "Altaic" languages demonstrated through some other method which hasn't really come to the forefront yet. I just want us to be careful not to misrepresent where they are now. I am, philosophically, a lumper, like the editors writing these erroneous macrofamily articles. (I only mention this because I'm certain I look like a diehard splitter in my quest to clean up some of these articles).
    Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go read Wikipedia:The Importance of Brevity until it sinks in, since apparently I need that. Warrenmck (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a few general comments, perhaps some unhelpful or unwelcome, but here they are nonetheless.

    • Judging the work of non-academics can be problematic at times. One of the most influential linguists of the early 20th century, Benjamin Whorf, was a non-academic, but his work is widely considered to be a solid contribution to the field in many regards. Some of his ideas (such as Azteco-Tanoan and the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis) were acceptable for the state of the art at the time he wrote and within the range of what academics were doing, but have not aged well. The point is that he was accepted by contemporary academics as a solid linguist despite being a fire prevention engineer during working hours.
    • Self-publishing is a problem, obviously, but not a fatal one. Self-published works are sometimes top-notch and widely-accepted in their niche. In my own specialization, one of the widely-appreciated "standard works" is a self-published comparative dictionary of a large Indigenous American language family. The author doesn't even have a PhD! But academics and specialists in the field recognize and accept this piece of work as a quality reference. The latter is the key: the recognition by the mainstream in the field as good work. This is hard to judge sometimes. My colleague's self-published dictionary is recognized by virtually all specialists as a useful and well-done reference. But some of his other publications are not so well-received except by a small minority of peers who are interested in a theory that is widely-rejected by most of us.
    • Wikipedia editing has a fundamental conflict with academic production. Academic job performance is primarily based on published work in reliable sources. So our primary effort must always be focused on that. Next comes our teaching load and the responsibility we have to our students. Wikipedia is a "hobby" that can fill up some of our spare time when we're not raising our kids, mowing our lawns, interacting with our partners, etc. Many of the editors who are most energetic about pushing fringe theories as legitimate academic endeavors are not academics (trust me, we can spot a non-academic Wikipedia editor a mile away) who have found one of those "scientists are ignoring this" conspiracies that they can champion with every fiber of their being and that they truly believe can explain the world. Personally, before I edit an article in Wikipedia or engage in a "discussion" (whether hot or cold), I have to ask myself, "Do I care enough about this topic to take some of my precious spare time?"
    • The requirements of some of Wikipedia's policies (Consensus and Reliable Sources particularly) sometimes conflict with the real world. Take, for example, Altaic or Nostratic (since they've been mentioned above). The vast majority of historical linguists reject both of these old hypotheses of genetic relationship based on questionable methodology and limited data. However, the majority of historical linguists working on the legitimate language families that comprise these larger groups don't bother to write "I reject Altaic and Nostratic" in their published works. It's sort of like a geophysicist having to write, "I reject the Flat Earth hypothesis" in every published work. And yet the "true believers" in Altaic and Nostratic constantly demand on Talk Pages that we produce direct quotes that actually say that very rejection verbatim. If we have one quote against, they then produce a dozen quotes from the minority of scholars who support the fringe theory and thus "win" the argument by a majority of quotes. Wikipedia rules for Consensus tend to disfavor the "absence of support" argument.

    Well, I have now reached the end of today's spare time. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    "Self-publishing is a problem, obviously, but not a fatal one."
    Just as a quick comment, it sort of is for Wikipedia. This is one of the issues a lot of these huge macrofamily articles have; they're referencing self-published word lists and analysis. Even if a theory has some wider interest derived from the self published source, there's going to be an issue with Wikipedia's source policies on this front. I don't think Whorf is a fair example, linguistics as a field in the first half of the 20th century and, broadly, post-1960 are completely different beasts. Have we had another Whorf, recently? (Sincere question)
    "The vast majority of historical linguists reject both of these old hypotheses of genetic relationship based on questionable methodology and limited data. However, the majority of historical linguists working on the legitimate language families that comprise these larger groups don't bother to write "I reject Altaic and Nostratic" in their published works."
    And this is exactly what came up when I added a fringe tag to Allan R. Bomhard. Alas.
    I do have to say, @TaivoLinguist, as a publishing geophysicist I really appreciate that example. Warrenmck (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like taking a stricter line against self-published sources in linguistics on Wikipedia, including ones representing positive contributions to the field, would weed out a lot of the FRINGE with it. The reliability of the good ones can be established on a case by case basis, with reference to sources. signed, Rosguill talk 00:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That would eliminate quite a fair bit, but definitely that's not a neat solution to addressing this. Linguistics journals don't necessarily have the hardest time publishing fringe theories because they can still actively contribute to the field (and can transition out of being fringe. See what is currently happening with Dené–Yeniseian languages, for example). That doesn't mean they're accepted widely, and often those papers aren't even commented on. Warrenmck (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    One more point:

    • Proponents of the fringe families also have a fairly poor understanding of how coincidence interacts with linguistic comparisons. If you're comparing two unrelated languages and have dictionaries of, say, 3000 words each (a not unrealistic number for most good dictionaries), and a rate of coincidence where a word that means X in one language means X in the other language in a word of similar phonological shape of, say, 5%, then you are likely to find 150 "cognate sets". The question is never, "What are the chances of finding 150 words that are similar in both languages?", but "What are the chances of finding systematic similarities between the 200 most common words in both languages?" After all, in any group of 23 people, the chances are 50/50 of two of them having the same birthday, but in linguistics the issue is having two people having June 22 1995 as their birthday. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But how do you raise those specific concerns without WP:NOR issues, when, as has been pointed out, linguists aren't in a habit of directly publishing counterpoints to fringe linguistics with any regularity? I mean, just look at this mess. Sumerian!? Warrenmck (talk) 23:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If independent sources haven't bothered to comment on an idea, the right thing to do is to remove the idea from the encyclopedia. jps (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The issues is that for many of these proposals there's a cutoff date where a theory transitions from mainstream to fringe, and a lot of the evidence that lead to mainstream acceptance was self published. This creates a very nasty situation in deconvolving historical linguistics from its own past that doesn't exist in the hard sciences quite as much. Warrenmck (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe not, but there are parallels that I see. Check out tired light for example. The proponents of that once perfectly reasonable hypothesis are way out on limbs now. Identifying approximately when the cut-off date was can help move on, perhaps. jps (talk) 00:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Water memory was the one that jumped out to me in physics, actually, but good example. I do think there's a problem with linguistics continually publishing some of the fringe theories. After all, linguistics does benefit from people off in the weeds doing their own thing with data that has otherwise been moved on from. For example, I was just trying to figure out how to AfD Mother Tongue (Journal) (and its editor) and hit a brick wall with the reasoning trying to explain that a journal is both (semi) real and also deeply fringe. I can't think of a similar situation in hard sciences off the top of my head. I simply gave up on attempting an AfD because I foresee people a: misunderstanding the field and b: accusing me of WP:BLUDGEON issues (again, though I just want to be clear that was somewhat warranted) for attempting to clarify. That's why this needs multiple people inolved. Warrenmck (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh gee, water memory is an object lesson for the ubiquity of credulity mostly. There is nothing good that came out of that affair other than showing that editors at Nature should have hired James Randi sooner.
    Journals are a whole other ball of wax. I don't know what to tell you about that except that we are in the midst of controversy about that as well at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academic journals).
    A good approach may be to look for sources that are discussing this issue even informally in the grey literature or even on blogs. You have the benefit there of WP:PARITY since apparently a lot of stuff you are concerned about is self-published.
    jps (talk) 01:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to prep a lit review for every AfD on fringe topics, however. I think that journal is a prime example of what I'm talking about here, though: to an outsider it looks real, and any attempt to delete it on my part would either require a treatises which, to be realistic, nobody will probably read, or I'm going to look like I'm trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by purging countering viewpoints. Unless one (or a few) of the linguists involved here really makes one hell of an effort to convince people in every AfD or merge that looks like this, of which there will be quite a few, then we've run up against a place where Wikipedia's own institutional inertia has created quite a pickle, which results in low accuracy information all over here.
    The only solution I see which has been previously utilized on Wikipedia is ArbCom (see cases like this one). Everything has been so slow burn that it can't really be said to constitute an edit war, and in this case I think ArbCom would basically need to solicit expert advice, which I'm not even sure they're set up for. Warrenmck (talk) 01:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, journals are fraught right now. I don't know what to tell you about that. I have argued that the lack of sourcing on most journals make most of them good candidates for deletion (and the journal you are referencing would get swept up in that). The opposing camp disagrees and maybe they can point to what they think about this case. If you want, check out Physics Essays to see what it is like. Arbitration is for behavioral disputes only. It won't help with content issues and it certainly won't try to convene a council of experts or anything. jps (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    "Arbitration is for behavioral disputes only."
    This is what I meant by institutional inertia, to be fair. This is a behaviour dispute, just it's clear that ArbCom has taken a stance that the behaviour must be compacted to a quantum of time, rather than some slow burn involving multiple editors over literally nearly two decades where everyone is acting in good faith. But it is, nonetheless, a behavioural dispute directly akin to ones ArbCom has weighed in on in the past with fringe theories. Note I'm not trying to snipe at ArbCom or anyone involved with it on this point, I'm saying "Wikipedia does have a system in place which would be well suited to tackling these problems, but they have perhaps restricted its scope to an extent that they've missed a potential use case. Warrenmck (talk) 02:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Warrenmck: Wikipedia is not all that dysfunctional in this topic area that you have to take recourse to ultimate measures such as appealing to ArbCom etc. Be bold in a sensible way, see what happens, and call for wider input in cases of actual manifest dispute. Look, no one has contested your major revisions e.g. in Nostratic languages; no-one probably will, and the same thing will hold if you go through Dene-Caucasian related pages with a flamethrower (by all means, do so!). Speaking bluntly: where's the issue at this point?
    On a more general note, when we talk about fringe and pseudo-science in an observational discipline like historical linguistics, we have to keep in mind what I call the quality of counterfactuality in different scholarly disciplines. Flat-earth and and Proto-Human language are not just fringe, but pseudo-science by all parameters, yet there is a fundamental difference between them. Flat-earth fantasies violate all principles of exact sciences and are easily falsifiable and are thus positively disproven. Rubbish like Proto-Human violates general scholarly principles like Ockham's Razor, is based on cherry picked data, fails to distinguish chance resemblances from genuine cognacy, and is at odds with all basic axiomatic building blocks of historical linguistics (such as the inevitability of sound change, the largely regular nature of the latter etc.). But it is not poitively falsifiable as in the flat-earth case, in spite of its rotten p-value. Why is this relevant? Because not all long-range proposals are as blatantly nuts as Proto-Human. It is a spectrum from obvious rubbish to heuristically appealing speculations that are slowly evolving into well-argued and well-received hypotheses (as in the case of Austro-Tai in my field of expertise; dozens of others exist especially in Papuan and Indigenous South American studies). So we will depend on independent sources to evaluate notability in every single case, and to qualify these proposals as "fringe", "rejected", "controversial" etc. in the lede paragraph and infobox. Unfortunately, there are many cases where a long-range proposal is covered in a good of independent sources to pass WP:GNG, but only a few of these sources undertake the endeavor of dissecting the "evidence" for obvious reasons (as explained by User:TaivoLinguist), well-known to editors active in fringe discussions. So we might have to live with articles about notable long-range proposals without being fully equipped in order to tag them as "fringe" etc. the way we want to based on our expert knowledge, or to remove/trim detailed expositions of "evidence" presented in favor for them as unabiguously WP:PROFRINGE.
    Another systemic problem for the evaluation of these proposals is variable standards in different subfields, as has been pointed out by the "godfather" of linguistic skepticism, Lyle Campbell. According to Campbell, some language families that are treated in a matter-of-factish way by subject-matter experts (a classical case is the Nilo-Saharan family) are actually build on evidence that is a thin and contestable as the evidence for Alataic and Nostratic. So "local consensus" among mainstream scholars will bring us to very different results in the assessment of entities that might actually be on par (in a positive of negative way) if weighed by the same principles. But since WP reflects based on reliable secondary without bias, so be it, in a field that very much depends on subjective assessments by informed experts. –Austronesier (talk) 20:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a very good reply, thanks for your time and perspectives. I just want to address two points though, if that's okay:
    "Speaking bluntly: where's the issue at this point?"
    As has been pointed out on the talk pages for those articles, there has been a very low grade edit war going on years, where things are slowly changed back to a fringier mean over time. This is what I foresee being a huge problem here, that any significant attempts to clean up these articles will be slowly walked back, as it has in the past. Once I and a few other users move on from this project, it'll require active safeguarding to keep fringe proposals from slowly taking over, and as has been demonstrated in the past that's simply not effective.
    So we might have to live with articles about notable long-range proposals without being fully equipped in order to tag them as "fringe" etc. the way we want to based on our expert knowledge, or to remove/trim detailed expositions of "evidence" presented in favor for them as unambiguously WP:PROFRINGE.
    This is what I see as a failing of the current policies and systems in place in Wikipedia. If the outcome is to just accept that we'll never be able to bring these articles up to a scholarly standard because of the ouroboros of publishing around them then that is a fundamental problem with Wikipedia which potentially warrants a discussion beyond a few motivated users cleaning up a specific topic. Warrenmck (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is the "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", not must edit. As a tertiary source, we have reasonable house rules that leaves much room for sensible agenda-free editing. Sure, sometimes it is hard to deal with fringe-pushers, whether they're well-intentioned but misguided souls or just fuckwit jerks; I have had my good share of WP:Randy in Boise-moments in the last months, but luckily, this community has never failed me in the end—so far. So just go ahead with some trust in this self-regulating universe before apriorizing fundamental problems. –Austronesier (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Huzzah to everything that User:Austronesier wrote. Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Congo are two excellent examples of long-range comparisons that were, for decades, pretty much accepted as proven by mainstream historical linguists of all stripes. Indeed, Joseph Greenberg, the very same scholar whose proposal for "Amerind" in the '80s was DOA among Americanists (despite a featured article describing it in Scientific American), was the scholar who first organized the available data to demonstrate both Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan in the early '60s and was widely hailed in the linguistic community. Neither is now accepted as proven. What happened? The two families were set up based on very, very limited data for the vast majority of languages that comprised them. In most cases, entire families of languages were included in them based on little more than a dozen or two words poorly recorded from a single language by non-scientific travelers, merchants, or missionaries. But since linguists working on languages outside Afica had no other evidence on which to base their opinions, these two (huge) families became part of the received wisdom of African languages. I remember seeing them and memorizing them based on maps in introductory textbooks back in the '70s when I first discovered linguistics. I taught them as a graduate instructor in the '80s. But as scientifically reliable information on more and more of these languages became available to historical linguists, and more and more historical linguists turned their eyes from Indo-European to the other language families of the world, these super-famiilies were gradually dismantled (and continue to be dismantled). Niger-Congo is now no fewer than NINE unrelated families (and a handful of isolates) based on Glottolog 4.8 and Nilo-Saharan has been even more radically deconstructed. "Khoisan" no longer exists in even a rudimentary form. Only Afro-Asiatic has survived as a major unit, although losing Omotic on the southern edge of its African territory. So what might have been an uncontested language family in the 1970s might very well be only a historical curiosity today. Therefore while discussing these former "proven" families as contemporary entities is fringe, their presence in articles in Wikipedia is justified as widely-accepted "historical" theories because readers might be encountering them in older linguistic works and need to have a contemporary discussion of what they were and how they lost favor and disintegrated in the light of actual data and the better methodologies adopted by historical linguists. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 00:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Going Forward

    I disagree with none of that! Note that I'm trying to be very careful not to call Altaic "wrong" or "discredited" but rather stick to more strict definitions of its status without committing a Type II error, and I definitely think that even groupings like Nostratic warrant an article due to historical interest. Would you (@TaivoLinguist) and @Austronesier have any interest in working together on the linguistics wikiproject with me to try to organize

    • a: A centralized list of proposed macrofamilies/families, and perhaps a quality scale for them?
    • b: A standardized "status" label (right now the infoboxes seem quite random, ranging from "probably spurious" to "hypothetical" and any variation in-between)
    • c: A grouping for which are of historical interest and need a huge rewrite (Nostratic, Altaic, etc.) vs which can just be tossed into a bonfire? I definitely am not even close to qualified for that kind of undertaking outside of a very small cluster of languages

    I'd hope it's clear from my ongoing edits to various languages in the hypothetical Altaic family that it's not my intent to erase the work of or deny the limited but real support enjoyed by Altaic. I even have pangs of concern deleting self-published lists of word parings because I don't know who out there will find that information valuable, and while it likely doesn't belong on Wikipedia I do hope that much of that information is still easily found for anyone interested in working on the more out there theories, since you never know what good will come from it. I am definitely not trying to erase perspectives. Warrenmck (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Word lists should be removed. Most of time they are WP:UNDUE and imply more scientific basis than they actually possess. They are also, almost always, WP:OR by editors with a vested interest in "proving" the relationship. If a person is actually interested in pursuing the evidence they need to look it up themselves in reliable sources and not use Wikipedia as a more detailed introduction to the topic than is warranted by a general encyclopedia. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did say I almost feel pangs. Warrenmck (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm inclined to agree. I wish I had come here to see just how quickly the conversation had moved before posting so much at length on the original RfC, some of which is redundant on feedback Warren has been getting in the parallel discussion here. In any event, not to wholesale dismiss Warren's concerns about walking the line between over- or under-inclusion of edge case sources, but I do think the solution here is to weed out the word lists, and the self-published sources generally. If there are no editorial controls on a given source, it just doesn't qualify as RS. I appreciate that Warren has reservations, because that content might have utility to some readers, but I doubt the average person who even possesses the capability to make pragmatic use of that content is looking for it on Wikipedia. Regardless, it just doesn't serve a proper encyclopedic function, and is doubly problematic if it is being used to prop up fringe (or psuedo-fringe) as I think we might say is the case here) notions.
    On the flip side--and this is reduplicative of lengthier comments I've already made at the RfC, so I won't comment at the same level of detail here--I'd suggest to Warren to save any proposals for eliminating articles until the end of the process, and make sure to establish an affirmative and firm consensus first, even thought this promises to be a taxing effort. These are articles which do meet GNG by and large, so any arguments for merger will have to go the WP:NOPAGE route, which could take some work, especially if the gatekeeping issues are as pronounced as have been suggested. I'm not suggesting Warren gives the impression of being a gung-ho editor likely to go off aggressively pushing AfDs here--he does not give me that impression at all. I just want to reiterate that point here, since this now seems to be locus of discussion about these issue (and probably will be again if/when the time comes to propose mergers). SnowRise let's rap 22:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest to Warren to save any proposals for eliminating articles until the end of the process
    This is my intent! I'm working on it over in a sandbox (which is linked to on the Linguistics Wikiproject) and won't propose any mergers until I have a full and complete article ready for the wider community to review, and I hope it's not just me working on it. I definitely lack the expertise to tackle a few of those. I'd also hope, as I've mentioned here a few times, that I the tone I've taken in editing Altaic languages has made it clear I'm not out here to strongly push a specific POV, rather just neutrally bring the statements in the articles in line with the current understanding. I'm not trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS but rather sincerely improve Wikipedia.
    especially if the gatekeeping issues are as pronounced as have been suggested
    I don't actually think it's been too bad on the gatekeeping front. In comparison to other fringe topics which result in slow burn edit wars over years on Wikipedia this one actually seems remarkably civil and well intentioned. Warrenmck (talk) 23:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope not to read the word "gatekeeping" again (WP:AGF). I have used the word "zealotism" only once in WT:LING and definitely did not apply it to characterize the ongoing project of the OP, but as a potential pitfall if the topic is not approached with care. Hopefully it remains the last time for me to use the Z-word. Especially when so far all editors you are dealing with agree about the fact that fringe is fringe (this includes User:ValtteriLahti12!) and mainly differ in the question of how to present notable fringe topics in WP. There are questions of WP:DUE and especially WP:VOICE. Clearly, we don't want to see fringe presented as fact, we also don't want it to see it just attributed but unfiltered (as in X says: [two lengthy paragraphs plus tables based on primary sources]). But we can certainly describe the core aspects of the fringe proposal, not as a thing of the real world, but as what it is—a fringe hypothesis. Generally, we do have a big problem with articles that start with "X is a fringe hypothesis" with small "Criticism" section and probably also an appropriate categorization at the bottom, but which in the middle are filled to the brim with in-unviverse material from primary fringe sources, which in effect results in the fringe hypothesis being presented in Wikivoice over large portions of the article. We do have this problem, but: name me one editor active in this topic area who does not respond and share these concerns once they have been raised. –Austronesier (talk) 09:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:FRIND is your friend. Cut the cruft out. Bon courage (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Especially when so far all editors you are dealing with agree about the fact that fringe is fringe
    Would that this were true :( Warrenmck (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Timothy Ballard and Sound of Freedom (film)

    I learned about this just now, but it seems to be appropriate to mention here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I am familiar with neither. Are there any issues right now, or is this more a "people may want to put this on their watchlist" FYI? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The filmmakers are QAnon-adjacent and that predilection may have served as motivation for making the film in the first place. People familiar with that morass may wish to make sure that this is properly handled from that perspective. jps (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The second. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a large social media push to try and legitimize this film as "how child trafficking really happens," while actual scholars on the subject are calling the film complete nonsense. So there's definitely going to be a problem with drive-bys and POV pushers trying to make the article seem to be factual, when it's depicting a fantasy. Also, anyone pointing out the movie is not realistic gets accused of pedophilia, so that's a thing. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody is calling the film "complete nonsense", and even if someone did that, here's a newsflash: films that are not documentaries are usually "not realistic". Red Slapper (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Experts in human trafficking do appear to be calling it nonsense. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    could you provide a source? Red Slapper (talk) 00:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This one[14] for example. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you point to the sentence in that source the calls the film "total nonsense"? I couldn't find it. Red Slapper (talk) 01:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Were you able to find substantially equivalent language in Why Anti-Trafficking Experts Are Torching ‘Sound of Freedom’? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I wasn't. I saw some criticism about the film's focus on younger kids , which make up a (substantial) minority among child trafficking cases. What is the language that you as see as "substantially equivalent"? Red Slapper (talk) 01:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And after the criticism about the film's inaccurate representation of who gets trafficked and what their story looks like? What do the other experts say isn't an accurate representation of reality (in layman's terms nonsense)? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Albright says Sound of Freedom is "grounded in this sensational perspective of what child trafficking would be," rather than reflecting its grim reality.
    Sound of Freedom offers a "false perception" of how the majority of child trafficking actually takes place, according to Albright.
    "What they are learning is so divorced from reality that it does sling back to create harm," says Albright.
    I wouldn't say that this is substantially equivalent to "total nonsense" it is closer to "dangerous and actively harmful misinformation". -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I said it was equivalent to nonsense, note that "total nonsense" is a misquote as well. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, "Complete nonsense'. What a significant difference that synonym makes! Red Slapper (talk) 01:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I love synonyms, for instance nonsense and fiction. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I gave you an example below that illustrates how those are not synonyms. Red Slapper (talk) 02:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and here move the goalposts. Saying that this aspect or that aspect isn't accurate is far removed from "total nonsense". Every film that is not a documentary but a dramatization of some real life story has aspects that have been exaggerated, modified, etc, as this film's producers readily acknowledge. And you know why? Because I said above - fictional action films are just that - fiction. Red Slapper (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless I am missing something you're the only one to have used the term "total nonsense". I only ever used nonsense and the line you appear to be quoting was "complete nonsense". However would you not agree that "fiction" and "complete nonsense" are substantially equivalent? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The "it's fiction" argument takes a huge hit when things like this happen: In the epilogue, actor Jim Caviezel addresses the audience and encourages them to share the movie with others and to pay it forward by buying tickets to allow others to see the movie, to increase the public awareness of the situation and to hopefully end human trafficking. I'm not sure that you increase public awareness of a situation when your depiction of that situation is "divorced from reality" and offers a "false perspective". -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That a common element of many films that are based on real-life events- they do not purport to be a documentary, and openly acknowledge that certain parts are fictional, dramatized versions of the real-life events, while ending with a non-fiction epilogue that ties back to the actual events.
    Munich (2005 film) is an example - based on based on the real-life Operation Wrath of God, it contains many fictional scenes, but it ends with an epilogue that recounts the actual real-life event.
    Do you think Munich (2005 film) is 'total nonsense'? Is it "dangerous and actively harmful misinformation"? Red Slapper (talk) 02:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also got to admire anyone who can say "buy tickets to my movie to end human trafficking" with a straight face. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What an interesting perspective. Do you similarly think that Al Gore or Guggenheim deserve derision because they sold tickets to An Inconvenient Truth? Red Slapper (talk) 02:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Did they say "buy tickets to our movie to end climate change"? If so, yes. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 02:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you imagine they did not promote their film which required tickets? Red Slapper (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    An Inconvenient Truth is a documentary, I thought you said this was a work of fiction. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What difference does in make in this instance, where the objection is supposedly to someone making a pitch to audience to buy tickets to his movie in order to solve a big problem? Did you even read what person no 362... worte in response ? That they said ""buy tickets to our movie to end climate change" it would be worthy of derision ? Red Slapper (talk) 11:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The key point being that they don't appear to ever have said that, I can't find any suggestion that An Inconvenient Truth was marketed that way. You then appear to have moved the goal posts and declared that any promotion of the film effectively did the same thing, which is an odd thing to argue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure I follow. So it's ok to make a big profit by charging money for your film that is meant to help fix a big issue, but somehow not ok to say that it costs money? Red Slapper (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe that anyone said that buying tickets to An Inconvenient Truth would fix the issue. Again you've moved the goalposts, its hard to have a conversation when you do that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not moving the goalposts at all. You seem to be playing semantic games- what do you think is the objection person no 362478479 has - is it to the exact phrase "buy tickets to my movie to end human trafficking" (which I don;t believe was siad, in those exact words), or to the notion that one could promote a movie about a big problem while also wanting people to pay for the movie? Red Slapper (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I indeed misquoted, sorry about that. Do you think there's some meaningful distinction between "complete nonsense" and "total nonsense"?
    And no, "fiction" and "complete nonsense" are very much not substantially equivalent. By way of example - The Spy Who Came in from the Cold is a work of fiction, yet it very realistically and accurately depicts the Cold War espionage scene. Red Slapper (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you prefer the alternative "dangerous and actively harmful misinformation" which has been suggested? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I disagree with that editor's opinion. Have you seen the movie, BTW? Red Slapper (talk) 02:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have, I thought it was pretty good. Personally I'm capable of separating artists from the art, I can enjoy Braveheart even though Mel Gibson is an extremist religious figure and anti-semite. I can enjoy David Bowie even though he is a child rapist. I can enjoy this movie even if the people behind it hold fringe ideas about QAnon. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ANd I am in the same position, Which is why I find the attempts to tie the movie to QAnon based on things the actors say or believe so despicable, Red Slapper (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter how we feel about what WP:RS choose to say, we cover them without bias or favor. If RS tie the two together so must we, no matter what our own thoughts on the issue are. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. But the things I objected to on the article's page were cases where editors were trying to tie the two together, not RSes. E.g by bringing up criticisms of O.U.R made years ago into a section nominally about the film's accuracy. Red Slapper (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This feels prophetic, in hindsight.[Joke] Warrenmck (talk) 02:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, anyone pointing out the movie is not realistic gets accused of pedophilia: one of the sources may possibly be useful IRT this context: " Caviezel's final statement double crystallizes the nonetheless foggy stakes: if you're not with us, you're with them, whoever they are." —PaleoNeonate – 14:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Manifestation (popular psychology)

    Even ignoring recent attempts to turn this into the TikTok guide to manifestation (see [15]) this article lacks substantive counter-woo. Needs fixing, or deletion... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I've weighed in on the editor's talk page. There's a bit of a spike in interest in religious studies academia about the emergence of faith-esque things from social media, of which manifesting is decidedly one. While I don't think they're going to succeed in getting a guide to manifesting on Wikipedia for obvious reasons, I do think that offering them an opportunity to work on what they wanted to add to Wikipedia in a stylistically appropriate manner may work in this case; they do appear to be attempting to edit in good faith. Warrenmck (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that the article is a clear content fork of Law of attraction (New Thought), I've prodded it. Any academic discussion of such beliefs can be covered there. We don't need two articles on the same subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was suggesting the editor work on it in a sandbox regardless, they're clearly new. Warrenmck (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I'd not say it was clear at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "I had hoped that the Wikipedia community would provide a supportive and collaborative environment, where constructive feedback and guidance would be offered to newcomers like myself. Unfortunately, this has not been my experience thus far."
    Warrenmck (talk) 02:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not everyone who claims to be a newcomer here is one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good thing we assume good faith. Warrenmck (talk) 02:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good thing we don't do that all the time... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of us active here have been burned enough times in these scenarios that it's just not something that seems like an efficient use of time. By all means, please try to help them out. But seeing things like this play out before, I have a feeling I know how it will go, unfortunately. jps (talk) 02:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Four new low-edit count SPA's showing up since June is a little suspicious. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this is really a fork of Law of attraction (New Thought). Having a quick skim of these two Guardian articles: this one and this one, it seems like with the internet (particularly TikTok) the idea of "manifesting" has taken on its own life as its own modern meme, somewhat seperate from the original New Thought/law of attraction stuff. Arguably all this material about the modern meme could be a section in the law of attraction article, but that doesn't make it a fork. Endwise (talk) 13:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If American cop car sirens go waaaaah waaaaaah waaaaah and European ones go wee-woo wee-woo wee-woo what sound does the skeptical cop's siren make? Counter-woo counter-woo counter-woo. That being said I would go for fixing over TNT, agree with Endwise that the term has evolved beyond the law of attraction (clearly The Secret isn't to manifest yourself a monopoly on the concept) but could be covered there. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Genetics and educational attainment

    A relatively new article I came across while looking at something else. I haven't had a chance to go over it in details, but given what it covers I thought it might be of interest. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that the creator of that page was recently sitebanned [16], a decision that is currently under review (but is being widely supported) at ANI [17]. NightHeron (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely deserves scrutiny as an article on a contentious topic by a recently banned user. I quickly looked at it and it's a bit technical, the lead section is bad and there are many instances of WP:WEASEL-type language throughout the article. Also there's no mention of the tiny effect sizes and concerns about eugenics present in many of the sources. I don't see PRS applied to education as a fringe topic, and I think an editor or two with the energy to fix this could make it a pretty good article or subsection of some other article. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't genetic nurture be some kind of reframing of Turkheimer’s laws? Anyway it has been prodded. fiveby(zero) 18:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article hasn't been prodded, did I miss something? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    deprodded by NeverRainsButPours. fiveby(zero) 14:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, sorry, I did not see this discussion beforehand or I would have discussed it before dePRODDing. I think there's enough to write a non-fringe article on, but it may be difficult to fully explain the phenomenon given WP:MEDRS - I don't know quite where the line is drawn between theory (the concept of genetic nurture) and practice (stating that a given condition/attainment is caused by X% of parental genotype). Is there a best practices doc? NeverRainsButPours (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I lack whatever molecular makeup is required to appreciate behavioral genetics and understand heritability, but is indirect genetic effect a more often used term for the concept? fiveby(zero) 14:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indirect genetic effect is the umbrella term, yes, see https://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/esab059. Whether genetic nurture has more nuance to it compared to similar biological concepts, I am not certain at the moment. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    NeverRain, I'm uneasy about anything created by Chamaemelum. Although I listed four reviews semi-related at Genetic nurture, I remain unconvinced, but over my head. I won't oppose anything done there; my first tipoff that Chamaemelum was creating junk was at Alzheimer's disease, where I could see Cham wasn't knowledgeable, but on genetic nurture, I defer to others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok I see I missed that this a tangent about a different article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No one will have the energy to fix this, if it can be fixed. I'd go with deleting it. XOR'easter (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Checking back through more of Chamaemelum's articles, Tayside children's sleep questionnaire may be copyvio, but I don't have journal access. XOR'easter? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "The Tayside children's sleep questionnaire" through WP:Library Wiley, or here is the only journal article, the two book chapters are unavailable through wplibrary but can search for problematic text through Springer Link Pediatric Sleep Medicine and STOP, THAT and One Hundred Other Sleep Scales. fiveby(zero) 14:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On top of the identical phrases flagged by Earwig, there is additional close paraphrasing (e.g., replacing easy-to-read and reliable with accessible and reliable, or changing posted to a representative sample of parents across the region with children in the appropriate age band to mailed to a representative sample of parents with children in the targeted age band across the region). I'd delete the whole thing. XOR'easter (talk) 23:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A POV fork of race and intelligence that should be nuked from orbit. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was concerned that was the case, but am a bit busy to deal with it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genetics and educational attainment now linked above. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Genetic nurture contained a lot of copyvio in the edit history which has still not been striked. I believe the article should be deleted. The author who has been blocked from Wikipedia is still eager to remove warnings about copyright from their user-page [18]. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They also added copyright to ADE model. A copyright investigation page should probably be filed against Chamaemelum's editing. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, I did not realise just how much Chamaemelum had affected. Yes, these are good topics in statistical genetics, but they should probably be deleted and then recreated from scratch. What's the most appropriate way to get consensus for such an action? NeverRainsButPours (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So, genetic nurture does not need to be at AFD-- I think it can be G-12 speedy deleted (not an admin). Sorry I missed that, and therein lies the problem with disruptive editors-- you can so busy dealing with their messes that you miss the bigger picture. NeverRain, when a WP:CCI is open, you can then use WP:PDEL to remove all of their contributions. We may have enough already for presumptive deletion to apply, but if anyone has time, they can file a CCI. Obviously, I haven't had time, and haven't been paying close enough attention. My hunch is that the damage can probably be contained without a CCI, but that would require us to comb through what contribs are left. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was unable to locate a copyvio by Chamaemelum at ADE model, but the first version of the article, by someone else, from 2008, was a copyvio, so I submitted a CSD G12. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Psychologist Guy it is not clear to me that Genetic nurture is copyvio from the first version. Pingault is CC by 4, so that would be plagiarism and fixable without a G12. (I think-- not an expert). I've dug to the best of my ability into the bowels of Trejo and cannot determine which open access license is used. I don't have access to Kong to determine which Open access license is used there either. But by this edit, we definitely have copyvio from this copyrighted source. I can't submit a G12 until/unless I know if the first version is corrupt and there is nothing to revert to, meaning I have to know the licensing of Trejo. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PS, I could request a revdel now on the Wang copyvio, but doing so may obscure the rest of the investigation for those of us who can't see deleted revisions; that is, I need the license terms on Trejo before proceeding. The Wang copyvio was introduced at the 3:14 edit and removed in the 5:44 edit; it appears that Chamaemelum edited by chunking in copy-paste text, and later rewriting it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The preprint and Biodemography and Social Biology terms[19][20] look straightforward. Is there another version? fiveby(zero) 14:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was looking at something else apparently. If Trejo is that straightforward, then Genetic nurture need not be at AFD; it is a G12. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey @SandyGeorgia, just noting I’ve seen this and will open a CCI when I have the time. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 05:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I just checked the creator's global contributions and it looks like they may have made similar articles in other languages, particularly French. It might be worth somebody checking this, and maybe some of the other languages, out. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Bengali Kayastha

    According to Banu, the Bengali Kayasthas migrated to Bengal in the ancient era; however, except for this source, the migration of the Kayasthas was not mentioned by any other reliable sources. According to Kayastha kulajis, they migrated to Bengal under King Adisura in medieval times; however, some historians still consider this migration fake. My question is: can we give information on Wiki by using only one source? I think WP:EXCEPTIONAL does not allow that. This theory by Banu makes the kayasthas immigrants, which is a very bold and exceptional claim.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk • contribs) 12:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    You're referring to Razia Akter Islam in Bangladesh? Banu is not part of the surname. fiveby(zero) 12:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ...it appears she cites for this statement:
    • B. Gosh (1981). Bangali O Bangla Shahitya [Bengalee and Bengali Literature]. Calcutta: New Age Publishers. pp. 2–4.
    • A.K. Chattopadhyaya (1957). Introduction to Ancient Bengal and Bengalis. Howra: Locknath Pustikalaya. pp. l l-12.
    • N. Ray (1950). Bangalir Itihas: Adi Parbo [History of Bengalees: The Ancient Phase]. Calcutta: Lekhak Somobay Samiti. pp. 850–63.
    Well, since Bengali Kayasthas are human and all humans are decended from ape-like ancestors in Africa, they obviously had to immigrate at some time. Why do you call that a very bold and exceptional claim? --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I know that, every human migrated from africa. But Banu did not claim Kayasthas migrated from africa rather she claimed Kayasthas migrated from aryavarta (land of aryans/ North India) to Bengal. Bengali caste groups like Kayasthas are not migrant but Banu claimed they are. Thats why I am asking for another soources under WP:EXCEPTIONAL. NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What Razia Akter (Banu) states is: Most of the upper-class Hindus of Bengal—Brahmans and Kayasthas—seem to be descendants of these Alpine Aryans, whose numbers at the time of immigration were not very large citing Gosh and Chattopadhyaya, then The Guptas also brought into Bengal a large number of Kayasthas to help run the administration citing Ray. Is she actually making weaker claims than what you are ascribing to her? "seem to be descendants"? Is there a way to reword or add to the article text to address your point? fiveby(zero) 14:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Most of the upper-class Hindus of Bengal—Brahmans and Kayasthas—seem to be descendants of these Alpine Aryans, whose numbers at the time of immigration were not very large" well Aryan migration never happened in Bengal. So this statement is clearly a fringe theory. NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, i missed 'alpine' is this then a Homo alpinus ala Ramaprasad Chanda#Proposed theories? Someone more knowledgeable would need to take a look. fiveby(zero) 18:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Roger A. Pielke

    Roger A. Pielke draws exclusively on directories and affiliated sources. We cite his blog for statements of his contrarian beliefs on climate change, but we don't cite the articles to which he is responding, which point out that he is a contrarian. Almost all coverage is related to his son Roger A. Pielke Jr. who has no climate qualifications and is generally classified as a climate change denialist.

    This article reads as if it were written by someone sympathetic to climate change denialism. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Panspermia (again)

    A new user is trying to whitewash the Panspermia article. I'm about to log off, so I would appreciate other people stepping in. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Considering pseudo-panspermia is the primary form of Panspermia discussed in the literature and is frequently just referred to as Panspermia, why is the primary article dedicated to the fringe theory and not the actual plausible theory which uses the same term? It’s absolutely erroneous to say “panspermia is a fringe theory” when modifications of it are mainstream within astrobiology considering the “pseudo-panspermia” distinction is not one universally made in the literature?
    I think there’s a bit of a mistake made in using that “fringe” citation given the context of the article it’s directly addressing, which was one that argued that SARS was extraterrestrial in origin and “had all the makings of an extraterrestrial incident”.
    As a meteoriticist I have to say I found the lede lacking in nuance, there Warrenmck (talk) 00:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Pseudo-panspermia" is not a type of panspermia, It is an entirely different topic. There is no doubt that Panspermia sensu stricto is a fringe theory. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at scholar, "panspermia" seems to be overwhelmingly used for the concept sensu stricto i. e. The transport of living organisms. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What terms are you searching? Try appending "chondrite" and then restrict your searches to real journals (i.e. not the Independent Journal of UFO Research or what have you, not trying to criticize any credible journal here):
    An 57Fe Mossbauer Study of the Metamorphic Sequence in Unequilibrated Ordinary Chondrites:
    "these results for the possibility of interstellar panspermia are examined"
    From AGU. Meteorites as Messengers of Potential Life:
    "Scientists have discovered that carbonaceous chondrites contain large amounts of organic molecules, amino acids, and even water. These studies have led scientists to theorize that the origin of life on Earth is related to the arrival of meteorites on our planet. This theory is called Panspermia."
    Is Glycine Able to Survive under Irradiation in Space? (Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres volume 39, pages1–89 (2009))
    The question of the relative stability of these prebiotic compounds under the interstellar radiation field is therefore an important question to be addressed. In the panspermia hypothesis, the survival and transfer of the amino acids from space to planets is indeed a necessary condition for the appearance of life, and, especially, their resistance to the solar UVradiation in ice is a key issue
    Implications of Captured Interstellar Objects for Panspermia and Extraterrestrial Life
    Several studies have investigated the feasibility of interstellar panspermia (Melosh 2003; Adams & Spergel 2005), and recent numerical simulations appear to suggest that lithopanspermia between members of the solar birth cluster was feasible (Belbruno et al. 2012). Assessing the biological survival of alien microorganisms within interstellar rocks is not possible since we do not know their biological survival limits nor the travel time. However, as seen from Tables 8(a) and (b) of Mileikowsky et al. (2000), interplanetary panspermia between Mars and Earth could deliver as many as ∼1012 microbes in meter-sized objects (with suitable shielding) for transit times of ≲1 Myr. Hence, it seems plausible that much larger objects, such as the ones discussed above, could transfer alive microorganisms; in fact, Wallis & Wickramasinghe (2004) proposed that even a few kilograms of microbe-bearing fragments may suffice to seed the target planetary systems with life.
    Comets and meteorites played an important role in our solar system by transporting organic molecules to Earth (Ehrenfreund & Charnley 2000; Thomas et al. 2006); the delivery of these biomolecules (pseudo-panspermia) imposes less stringent requirements than panspermia (Lingam & Loeb 2017).
    The strong split Wikipedia is making here is not reflected in the actual field, at least not outside a niche of astrobiology, and astrobiologists are certainly not the only people discussing panspermia. Only the last paper there made the distinction between panspermia and pseudo-panspermia, but all refer to pseudo-panspermia.
    I stand by my statement that "Panspermia is considered a fringe theory" lacks so much nuance as to be incorrect. Warrenmck (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:FRINGE is broader than Fringe theory. There is a difference between labeling in articlespace and the work that is done to comply with our guidelines. jps (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    As I said in 2021...

    The best summary of mainstream viewpoint on panspermia would be something a bit like this. Is panspermia theoretically possible? Yes, there is a remote possibility that early solar system comets brought basic building blocks of life on earth (e.g. amino acids and the like). It's extremely fringe, given we've got all the ingredients already here on earth, with plenty of mechanisms to turn them into the building blocks of life, without the need to bring in space things. Panspermia just shifts the problem of the origin of life to a different planet, which somehow explodes without instantly destroying life/building blocks, which would then travel for millions of years in the inhospitable environment of space, and in a freak coincidence lands on Earth).

    Anything more than basic building blocks arriving on earth, like full living organism, like bacteria, mushrooms, cephalopods, etc. is full on time cube nutter territory. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

    Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Monoamine oxidase A

    Over the past several years this article has become a repository of questionable claims about this gene's influence on violent behavior, and on its prevalence in different ethnic groups. Ten years ago a user was blocked for edit warring over some poorly-sourced figures, but at some point those same figures crept back into the article. Editors with some understanding of psychology and statistics should have a look at the article and its talk page. Many of the issues raised with the "genetics of educational attainment" article above probably also apply here. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it just me, or is a lot of that stuff not WP:MEDRS-compliant? It's one thing to use a non-MEDRS source to say that the "warrior gene" was discussed by a criminal trial, but for some of the claims in the article I'd expect a MEDRS source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Witchcraft

    There's an ongoing discussion at Talk:Witchcraft that may be of interest to this noticeboard. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Any section in particular? Brunton (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the open sections are part of the same discussion. The most active ones in the last few days are Talk:Witchcraft#Ridiculous! and Talk:Witchcraft#Proposal. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Several longtime pro-fringe editors involved, no surprise there... 2603:7000:CF0:7280:58B:3BD4:1DAB:AEB4 (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Essentially, the discussion is about whether something that does not exist would be good or bad if it existed. A difficult decision... --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Sabrina the teenage witch fights vampires, so that's pretty good. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Now that the old Scientology DS was removed, is the subject covered by the pseudoscience and fringe science ct area?

    I ask because of [21]'s edits. Doug Weller talk 13:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Surley its the saem as any other religion, its not science. Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=1166228715"