Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

"WP:FTN" redirects here. For nominations of featured topics, see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates.

Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
Before posting, make sure you understand this short summary of relevant policies and advice and particularly the guideline on treating fringe theories. Also, check the archives for similar discussions. We can help determine whether the topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately and impartially. Our purpose is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but to describe them properly. Never present fringe theories as fact. If you mention specific editors, you should notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so.
Search this noticeboard & archives Lowercase sigmabot III will archive sections older than 20 days Additional notes: Discussion of fringe theories will only depend on coverage in reliable sources. Medicine-related claims must comply with more stringent sourcing requirements, but we also generally prefer academic sources. We are not a forum to discuss fringe theories as such. Our goal is to improve articles about them, or create new ones if needed. For concerns about neutrality in articles not about fringe theories, use the neutral point of view noticeboard. Report article content that appears to violate the no original research rule at this noticeboard. Paste {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section when your concern was addressed. Deploy {{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Article alerts

Did you know

• 26 Apr 2024 – The Skeptical Environmentalist (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Arcahaeoindris (t · c); see discussion

Categories for discussion

• 09 May 2024 – Category:Conspiracist media (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Coddlebean (t · c); see discussion

Redirects for discussion

• 18 Apr 2024 – Mental gymnastics (talk · edit · hist) →Cognitive dissonance was RfDed by Utopes (t · c); see discussion

Good article nominees

• 10 Mar 2024 – Roswell incident (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Feoffer (t · c); start discussion

Requests for comments

• 05 Apr 2024 – Havana syndrome (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by Noleander (t · c); see discussion

Peer reviews

• 25 Apr 2024 – Ethics (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by Phlsph7 (t · c); see discussion

Requested moves

• 02 May 2024 – Epstein didn't kill himself (talk · edit · hist) move request to Conspiracy theories about Jeffrey Epstein's death by SilviaASH (t · c) was not moved; see discussion

Articles to be merged

• 03 Mar 2024 – Superstitions in Muslim societies (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Islam and magic by VenusFeuerFalle (t · c); see discussion
• 27 Jan 2024 – Barber and Calverley (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Theodore X. Barber by Animalparty (t · c); see discussion

Articles to be split

• 30 Dec 2023 – Scholarly approaches to mysticism (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Skyerise (t · c); see discussion
• 23 Sep 2023 – Witchcraft (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Skyerise (t · c); see discussion

Bill Warner (writer) and a statistical approach to Islam

Bringing this here because I think his approach makes him fringe, ie he uses statistics to prove that Islam is really a political ideology. I seem to be the only editor involved in this article who isn't promoting him, and as some of you know I won't be around much longer. His organisation claims that “Statistics show that Islamic politics is what brought Islam success, not religion”.

A new editor added this[1] with a misleading edit summary. The edit is based on Linkedin, an article in Junge Freiheit and a book by Moorthy Muthuswamy, the latter two right-wing anti-Muslim sources, also changing his being against Islam to him being against political Islam although his critics state that he is against Islam as a religion.

An editor who has been involved for a long time added [2], which is an interview by an editor of JungeFreiheit and purely self-serving. Warner/French was involved in another attempt to hold an anti-Islam protest in 2018.[3]

The article also discusses his organisation, and see this news article discussing a claim by a member of his organisation[4] I found something debunking this but it's from an anonymous author (clearly not the real August Landmesser in an unreliable source, still interesting at least to me).[5] In any case, I think the article needs more eyes and hopefully someone new editors. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I would edit but it is full protected for some strange reason. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Melanesia and Melanesians

Both pages have been constantly targeted by IPs pushing for a terminological revisionism that is partly based on racializing arguments. Things like "dark skin pigmentation, "curly hair" are brought into play to redefine the well-established scope of a geographical region (see Talk:Melanesia; note that historically, the term "Melanesia" was indeed coined with racial undertones, but this has long been discarded; the term continues to be used in scholarship and geopolitics, but entirely without the racialist baggage). Austronesier (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone know if there's a policy about genetics in ethnicity articles? I've removed bunch of weird haplogroup stuff from a number of ethnicity's articles, because it almost always comes off as genetic essentialism or y-haplogroup is the same as ethnicity, but i don't know enough about human genetics to know if there is a potentially appropriate reason to include it—blindlynx 19:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@Blindlynx: As far as I know, there is no policy about the inclusion of such material in general, but at least this RfC about sourcing:

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_249#RfC:Genetics_references.

I'm not sure if we need a dedicated policy, but much of the mess we can see in many articles can be tackled with WP:DUE and WP:SYNTH. There are some editors who focus on group X (an ethnic group, a geographically defined population etc.), comb through all possible sources for genetic data about it and add everything that can be extracted, even it is only mentioned in passing or just one out of hundreds of data points and actually not related to actual topic of the study. Or they read one study, and again extract all data points and distribute them to dozens of articles about ethnic groups, geographical areas etc. without considering due weight, and often linking data in a WP:SYNTH manner.

Usually, genetic studies have a specific spatiotemporal scope, covering a geographical area over a certain stretch of time. E.g. in the case of Oceania, there are good studies that indeed cover the genetic history of Oceania, allowing to build an article about the Genetic history of Oceania; oddly enough, still a red link, but actually not surprising when you consider that the number of ethnochauvinist Oceanians in WP is apparently much lower when compared to the usual suspects in contentious topic areas ;)

A few genetic studies indeed specifically address single ethnic groups for various reasons. Sometimes, they just fall into the great amount of scholarship that has been triggered by identity-seeking (write about the genetic history of Hungary and you can be sure to get lots of public attention). Or there is genuine scholarly interest in an ethnic group that occupies an isolated position from a general anthropological viewpoint (not just limited to biological anthropology), e.g. in the case of this study[6].

Writing a topical guideline (as an essay first) might be a good solution (there is a comaparable project in User:Joe_Roe/Archaeology_conventions#Archaeogenetics). WT:ETHNIC is the best place to initiate something if you're interested (I defintely am, but have little time for WP right now). –Austronesier (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Amazing, thank you! I'll ask around there—blindlynx 23:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

• Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Since RFKJ announced he was running for president, the article is inundated by people who do not understand Wikipedia, NPOV, RS, medicine, conspiracy theories, and several other subjects. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Not to mention there is undisclosed paid editing going on. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like people are making a WP:BIGMISTAKE. Seriously though, the extent to which (basically) newbie fuckwits are allowed to run riot with the expectation that clueful editors will clear up, is beginning to cause strain in my view. Especially in anything which touches US politics. Bon courage (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Is there evidence of more paid editing than that which got reverted? XOR'easter (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

None that I'm aware of. So I don't object to the decision to remove the warning template I added. But we need to keep an eye out given that we know that a firm was retained to make edits. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. XOR'easter (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Given that new IPs are helping to clog up Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr. with the same complaints, I wonder if it would be possible to request that the talk page be protected for a short time per WP:ATPROT. -Location (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: some of the same issues have occurred at Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 2024 presidential campaign, primarily with respect to whether Kennedy should be described (as is well-sourced) as an "anti-vaccine activist". BD2412 T 18:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

FYI, I just deleted Draft:Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (and blocked its creator, User:Ananakimble ark), which was a copy of the existing Robert F. Kennedy Jr. article plus some nonsense about how vaccines were a Nazi biological warfare experiment. BD2412 T 19:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

RfC in Talk:October Surprise conspiracy theory

Please see: Talk:October Surprise conspiracy theory#RfC about the article title. -Location (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The Tunnel Thru the Air; Or, Looking Back from 1940

• The Tunnel Thru the Air; Or, Looking Back from 1940 (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Suggestion on Talk page: Delete everything after the Plot section. Sounds reasonable, but maybe people want to watch the article from now on... --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah whoa, that's nuts. Honestly, I'd vote for it to be deleted on AFD. Loki (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Ooof! Watching. Donald Albury 13:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Reads a bit like a fan wiki. A quick scan of the article left me wondering if the many paragraphs of analysis, commentary, lists, etc. are WP:DUE and can be cited to independent reliable sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

AfD it. No evidence of notability through significant coverage in non-lunatic sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

That was bad. I went ahead and deleted everything after the Plot section. It desperately needs some solid sourcing. I will note that the author's article is not much better. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Gotta love that graph of rhye prices plotted against the heliocentric longitude of pluto --Licks-rocks (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I've nuked most of the author's article, leaving only the section that had its own article, the part on his writing style, the biography, and the bibliography. I've salvaged the image to my userpage because it made me laugh. --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

And I deleted a source, an unpublished lecture. Looks like all his books are self-published. Doug Weller talk 10:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

His article is dreadful. Full of self-published stuff or articles from self-publishing houses, eg [7] Created by a user call GANNMAN and then highly edited[8] who seems to have never found a self-publisher he didn't like. Eg[9] This editor created Neville Lancelot Goddard. I nuked a bit with virtually no sources but one self-published book. Doug Weller talk 10:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

• Crosthwaite, P.; Knight, P.; Marsh, N. (Winter 2019). "The Economic Humanities and the History of Financial Advice". American Literary History. 31 (4): 661–686. WP Library link
• Elder, Alexander (1993). Trading for a living. p. 23. cited by above for wealth, and saw cited elsewhere, but maybe not too useful
• maybe Wansleben, Leon (2012). "Financial Analysts". In Karin Knorr Cetina; Alex Preda (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of the Sociology of Finance. but WP Library Oxford Academic link not working right now
• Crosthwaite P.; Knight P.; Marsh N.; Paul H. J.; Taylor J. (2022). "Chartists and Fundamentalists (1910–1950)". Invested : how three centuries of stock market advice reshaped our money, markets, and minds.

Just following citations and going by the title "Finance Fiction" in The Routledge Handbook of Critical Finance Studies might be useful, but can't find access anywhere. fiveby(zero) 15:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water

• Aquatic ape hypothesis (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Recent edits could benefit from more views/eyes. Bon courage (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Took a look at the article and noticed that, while it's definitely WP:FRINGE science in the sense that almost no scientists endorse it, the two citations listed in the lead as saying that it's pseudoscience did not in fact say that, or even mention the word "pseudoscience". In fact, one of them implied it was an important step in the advancement of the actual mainstream science, even though it's widely considered to be false. Loki (talk) 09:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

It's such an obvious and "classic" pseudoscience it could probably be called that without a source, but for belt and braces I've added a recent academic book chapter that goes into this in detail.[10] Wikipedia can't be sweeping this under the carpet. Bon courage (talk) 10:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't really object to the description per se, especially since it's definitely WP:FRINGE whether or not it's pseudoscience. It's just that "pseudoscience" is a WP:LABEL that we need pretty strong sourcing for. Loki (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Eh, looking at your edits I am not a fan of them. The article as a whole with its current sourcing pretty clearly positions the AAH as WP:FRINGE/QS, not as an unambiguous pseudoscience. We should therefore be attributing the pseudoscience label here unless we can find a lot more and better sources that say it's pseudoscience. Loki (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Rubbish. We have a super strong source saying it's pseudoscience, and none saying it's not. So WP:YESPOV, WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGESUBJECTS all apply: NPOV in other words. I hope this is not going to be a reprise of the EMDR fiasco. Bon courage (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with loki here. You have a propensity to grab for the heavy artillery quite rapidly when in many cases and I don't think that's necessarily the best solution. Particularly this sentence, which I just removed, was a bit too flippant to my liking. Saying definitively that the adherents are in an echo chamber in wiki-voice is something I would prefer to reserve for the rare occasions where it is actually verifiably true. --Licks-rocks (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

It is verifiable per the (excellent) source which details this at length. And there's more to add right, about the nature of the adherents and their attacks on scientists?. BTW, your edit summary was wrong so I reverted is. WP:PSCI is policy, and not up for negotation. Bon courage (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

you do not have consensus for that change, so trying to edit war with me is not going to be very productive. I also don't see where in WP:PSCI it says that your version of calling a spade a spade is superior to mine. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

It says pseudoscience has to be prominently identified as such. You have just removed that very identification from the body of the article and emboldened a WP:PROFRINGE editor into the bargain, based on an incorrect statement in your edit summary. How can you possibly think this is not justified by the extensive wording in the source? Bon courage (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

First of all, please don't call editors who disagree with you on policy details pro-fringe. That's not what is going on here. Secondly, I do not particularly care what my actions do and do not embolden in the moment. I care about performing the correct actions. And right now, that was removing the sentence that stated in wiki-voice that people who believe in a pseudoscientific theory live in an echo-chamber based on a single source. And thirdly, as I explained in my edit summary, there are other solutions that I am willing to discuss for the problem you raise, which you appear to be entirely ignoring in favour of claiming that I am violating policy and emboldening pro-fringe editors. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Your edit summary was wrong (which you have not acknowledged). So you have removed the only designation of this as pseudoscience from the article body. We are bound to follow the WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:YESPOV is policy. What doubts (from the sources) can you possibly have that the source completely supports this pseudoscience designation and the echo-chamber nature of its followers' work?

Research into the hypothesis takes place in isolation, "hermetically sealed", with researchers avoiding engagement with their critics. This results in an echo chamber, where the common misapprehensions of the group amplify each other and make proponents more convinced of their ideas even in the face of a lack of corroborating data. Research cited by aquatic ape proponents is typically dated and obsolete, presumably because current research would not support their beliefs. Moore has noted a tendency to "incestuous citing" where a group of like-minded (but wrong) researchers all cite each other, giving a false impression of widespread support for ideas that are widely rejected. When contradictory evidence is acknowledged, it tends to be misrepresented as if it actually confirms the hypothesis, further rendering the aquatic argument immune to refutation.

Bon courage (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

So, this says something completely different than "...enjoying only an echo chamber of support among its fervent adherents.", It seems to me like this is saying that all the (pseudo-)scholarly work on the topic is done in an echo chamber. Which I would not disagree with. But I think this belongs in the critique section along with the remainder of the sentence I pointed to as a possible replacement for the one I removed in my edit summary. And with a proper explanation for what is actually being characterised as an echo chamber, as well as attribution. So that would be its own full sentence. I think the "debunked" part I left standing is enough for the introduction of the reaction section, as it already covers the load (I.E. something that is debunked obviously isn't true) but I'm willing to negotiate on that. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

It was a fair summary what I put, but there's plenty more to add. You also removed the pseudoscience designation and now you've added the fiction that it's not considered pseudoscience.[11] Which looks suspiciously like trolling by mucking up mainspace. You are aware this is a WP:CTOP. Any admins following this? Bon courage (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

If you look for literally a microsecond to the left on your screen there at your apparent reading speed you'll realise I simply forgot to remove the word "not" when I changed that sentence for the second time. I just warned you on your talk page about assuming good faith. I am not doing so again. Striking the above comment. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The only thing I'll say here is that WP:FRINGE/QS does not require there to be sources saying explicitly that a position is not pseudoscience. Admittedly, it does require there to be academic supporters of it, which is also not really true in the relevant field. So we're kinda in limbo between several policies that this situation doesn't quite fit cleanly. Loki (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The policy is to reflect reliable sources, not add weaselly editorial like this[12]. Bon courage (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Sure is, and if you look at all the reliable sources in the article we have a lot of sources that say it's "false" or "dubious" or "not seriously considered by anthropologists", but not a lot of sources that say it's "pseudoscience". If you think that's wrong, please go ahead and find better sourcing for "pseudoscience". But as the article stands right now, I don't really see it. Loki (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

How's it possible to get better than a recent (2022) academic book specifically devoting an entire chapter to the AAH and its scientific status? It says this is a "famous example" of pseudoscience. We are bound to follow such sources, not the reckonings of editors. Bon courage (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with FRINGE/QS; the AAH does not have "a substantial following", as sources make clear; so why use FRINGE/QS to justify softening "pseudoscience"? — DFlhb (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

So, you're right at least in the relevant field, but that means we're sort of between two policies here, because while FRINGE/QS only really applies to hypotheses that have substantial academic support, there's also not substantial support for the "pseudoscience" label in the sources either. The mainstream position on the AAH from the sources we have appears to be that it's false (and therefore, by our policies, it's necessarily also WP:FRINGE) but not that it's pseudoscience per se.

Again, I'm open to being proven wrong on this, but so far we have an article that was updated to remove the assertion that the AH is pseudoscience, one chapter in an academic book, and a very brief mention of a panel on pseudoscience at a conference. Conversely, we have tons and tons of sourcing about the fact that it's false and why it's false, and then on the other side a handful of academic support from scientists who are not anthropologists (and therefore significantly less credible here, but they're still academics).

This says to me per WP:WEIGHT that we also should go into great detail about the fact it's false and why it's false, and probably reduce the prominence of some of the supporters from other fields, but also that we should at least attribute the pseudoscience label to some experts instead of making it seem like the consensus of the field. Loki (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Wrong. This is just repeating the fallacy that has caused so much disruption already. If something is pseudoscience as described in RS which considers that aspect, Wikipedia asserts it. Bon courage (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

You removed this sentence, but it was properly supported by the source as written when it was added: Is the Aquatic Ape Theory fairly described as pseudoscience?... I think that the Aquatic Ape Theory in 2009 fits the description. He also tagged his post with "pseudoscience".

The current version also doesn't describe AAH as an "important step in the advancement of the actual mainstream science" at all. Rather, that's how it describes a certain "feminist strain of anthropology", specifically one that re-theorized women's social roles and mating strategies (which the AAH has nothing to do with). The current version also says that by the time she jumped on the AAH, the evidence was already pretty clearly against it. DFlhb (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that if an author has updated their article to remove a claim, we should not deliberately use an out of date version of their article just to include that claim.

I also still read how that article portrays the history differently than you do, in that I feel it positions the AAH as a part of this tradition, but that's not really relevant. Loki (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

There's a world's difference between "updated to remove a claim" (i.e. a retraction, which we couldn't use), versus what happened here: a brand new blog post was written on a new blog in 2022, and just weeks ago (2023), the old blog died and was redirected to the new one. It wasn't a correction or retraction, and the old post is still a valuable and valid source — DFlhb (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The post itself refers to itself as an update of the 2005 blog post. So it's not just a brand new blog post on the same subject. While it's not the same as an explicit retraction, I believe it definitely does obsolete the old version of the post. Loki (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Here, Loki says that Wired is not reliable on scientific subjects; but Wired's not the source, Riley Black is; Wired's is just the (reliable) publisher. DFlhb (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

So at the time I hadn't realized that Brian Switek was a pen name for Riley Black, and that Riley Black was a relevant academic. I thought it was just an article by an ordinary science journalist. Now that that misconception has been corrected, I agree that source is sufficiently reliable to be included. Loki (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

PROFRINGE

And now the watering-down has started.[13] Bon courage (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I would like you to politely ask you to stop accusing people who don't think that your very harsh reading of WP:PSCI is accurate of being WP:PROFRINGE. Nobody here thinks the aquatic ape hypothesis is true or even that it's not WP:FRINGE. But the sources in the article so far don't really support "pseudoscience", and WP:FRINGE/QS says explicitly that just a handful of sources saying something is pseudoscientific is not enough to describe that thing as pseudoscience. Loki (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

You can't just make stuff up. We have a super-strength source (by far the strongest in the article) saying it's pseudoscience and none saying it isn't (though some being even less charitable). You are just replaying the same fallacy that wasted so much time with EMDR. Bon courage (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The source you added certainly is strong but I wouldn't call it by far the strongest in the article by any means. We have plenty of expert sources in the article already explaining that the theory is false and why it's false, and the source you added is the only one that explicitly calls it pseudoscience.

(Also, please let's keep this policy dispute to this policy dispute. I have no intention of rehashing every disagreement I've ever had with you right now.) Loki (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

What source do you think is stronger? Most of it is pretty old. Bon courage (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "pseudoscience" really needs to be invoked here. I think "largely rejected" or something similar is enough. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

That's a bit too kind from what the sources are saying. The theory (though it isn't even a coherent set of ideas) gets practically zero traction in academe, and

Some aquatic ape proponents have compared themselves to misunderstood geniuses who proposed heterodox theories but were eventually proven correct. Aquatic ape researchers often claim their work is ignored or suppressed by "mainstream" scientists, claiming a conspiracy against them. Rather than proving their argument with evidence, they try to shift the burden of proof onto their critics, challenging them to prove the theory wrong. They shift definitions of (what is an "aquatic ape"), "moving the goalpost" rather than confronting criticism. These are all traits of pseudoscience that has led some (e.g., Gee 2013) to argue that aquatic ape researchers should simply be ignored. The problem is that pseudoscience doesn't go away if ignored, it flourishes and does more damage.

Bon courage (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I assume that's a quote from the source you added?

Again, it's a good source, but it's only one source. We have lots of other sources in the article that say the AAH is false and not taken particularly seriously without using the word "pseudoscience", or even synonyms like "unscientific".

Since we reflect all the reliable sources, we should emphasize the things the sources agree on, such as that the theory is not taken seriously by experts in the relevant field, and attribute the things that they don't agree on, like the exact word "pseudoscience". Loki (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The fallacy again. This is like arguing "Lots of sources say the earth has oceans, but relatively few say it has a mesosphere, therefore Wikipedia can only say it has oceans." If you're going to make the argument (really?) that AAH isn't pseudoscience because AAH is "wrong" and that being "wrong" somehow cancels the pseudoscience out, you're going to need a source saying just that otherwise it's OR. This is exactly the fallacy that caused so much disruption at the EMDR article. Bon courage (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Loki, you're a good editor in GENSEX, but here, under WP:FRINGE, we need to label it as pseudoscience if it purports to be scientific and is "not taken seriously by experts in the relevant field". It doesn't matter that there are sources debunking the theory that don't use the word pseudoscience. DFlhb (talk) 23:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Eh, we're finding enough sources calling it pseudoscience that I'm dropping my objection here. However, I very much disagree with this interpretation of WP:PSCI: the criteria for calling something pseudoscience in Wikivoice is not just if there are any sources that call it pseudoscientific but whether that's the mainstream consensus of the field.

Otherwise, any expert involved in an academic dispute could call their opponent's theory "pseudoscientific" and we'd have to believe them uncritically. That's not how Wikipedia works in any topic area: the balance of the sources is the important thing, not any individual source. Loki (talk) 00:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I would have to be a reliable source, not just 'any source'. Bon courage (talk) 04:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

What is it about this particular idea that causes so many problems? I think it's a great test case for how legitimate critique can end up promoting a kind of fetishized nonsense. I really encourage people to read Erika Milam's book if you can get your hands on it. I tend to agree that it is our job to fairly and clearly explain how this idea is roundly criticized as being pseudoscientific basically because of its umbrella hypothesis problems (dig through the history if you want to see some amazing tellings of all sorts of things that proponents believe point to "aquatic apes origins"!) At the same time, the Savannah hypothesis is no longer accepted in its, shall we say, romantic forms for reasons that are not unlike the reasons that Morgan argued. We have an article that does a pretty passible job of explaining that. Why does it rile up people so? jps (talk) 23:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I think over the (many) years the problem has been twofold: a procession of True Believers (now largely sanctioned out of existence), and lack of a really good slam-dunk source that puts the whole topic to bed. With the arrival of [14] that latter problem should be addressed. Bon courage (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

It's a pretty good book chapter, to be sure. Love the mermaid connection. I don't know if I'll get time to incorporate some of the more interesting points in text, but someone should (it would at the very least help to move us past the waste of time that is passing for this "disagreement"). jps (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I think in this particular episode the issue might be a philosophical objection to WP:FRINGE and looking for a fight rather than really caring about article content. It was just a tiny thread here, by the time i'd found and read Langdon and checked back in it had already escalated to ANI. fiveby(zero) 23:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

You're not wrong. Bon courage (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@Bon courage: I am not quite sure what's going on here (I have arrived from AN/I as well), but I really think you ought to consider approaching this more calmly. As far as I can tell nobody here has said that this theory is true, or even credible; I don't think there is anybody with an agenda to "water down" the article, and I don't think there is any risk that we will somehow end up accidentally saying the theory is true. It is certainly not necessary to festoon the article with hyperbolic stuff like "enjoying only an echo chamber of support among its fervent adherents"; I honestly can't think of a situation where this would be an appropriate thing to write in an encyclopedia. jp×g 03:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Finding the WP:BESTSOURCES on this aspect and then WP:STICKTOSOURCE is good practice, and a way to avoid POV. 'Hyperbole' could result if Wikipedia exaggerated. So: how would you summarize such sources' material about a 'hermetically sealed', criticism-free research community, 'incestuous' citing, and 'echo chambers' of amplifying error giving a 'false impression of widespread support'? For WP:FRINGESUBJECTS we are explicitly required to be clear about how the mainstream sees the fringe stuff. Bon courage (talk) 04:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, how about this: Pol Pot slaughtered millions of innocent people, and we describe him as a "Cambodian revolutionary, dictator, and politician who ruled Cambodia as Prime Minister of Democratic Kampuchea between 1976 and 1979" whose administration "converted Cambodia into a one-party communist state and perpetrated the Cambodian genocide". While he was obviously a turd, nonetheless, we are able to describe his dictatorship without calling it "murderous" (even though it was) or "evil" (even though it was), although it would certainly be very easy to find reliable sources calling it both of those things. Is this not also true of the aquatic ape hypothesis? jp×g 06:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

It's "genocide", which is substantially worse than "murderous". And so far as I'm aware the WP:BESTSOURCES don't call Pol Pot 'a turd' so that is just a strawman. But what's that got to do with aquatic apes? If AAH "research" is a walled-garden/echo-chamber/circle-jerk or whatever as described by the best WP:SCHOLARSHIP examining it, Wikipedia should reflect that, no? Isn't that the core of NPOV, to reflect what quality mainstream sources say - and not what editors think? WP:FRINGESUBJECTS and all that:

The fringe or pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how experts in the relevant field have reacted to such views should be prominently included.

How would go you about giving prominence to this expert reaction to the nature of AAH research? Bon courage (talk) 06:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

But we were already giving prominence to the expert reaction, though. The article was already extremely clear that anthropologists do not take the AAH seriously, and nobody was arguing for watering any of that language down.

What's at issue is the exact word "pseudoscience" and whether it's really supported by the sources or not. (I'm sort of coming around to it, personally, but at the time I saw the page it definitely wasn't sourced sufficiently.) Loki (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm a big supporter of MOS:LABEL; "murderous" and "evil" are unencyclopedic, "explosive" words we should never use in wikivoice. But we absolutely should use "pseudoscientific", and "echo chamber" and "fervent" seem fine in terms of MOS:LABEL. DFlhb (talk) 08:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the "echo chamber" hypothesis is the purview of social sciences (i.e. mass communication, media studies, etc), and seems to be mostly conjectural; it is at best a claim about the psychology of the belief's adherents, and at worst bulverism. We have better rebuttals to this belief than just calling the people who hold it dumbasses, so I think that to do so is bizarre and weakens our other claims. jp×g 02:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

What? It's a statement about the 'research' landscape of AAH: adherents working in a walled garden citing each other and amplifying their errors. I think whatever personal objection you have to this (in fact to straw men you keep raising) is irrelevant here. Wikipedia reflects the expert knowledge as found in the best sources. If editors don't like that knowledge for whatever reason, then tough. Bon courage (talk) 05:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I do not object to "knowledge", I object to "writing insults in an encyclopedic voice to own the libs aquatic ape hypothesists". If the thing you're describing is that the researchers all cite each other in a circular manner, then why not just say that? jp×g 06:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Because it's more than that per the sources, no? Wikipedia reflects what is in the WP:BESTSOURCES and in this such source there's a lot about the nature of the work done on AAH, of which 'incestuous sourcing' is but one element. There's the self-deception, the distortion of some real research, the resistance to other, disconfirming, evidence, the conspiracy theories, the attacks on other scientists, the amplifying error and so on. I'll work up some longer sentences to make all this clear. Bon courage (talk) 04:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Wha? Nobody here thinks the AAH is not WP:FRINGE. Loki (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I came here from ANI. The aquatic ape is something that Wikipedia should clearly label as being far outside of mainstream science, and mainstream scientific method. Call it fringe, call it pseudoscience, or call it anything else that you prefer, so long as our content doesn't mislead our readers into thinking that it is a credible hypothesis. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Loki (talk) 02:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Call it pseudoscience, it's the commonly understood way of describing something that still has adherents even though it has been debunked by science. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

A descriptive word isn't always a label. If a source says it was a metal box with wheels, an engine, and steering, then we can summarise that description with a commonly understood word. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

A Puffing Devil?  Tewdar  19:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

If a modern source described something as "a metal box with wheels, an engine, and steering", I'd think there's probably a reason they're trying to avoid the word "car", and at least think twice about it. Loki (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

LokiTheLiar I don't think AAH is WP:FRINGE. That's a guideline for controlling some problem editors or edits and probably not a good way of thinking about topics. Not overly fond of stating something is fringe or is pseudoscience either. But it's an encyclopedia article, an introduction to a topic for a general audience, and the overall direction to take for science communication is pretty clear: be explicit, direct and don't create a false balance. You identified a weak source in the article, good job there, but please do not approach topics with this goal. Of all the ways of failing the reader that should be pretty high on the list of what not to do.

Also, BC has probably what, five or six years of work on the article and looking at the sources. I'm not sure what reading you've done on the topic but in my opinion based on your approach it looks maybe somewhat superficial. fiveby(zero) 16:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean when you say WP:FRINGE is about problem editors or edits and not topics; it's very clearly about topics. WP:PSCI is closer to being about problem edits but is still rooted in the understanding that some topics are fringe and some fringe topics are pseudoscience.

I agree we should be explicit and direct when the sources are explicit and direct. The sources are explicit and direct that anthropologists don't take the AAH seriously, and so are we. But we shouldn't be explicit or direct about things the sources don't say. And when only a small handful of sources is saying something we should be explicit that only a small handful of sources is saying that thing.

Also, I don't think "this other editor has been editing this page for a long time" is a good argument. This is not a comment on BC or this article specifically, but I've encountered plenty of situations before where an editor who's been working on an article for quite a while is just wrong about policy or even about what the sources say. (e.g. Over on Blanchard's typology a now-banned editor was working on the page for years. Currently most of the active discussions on the talk page are about how to undo all the damage he did in the topic area.) Loki (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

And maybe that cycle will repeat in decades to come! In reality though, AAH has been through that, and the sanctions hammer has been applied. Many editors have worked to make it better but frankly it's still not in the best shape, if not the total train-wreck it once was. Bon courage (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

By the way Creatures of Cain jps mentions is available through WP:LIBRARY. fiveby(zero) 02:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Anneliese Michel

• Anneliese Michel (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Traditional meetingplace of IPs believing in exorcism and demons. Higher activity than usual at the moment. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

added to my watchlist --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The most recent IP person seems to have access to a wide range, so I've semiprotected for a few months. Bishonen | tålk 15:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC).

Varginha UFO incident‎

• Varginha UFO incident‎ (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Brian Dunning good or bad? Edit-warring IP says bad. Well, it is a blog, so I am not sure. But the reasons the IP is giving are sure crap. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• 73.88.147.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Werkentagen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They are branching out. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The targeted anti-Dunning edits from both of these users raise WP:BLP concerns and the edits themselves, plus the edit-warring behavior, seem too similar to be a coincidence. In the meantime, Dunning is an established authority on scientific skepticism, and their published comments on the Varginha incident are IMO valid for inclusion. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Werkentagen appears to be on a campaign against Dunning, inserting the same attacks in Ariel School UFO incident and Westall UFO. I have given them a CT alert for BLPs, and also warned them, which was not well received. Bishonen | tålk 09:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC).

Gee, if we're all so corrupt I do hope I'll be getting my check in the mail soon. It appears to be a tad delayed. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Just give User:Bishzilla your banking details and passwords and she'll take care of it. Bishonen | tålk 12:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC).

Thanks! I will do so forthwith! --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

But why quote and attribute in the content? Does WP:PARITY's WP:ITA really require that? Quoting seems to be the least useful thing for the reader here. If WP:OR and WP:ITA force the content to always be along the lines of "according to skeptic X ..." then it seems to me the reader would be better served by just telling them to go elsewhere for something more informative than WP. Something in External Links along the lines of: "Brazil's Roswell: The Varginha UFO" a Skeptoid post and podcast which discusses how a completely normal event has been embellished over the years by UFOlogists"; seems would be more prominent and useful than burying the link in a citation. fiveby(zero) 16:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

External link is a good idea, but I don't think it's "either/or"; the WP:ITA seems useful to preserve NPOV. DFlhb (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Since we are on the subject of painting Dunning as unreliable: Joseph Mercola has an external link to Skeptoid which is marked as a "generally unreliable source". I experimented a bit, and the reason seems to be that the link contains the string "Mercola.com". Any ideas on how to prevent the marking? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm guessing you have Headbomb's reliability script installed, it's a known issue see User:Headbomb/unreliable#False positives -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah! I checked my preferences and could not find the add-in. Yes, that's it. Thanks! --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Junkyard tornado

• Junkyard tornado (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I object to the facts that the article 1. calls creationists "critics" of evolution, giving them undeserved credit, and 2. says that the junkyard tornado has been "labeled" a fallacy, calling doubt on its status as such. For those judgments, I hear I am the only one saying [the article is] overly lenient. Which tells me that not enough FTN regulars are commenting there to balance the WP:VOTE that Wikipedia Talk pages are not supposed to be. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

You can just edit it, you know? I took a look and it was pretty grossly biased. Did my best to neutralize it though, take a look and see what you think. AtFirstLight (talk) 23:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I did edit it and was reverted. Just like you were, just now. I am just following WP:BRD.

You should read WP:YWAB. Bullshit is not "philosophy". Well, not all bullshit is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Editor continues to move the article towards "some say this, some say that". [15]. Refuses to use the Talk page for article-improvement discussion [16] [17], instead reverts the edits they refuse to argue against. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Editor continues to edit for WP:NPOV. AtFirstLight (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia needs to stay neutral on the questions of

• whether evolutionary biologists really say that life as it is really sprang into being in one extremely unlikely single event, as Hoyle assumed, or not,
• whether creationists really use Hoyle's reasoning, as Musgravce documents, or not.

You urgently need to read up on the WP: links people give you. NPOV does not say what you think it does. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

i edited the introduction to the page and added several legitimate sources, because despite the fact that it is in the religious philosophy category it is just silly to pretend that this can be called a "theory" and a legit criticism of evolutionary theory RosieBaroque (talk) 01:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I have partial-blocked one editor from the article for a month for persistent tendentious and aggressive pro-fringe editing. Bishonen | tålk 08:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC).

Badge Man

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

FWIW: Badge Man, an article related to JFK conspiracy theories, is today's featured article. I noted on the talk page something I think should be altered about the lead sentence, but the article is built upon reliable secondary sources and does not appear to run afoul of WP:FRINGE. -Location (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Love jihad conspiracy theory

• Love jihad (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

It'll be helpful to have some extra pair of eyes on the article, it has been getting a wave of PROFRINGE pov pushing as of recent, some boderline, others explicit and other attempts to water down some of its content. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Mirko Beljanski

• Mirko Beljanski (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Alt-med guy, being edited into "neutral" POV. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I would say that Beljanski is more a product of his times than "alt-med". He has been dead since the 90s, and primarily worked from the 1950s to the 1980s. He made genuine contributions to science, which are still recognized, but later developed some incorrect theories about the effectiveness of various pharmaceutical concoctions. However, he was certainly not one of those sorts of "moon energy manifesting subsonic psychic harmonies" type of alt-med people. BD2412 T 21:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammed Majeed

This deletion discussion may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to split Anti-vaccine activism from Vaccine hesitancy

Anti-vaccine activism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

I have proposed on the talk page to split Anti-vaccine activism (currently a redirect) from Vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy often manifests as doubt and a desire for more information. The anti-vaccine activist movement is more about actively spreading disinformation, and I think that it is problematic to conflate the two. BD2412 T 20:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

That's a really good idea - there's so much stigma associated with the anti-vax movement and not everyone who has second-thoughts about it (from my experience) are associated with it. Would certainly help to not tar everyone with the same brush, and acknowledge there's a difference between outright refusal and cautious hesitance. AtFirstLight (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I have started Draft:Anti-vaccine activism. There is a wealth of good content available for such an article. BD2412 T 21:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes yes yes 100% was just looking for this exact article yesterday when adding links in RFK Jrs campaign page and was shocked to see it doesnt exist RosieBaroque (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this is a good idea. I noted my support in Talk:Vaccine hesitancy#Split Anti-vaccine activism from Vaccine hesitancy. -Location (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The current Vaccine hesitancy article does not even mention RFK. BD2412 T 23:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Hallwang Clinic

Some proposed whitewashing happening at Hallwang Clinic. Also, generally the article could probably use some improvements. ScienceFlyer (talk) 04:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Chicxulub crater

GSHD2023 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps edit warring Chicxulub crater to add reference to a 2021 conference abstract that claims that the Chicxulub impact was not responsible for the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary layer, and that the Chicxulub impactor was an iron asteroid. I've never seen these ideas entertained or even mentioned in any actual scientific papers, and conference abstracts in my experience are a magnet for crank/fringe theories, as they are effectively self-published. In my opinion, including any reference to this abstract is completely undue and PROFRINGE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not even clear to be that the author of the abstract, Gerhard Schmidt, is even a published scientist, as the abstract doesn't even list an institutional affiliation [18], and no research papers come up on scholar when I search his name relevant to asteroids (though there is plently of self-published stuff on researchgate). Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I've researched further, and he does seem to have published some papers on the topic, but they were decades ago, and all of his recent "publications" are conference abstracts or posters, which is not a good sign. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Primary sources, e.g. conference abstracts, posters, and so forth authored by a single author as used in the edits are not acceptable as Wikipedia sources. Wikipedia needs additional independent and reliable secondary / tertiary sources that document and evaluate the the notability of the ideas proposed by the posted sources.

By the way, the user name, "GSHD2023" is uncomfortably close enought to being an abbreviation of "Gerhard ScHmiDt" that there possibly might be a conflict of interest involved. Paul H. (talk) 02:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I think there is good reason to suspect COI. They've also added some stuff to the German wiki article, though briefly looking at a Google translated version of that article it seems to have a multitude of problems. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

HD is the car licence tag of Heidelberg and that is where Schmidt works [19] (I think that is him; it is a very common name), which makes for a more plausible meaning of GSHD. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Green Man

I always thought I knew what "Green Man" meant. Now I'm not so sure after reading this Slate article.[20] where independent scholar (who has a book published by Cambridge University Press) says "I spend a lot of my time trying to debunk the idea that the Green Man is an ancient figure from British folklore. He’s a made-up figure of 20th-century folklore." The article itself calls it "a folkloric or mythological figure" but also says " Lady Raglan coined the term "Green Man" for this type of architectural feature in her 1939 article The Green Man in Church Architecture in The Folklore Journal. "

The history section starts with discussing a book by Mike Harding, "an English singer, songwriter, comedian, author, poet, broadcaster and multi-instrumentalist. Harding has also been a photographer, traveller, filmmaker and playwright." I see it uses a recent letter to the Guardian from a Stephen Green, who published through Cambridge Scholars.[21] I don't have time to look at all the sources, but a quick glance suggests that a lot are unreliable. And am I wrong in thinking the article seems to link different concepts? Doug Weller talk 08:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I would say that it is more of a decorative and artistic motif used on churches than a mythological figure, and the article should reflect that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

From Lady Raglan's article, page 47: "Sir Albert Seward, who has made a special study of the chapter-house at Southwall, where there is a number of 'Green Men,' has found a great variety of foliage there, and I have myself noticed a good deal of poison ivy, always a sacred herb." I should point out that Toxicodendron is not found in Europe, being confined to North America and a strip along the East Asian coast from Sakhalin to Taiwan. Mangoe (talk) 01:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, one of the sources (I think the New Yorker article) described her theory as "total bunk", which I'm having a hard time disagreeing with. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

My attempt to fix the article has been reverted by @Wuerzele:. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion ongoing at Talk:Green_Man#Article_remains_a_mess... if anyone wants to comment. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Maryanne Demasi

There has been a user with about 12 IPs trying to remove references from this article going back 3 months. Basically it was discovered that Maryanne Demasi had duplicated some data based on her PhD dissertation. The paper was later retracted. According to the journal "This article has been retracted by the publisher. An investigation by the Journal determined the following. In Fig 4, the “no LPS” lanes in the GAPDH Northern blots were duplicated between normoxic and hypoxic conditions." [22]. The IP is repeatedly removing "determined" from the article and is claiming duplication is only "alleged".

The same IP is also removing references from the article claiming they are part of a conspiracy to smear Maryanne Demasi. I think some extra eyes are needed on this article because there has been repeated attempts at removing certain sources going back 4 months. Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Robert F. Marx‎

I changed the short description from "American scuba diver (1936–2019)" to "American scuba diver (1936–2019) and writer about White gods" as that's an important aspect of his work (which wasn't even mentioned in the lead despite having its own section. User:GhostInTheMachine reverted me. In any case, "scuba diver" which GITM had added isn't adequate. Note I also made other changes.[23] Doug Weller talk 11:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

What's the WP:MOS rule for whether to capitalize "white" in this context? Do most sources capitalize the word? It looks a little cringe to me. jps (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)W

MOS:RACECAPS, which says to be consistent within an article. Donald Albury 14:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

In White gods, it is consistently "white", so I would argue for lower-case in the above case. Donald Albury 14:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. And I see lower case in most sources, at least those I could read. My bad. Doug Weller talk 16:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Callahan, Tim (2008). "A New Mythology". Skeptic. Vol. 13, no. 4. wplibrary. But when i see the phrase "white gods" it's this which comes to mind and not pre-Columbian contact pseudoarcheology per Shermer and Callahan.

You might find better sources for Heyerdahl in this review of Thor Heyerdahl og jakten på Atlantis from Kon-Tiki Museum, instead of using an article published in The Drama Review. fiveby(zero) 16:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

See you already had Callahan in Marx, but not in white gods. Fritze, Ronald H. (1993). "White God Legends". Legend and lore of the Americas before 1492. Davies, Nigel (1979). "White Gods with Black Faces". Voyagers to the New World. Really don't see "extensive writing on white gods", but one opportunistic Columbus Quincentenary work. Diver, treasure hunter, pseudo/amateur archeologist. fiveby(zero) 18:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@Fiveby The Kon-Tiki Museum is, I believe, biassed. The authors of that review are Reidar Solsvik who is an archaeologist and Curator of the Kon-Tiki Museum andEirik Stokke is a lecturer and is studying for a MA Degree in the history (of something, I can't see the rest).I agree with your summary description of Marx. I have: Norbeck, Edward (1953). "Review of American Indians in the Pacific". American Antiquity. 19 (1): 92–94 and several other reviews. Not about white gods, but the book Hunt, Terry (2011). The Statues That Walked: Unraveling the Mystery of Easter Island. Free Press sasys "\This is the tack taken by Thor Heyerdahl, who was convinced that Incan colonists from South America were the makers of the ahu and statues. His assumption goes even further, also claiming that the Incans responsible for the cultural florescence on Rapa Nui were ultimately the descendants of colonists with European origins who taught Native Americans the secrets of “advanced culture.”2 For Heyerdahl, simply tracing the “cause” of Rapa Nui culture back to Europe solved the apparent paradox of cultural achievement. Leaving its racist assumptions aside, empirical support for this argument is entirely lacking." p110

Thor Heyerdahl's The White Gods Caucasian Elements In Pre Inca Peru can be downloaded here.[24] Doug Weller talk 16:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm just being a best sources snob. Hunt is better than a professor of theater history published in TDR: The Drama Review. But look at the "2" in your quote, he's citing Moore, Thomas (April 2, 1990). "Thor Heyerdahl: Sailing Against the Current". Us News & World Report. Reading that Kon-Tiki Museum article leads me to believe you should be citing Ralling Kon-Tiki Man which i can't find online, and/or Axel Andersson A Hero for the Atomic Age, or "Resan ut, resan in: Den unge Thor Heyerdahl och det mystiska folket". fiveby(zero) 21:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Or is it that one source uses the phrase "white gods" where Andersson only says an itinerant race of white and blue-eyed culture-bearers that had journeyed from some centre in the Old World to jump-start the world’s great civilization so it's WP:OR to use the better source? fiveby(zero)

While we're here white gods needs some serious work, it's presented almost totally uncritically in wikivoice—blindlynx 15:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Fake Bible conspiracy

Added to Bible conspiracy theory by an IP, I suspect this is vandalism but since my wife has been researching David Barton of late, I just can't withstand exposure to that much idiocy in order to search for this. Mangoe (talk) 00:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Already deleted. Mangoe (talk) 01:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Emergence

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

Is the concept of "strong emergence" fringe? That's the claim in this edit, which is part of a large body of BOLD cuts to the article. On the whole I think these cuts are good, and I do not disagree with the edit in questions (because the material removed was unsourced). But a quick search did yield some other sources that do seem to support the idea that "strong emergence" sits somewhere within the mainstream, at least in the philosophical literature. The SEP, for instance, provides a helpful overview of the debate: [25]. And here is David Chalmers, one of the most respected living philosophers, arguing in its favor (it's a chapter from the Oxford UP book The Re-emergence of Emergence): [26]. Even where the concept is criticized, e.g. here: [27], it appears be treated as a more or less mainstream position, or at least as an "alternative theoretical formulation". Anyone else have insight to offer here? Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I do not think it a fringe concept at all; we have a very good example of "strong emergence" in the human brain. Roger Wolcott Sperry essentially said as much without using the precise term. There is a pretty good precis on the topic here. Then again, there are very good reasons that my livelihood depends on neither science nor mathematics, so I am of course open to the opinions of others. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

In retrospect, I may have not been as clear as I should have been - I think that philosophical debate for the concept itself is not fringe per se, and there is a robust debate on the topic, which is still in the article and I think should stay there, especially the debate with respect to the human brain. But claiming to have definitively made observations of strong emergence in physics is what I intended to characterize as fringe, which lands fairly closely to the idea of vitalism. - car chasm (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Aha, thanks for the clarification. Looks like we're all basically on the same page. Generalrelative (talk) 05:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Minor-attracted person

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Westford Knight - was this edit Undue?

[28] - I've reverted it, the editor has brought it up at Talk:Westford Knight#Why is the new statue WP:UNDUE. There are a few sources for it, [29] Note that both Scott Wolter and Jason Calavito are mentioned in the source used[30] and see also this article by Calavito where he says that the sculptor and Wolter claimed to have discovered another Hooked X (surprise!)[31]. It might be useful for editors to reply on the talk page. Doug Weller talk 15:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Genetic history of Egypt

Genetic history of Egypt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's been a recent uptick in edit warring and generalized incivility on this article and its talk page, perhaps having to do with renewed attention to the topic in response to an upcoming Netflix series on Cleopatra (see e.g. [32] and [33] for coverage). Uninvolved editors with strong working knowledge of genetics would be most helpful. Generalrelative (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@Masrialltheway Seems to have broken WP:3RR, as seen by the string of reverts he has done here.

@24.228.27.179 Casually called an user a White Supremacist on the talk page, this probably also warrants a warning or short block.

The discussion doesn't seem that bad to me, just put some warning templates on the new users' profiles and they will understand the message and start to behave. 🔥 22spears 🔥 00:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Article has always been pretty contentious, I gave up and took it off my watchlist. Doug Weller talk 08:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Principia Cybernetica

Is this a legitimate organization? I have to say I'm very confused at the mere existence of cybernetics after the 1950s, but their website seems really full of woo, such as reinventing philosophy, global brains, pantheism, explaining not just evolution, but also abiogenesis! I'm concerned about the extent to which the content on wikipedia about systems theory and cybernetics seems to mirror this site. - car chasm (talk) 05:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Some of those pages genuinely are concerning, but websites of other small professional organizations sometimes have some woo on them, so I don't think we can go exclusively on that.

My general principle here is that we should never have a page on an organization cited entirely or primarily to its own website. So, the best thing to do is to find some reliable third-party sources to see what their reputation is overall. A quick Google doesn't really turn up much, which is concerning, and makes me suspect they wouldn't have the notability to survive AFD. Loki (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Fringe material in Pre-Columbian transoceanic contact theories

Looks like this edit[34] added a lot of fringe material relying on dubious sources. I've dealt with a little bit but it needs more and I don't have time right now. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, it should be the section Pre-Columbian transoceanic contact theories#Claims of pre-Columbian contact with Christian voyagers.

2007 Alderney UFO sighting

2007 Alderney UFO sighting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

jps (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually, you know what?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Alderney UFO sighting.

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

UFO sightings in South Africa

UFO sightings in South Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFO sightings in Thailand

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFO sightings in Thailand.

Sigh.

jps (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Lancet MMR autism fraud

• Lancet MMR autism fraud (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• MMR vaccine and autism (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Recent high some-say-this-some-say-that activity. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah I see its time for the annual anti-vax 'Wakefield totes is not a giant fraudypants' cycle. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Giants

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

• Giant skeletons (United States) (Template:Did you know nominations/Giant skeletons (United States))
• Giantology (Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Giantology)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I took a look at Giant skeletons (United States), and as others have mentioned, it seems to be mostly sourced to poor quality tabloids or newspapers. It doesn't look like it was seriously discussed in high quality sources. With that problem, it's looking like it may be an AfD candidate if not major pruning. Curious what others think here. KoA (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with thinking of Giant skeletons (United States) as a possible AfD candidate. Its notability is certainly questionable in that it lacks high quality sources. Summarizing old tabloid and newspaper articles does not give the topic notability. Maybe change the title and remove all outdated material sourced to articles written between 1868 and 2020. Wikipedia is not a repository for indiscriminate information. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Category:Pathological science has been nominated for discussion

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