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 50.234.188.27 (talk) at 12:05, 15 September 2023 (→‎Japan Air Lines Cargo Flight 1628 incident part trois: eh). 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.

    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

    Categories for discussion

    • 07 Jun 2024 – Category:Former Christian creationists (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Smasongarrison (t · c); see discussion
    • 02 Jun 2024 – Category:Female ghosts (talk · edit · hist) CfDed by Marcocapelle (t · c) was closed; see discussion

    Good article nominees

    Good article reassessments

    Requests for comments

    Articles to be merged

    Articles to be split

    Lokenath Brahmachari

    This guy is alleged to have lived to 160 but it more likely he died in his 80s. The page has been re-written by a new account with non-English sources and we have statements now such as "He finally attained Enlightenment in the Himalayas at the age of 90 in 1820. His guru was still alive and was 150 years old at the time".

    Not sure what to do here. The exact same content was added to the Russian Wikipedia article a few days ago but the article was recently deleted [1] due to the unreliability of the content/translation of the sources.

    Some of the newly added sources are suspect, for example Bhowmick, Haripada (2013–2014). শ্রী শ্রী লোকনাথ বাবার জন্মস্থান পূর্ণতীর্থ কচুয়াধাম. I can't find that source online. I see the author has written some books [2] but there is no way to translate these works or verify if the content is accurate. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Both of the books by Bhowmick were published by the Lokenath Mission, Kachua which is a religious institution dedicated to Lokenath Brahmachari. That means that its independence is questionable. And obviously any source stating as fact that he lived to 160 must be considered WP:FRINGE unless extremely solid evidence exists that supports it. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The same editor that recently added content to the article did the same with the Spanish and the German version. They also made edits in other languages recently. I am guessing they added the same information everywhere. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be best to restore the article before they started editing it. Looks like a single purpose account to me that is adding unreliable content that cannot be verified. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If he died in 1890, then why he is getting coverage from partisan sources only now?
    The oldest I could find was this partisan source from 1980 but it provides only a passing mention; "Mauni Baba was probably of the same age as Lokenath Baba , who was 160 years old when he died in 1890."[3] Editorkamran (talk) 06:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The source of Haripada Bhowmick can be verified online in Internet Archive. Link: https://archive.org/details/lokenath-haripada-2023 . Reya3625 (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added the citation and I can read Bengali. I am not doing it for fringe religious discussions but rather stating the true facts. Some of the citations are also available online, please check the citations and sources before removing them. The original author has mentioned the birthplace of Lokenath as Chakla, however, there have been so many sources included in the versions that indicate the birthplace to be Kachua. I do not undertand the obsession with this. If there are not many English citations to the information, then please believe the translations done by people who know the local language :) Spandan uo1 (talk) 13:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anyone takes issue with the question of the birth place. The WP:FRINGE issue concerns claims about his age. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah! I saw the whole article being averted to its former self, hence the confusion. The whole article along with the reliable citations were deleted and reverted to the ones with the lesser cited ones, hence the confusion - sorry. Reya3625 (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can read Bengali : many of the given sources had PDFs online but some didn't. The ones which were available online had the information that Kachua (Kachuadham) is the birthplace of Lokenath Brahmachari, however, the reverting of edits is leading people to believe the birthplace is "Chowrasi Chakla". The problem is, there is no viable citation given to prove Chakla is his birthplace however there are a handful of citations given for Kachua as a proof - I do think guys, that the citations should be verified and studied before the changes are suddenly reverted back. Reya3625 (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Reya3625: Can you describe the reliability of those sources you have used here and how they verify the information? Editorkamran (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I've understood - Haripada Bhowmick is an independent Lokenath researcher. And previously the claim of Chakla being the birthplace was not backed by any source at all. The information of Kachua being the birthplace is backed by 3-4 sources however, so I don't know - for me, some sourced information is better than none at all. Reya3625 (talk) 13:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In many cases, identifying the birthplace of someone is not crucial to the article (says someone who was once involved in a 3 or 4 year long edit war over the birthplace of a celebrity). If the birthplace is disputed, and there is doubt about the sources, leave the birthplace out. Donald Albury 14:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources Spandan uo1 is adding and taking his information from are self-published non-academic works such as this [4]. They should not be cited on Wikipedia. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "The information of Kachua being the birthplace is backed by 3-4 sources however", just because a user may add a source does not mean the source is reliable. The sources Spandan uo1 has been adding are entirely unreliable. One academic work I found on Google Books says "Loknath was born in Chakla village in Twenty Four Parganas, West Bengal" (Kunal Chakrabarti, ‎Shubhra Chakrabarti, Historical Dictionary of the Bengalis, p. 107). Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see the sources being self-published, though. They are separate entities - the author and the publisher. Reya3625 (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully you are not suggesting this [5] is a properly published academic work. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks to me like a brochure by the Lokenath Mission. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I ran several internet searches on "Lokenath Mission" and "Tushar Kanti Basak". The only links that come up are Wikipedia articles created Spandan uo1 for Lokenath Brahmachari [6], [7]. There is no information about "Tushar Kanti Basak", he is not a recognized academic or historian. There is no information about the "Lokenath Mission". I guess that he is associated with the Lokenath Mission and they are also new. The brochure was published a few weeks ago. I believe Lokenath Mission does exist because Spandan uo1 has uploaded a photograph [8] on Commons. But I am afraid I am not convinced this is a good publisher. The brochure is of poor quality. looks self-published. We shouldn't be linking to this on Wikipedia articles. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a brochure here the link: https://archive.org/details/20230809_20230809_0625 it has been published not new but in 1983... Reya3625 (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My comments were not referring to that, I was talking about this booklet which has a different author [9]. Do you agree that Tushar Kanti Basak is an unreliable source? You can easily see the poor quality. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, Lokenath Mission is the institution that takes care of the temple compounds back in Lokenath's birthplace, so why shouldn't one consider it as reliable? I mean, I am just curious. Reya3625 (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a not a recognized or academic publisher. The brochure is very poor quality. It looked like a comic book to me. It is not acceptable to be citing content like this for historical information. The bar is set higher on the English Wikipedia. We need reliable sources. If all Wikipedia articles cited sources as poor as the Lokenath Mission then this website would be in a mess. If we are citing historical content we need good sources. Let's not cite poor sources and ruin the credibility of articles. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Their connection gives rise to issues of independence. We have to ask the question: does the Lokenath Mission exist to support unbiased scholarly studies or to promote a particular view? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello @Psychologist Guy: and @TrangaBellam: I noticed you guys have remove chunks of unsourced or poorly sourced content from Lokenath Brahmachari. I would request both of you guys kindly look also Trailanga, Vishuddhananda Paramahansa, Mahavatar Babaji, and Tibbetibaba. In these Hindu saints article you'll notice either IPs have added unsourced or poorly sourced content regarding their age or their spiritual powers especially Trailanga and Vishuddhananda Paramahansa. Kindly go through these article and remove such poorly sourced content. Thanks--Glcris (talk) 06:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    These days, I am sparingly active.
    Each of the sources used at Trailanga, Tibbetibaba, Mahavatar Babaji, and Vishuddhananda Paramahansa fails HISTRS (and even RS). This is no small feat but it is what it is. So, I will pare them down to a couple of lines just as I did at Loknatha.
    That said, I do not yet have the time to see if decent sourcing exists for these topics. So, I cannot decide if it will be a good idea to send them to AfD or not. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Keith Kloor on rich benefactors of pseudoscience

    This piece doesn't include stuff we didn't already know, but it is an excellent riposte to the recent breathlessness infecting the US Congress. I can think of many different articles where this source might be useful. Note that it is an opinion piece, but the person writing it is Keith Kloor, an acknowledged expert on the subject. jps (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Taurine

    In June 2023 there was a lot of traffic on this article as the British media had misrepresented a paper and made far-fetched claims that taurine has been shown to reduce aging in humans and reduce several chronic diseases. This caused a lot of IPs to visit the article. The actual paper took most of its data from mice studies [10]. There are no clinical trials that have been done on this. Unfortunately there are now a lot of fringe claims being promoted about taurine on social media.

    Another paper which is cited on our Wikipedia article [11] cites data from mice and monkeys. The paper being cited in the lead does not cite clinical data, it cites studies on rodents, monkeys and worms [12], the paper itself admits "Clinical trials in humans seem warranted to test whether taurine deficiency might drive aging in humans", that is because there currently is no human data. I believe both of these studies should be removed from the article. They are not review papers. The data being discussed does not apply to humans. Despite this, the Wikipedia article lead currently says "Taurine levels are inversely-associated with aging-related diseases in humans". Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Incoming cryptid

    Hello all,
    Great spider. I've checked the article deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Spider back in Jan 2020 and it's different enough not to meet WP:G4. @Premeditated Chaos: pinging closing admin.
    --Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 03:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Did it kill Leo G. Carroll already? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jba_fofi. Why can't it be speedied? Same sources William J. Gibbons and Nick Redfern. Cryptid Afd's are much fun but they need some new material. fiveby(zero) 12:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, Dlthewave or Bloodofox ever heard of a Barbegazi? fiveby(zero) 12:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Great Spider of the Congo? What does it feed on? The Large Fly of Rwanda? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On a serious note can we just make a list of cryptids from MonsterQuest and merge this (and whatever else comes our way from them) into that? "List of MonsterQuest characters" or something like that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Journal of Astrobiology

    I created a new redirect today to Journal of Cosmology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as its illustrious leader seems intent on changing the title of his self-published list of crackpot papers maybe to stay one step ahead of the critics. Anyhow, the article itself isn't quite up to the standards I would like. As far as pseudojournals go, the Journal of Cosmology/Journal of Astrobiology universe is as pseudo as it gets, in my opinion. So can we improve the article to help the reader understand that a little better? jps (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It's going to be hard, Headbomb is sure to show up to obstruct any progress. Tercer (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ...at least been an entertaining diversion. Ball, Philip (March 8, 2011). "The aliens haven't landed". Nature.
    Careful, now, Tercer. I may agree with you about NJOURNALS, but Headbomb is still an upstanding member of our community and has done valuable contributions on that page. jps (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Dammit. Headbomb, you've been summoned to account for your sins. [13] jps (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's ironic. But I wasn't talking about NJOURNALS, but about his effort to block progress on Physics Essays. It was a lot of work to overrule him. Tercer (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've warned him on his page that further obstruction in this regard will be brought to WP:AE. I've had enough of this playing innocent WP:PROFRINGE game. He knows better. jps (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And I've had it with your campaign to remove completely basic and verifiable information about topic you disagree with. Journal of Cosmology is perfectly sourced, and removing infobox, other cited infomation, or simply rewording things from "describes itself as" to "presents itself as" is nowhere near WP:PROFRINGE. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ho ho! A "topic you disagree with". This is a junk journal. What are you advocating for here? Some sort of whitewash? Why? The only reason we have an article on this at all is because the journal has been at the center of a number of controversies over its junk nature. That's the information the reader deserves. Stuff from the "horse's mouth",. as it were, is totally unreliable. We don't need to tell the reader what the website describes iteslf as doing. We need only tell the reader what reliable sources have described it as doing and reliable sources describe it as publishing pseudoscientific dreck. jps (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a junk journal, and clearly labeled as such. Removing the infobox, etc... is completely unjustifiable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't see much wrong with Headbomb's edits, I have to say. I don't see any problem with adding an infobox and his version of the first line of the lead doesn't leave much space for doubt that this is not a scientific journal in good standing. His edits most certainly don't merit a topic ban. --Randykitty (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody suggested a topic ban 2600:4040:475E:F600:41D9:41E9:57C1:C7D3 (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I suggested that this could be a next step. Headbomb decided to ask for it first at ANI. jps (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's more than one website. How can we have "infobox journal" for something that is three websites? It's not even a real journal. What are you on about? jps (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's one clear main topic/subject. The other are associates of that topic. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    According to whom?!jps (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Related: Rudolph Schild (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) needs work. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not kidding. I see one reliable source on that page. He's widely known as a crank in astronomy, but I'm not sure many others have noticed. jps (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably could be deleted honestly. Might pass NPROF with an h-index of 47-ish according to ADSABS, but likely that h-index is with self-citations so I wouldn't put too much faith in it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would want to run a Wikipedia Library search first though to ensure there isn't coverage in news sources that aren't publicly Googleable. SilverserenC 20:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a hot minute when MeCOs were seriously entertained as possibilities. A few papers showing that they weren't were penned and the community agreed and moved on. Rudy did not take kindly to that. He took to the internet instead. In his old age, he seems to have gone WAY off the deep end. jps (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now done that Wikipedia Library search and found a ton of news articles entirely about Schild and his research from the 1990's and 2000's. So I've improved the article and removed the notability tag. SilverserenC 01:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have bowed out of editing Journal of Cosmology. If nothing else, there are now plenty of people looking over the thing. jps (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Flood myth#Historicity - comets again

    This pushes Bruce Masses' concept: "His hypothesis suggests that a meteor or comet crashed into the Indian Ocean around 3000–2800 BCE, which created the 30-kilometre (19 mi) undersea Burckle Crater and Fenambosy Chevron, and generated a giant tsunami that flooded coastal lands". I looked at the two articles and found that this hypothesis isn't generally accepted. Doug Weller talk 16:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Domestic violence against men

    Domestic violence against men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    There is a longstanding consensus, reaffirmed e.g. at this RfC, that the victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly women. Every once in a while we see someone come along who wants very badly to challenge this consensus (e.g. like this) but it never gets anywhere. However a new effort to relitigate the issue has brought my attention to another article which appears to be functioning as a WP:POVFORK on the matter. That article is Domestic violence against men, which states in its lead that The relative prevalence of intimate partner violence against men to that of women is highly disputed between studies. There is a section on "Gender symmetry" which appears to contain a highly biased sampling of research, and also some pretty tendentious language such as It is notable that when Erin Pizzey, founder of the world's first women's refuge; in Chiswick, UK, reported her data showing that men are abused by women almost to the same extent as vice-versa, she received death threats from feminists. It's going to take more than just me to address the issues here. Anyone with the stomach for it is invited to wade in! Generalrelative (talk) 06:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Generalrelative: That RfC is on the whether the lede should have "overwhelmingly women", not that the theory of gender symmetry should be ommited.
    Fringe theories in science "depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support." Gender symmetry does have significant, reliable scientific support, which is cited in the article in question. It is an alternative viewpoint.
    You have continuously left out any evidence on what you say is "highly biased". Such a thing is listed as an example of Civil POV pushing: "They argue that reliable sources are biased while their own preferred sources are neutral." Also on WP:FRINGENOT, "Opponents to reliable sources will often argue that their opponents reliable sources are FRINGE because they spread false information or have a viewpoint which is not mainstream". If it is biassed, it is not a good idea to remove it for that reason. WP:FRINGE says "Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. They should not be classified as pseudoscience but should still be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective."
    Now what the article says about Erin Pizzey certainly may be WP:UNDUE, but that does not mean that it is fringe. Panamitsu (talk) 11:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If the mainstream viewpoint is that "the victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly women" to the extent that by consensus it's presented without qualification in the main article, other articles should not be saying stuff like "The relative prevalence of intimate partner violence against men to that of women is highly disputed between studies" without making clear that whatever the dispute, it's well accepted that victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly women. If alternatively theories are to be presented, they need to be put in proper context which means a theory with such limited support that we can simply say the victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly women without qualification needs to be correctly represented as a theory with very limited support. Whether you personally want to say it has 'significant, reliable scientific support', I don't really care provided you don't downplay how little support it has in any articles. Nil Einne (talk) 12:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is what I am saying. It presents WP:FALSEBALANCE, not fringe theories. Panamitsu (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good to see we can agree that this is false balance. I've made a few edits to the lead to accord with this basic agreement. Generalrelative (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors with experience in NPOV disputes or this particular topic might also want to review recent edits at Domestic violence and Intimate partner violence and their talk pages. There's also a new RfC running at Talk:Domestic violence#RFC on "Worldwide, the victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly women". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I remember some time back with Violence against men was a shitshow. I went back to it today and it reads much better than I had remembered, but someone with some category sense might want to look at the associated Category:Violence against men and see that everything is on the up-and-up. jps (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • On the related page Intimate partner violence we're still seeing what appears to me to be very insistent POV-pushing against established consensus by the same user, most recently and glaringly here. I've raised the behavioral issue on the user's talk page. With regard to the matter of fact, the user appears to believe that the community consensus that the article should continue stating that "the victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly women" is somehow consistent with them adding There is not yet consensus on whether IPV is gender symmetrical or asymmetrical.
      When it comes to the FRINGE guideline, it's clear that the "gender symmetry" hypothesis qualifies as an alternative theoretical framework rather than pure pseudoscience, so we do need to discuss it. But it's also clear that the vast majority of high quality sources say that the victims of serious domestic violence are overwhelmingly women. Which is why the consensus has stood for several years despite the contentious nature of the gensex topic area. But that consensus is only as good as the motivation to uphold it against determined WP:1AM behavior. More eyes would be greatly appreciated! Generalrelative (talk) 00:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Again, this would be more appropriate for the Neutral point of view noticeboard. Panamitsu (talk) 00:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps, but at this point taking it to another board would be forum shopping. In any case, I thank you for self-reverting and look forward to working with you collaboratively in the future. Generalrelative (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    UFO sightings in Yugoslavia

    New article. Oh my. Seems to have spilled over to List of reported UFO sightings too. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Electroacupuncture

    Not all sources seem to be MEDRS, but what do I know? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Why can't this be merged to acupuncture? TrangaBellam (talk) 09:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    PragerU

    Do PragerU videos "contain misleading or factually incorrect information" promoting climate change denial, or do they "contain content widely considered to be misleading or false" promoting climate change denial? Which is the better summary in the lede of the climate change denial section? --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The latter sounds like classic WP:PROFRINGE weaselling, given there seems absolutely no doubt about it.[14] Bon courage (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How is that even a question? PragerU publishes blatant falsities. DontKnowWhyIBother (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The first statement almost tries to downplay the amount of blatantly false statements they make, especially in regards to climate change. The second statement is more descriptive anyways so... Frost.xyz | (talk) 07:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The change attempts to misconstrue the topic as ideas, popular and unpopular opinions, which is itself misleading (uncertainty propaganda). But warming is a fact, so is the importance of human activity. Thanks for patrolling, —PaleoNeonate – 10:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I prefer the first phrasing because it is clear that Prager provides false information. TFD (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "classic WP:PROFRINGE weaselling" in "widely considered to be" of course, but why does it matter so much whether the "facts" in the videos are correct or not? Take for instance the one mentioned on the talk page and the Reuters fact check. In the context of the video (which seems to be targeted to about third-grade level) what does it matter really if Antarctic sea ice is growing or not. Arguing the "facts" is like candy for the contrarian thinker. Seems PragerU videos might be better described as a small wedge of truth used to drive home a load of ideological marketing. fiveby(zero) 16:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the usual MO with denial (i.e. "we accept Jews were killed in the Holocaust, but the numbers have been overstated" == classic Holocaust denial). The best way is just to follow the RS which calls it misinformation without getting sucked into the weeds. Bon courage (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the first option is better for the reasons that others have already given. The second option may have some appeal to those who think "if we word it that way then it is less open to challenge" but that would be a big mistake. The kvetchers are going to kvetch whatever we say and the second option actually makes it easier for them to do so. When it comes to the first statement, they will complain that Prager's falsehoods are actually true and we will just point at the sources and rebuff them easily. If we were to go for the second statement then they would sealion by asking "widely considered by who?" and then attacking each source, one by one, as being "lib" or "woke" or "bias" or "soy" or "gay", or whatever nonsense, and it would just become a perpetual whack-a-mole of idiocy. Also, we should bear in mind that some US states will be using Prager's "U" in school classes soon. We may well have some quite young children coming to Wikipedia to look up whether Prager U is legit. We should avoid overcomplicating the information that answers that. As always, we should speak plainly so that as many readers as possible, whether they are children or adults who do not have English as their first language, can understand what is being said. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Psychohistory

    Just noticed this for the first time, coming from Pseudohistory, which mentions it; I had thought Asimov had a monopoly on it.

    Most of the criticism is ghettoed away in a WP:CSECTION, I suspect the categories could use improving, and maybe other things are wrong with it. I am not competent enough to make it better. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I will shy from classifying psychoanalysis as pseudoscience; what is the extent of intersection? TrangaBellam (talk) 09:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see some classic WP:GEVAL there, arguing in favor of why outdated Feudian premises (like the generalizations of psychoanalysis) may be useful. One has to read past the lead to find "According to conventional historians "the science of culture is independent of the laws of biology and psychology"[3] and "the determining cause of a social fact should be sought among social facts preceding and not among the states of individual consciousness".[4]" and then it falls in a type of essay trying to convince the reader that psychoanalysis of societies may be useful despite the fact that historians and anthropologists don't ignore social context... —PaleoNeonate – 21:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    John Ioannidis

    Accused of conspiracy theories or not? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    First assessment: the article is mostly PR, WP:ABOUTSELF-like but self-serving, often directly using primary sources with COI. It's long and may violate WP:NOTCV. However, there used to be an apparently more reasonable article before. —PaleoNeonate – 10:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, article has gone downhill since I last looked at it. Smells of UPE. Bon courage (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ioannidis turning out to be a COVID downplayer was one of my biggest disappointments during the pandemic. JoelleJay (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of idols turned out to have clay feet. I wonder if there's enough sources for COVID grifting yet? Bon courage (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's UPE, it's just that Saintfevrier is just profringe, and arguably WP:NOTHERE. She got into a massive argument on the wikimania listserv a few months ago because she was upset about the possibility of seeing a transwoman in the bathroom at the 2023 event. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The mailing list discussion can be found here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimania-l @ lists.wikimedia.org/thread/5LQ26JNUNC5ROWJ42MYVWWLCSSBQ5WHG/ (gotta remove the space around the @ character first). 93.72.49.123 (talk) 04:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Billy Meier

    Should the article text state that Billy Meier's FIGU group is a "UFO religion"? We have several academic sources that call it that. Or should it be removed? Please discuss at Talk:Billy_Meier#Not_a_religion rather than here. Thanks, - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Fringe and undue

    Is that, that and that edits are really undue and fringe as the undoers claimed there? 202.134.10.130 (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Undue yes, as they are rambaling messes. Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They are undue. Also, those quotes are a lot. Rjjiii(talk) 18:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Asherah

    Hi, this is about [15]. See also A "Mt. Ebal Inscription" in the Western Wall? An Example of Cognitive Priming on YouTube. Or The So-Called Mt. Ebal "Inscription" Publication: One Big Nothingburger on YouTube. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Brant J. Pitre

    A WP:FRINGE Catholic fundamentalist, has a reputation of defending traditional dogmatic POVs widely considered debunked among mainstream Bible scholars. The point is that the article is bereft of sources which aren't WP:BLPSPS or WP:BLPSELFPUB, i.e. lacks sources which are independent of the subject.

    Quoted from the article: "In his works, Pitre has consistently defended the Catholic dogma of transubstantiation [...]". The metaphysical reality of transubstantiation is simply not a matter of Bible scholarship: Bible scholars will tell you who defended it and who opposed it, but cannot tell you if it is metaphysically real. Since that is not a matter of historical research, but a matter of official religious dogma. Telling whether it is metaphysically real would require direct access to the Mind of God, and historians are not privy to such information. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hello there, @Tgeorgescu:. Professor Pitre is not a "Catholic fundamentalist" (whatever that means), but a renowned scholar who has worked for respectable institutions, such as the University of Notre Dame, and has published widely acclaimed scholarly works with Eerdmans and Mohr Siebeck; I can only say that he is a conservative theologian and biblical scholar, which is perfectly legitimate. As for transubstantiation, Pitre's defence obviously belonged to the realm of theology (he is also a theologian) and he was defending the Catholic dogma from Protestant criticism. Please refrain from using such an aggressive language and behave in a constructive way.-Karma1998 (talk) 11:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Pitre's book will only convince the already convinced. Its basic argument is that an objective investigation by an honest researcher will discover a thoroughly Jewish first-century Jesus with a penchant for present-day Catholic teaching on the real presence. This is exceedingly difficult to swallow and shows an altogether naive confidence in the ability of modernist historical methods to deliver Christian doctrine.

    In fact, Pitre's book is not a work that makes a compelling argument but one that uses some words from the New Testament and relatively or very late Jewish sources to re-present Catholic teaching for non-scholarly Catholics. Excavating the roots of Catholic teaching on the Eucharist is an important task, but it is not helped by books that use historical scholarship so naively.

    — C. Kavin Rowe, George Washington Ivey Distinguished Professor of New Testament; Vice Dean for Faculty, Duke Divinity School
    Rowe's books have been published by Yale University Press and Oxford University Press—he's obviously no lowly peon.

    Current scholarship opposes the author Pitre on every account. His stance is fundamentalist at best. His writing style is that of a high school freshman. ... If you want to learn something, read a book by Dr. Paula Fredriksen or even Dr. John P. Meier, who may have taught Brant Pitre while he was a student at Notre Dame. It's obvious that Pitre didn't pay much attention in class.

    — T. Bill, Amazon.com

    Most Catholics are aware that the New American Bible is authorized by the USCCB. It's the Catholic Bible

    What does the NAB say on the subject of the gospel's authorship?

    Matthew: "the unknown author." NAB 1008

    Mark: "although the book is anonymous, apart from the ancient heading 'According to Mark,' in manuscripts, it has traditionally been assigned to John Mark.." (NAB 1064)

    Luke: "Early Christian tradition, from the late 2nd century on, identifies the author of this gospel...as Luke." (This means roughly 175 years had passed before an author's name was affixed to this gospel.

    "And the prologue to this gospel makes it clear that Luke was not is not part of the 1st generation of Christian disciples, but is himself dependent on traditions." NAB 1091

    On John: "Although tradition identifies [the author] as John, the son of Zebedee, most modern scholars find that the evidence does not support this." (1136)

    In other words, the New American Bible states that we-simply-do-not-know who's the author of any of the four gospels. The NAB does not say, or imply, that the majority of Biblical scholars has it wrong that the gospels are works that are fundamentally anonymous.

    If you're a Catholic, you no doubt have your own copy of the NAB, and can check this out for yourself.

    — religio criticus, Amazon.com
    In respect to the last quote: Pitre maintains that Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Mark, and so on. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tgeorgescu: Simon Gathercole also holds that Mark wrote Mark and so on in this paper published at the Journal of Theological Studies. Is he a fundamentalist too? Potatín5 (talk) 13:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe quotes without sources (where did Rowe state this?) and random Amazon reviews should be considered when it comes to a person's reliability. Veverve (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    At https://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/07/confecting-evidence tgeorgescu (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tgeorgescu: As for professor Rowe, he is indeed an appreciated scholar and his opinion is much welcome. As for the other two (who appear to be internet reviews on Amazon.com), their opinion is highly irrelevant. This still does not explain why professor Pitre should not have an article on Wikipedia.-Karma1998 (talk)
    @Karma1998: I did not ask for it to be deleted, I have only pointed some problems with it. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't like the word "fundamentalist", fine: he is naive as a historian of Christianity and kowtows to the theological orthodoxy. If he were part of the Catholic clergy, that would be considered more or less normal. But for a Bible scholar (i.e. an expert in higher criticism) isn't normal. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tgeorgescu: He is simply a conservative biblical scholar, you'll find plenty of them. Other labels are simply slurs used to demonise scholars that are not liberal..--Karma1998 (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, naive is not my own opinion, see the cited article. It wasn't exactly published in a liberal journal. If you want an example, N. T. Wright is conservative, but not naive. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing where this is supposed to be going. It's really quite irrelevant whether or not Pitre's positions and arguments are "naive" or out of step with theologians/scholars outside Catholicism; what matters is whether anyone cares what he says, and what they say if they do care. Mangoe (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was expecting to see something like William Lane Craig with uncritical exposition of positions, but the article is actually pretty skeletal. I'm not sure I understand what the problem is either. Perhaps the word "consistently" is a problem? But that seems a minor thing to encourage a conversation this involved. Help me out! jps (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mangoe and ජපස: If you don't take my word for him being WP:FRINGE, fine, because that is not the main point of this thread. The main point is that this WP:BLP article consists exclusively of WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB, which is not done. I.e. the article has no WP:INDEPENDENT sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, never mind, nobody seems to listen to what I said here, so I started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brant J. Pitre. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that many of the positions this person is advocating are WP:FRINGE, I just am not sure I see the problem with the sourcing the same way you do. jps (talk) 11:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, there are WP:RS if you look good enough for them, but they aren't in the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are certainly within your rights as a Wikipedian to stubbify the thing and add better sources. jps (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Younger Dryas impact hypothesis

    Is [16] an improvement? Doug Weller talk 13:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This topic isn't my area of expertise, but no, it looks like an attempt to dilute well-substantiated evidence of researach misconduct. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not. DontKnowWhyIBother (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not familiar with this specific thing but I am a meteoriticist, I’ll do a lit dive and try to clean it up some after. Warrenmck (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone has the time I suggest to also look at the above WP:FTN#Flood_myth#Historicity_-_comets_again and Talk:Flood myth#Erich Schmidt. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 21:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Azerbaijanis and Origin of the Azerbaijanis 'mixed ancestry'

    The Azerbaijanis article has a lot of synthy genetic existentialist crap that seems to pervade Turkic articles. The problem is that while the origins are debated and like all cultures 'mixed' but it presents them as being 'mixed' in the present in a way that isn't backed up well. I'm not sure what teh best way to clean this up is.

    Also does anyone know if there is a policy about 'genetics' sections in ethnic group articles? They're always always super fringey but i'm hesitant to just nuke whole sections—blindlynx 14:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Competitive Enterprise Institute

    May need more solid sourcing for denialism. The Institute appears in several places in Merchants of Doubt, but I found no really good quotes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Bruce Maccabee

    Seems odd that the biography of physicist and ufologist Bruce Maccabee has only positive information and no "Criticism and controversies" section like Stanton T. Friedman, considering Maccabee publicly supported the Gulf Breeze and Carp, Ontario, Canada "Guardian" UFO cases which have been reasonably argued to have been hoaxes. Maybe an editor could add at least a sentence of some kind to balance it so that it doesn't read like a glowing resume? I don't know if balance has been attempted in the past and reverted. 5Q5|✉ 13:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    A more basic issue in this WP:BLP is the lack of inline refs. A "Criticism and controversies" section requires decent sources, and it may, in general, be a good idea to avoid a separate section on that per WP:CRITS. That essay is an essay, btw. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    James A. Lindsay

    From April 2021 to April 2022, there was a discussion at Talk:James A. Lindsay#Academic label about whether James A. Lindsay, a popular fringe figure on the right, is appropriately classified as a mathematician by profession, and if it should appear in the lead. I think the overall weight of the arguments and discussion show that it should not, so I removed it from the lead section. On the other hand, Jweiss11 has a different reading on the discussion, and added it back. I believe that while it is true that Lindsay studied mathematics in school, and that this should be mentioned in the article about his education, I don’t think it’s appropriate to refer to him as a mathematician in the lead, as he’s never used his education in his career. Jweiss11 thinks differently and points to popular sources calling Lindsay a mathematician, but none of these are especially reliable or compelling. I am posting this here because Lindsay is a leading fringe figure and conspiracy theorist who his supporters defend by using the old argument from authority gambit—"Lindsay has a PhD in mathematics so we should take his theories about the dangers of Cultural Marxism and CRT seriously." I would appreciate if others take a look at this and weigh in. Viriditas (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll concede that Lindsay doesn't have much of career in mathematics post PhD. Nevertheless, many sources, even those critical of him, call him a "mathematician". I think that issue should be addressed on the talk page of that article. This bigger issue, and the one more appropriate for this noticeboard, is the labeling of Lindsay as a "conspiracy theorist" in the lead, in Wikivoice. At present, this rests entirely on the opinion of one sourced commentator, Aaron Rabinowitz, writing for The Skeptic. The validity of whatever Lindsay has argued about culture and politics rests on the merits of those arguments, not on his PhD in mathematics. What's he's written about critical race theory and Marxism, applied racially, culturally and otherwise, is best summarized in Cynical Theories, a book published by a non-fringe publisher and co-authored by Helen Pluckrose, who we don't label a "conspiracy theorist". Jweiss11 (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion can handle both topics for discussion; I don’t think Lindsay should be labeled a mathematician in the first sentence in the lead, but I think it is acceptable to describe his education in the lead. Surely, you must see this as a reasonable compromise? It just means moving the mathematician description later in the paragraph. If I was arguing from your position, this would be a no-brainer solution. As for whether Lindsay is a conspiracy theorist, you can’t honestly believe only one reliable source says that, so I don’t know where you are coming from with this. Lindsay has gone so far down the conspiracy rabbit hole at this point, that I don’t think it’s even a debatable topic. I follow the conspiracy theory space very closely, as I have a particular interest in right wing cults, and Lindsay’s Twitter (X) feed is indistinguishable from a QAnon feed. Perhaps you haven’t looked at it lately? He’s gone completely through the looking glass of reality and has come out the other side. He’s no longer with us here in base reality, he’s gone. Viriditas (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A reasonable compromise might be the removal of both "mathematician" and "conspiracy theorist" from the lead. I know Lindsay has been a player in lots of Twitter drama in recent years. I've seen some of it. I surely haven't seen all of it. For our purposes here on Wikipedia, any Twitter activity that fails to garner significant coverage in reliable sources is irrelevant. Which sources besides Rabinowitz in The Skeptic label Lindsay as a conspiracy theorist? Jweiss11 (talk) 21:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not ignoring your request, but I did want to back up and further address the claim about RS calling Lindsay a mathematician. In 2019, the academic journal The Philosophers' Magazine called Lindsay a "freelance writer and researcher",[17][18] not a mathematician. Viriditas (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries. Take your time with that request. In the meantime, the sources that refer to Lindsay as a mathematician include [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet, editorial discretion would have us discard those sources as inaccurate and misleading. We aren’t stenographers. For example, The Chronicle of Higher Education you link to calls Lindsay an academic. He’s not. Not all sources are accurate. We don’t just add sources like a bot. We have to sift and weigh them. I gave you a link to a journal article that called him a freelance writer and researcher in 2019. I guarantee you that description was written by Lindsay. And as the talk page noted, he refers to himself as a former mathematician. It’s weird that you are still making the case for such an erroneous description against all the evidence. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just providing the sources. I've already conceded above that Lindsay "doesn't have much of career in mathematics post PhD". Editorial discretion might also have us discard the opinions of his political enemies that label him a "conspiracy theorist". Jweiss11 (talk) 23:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Jweiss11, please visit the SPLC page I linked to below. It documents a wide sampling of Lindsay’s descent into the rabbit hole of right wing conspiracy theories. You simply can’t dismiss this as an opinion of his political enemies. We either inhabit a shared reality or we don’t. Viriditas (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    At least one of those (the Bakersfield.com item) reads like a churned speaker bio from Lindsay or his agent. Speaking more generally, sources throwing the word "mathematician" into their text without actually covering contributions to mathematics aren't significant coverage of that part of his life. (Of course, in this case there aren't any contributions for them to talk about.) They contribute nothing to the case for describing Lindsay as a mathematician. XOR'easter (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which sources besides Rabinowitz in The Skeptic label Lindsay as a conspiracy theorist?. It’s somewhat of an unusual request, as Lindsay’s entire schtick is based on ideas that are deeply tied into conspiracy theories. Journalists Joanna Hou, Russell Leung, and Maia Pandey refer to Lindsay as "an author, conspiracy theorist and anti-LGBTQ+ activist" in The Daily Northwestern.[27]. The SPLC has their own page devoted to him documenting his conspiracy theories, calling him a "leading voice" in the "conspiracy propaganda movements". They write, "James Lindsay regularly shares conspiracy theories about the supposed communist takeover of the world (especially the United States), promotes “groomer” rhetoric against the LGBTQ community and spreads the “white genocide” theory that Marxists want to eradicate the white race. With alarmism and fearmongering, Lindsay incites and segregates his base."[28] Viriditas (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, so in addition to The Skeptic, we have an activist piece from a student newspaper and another from an activist org that has defamed similar figures in the recent past, like Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Anything else? Jweiss11 (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m curious, what makes the journalists activists, and how does the SPLC quoting Lindsay’s conspiracy theories make them guilty of defamation? Let’s recap: you believe criticism of Lindsay comes from activists and political opponents, and you believe actual, quoted examples of Lindsay’s conspiracies are a form of defamation. This is not a reasonable position. Viriditas (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the student journalists are students writing a piece that is clearly activist in it's framing? As for the SPLC, I think they're doing was Lindsay's political opponents on the left typically do, distort his criticisms of the left and conflate them conspiracy theories, similar to how the SPLC conflated Nawaz's and Ali's criticisms of Islam with anti-Muslim extremism. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please visit our article and subsection on the subject: James A. Lindsay#Conspiracy theory promotion. It feels like you are promoting alternative facts as a legitimate worldview and paradigm. This is a form of post-truth politics and is incredibly destructive to reasonable discourse. Viriditas (talk) 00:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I read the SPLC piece. I think it's a manipulative piece of political propaganda. You seem to be feeling and "having trouble processing" (your own words) a lot of things related to this subject matter. Are you suggesting that I too am some sort of conspiracy theorist in "promoting alternative facts as a legitimate worldview"? It wasn't me who just the other day proposed the "theory" that Lindsay has been pretending to be an atheist for a decade-plus only to serve a trojan horse for Christian nationalism ([29]). Jweiss11 (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Lindsay is a an authorized member of the "TPUSA’s speaker’s bureau"[30]. This means that TPUSA, a Christian Nationalist group,[31] is responsible for sending Lindsay out to college campuses to promote their conservative and religious agenda. Odd work for an avowed atheist. Viriditas (talk) 00:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Rolling Stone is hardly a reliable source for such a claim. Springee (talk) 01:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure if serious. Charlie Kirk and TPUSA have been consistently referred to as Christian Nationalist by dozens of academics and reliable sources. Sociologists Philip Gorski and Samuel L. Perry studied this topic in their 2022 book published by OUP. They specifically call Charlie Kirk a Christian Nationalist on p. 99 of The Flag and the Cross: White Christian Nationalism and the Threat to American Democracy (2022). There is no serious reliable source who disputes this characterization of TPUSA and Kirk. I am of course aware that Christian apologists continue to fight this notion with the bizarre claim that Christian Nationalism doesn’t exist and is a figment of the liberal imagination. Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what the exact religious beliefs of Turning Point USA are, but it doesn't make sense to suggest that Lindsay agrees with them, or is somehow lying about being an atheist. The reason he spoke at their conference is because he agrees with their criticism of social justice ideology, not their religious beliefs. Partofthemachine (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what the exact religious beliefs of Turning Point USA are What an unusual comment! We know what TPUSA believes in terms of religion, it’s been explained here, and has hundreds of sources in the literature explaining it. It’s neither a mystery nor is it unknown. I am unaware of any atheist in the history of atheism speaking on behalf of an extremist, religious organization that wishes to tear down the separation between church and state and replace it with a Christian theocracy, so you’ll forgive me for questioning the sincerity of Lindsay’s so-called atheism. But since he was getting paid between $5-10k per speech, it’s now clear to me that this has little to do with atheism and more to do with the conservative grift we find so often on the right. Viriditas (talk) 01:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Viriditas, you're getting a little hyperbolic with TPUSA. I'm a liberal and also often find TPUSA cringe, but extremists? Is everything Lindsay does necessarily supposed to have something to do with atheism? I'm an atheist and I do lots of things that have nothing to do with atheism. By arguing here that Lindsay shouldn't be called a CT in wikivoice, I am also now not an atheist anymore? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Anything else? Also the other cites you can find in the article. I won't list them for you again here, since you've participated in plenty of prior discussions about them at the article talk page. MrOllie (talk) 00:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    MrOllie, well, we might want to recap for those less familiar. Some of the sources cited in the "Conspiracy theory promotion" section of the article don't even mention Lindsay, but rather service the synthesis being fabricated there, e.g. [32], [33]. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of the sources cited in the "Conspiracy theory promotion" section of the article don't even mention Lindsay And, of course, some of them do, and they support the point quite directly. MrOllie (talk) 01:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there a few other opinion pieces penned by Lindsay's political enemies, one from the leftist defamation mill Salon.com and two others from avowedly Marxist publications like Current Affairs and Jacobin. I wonder how a Marxist will react to someone who is highly critical of Marxism? Click thru to find out! Nevermind, let's just let Marxist sources have the final say on critics of Marxism and put it in wikivoice. NPOV for the win. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When you're advancing anti-semitic conspiracy theories, more or less every source is going to come from a political enemy. MrOllie (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a way to criticize Marxism without being anti-semitic? Asking for a Jewish friend. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I dunno, but labeling everyone who would like society to treat minorities better as a 'marxist' as Lindsay does is certainly not the way to do it. MrOllie (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a remotely fair summation of Lindsay's arguments. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that he should not be called or categorized as a "mathematician" if he does not have and has never had a career as a professional independent mathematician. Lay sources misassign labels all the time, that doesn't mean they are automatically defining features worthy of being in the lead or in categories. No aspect of his notability is derived from his work in mathematics, so we don't need to call him a mathematician. JoelleJay (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While we can discuss whether "conspiracy theorist" is the correct specific wording to use, it's quite clear that he is a fringe, borderline pseudoscience type of academic (and is Helen Pluckrose from the looks of things) and the co-published book's content is the same sort of fringe nonsense as many of the figures discussed on this noticeboard. So that fringe nature definitely needs to be stated in some form or fashion. SilverserenC 21:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reminds me of our arguments over Rupert Sheldrake. One-time biologist, now something else. Similarly, Lindsay is a one-time mathematician, now something else. Crucially, Sheldrake is not known for his contributions to biology. If that is all he did, we would probably not have an article on the guy. Similarly with Lindsay, he is not known for his contributions to mathematics. jps (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I also agree he should not be called a mathematician or even a former mathematician. My standard here is not high: if he had published anything, literally anything, after his thesis I would be fine with calling him a former mathematician. But it really doesn't seem he has, so he's not. He's qualified to become a mathematician but does not appear to have ever professionally done math. Loki (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    GreenMeansGo, can you explain you mean here? Which wrong are we talking about? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In a case where an otherwise boring subject had a JD, and was admitted to the bar, but became an author and public figure instead of practicing law, I have a hard time imagining there would be much controversy referring to them as a lawyer. I expect there would be a presumption that their background informed their later work, even though they realized that they prefer writing and speaking to trying cases.
    The difference here seems to be the subject's objectional beliefs. Just look how quickly the discussion veers off course in that direction. Which, even if he liked to kick puppies and slap babies, "subject is a bad person" isn't relevant. But above, when we don't like what the sources say, we need to exercise editorial discretion, and below when we like what the sources say, then "that's all that's supposed to matter". This shouldn't even be at FTN in the first place. Whether or not he qualifies as a mathematician isn't a fringe theory, and that's supposed to be the actual topic of discussion. This is a discussion about how to describe the work and qualifications of a living person, and should be at BLPN or NPOVN. GMGtalk 11:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    GreenMeansGo, thanks for clarifying. I agree with your comments. The question question whether or not Lindsay should be treated as a "mathematician" in the lead of the article is not a question about fringe theories, and therefore doesn't seem relevant to this noticeboard. Meanwhile the question about whether his political commentary qualifies him as a "conspiracy theorist" in the lead might. Jweiss11 (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone had a JD, was admitted to the bar, and then left law to earn fame as a kickboxer, referring to them as a "lawyer" probably would be disputed. XOR'easter (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I never gave you permission to use my life story. (I kid). Dumuzid (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [reply]
    • The man never worked as a mathematician, didn't teach, didn't publish--there's nothing "mathematician" about him. "Conspiracy theorist" seems pretty obvious. Drmies (talk) 00:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there's an issue with the article calling him a conspiracy theorist, but the section on his claims about cultural Marxism could use some revision. That section essentially implies that he believes the same things that International Jewish conspiracy cranks believe (see Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory) just because he has used the term "cultural Marxism", even though the sources for the article do not support that claim. Partofthemachine (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s an interesting point, but I assure you, they are one and the same. Alex Jones and others push this theory, but are careful to use pseudo-euphemisms for Jews instead of the J-word. The most popular one on the extreme right is the term "globalist", which Trump latched on to and continues to use today. It is a pejorative term and dog whistle for Jews. The article on Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory says, "Breitbart claims that George Soros funds the alleged cultural Marxism project". Soros is often considered the primary "globalist" antagonist. We are not talking about two different theories, it’s the same one, and always has been. Viriditas (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To quote one of the cited sources: Lindsay goes on to accuse critical race theory of working to penetrate and undermine “every school, college, university; every workplace, office, hospital; every magazine, journal, newspaper; every television program, movie, website; every government agency, institution, program; every church, synagogue, mosque; every club, affinity, pastime, and interest” in the United States and beyond. Hearing Lindsay’s paranoid speculations, one suspects that before long critical race theory will have inspired the shooter on the grassy knoll, concealed the remaining Romanov children, and — worst of all — ruined my night at the bar. - looks well supported to me. MrOllie (talk) 01:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't call it "paranoid speculation" when many proponents of these ideologies openly admit they support this. Partofthemachine (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But the source does, and that's all that's supposed to matter here, right? MrOllie (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But the sources also say Lindsay is a mathematician. And that's all that's supposed to matter, right? Can you see the point? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you'll find I have expressed no opinion on mathematician either way. MrOllie (talk) 01:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Many others surely have. Do value consistent principles? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm with Emerson on the prospect of consistency. MrOllie (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's quite the poetic and "foolish" cop-out when corned by your own contradiction. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Only when you don't understand the quote. When the situation is different the conclusion will be different. - MrOllie (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like self-issued license for hypocrisy. Jweiss11 (talk 01:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Partofthemachine, I agree. This isn't a paranoid delusion or a "conspiracy theory". It's a legitimate criticism of leftist politics. Critical race theory doesn't do anything by itself; it's a set of ideas. But it's proponents do and desire to do plenty of things. To which organizations and entities does a CRT proponent think CRT doesn't apply? I honestly don't know. I've even seen articles about how hiking is racist and needs CRT therapy ([34], [35], [36]. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a legitimate criticism of anything, it is a manufactured controversy funded and fabricated by the same conservative grifters, Christian Nationlists, and dark money networks and foundations. It is quite literally the very definition of illegitimate criticism, or fake criticism, and operates solely on an emotional level to sway low information voters using baseless conspiracy theories and fallacious arguments. This has been extensively studied, proven, and demonstrated. What you describe as legitimate criticism has been appropriately and accurately categorized and defined as propaganda and disinformation. Viriditas (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's very strange because I'm a very high-information liberal, and I've been observing and criticizing the rise of CRT and related leftist identarian ideas for nearly 20 years now, just about as long as I've been editing Wikipedia. I have the receipts; they're probably out of bounds for this discussion, but I'd be happy to share them with you elsewhere. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for the wake up call and paradigm shift. Christopher Rufo invented the manufactured CRT controversy. This is widely known and discussed in the literature. There’s nothing the least bit legitimate about it. Viriditas (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure I'm the one who took the red pill here (and I mean this in the most politically-neutral Matrix sense). If Rufo manufactured the CRT controversy, can you explain why I was already concerned about CRT in 2005, when Rufo was 19? It is possible, rather, that he observed something some real yet abstruse and made it digestible for low-info voters? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    JWeiss11 - having read your hiking links, I confess to being a bit unsure how you are defining "CRT therapy." None of those sources explicitly mention CRT, and don't seem particularly philosophical or legal, the two domains with which I most associate CRT (though that's just me). Do you consider any marked anti-racist initiative to be "CRT" in some way? Or could you give a succinct definition? Dumuzid (talk) 02:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Dumuzid, our article on CRT opens with "Critical race theory (CRT) is an interdisciplinary academic field devoted to analysing how laws, social and political movements, and media shape, and are shaped by, social conceptions of race and ethnicity. CRT also considers racism to be systemic in various laws and rules, and not only based on individuals' prejudices." The first link I provided opens with "American Hiking Society believes that the outdoors should be a place of healing and enjoyment for all. Our mission, 'empowering ALL to enjoy, share, and preserve the hiking experience' will never be fulfilled until systemic racism is erased and Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) are safe and welcome outside, have equitable access to quality natural spaces, and equitable employment and leadership opportunities in the outdoor industry." The connection is obvious, no? I think it's highly unlikely that any anti-racist effort coming from the political left in the contemporary west wouldn't be connected to CRT. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I think I get it now -- would it be fair to say that any initiative or intellectual framework which assumes the existence of systemic racism would then fall under CRT? Feel free to tell me if I have that wrong. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Dumuzid, I don't think it's correct to generalize it that far. If you assume the existence of systemic racism in the American South in 1860 or 1960, you're just observing the obvious. If you're assuming the existence of systemic racism in the hobby of hiking in Vermont in 2023, I think that falls under CRT. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, right. This is sort of where my confusion comes in. Where I said "marked" above I was a bit imprecise. I should have said "overwrought" or something like it. As you describe it, would it be fair to say then that identifying CRT involves more art than science? Dumuzid (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know that identifying CRT involves more any more or less art over science than identifying any other political or philosophical ideology. As for CRT itself, it's certainly way more art than science. In fact, a core tenet of CRT appears to be the explicit rejection of the fundamentals of science on the grounds that those fundamentals are systemically racist. I'll quote our article here on CRT again: "In a 1997 book, law professors Daniel A. Farber and Suzanna Sherry criticized CRT for basing its claims on personal narrative and for its lack of testable hypotheses and measurable data.[149] CRT scholars including Crenshaw, Delgado, and Stefancic responded that such critiques represent dominant modes within social science which tend to exclude people of color.[150] Delgado and Stefancic wrote that "In these realms [social science and politics], truth is a social construct created to suit the purposes of the dominant group." Jweiss11 (talk) 04:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But you would agree with me that there exist cases where two people could, in good faith, reasonably differ on whether a given situation is "CRT," for lack of a better term? Dumuzid (talk) 04:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there could be such cases. There also could be cases where two people could, in good faith, but not-so-reasonably differ on any question. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But when one responds to such difference in interpretation with the "conspiracy theorist" label, we may be moving past good faith. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an issue you should take up with the sources using the label; while it may not be WP:DUE or otherwise appropriate for inclusion here, there is certainly at least a colorable argument for it in the article. Dumuzid (talk) 05:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Dumuzid, how do you feel about the sources that call Lindsay a "mathematician"? Is there a colorable argument there too? Jweiss11 (talk) 06:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely. Again, not saying it belongs in the article, but certainly not a frivolous argument. Dumuzid (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think mathematician or conspiracy theorist should be used. It is reasonable for the lead to say he has a PhD in mathematics since that is the origin of his academic background. I agree with those who say if he hasn't worked/published since the PhD we shouldn't suggest he has used that math skill as in a professional sense. As for CT, that doesn't seem to be well enough supported to apply such a contentious label in wiki voice. This is a BLP and we are supposed to err on the side of doing no harm. We can include information on things he has said that RS say are spreading conspiracy theories. Per BLP [37], only in rare and very clear cut cases should we be apply such a label to a BLP subject.
    Springee (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Ape Canyon

    Section "Alleged Bigfoot attack" may profit from fringe-savvy editors. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Claim that "Equus cf. mexicanus" bones have been found dating to about 1000 ce

    See [38]. Doug Weller Doug Weller talk 10:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Saturated fat

    This issue has been raised at this board many times in the past. The same fringe papers are being cited every year. See talk-page discussion [39]. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Anti-mask sentiment

    Article doesn't really get into the science at all. Consequences of anti-maskers = being called a Karen? Entertaining alleged ineffectiveness at reducing COVID-19 transmission, or alleged exaggeration of the threats of the virus without actually explaining that effectiveness or citing anything resembling MEDRS. Dropping a note here, but admittedly I haven't done anything to try to fix it and won't likely have the capacity in the immediate future. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Pioneer of refusal to wear a mask to protect other people: Hannibal Lecter. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, nevermind. Redirected. It's already covered competently elsewhere. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good WP:BLAR. Bon courage (talk) 14:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good redirect, but missing one WP:BESTSOURCE in the target "Masks for Prevention of SARS-CoV-2 in Health Care and Community Settings" and the editors of Annals of Internal Medicine commentary "Getting to the Truth About the Effectiveness of Masks in Preventing COVID-19". fiveby(zero) 14:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Recent addition to Wikipedia:Reliable sources

    Parts of Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Parity of sources were recently copied into Wikipedia:Reliable sources, see diff here. Given the subject matter I thought it might be of interest. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Japan Air Lines Cargo Flight 1628 incident part trois

    I see this page has been cited here twice. First time in 2017, when MjolnirPants (I'm not bothering to tag because he retired) said he would look into the page, but I'm guessing he never got to it. And then again in 2018 when @LuckyLouie: opined that it should be WP:TNT'd. And I agree. It's one of the most pro-FRINGE things I've seen in a while. The lede currently states the most far-fetched claims as facts. The whole "this pilot had so many thousand of hours of flight" thing is very UFO-speak. Those images are also a bit crufty, but maybe I'm being over-zealous. The Leslie Kean book in the "Further Reading" section is very pro-fringe, but I'm not sure if it's okay to keep. I made a couple small changes, will see if I find time for more, but I'm still officially "away from WP" for personal reasons. I think the AP piece by Raeburn already in the references (archived here) should be used more, and Brian Dunning had an episode on it in 2020, which could also be of use. VdSV9•♫ 19:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, with sources like "International UFO Reporter" magazine, the article definitely needs attention. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, kind of a credulous article. I made some minor revisions to it just now too, removed some redundant citations irrelevant factoids and reworded a few things, but just minor stuff. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole "this pilot had so many thousand of hours of flight" thing is very UFO-speak. You've identified some real problems, but this is not one of them I don't think. It's standard in aircraft incident reports to lead or close to it with the crew, the total number of hours they have and the number of hours on the type. I think in this case it's just using industry stylings. To pull the most recent two NTSB crash reports I can find, we have The pilot reported, on his most recent medical certificate application, that he had accumulated 750 flight hours, 232 hours of which occurred during the previous 6 months. According to company records, the pilot began flying for OPC on March 9, 2019, and he reported (on an insurance form dated March 8, 2019) that he had 872 hours of total flight experience, with 771 hours as PIC and 101 hours as second-in-command. His flight experience included 1.7 hours as PIC in turboprop single-engine airplanes, 396 hours as PIC in multiengine piston airplanes, and 27 hours in multiengine turbine airplanes. As well as, in the next most recent report I could pull up: At the time of the accident, the pilot had about 8,577 hours flying experience, which included about 1,250 hours in Sikorsky S-76-series helicopters and about 75 hours of instrument flying time, at least 68.2 hours of which were accumulated while flying under simulated instrument meteorological conditions (IMC).16 In the 90 days, 30 days, and 24 hours before the accident, the pilot accumulated about 61 hours, 15 hours, and 1.5 hours flying time, respectively.
    This is just standard reporting on aviation incidents. NTSB, EUASA and a host of national air regulators all follow a standard format and industry reporting also echoes it. That said there are no NTSB reports for this (seemingly because nothing happened besides seeing some stuff they couldn't explain, none of which adversely affected the aircraft) so I'm not sure its deserving of an article at all. --50.234.188.27 (talk) 12:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Chronic lyme disease

    A new editor is threatening to "dramatically rewrite" Chronic Lyme disease stating that it is no longer considered pseudoscience or fringe science. More eyes on the situation would be appreciated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I doubt this is a new user [40]. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I absolutely agree with what you've said so far on the article talk page, Hemiauchenia, but I'll add that the article could be clearer on the relationship between "Chronic Lyme disease" (which is apparently a pseudo-diagnosis) and "Post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome" (which is apparently legit). I'd suggest that a rewrite for clarity could be helpful. Generalrelative (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The source I mentioned on the talkpage goes into some detail [41], the actual symptoms between the two conditions seem similar (the paper cites "fatigue, myalgia, or arthralgia" as the main post antibiotic symptoms for Post-treatment Lyme Disease Syndrome). The main point of difference seems to be that in order to be diagnosed with "Post-treatment Lyme Disease Syndrome", they must have actually had symptoms of real lyme disease, while those with "Chronic lyme disease" have never had any symptoms that would indicate that they were ever infected with lyme disease to begin with. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense, and I now see how it's implied by the final sentence of the first paragraph of Chronic Lyme disease –– but the way you just stated it is way, way clearer. Perhaps we can add something very close to what you just said to that opening paragraph to make it more evident to the reader? Generalrelative (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Generalrelative: I've reworked the lead. Do you have any thoughts? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's much improved! Generalrelative (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The user seems to have moved on editing the Lyme disease article, where they have been edit-warring. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Slate article “ Betty and Barney Hill lost three hours on a New Hampshire highway in 1961. They spent years trying to understand it.”

    A good read, interesting analysis. [42] Doug Weller talk 18:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the pointer! I'll also say that I have greatly enjoyed the podcast Strange Arrivals, the first season of which was all about the Hills. It takes a sympathetic but very grounded approach--and actually taught me a lot about something I thought I knew backwards and forwards. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    CNEOS 2014-01-08 - confirmed interstellar object?

    There's a lack of consistency across various articles about the state of scientific opinion about if CNEOS 2014-01-08 is confirmed to be an interstellar object and also claims about it being related to alien life.

    • Charles Hoskinson has "CNEOS 2014-01-08 was confirmed as an interstellar object by the United States Space Force in 2022" and doesn't mention any disagreement on this point, and also mentions that Avi Loeb claims "it could have been created by alien life, a claim which lacks widespread support from the scientific community".
    • CNEOS 2014-01-08 says in the lede it's a putative interstellar object but then later that it's been confirmed as an interstellar object. Then towards the end of the article briefly mentions that some scientists doubt this. The article doesn't mention aliens directly, although several of the references do.
    • The Galileo Project doesn't mention any dispute about if the meteor is interstellar, saying that this has been confirmed, and in general is a lot more credulous of claims about its composition being anomolous and possibly related to aliens.
    • Avi Loeb is a lot more balanced and includes criticism from scientists of both the claims.
    • Interstellar object treats it as a confirmed interstellar object in the lead but mentions doubts about this further down the article.
    • Manus Island and 2022 in science both say it is a confirmed interstellar object with no mention of this being controversial.
    • ʻOumuamua mentions it is a proposed interstellar object but that the claim has been met with skepticism.

    JaggedHamster (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Jaime Maussan

    Jaime Maussan has recently been in the news regarding alien claims. Worth keeping an eye on and/or expanding with sceptical coverage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    There are so few reliable sources discussing his past, he could be a candidate for WP:ONEEVENT. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Recent human evolution

    Template:Fringe theories was added to the Recent human evolution article last year and is still there; however, the parts criticized as fringe in the accompanying discussion, mainly citations of the unreliable Nicholas Wade, appear to have been removed since then, and the discussion ended more than a year ago. Is this sufficient to remove the template under WP:WTRMT? - LaetusStudiis (talk) 05:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Anna Ali

    Very strange page created by a Sockpuppet in 2009 of a Kenyan nun who, apparently, says she was visited by Jesus and whatnot. Zero references, and I can't find anything to show notability online. Wonder if it should just be PROD'd.VdSV9•♫ 19:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Vivek Ramaswamy's climate change opinions

    There is a Request for Comment about whether Vivek Ramaswamy's view on climate change should be labeled as "climate change denial".

    It seems like the RfC was started without enough thought put into deciding its statement, as it avoids the real question, which is how Ramaswamy's position on climate change should be described. The RfC creator is also reverting changes to the RfC statement that allow for alternative outcomes. ––FormalDude (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Werewolf of Châlons

    Does anybody know of any sources? See last entry on the Talk page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Willem de Blécourt, but looking for where he found the name Damont. Article should probably be Tailor of Châlons and trace the history of the accounts from Sabine Baring-Gould's The Book of Werewolves and Montague Summers' The Werewolf. fiveby(zero) 11:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=1175492199"