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

Categories for discussion

• 15 May 2024 – Category:Roswell incident in fiction (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Doniago (t · c); see discussion
• 15 May 2024 – Category:Alien abduction in novels (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Doniago (t · c); see discussion
• 15 May 2024 – Category:Alien abduction films (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Doniago (t · c); see 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

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

Rudolf Steiner

• Rudolf Steiner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Complaint on the Talk page: This article presents Steiner's work as wildly accepted and does not ground it in a wider scientific or philosophical contexts where his work has largely been dismissed

I must say that complaint has merit. The Reception section contains nothing about his adherence to - at the time already - obsolete scientific ideas and all the crazy stuff based on his clairvoyance, and the "Judaism" part is a mix of reception of other ideas by him and his ideas by others - including Nazis. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Great catch. Important for us to fix this, given Steiner's ongoing reach in 21st century education. Feoffer (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• Relatedly, just glanced at the opening of Waldorf education, which still reads like a brochure. Alexbrn (talk) 06:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  Same goes for Biodynamic agriculture (though it does have a 'Reception' section that is critical of the whole thing). I suspect the majority of the articles in the Anthroposophy Category will have similar problems but i have the same depth of understanding of agriculture and education as i do of philosophy so i can't really say with certainty—blindlynx 19:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  Anthroposophic medicine seems to be more or less OK, but Anthroposophy suffers from the same problem. BTW, if you write [[Category:Anthroposophy]], this page is added to the category, but [[:Category:Anthroposophy]] links to it. I corrected your link. Maybe you already knew how to do it; I forget it sometimes too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  thanks! i had no idea. Comparing anthroposophic medicine to the section on it in the Steiner article is a big difference. Would copying the lede into the Steiner article be appropriate?—blindlynx 22:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  I think copying longer text is not appropriate, though I am not sure about the exact reasons. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  Fair, well either way the article needs to be much clearer that the overwhelming majority of his work is fringe. I'll try to up add some stuff in when i get some free time. But any help and guidance would be appreciated—blindlynx 20:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• I just wanted to drop a line here and say this entire thing, this entire family of articles, is heavily heavily patrolled by a small number of Anthroposophy-friendly and especially Waldorf school-friendly editors. I waded into the deep end on this when I first started editing 7 years ago, and got hit with a stick pretty sharply. Some accused me of being a sock puppet, others said I ran anti-waldorf websites, etc. etc. I would tell anyone and everyone, this article and the entire family of articles needs more eyes. It needs more people who are willing to question "in-universe" sources and subtle POV. There's a lot of omission in these, especially about Steiner's views on race, disability, intelligence, vaccines, etc.
  What happens is, in broad strokes, a few skeptical/neutral editors will notice how wildly promotional these articles are, and attempt to fix it. One or two pro-Steiner editors will notice, and push back at every single change. Even if you push through some changes, you will eventually move on and go to other articles and worry about them. Meanwhile, the pro-Steiner editors will slowly work the article back to their POV. It has been like this for years, and I've seen this cycle repeat several times. The issue, above all, is that there is a huge huge dearth of quality sources. And even more than that, Steiner really promoted higher education and formalization of his wack-a-doodle ideas about spiritualism. So the editors who are Pro-Steiner are actually very well-educated and really understand the wikipedia game. They will act extremely formal and polite, while creating POV problems in every article. This is also why few of these pro-Steiner editors have ever been TBAN'd or sanctioned. I would caution everyone to tread carefully, but please involve yourself in these. These articles desperately need neutral editors. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  Already facing a revert of my first edit on Anthroposophy with a strange excuse. I left a message on the article's talk page, —PaleoNeonate – 00:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  Yup, Martin Heidegger was a mainstream philosopher and far more known and studied than Steiner, but the Heidegger article does not dodge the fact and he was a member of the Nazi Party (to be sure, Steiner wasn't their member), nor that certain philosophers argue that Heidegger's philosophy is bunk. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  It seems like the problem is there is basically no good research into this so the bar for what's a wp:rs is lower than it should be—blindlynx 21:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a ton of good research out there, as an administrator noted long ago, and that's why the vast majority of the citations are to verifiable sources from outside the anthroposophic/Waldorf movement. (The exceptions are exclusively used for facts (numbers of institutions, etc.) that are acceptable under WP:SELFSOURCE.)

Interesting that the recent storm of criticism of the article's text is itself not citing verifiable sources. Clean Copy^talk 01:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

There is little research into this pseudoscience because it is nonsense, the article should not read like his views are a legitimate alternative to actual science. From WP:PARITY Fringe views are properly excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are rarely if ever included by reliable sources on those subjects—blindlynx 16:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I have retracted the claim that Steiner wasn't a Nazi. WP:RS therefore: Taverne, Dick (2006). The March of Unreason: Science, Democracy, and the New Fundamentalism. OUP Oxford. p. 28. ISBN 978-0-19-157861-8. Retrieved 3 February 2022. Rudolf Steiner joined the Nazi party in its early days tgeorgescu (talk) 04:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• I mostly stick to agriculture science topics, but I'll admit I never went directly to Steiner's page before. There is so much fringe stuff in organic subjects that the behavior |Shibbolethink mentioned doesn't surprise me, but I didn't realize there was that much of a walled garden going on. Usually editors like that tend to bleed into anti-GMO topics, so it looks like this went under the radar.

As a reminder the GMO discretionary sanctions would apply to these subjects, namely the agricultural chemicals part of it. The commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed part was meant to cover things like pesticides, organic, etc. where a lot of pseudoscience comes up. More at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Discretionary_Sanctions. Plus, there's always the straight up pseudoscience DS too. KoA (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit war

Please see [1] and [2].

Clean Copy and 23mason have already been warned of discretionary sanctions for pseudoscience and alternative medicine. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The citation was to a book page, the text of which directly contradicted the claim. Did the editor even read the citation he linked to? And one revert doth not an edit war make. Clean Copy^talk 01:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppenheimer, Todd (2007). The Flickering Mind: Saving Education from the False Promise of Technology. Random House Publishing Group. p. 384. ISBN 978-0-307-43221-6. Retrieved 31 January 2022. In Dugan's view, Steiner's theories are simply "cult pseudoscience". tgeorgescu (talk) 03:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Did you really write the words "peddler of rank pseudoscience" in an article? I shouldn't have to explain why that's a violation of WP:EPSTYLE. The words "peddler" and "rank" should never appear in an encyclopedia article unless it's part of a quote. Mlb96 (talk) 09:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mlb96: I am open to negotiating the wording. I am more concerned about the difference between "described as pseudoscientific" and "are pseudoscientific". According to WP:PSCI and WP:YESPOV I had the idea that it should be stated in the voice of Wikipedia that he was a pseudoscientist. I mean from Martin Gardner and Anthony Storr to contemporary debunkers, there is no doubt about it: he really was a pseudoscientist.

Anyway, that's not the edit warring I had reported, I had reported the wholesale deletion of the claim that Rudolf Steiner was a pseudoscientist. Since that's against the website policy WP:PSCI. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but you repeatedly reverted any attempts to moderate the language. Clean Copy^talk 12:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I use very clear language, sometimes exceedingly so. I have argued politely against changing it to "described as", but I did not revert it. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

My apologies; I do see that the text "His ideas have been described as pseudoscientific" still stands; you indeed did not revert. Clean Copy^talk 11:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Relatedly

Just came across:

• List of works on Waldorf education (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Including a link to Amazon "reviews". Yikes. Alexbrn (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

That is a straightforward list of works that was originally on the Waldorf education page and was way too long for that article. I moved it to its own article to lift the weight off the main article and have had little to do with it since. Is this list itself in any way problematic?

That review of a work by Gilbert Childs (BTW: no relation to me) obviously doesn't belong there. It was added here (diff). It should be removed. Clean Copy^talk 20:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know. Maybe just core policy like WP:NOT. A list of obscure/fringe books without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit is not what the Project wants. Looks like some self-citation going on too. Nice. Alexbrn (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Dysgenics

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

Thoughts on how to improve this article? As it stands, it's sourced entirely to dictionaries and primary sources, drawing heavily on the work of WP:PROFRINGE author Richard Lynn.

It seems to me that the topic is notable (and it withstood two AfDs in the past [3] [4]). A search on Google Scholar, for instance, yields numerous genetic studies on fruit flies, etc., along with a heavy sprinkling of pseudo-academic dross by the likes of Lynn. But as it stands almost nothing in the article appears to meet our standards for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The only exception seems to be the “In fiction” section. Generalrelative (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The “Further reading” section does contain at least one relevant scientific ref, [5], which speaks to the lack of evidence for dysgenics in the US population. The key takeaway from that study is that increases in assortative mating at the phenotypic level for education are not matched at the genotypic level. Perhaps the whole idea of dysgenics at the level of human population groups is FRINGE? Does anyone know of mainstream contemporary geneticists who have argued otherwise? If not, perhaps this article needs to be rewritten either to focus on fruit flies or else to conform with WP:FRIND. Generalrelative (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Further digging shows that there is a substantial difference between the terms dysgenesis and dysgenics, which I hadn't realized. The former is indeed a legitimate scientific concept, including with regard to humans (see e.g. [6], [7], [8], [9] and [10]), but that shouldn't be confused with evidence of scientific support for the idea of dysgenics in humans. Generalrelative (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

FYI, I've begun making WP:BOLD changes. If anyone thinks I'm going too far, I invite you to revert and discuss. Generalrelative (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The sources in the article are out of date. Contrary to what you suggest above, dysgenics was never fringe, at least for traits like intelligence, for which a mechanism is apparent. Given the well documented and straightforwardly causal negative effect of (number of years of) education on female fertility the onus has been on those claiming dysgenics does not occur, to provide evidence. Under modern conditions, dysgenic fertility for IQ was widely assumed to be obviously true, and tests with polygenic scores detect it. See e.g. https://www.pnas.org/content/114/5/E727 that used the national genetic registry in Iceland.

The study you cited as evidence against dysgenics, isn't; it just shows that assortative mating is not intensifying, and that patterns are weak or nonexistent if you (inappropriately) condition on marriage, which is itself increasingly correlated to intelligence. The pattern of interest for dysgenics is in the whole population not the shifting target of married couples. Sesquivalent (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

"Corporate needs you to find the difference between dysgenics and eugenics." ... theyrethesamepicture.jpg.

I agree that WP:FRIND is key. As with all the other race and IQ pages, every source should explicitly and unambiguously discuss the topic. Citing studies as examples is tricky. It's not fair to expect editors to select specific studies as examples for or against "dysgenics". For one, it would be asking for original research. It's also WP:PROFRINGE issues, as it would be using tangentially related sources to artificially inflate the level of debate on this specific fringe concept. We absolutely need to summarize the consensus on this issue, but if the only way to do this is to dip into primary sources, that seems like maybe an indication we should merge it with eugenics where it can be better contextualized.

The lack of WP:IS at Richard Lynn#Dysgenics and eugenics, in comparison to that section's length, is interesting. Who is actually talking about "dysgenics", and why? Grayfell (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely, —PaleoNeonate – 05:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

There are secondary sources that discuss this effect. Here are a few:

• Ahmad, S. I. (2017). Aging: Exploring a Complex Phenomenon. United Kingdom: CRC Press. (Chapter 7) "As an aside, data collected by Beauchamp (2016) give a measure of the difference between the action of natural selection when only Darwinian fitness is considered and when cultural practices are also included. [...] Individuals with higher EA (more years of school) or individuals with the genomic background favoring higher EA had reduced reproductive fitness (fewer lifetime children). Beauchamp (2016) estimated that selection directed toward increasing reproductive fitness would result in a decrease in EA of 1.5 months per generation. The cost of enhancing Darwinian fitness was reduced education attainment. However, Americans born between 1876 and 1951 achieved a mean level of EA of two years per generation. In reality, EA was not driven by selection acting on reproductive fitness but by gene–culture coevolution."

• Kondrashov, A. S. (2017). Crumbling Genome: The Impact of Deleterious Mutations on Humans. Germany: Wiley. (Chapter 11) "It seems, however, that Industrialization did produce some important changes in the direction of selection. A number of studies detected ongoing selection for lower general intelligence. Similarly, a recent study demonstrated that alleles which are associated with more years of education currently reduce fitness. Such selection must be a very recent phenomenon, because high intelligence is a fragile adaptation that must have been protected by selection until very recently. Unfortunately, studies of selection at the level of phenotypes depend on direct data on phenotypes and, thus, cannot be extended deep into the past. Selection on traits that can be inferred from records of births, marriages, and deaths can be studied since late Preindustrial times, and selection on intelligence and many other traits only since the 20th century. In this respect, our knowledge of genotype‐ and phenotype‐level properties of selection is complementary. Thus, we cannot rule out a possibility that contemporary selection is very different from that before the Industrial Revolution. If so, many alleles identified as mildly deleterious by the population genetic data may, in fact, increase fitness currently."

• Tropf, F. C., Mills, M. C., Barban, N. (2020). An Introduction to Statistical Genetic Data Analysis. United Kingdom: MIT Press. (Chapter 3) Page 65 contains a detailed description of studies about dysgenic trends in intelligence and their limitations (it's too long to quote the entire thing).

• Harden, K.P., Koellinger, P.D. Using genetics for social science. Nat Hum Behav 4, 567–576 (2020). "One active and politically sensitive area of research is the relationship between education and fertility. Genetic variants associated with education are also associated with a lower number of children born, resulting in declines in the average EA PGS in the 20th century."

• Barbey, A. K., Richard J. Haier, R. J., & Karama, S. (2021). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence and Cognitive Neuroscience. United States: Cambridge University Press. (Chapter 17). "Using this method, Beauchamp (2016) found a negative association between EduYears PGS and LRS in a sample of ∼20,000 Americans, implying that natural selection is slowly favoring lower educational attainment at a rate of what amounts to −1.5 months of education per generation. Kong et al. (2018) presented corroborating evidence from a study of ∼100,000 Icelanders, which found EduYears PGS to be associated with delayed reproduction and fewer children overall. From this, they extrapolated that the mean EduYears PGS is declining at ∼0.01 standard units per decade. In other words, evolution does seem to be currently operating on human intelligence, but in the opposite direction from that which prevailed in the deep evolutionary past."

These are the types of sources (literature reviews and textbooks) that we ought to be using to determine the nature of academic consensus. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Some of the sources are interesting, but also adding a link to WP:RS/AC: to express statements about the consensus sources that also do must be used. —PaleoNeonate – 07:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Bechor Zvi Aminoff

Can some people here take a look at Bechor Zvi Aminoff, Aminoff Suffering Syndrome and Aminoff Entropy definition of Human Happiness and Suffering. It all seems extremely fringey to me, and probably not notable at all, but I might be missing something so I prefered to ask here instead of tagging for deletion immediately. Apart from the lack of independent references, warning bells included "He was awarded an Honorary Doctor degree of the Yorker International University" ("a for-profit unaccredited institution": "The institution has no professors and, on the basis of life experiences, issues Master's degrees and even PhDs in several fields.") and " awarded a Research Professor Degree from the International Biographical Centre, Cambridge, England." ("Government consumer advocates have described it as a "scam"[3] or as "pretty tacky".", "The International Biographical Centre creates "awards" and offers them widely. In 2004, an award was said to cost the recipient US$495 or £295,") Fram (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

At a bare minimum, there doesn't need to be 3 separate articles about this.

From a quick check, I can't find anyone other than Aminoff discussing the syndrome, let alone journal reviews - not a good sign for WP:FRINGE. The entropy thing is... bordering on WP:Complete bollocks. It's certainly not notable. I'm not great at checking notability for biographies, but absolutely there's some red flags. You probably already know, but the article is also affected by the notability guideline for academics - although I wouldn't say there's any credible claim of significance against those anyway. --Xurizuri (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll wait a bit to see if someone else here chimes in, and otherwise I'll put the three articles up for deletion, and we'll see what happens. Fram (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Fram: Aminoff Entropy definition of Human Happiness and Suffering was deleted at the AfD you opened. Nobody else responded to this thread, so you can bring the remaining two articles to AfD as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

"Aminoff Suffering Syndrome" was deleted. I prod'ed the article on Aminoff himself, since the full rigmarole of an AfD seemed overkill for an abandoned page. XOR'easter (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Michael Cremo

New editor plans to add authors supporting him.[11] Doug Weller talk 17:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

If 'new editor' does, we can look into it. I don't think there's much point in starting a new thread at WP:FTN every time a new purveyor of woo turns up on an article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

As I don't watch my watchlist that much, I thought it might be useful to mention it. If this is a misuse of this board, apologies. Doug Weller talk 17:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I watchlist this board to keep a tab on nuts involved with Hindu Nationalism etc. and this thread benefited me. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

So exactly what is the problem with a new editor adding sourced material to an article?BRealAlways (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The problem is the "supporting him" part. Adding WP:FRINGE sources (every pro-Cremo source is necessarily fringe) may keel the article over and turn it into a wackaloonfest. So, people should take care that does not happen. That is what this noticeboard is for: summoning people who can do that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

COVID pandemic in China

More attention is needed on COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China where a couple of editors are outright censoring the fact that China deliberately underreported the covid-19 statistics despite the sentence being standing for 2 years.

They are relying on a study largely written by Chinese employees who work under Chinese government.

The discussion can be seen at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China#The “2021 academic study”. TolWol56 (talk) 06:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

PMID:33627311 is primary research and so not WP:MEDRS. The Chinese origin of the source which addresses "Chinese" issues is also a documented problem, which is why (e.g.) Wikipedia avoids Chinese research on TCM. AIUI COVID-related research in China requires govt clearance prior to submission for publication. Alexbrn (talk) 08:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Somewhat of a related dispute going on at Talk:Chinese government response to COVID-19#Zero-COVID. Specifically we're wondering if Zhong Nanshan's research is unsuitable. ––FormalDude talk 09:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

This "China fudged their COVID statistics" issue reminds me of the COVID-19 origins issue. Scientific consensus says one thing, the mainstream media says another, and it confuses people. I'd argue that we must always go with the scientific consensus (relevant policies: WP:SOURCETYPES, WP:MEDRS), and I think most experienced editors would agree. However sometimes it can be challenging to convince newer editors of this. I think Thucydides411 lays it out very nicely in this post, and I appreciate them taking the time to do the research and type everything out on multiple talk pages. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see it as anything more than whitewashing and betrayal towards WP:RS that the CCP controlled studies are not reliable sources, let alone using them to dispute the mainstream sources. TolWol56 (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I think you stumbled over too many negations here: don't, more than, not reliable. Surely you mean "it is whitewashing that the CCP controlled studies are used as reliable sources"? And when you say "mainstream", you mean "US mainstream journalism" and not "worldwide scientific mainstream", right?

The scientific mainstream is a stronger source than the journalistic one, so, no whitewashing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

But the research in question is meant to whitewash CCP's handling of Covid-19 thus it is not WP:RS. TolWol56 (talk) 10:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"Meant"? So you can divine the intention behind research? Do you use tea leaves for that, or horoscopes, or I Ching?

Sources are not defined as reliable or unreliable by checking whether you agree or disagree with what they say. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

See WP:IRS. It is not possible to provide a fact based research if the study is CCP controlled. Unless you want to say that TCM is wholly scientific, you should apply same standards for this faulty research as well. TolWol56 (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:INDEPENDENT is evaluated separately from WP:RELIABLE. A source not being independent does not automatically make it unreliable, though it sometimes makes it unsuitable for Wikipedia. ––FormalDude talk 12:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, "See WP:IRS" is something you tell a newbie who has never heard of reliable sources. RS has about 6000 words, and I will not check each one to find out if it says something related to what you say. And you seem to want to duplicate the Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China discussion here, which would be inefficient. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

That is how content dispute is resolved. See WP:DR. TolWol56 (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Please quote the part of WP:RS that talks about CCP controlled studies and fact based research.

Please quote the part of WP:OR that says content disputes are resolved by having similar conversations in two places and by linking a whole giant guideline without quoting the part relevant to the question at hand. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:OR? I said WP:DR. Noticeboards are used for finding more views. TolWol56 (talk) 05:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Then, please quote the part of WP:DR that says content disputes are resolved by having similar conversations in two places and which overrides the sentence in the lede saying, Discussions can be advertised to noticeboards and WikiProjects to receive participation from interested uninvolved editors.

And please quote the part of WP:DR that says content disputes are resolved by linking a whole giant guideline without quoting the part relevant to the question at hand.

Face it: Your reasoning was bad, and you can't defend it, so you are deflecting. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• WP:CON says Posting a neutrally worded notice of the dispute on applicable noticeboards will make the dispute more visible to other editors who may have worthwhile opinions. I commend TolWol56 for bringing this dispute here and getting valuable feedback. China has also promoted TCM as a COVID-19 treatment [12], and even outlawed any criticism of it [13], which is why we avoid Chinese research on such subjects. CutePeach (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  It seems to have been a draft (a source confirming that it's official and is applied would be more useful), but that's also another topic and WP relies on WP:MEDRS for biomedical claims while allowing WP:PARITY for the criticism of obvious pseudoscience anyway. The current Indian government is known for promoting Ayurveda, it doesn't mean that by extension MEDRS involving Indian scientists should systematically be rejected... —PaleoNeonate – 22:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• It appears yet another page has been forum shopped by certain editors, as stated on numerous other pages, the studies in question are reliable and peer reviewed, and peer review is a reliable process. It is possible for china to both have censorship and for certain studies to be reliable, please stop bringing this discussion to a now 6th(?) page Xoltered (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• @Thucydides411, Mx. Granger, Novem Linguae, and Davide King: I will ping these people as they need to know discussion is happening here as well as they are involved in at least one of the numerous duplicates (sorry for not doing the suggestion, Novem, this seemed simpler to me) Xoltered (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  No worries. I suggested using {{Please see}} to help you stay out of trouble for violating the WP:CANVASS rule. Also consider turning on your email. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• This does feel a bit like forum shopping to me. On the content issue, my view is that for epidemiological information, peer-reviewed scientific studies are good sources for us to rely on. The BMJ is a respected peer-reviewed medical journal and therefore a good source for this topic area, especially compared to early media speculation. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• "They are relying on a study largely written by Chinese employees who work under Chinese government. ... But the research in question is meant to whitewash CCP's handling of Covid-19 thus it is not WP:RS." This does rings a few alarm bells. It is assuming too much about someone's nationality and discounting them, rather than simply being more cautious and attribute until fabrication claims are confirmed. FormalDude is correct: "WP:INDEPENDENT is evaluated separately from WP:RELIABLE. A source not being independent does not automatically make it unreliable, though it sometimes makes it unsuitable for Wikipedia." And since we are using Western publications—the BJM, Nature—not Chinese publications, what is the issue other than their nationalities? It is getting close to conspiring and assuming too much, and bordering on xenophobia, even if I that is not the intent. It does look like "Right Great Wrongs" — if there is anything that appear to whitewash CCP's handling of COVID-19, it is not a reliable source, which is how conspiracy theories and misinformation thrives; even a broken clock is right twice a day, and "[i]t is both the case that high quality research on Covid-19 has been done in China that does not raise alarm bells and there is evidence of pressure from the government that does. I think there is a need for increased caution, but sources need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis." Here, Jumpytoo gave a good analysis of those high-quality news outlets, and they either tell a different story or do not actually rely on experts in the field to support the statement in wikivoice. "News outlets initially reported concerns that the Chinese government under-reported the extent of infections and deaths" would indeed be a more accurate and better summary, though I would not give all of them the same weight; some of it are much better than others. Davide King (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• This thing seems to have three layers to it.

1. The core POV dispute, all wrapped up in Chinese international (and internal) politics.

2. The source-quality debate of reliability and independence of sources as they relate to state-control (especially, the balance between potential censorship of scientists by nation states, versus peer-review in publications not subject to state censorship).

3. The return of the "is this topic WP:BMI subject to WP:MEDRS" question.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure it's possible to process one layer at a time. And anywhere on the continuum from a generalized to specific resolution seems like it'll be tricky and contentious. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Mass formation

This new article, Mass formation, born out of a discussion here, seems to argue that supporters of COVID vaccination are a angry mob who are not acting rationally. Thoughts? - MrOllie (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I reverted to the redirect to Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego. Nearly the entire article was relating to fringe claims by Mattias Desmet, and there's apparently also a redirect discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_January_8#Mass_formation_psychosis without a mention on the page to send it to Robert W. Malone. Seemed like a pretty simple WP:COATRACK to treat the COVID-related claims as the primary thrust of the article. Personally, if there's a discussion to be had, it's probably best to point to COVID-19 misinformation. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I got into a tiff at Robert W. Malone with a user wanting to include a somewhat long quote about this very thing. jps (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

To wit: [14]. jps (talk) 03:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Wow, he really went full Godwin's Law? Bakkster Man (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

That has occurred to me too. Of course, none of the reliable sources spreading Malone's new "theory" seem to have noticed this redflag indicator. I have a hard time imagining Anthony Fauci as having fascist tendencies, but maybe I'm just stuck in my mass formation psychosis bubble, right? jps (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

And it seems to be confusing a monumental international effort to address a public health emergency with mere groupthink, a moral panic, or similar... —PaleoNeonate – 06:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

And this has gotten dragged into the mess: Draft:Mattias Desmet jps (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I almost filed an edit warring report, one more chance (and I may not have to do it myself)... —PaleoNeonate – 06:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Hiding an off-topic discussion is labeled "disruptive editing": [15]. jps (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, awesome, found the people I'm looking for. It was puzzling me why your actions seem to be so coordinated. Anyways, it's not a long quote, and it's barely even a theory in the sense that Malone's language can't really be proven or disproven (and also happened to be presented on an entertainment talk show). It was off-hand conjecture which happened to use intellectual phrasing. That's not equivalent to a fringe theory. The quote in question is noteworthy because it involves a neologism ('mass formation psychosis') that's been reprinted extensively in secondary publications. I'm super open to people contextualizing it with third-party commentary and hope someone will. My point is that it's clear from existing coverage of the interview that the quote is the primarily noteworthy asset from that event and its inclusion is necessary. This hasn't been contested on Talk to an extent that's produced consensus. I would absolutely appreciate it if this were worked out using the tools available to us (you know, the Talk page), so that consensus do the work.

Also, yes: single-handedly closing an on-topic thread is disruptive. There was an attempt to edit-war something that was already included in the article, and it was done in a way that ignored review or Talk consensus. To follow that up by smothering attempts at Talk consensus by unceremoniously closing threads (jps) was underhanded and unnecessary. Bleepenvoy (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems you've mistaken Wikipedia for a pub-based discussion group or a collegiate debating society. We are here to coordinate the creation of a public-facing website with a goal of providing summaries of reliable sources. We don't need to have drawn out discussions about topics that are so prima facie marginalized as to be ridiculed more-or-less without comment in WP:MAINSTREAM sources. Nor do we need to discuss endlessly about how people feel about the noteworthy-ness of this or that. You either start producing sources and explain how we can write the article based on them or you should find a topic where that is something you can do. jps (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Now that you've eloquently established that this is not your blog, act as such. Please use the Talk page instead of forcing edit wars over content you dislike. Bleepenvoy (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

You were reverted by 3 different editors, none of whom forced you to edit war. MrOllie (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm all in favor of using the talkpage according to the rules we have for how to use them! In fact, I note that since this edit, you seem to have contributed nothing to the conversation. I am still waiting for a source -- any source -- which talks about the quote you are in favor of including at length in the article-space. I am happy to see what you come up with. jps (talk) 03:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

jps, the comments were 2:1 against your change. Here's some sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Notice how they all reprint the quote and contain commentary about the quote. Bleepenvoy (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'm back from a wikibreak and I see a bunch of sources that possibly could be discussed, but notice that the discussion at the article talkpage has been archived away with the text basically the same from before, so perhaps we're okay with the current text? Or maybe not. Anyway, hello everybody! jps (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

A Guide for the Perplexed

Hello, Fringe Theories Noticeboard,

I apologize if this is an awkward choice of a first question for me to ask here, but: some months ago, I came across an article on a book, I thought the article seemed problematic, and I thought that I was too inexperienced an editor to diagnose exactly what its problems are and then fix them but, I recall thinking, the regulars at WP:FTN likely would have a better idea. I recall thinking that, if the book were fiction, one could say that the article's problem was that it appeared to be written from an MOS:INUNIVERSE perspective. I don't remember that the book was promoting any specific "known" fringe theories per se, but it seemed to be criticizing "science" as an institution and a worldview, and the article seemed to be restating the book's arguments uncritically, which seemed like the sort of thing that gets taken to FTN.

In the intervening time, I've forgotten the name of the book; I think its author was a man, British I think, whose name started with the letter 'E'. In case I do find the article again, does that sound like the sort of thing that belongs at this noticeboard?

—2d37 (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe WP:NPOVN might be more appropriate? I guess it would be helpful if I find the actual article again. —2d37 (talk) 03:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The Brit who comes immediately to mind is Rupert Sheldrake, but there are doubtless others who have argued similarly. jps (talk) 04:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Some quick sleuthing also reveals A Guide for the Perplexed which has many of the features you identified, though it doesn't seem completely in-universe. jps (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

And, yes, both of these subjects are relevant to this noticeboard. jps (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

If it was Edzard Ernst, then he is now very much a sceptical writer. His name starts with an E and he has worked in Britain, but I don't see which article you might mean. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

At the top of noticeboards are links to archive pages along with a search box. If these suggestions were not the book you are looking for, it may be possible to eventually find it again there. —PaleoNeonate – 06:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, jps, it was A Guide for the Perplexed, most likely in some version between Special:Permalink/938572991 and Special:Permalink/1021661539. (I seem to recall the version I read having the MOS:YOU that was removed in Special:Diff/1027044266, though that may be déjà-vu.)

It seems to me that the bulk of the article, everything in the open interval between the introduction and the "Reviews" section, simply gives the non-fiction equivalent of a plot summary, restating the author's message, with much detail and a lack of secondary sourcing (while there are thirteen citations to a review of the book, mostly for quotations, my Control-F doesn't seem to show the review containing any of the quotations for which it was cited). While this is all explicitly or implicitly attributed to the author, some said-bookisms are used that imply agreement with the author's arguments, e.g. (from strongest to weakest):

• Schumacher points out that though we can recognize life and destroy it, we can't create it.
• Schumacher explains that the bodily senses are adequate for perceiving inanimate matter; but we need 'intellectual' senses for other levels.
• Schumacher notes that within philosophy there is no field in more disarray than ethics.

While it seems problematic to me to imply that the author is right with no secondary sourcing, I see this as more of a nitpick compared to the bigger picture: that the article presents the book's arguments extensively without putting them in the context of their reception, whatever that might have been. In terms of journalistic ethics (e.g. [16][17]), the article fails to give what it criticizes as "materialistic scientism" a chance to respond to the criticism; in terms of Wikipedia policy, the article seems to pay little or no attention to WP:NPOV, especially given that it seems to present the book as opposing mainstream thought in science and in society at large. I pass no judgement on the book's claimed conclusions, but the article's presentation seems to me altogether too credulous or uncritical for Wikipedia's intended (N)POV. Given all that, should I move this to WP:NPOVN? (Does the venue even really matter?)

As for "known" fringe theories per se, I'm still not sure whether there any here. I see two things that might count, though I don't think I'm experienced enough to say whether they're fringe theories per se:

• Criticizing 'science' for not viewing the universe as a great chain of being: For Schumacher one of science's major mistakes has been rejecting the traditional philosophical and religious view that the universe is a hierarchy of being. Schumacher makes a restatement of the traditional chain of being. (Special:Permalink/1027048351 § Levels of being)
• Criticizing the acceptance of evolution by natural selection as an explanation for the development of consciousness, self-awareness, language, social institutions and the origin of life itself (Special:Permalink/1027048351 § Evolutionism)

Ultimately, while clearly tangent to science, this is philosophy, and I've never been comfortable with philosophy. If the article does need to be cleaned up, maybe I can help (no promises! at all!), but I wouldn't know where to start, besides leaving this note here. I guess a second step would be to check whether there's a WP:WikiProject Philosophy (okay, yes, that's a bluelink) and to leave a note there (I would, but I figure it would be more polite to wait to see whether this thread is to be moved).

—2d37 (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

It's an old book that may not be getting a lot of recent attention but I think that your assessment includes fair criticism, —PaleoNeonate – 23:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I want my money back; I came here expecting Maimonides. Aside from that, cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

If no-one has objections by, say, the end of the month, I guess I'll move this thread to NPOVN and notify that WikiProject. —2d37 (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I guess what bothers me most about the article is the "Levels of being" section and how it seems to be implying (1) that life, consciousness and self-consciousness ultimately cannot be explained by science-as-we-know-it and, thus, (2) the existence of souls, or some such thing, to account for his posited discontinuities. I don't mean I would want Soul to say "souls aren't real!", but I'm uncomfortable with the article's seemingly implying some such seemingly unfalsifiable concept is real (or, rather, is needed to explain reality) either — but enough of my own POV. I don't know where (if at all) #1 should fall on the spectrum of fringe theories if considered as science, let alone as philosophy. I'm more confident that #2 is undesired in wikivoice (or de-facto wikivoice — even if the claims are attributed to the author, his POV and the article's POV seem indistinct). —2d37 (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, a variant of god of the gaps argument, —PaleoNeonate – 00:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Lynne Finney and Martha Beck

• Lynne Finney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Martha Beck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Another repressed memories thing. As these are fringe, the articles should written accordingly. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I've removed a bit from the Finney article, as it was in direct contradiction to the source, then I nominated it for deletion, as she doesn't seem notable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm also looking to rewrite the whole section on her book and the controversy, cutting out all the primary and SPS stuff. NYT says Recovered memory, in which a suppressed traumatic incident is recalled years later, has been one of the most disputed topics among mental-health professionals in the last 15 years. The American Psychological Association states that while "there is a consensus among memory researchers and clinicians that most people who were sexually abused as children remember all or part of what happened to them," most leaders in the field also agree "that although it is a rare occurrence, a memory of early childhood abuse that has been forgotten can be remembered later." Would language along those lines be sufficient to get across the fringeyness of recovered memories? Since it's in the source, I can just quote the APA without running afoul of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

That section is rewritten, and makes it clear the controversy was about the allegations of sexual abuse, as well as the recovered memories. I excised all the random cruft and primary/sps back and forth. Hob Gadling, does that address any fringe concerns? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

It's better now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Lynne Finney was also deleted. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Deaths of anti-vaccine advocates from COVID-19

New article from 6 Jan, of interest to this noticeboard:

• Deaths of anti-vaccine advocates from COVID-19 (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Alexbrn (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• Well, I have no enthusiasm for such an article. But it's better than the fucking lists. Shoutout to PaleoNeonate, who noted those AfD's at the new article's talkpage. Bishonen | tålk 21:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC).
  • Agree it's of questionable worth/taste. But if it's to exist it probably needs to be done diligently. The whole thing smells a bit WP:SYNTHetic. Alexbrn (talk) 06:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• • • It also smells of assuming that the United States is the entire world, though that is arguably one of its lesser issues. Delete per WP:NASTYAROMA. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

      That aroma is the smell coming out of the ground from all the grave dancing. Just because some media revels in it doesn't mean we have to. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

      • I'd like to quote a world champion athlete at this point - "it’s okay to be happy, even celebrate, when bad people die". This quote is extant on the project atm, though I personally dont agree with it. I dont have any problem pointing out all the "bad people" via wiki articles, but I'm not sure that even the circumspect way this is done on this article is acceptable. While we dont name the alleged miscreants (Translation - the dead covid deniers) in the text of the article, it is the first thing to be seen in the references. This has an "SPOV" such as can be found on Rationalwiki, and while I personally find this to be ironically wonderful, I would certainly go with a consensus feeling that this sort of thing just isn't cricket. -Roxy the dog. wooF 12:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
        • If we're at the point that we can't cover a topic that is well-covered in a dozen reliable sources because those sources name people whose feelings we don't want hurt, then we are no longer much of an encyclopedia. I took care to invite input from editors who had previously opposed having the "list" articles on this topic. Here's a source I didn't include, by the way – a CNN interview with a journalist who wrote an article specifically lauding gravedancing, and is defending his position on the topic. BD2412 T 17:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
          • I'm not sure these "Deaths" as a group are a topic in RS; that the first sentence (unsourced) of the article is SYNTH is telling. And there's a BLP angle. Not sure why you omitted the mockery video if you approve the article - courage of convictions? Alexbrn (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

            Yeah I would tentatively support an AfD. I think this is making a phenomenon out of a bunch of independent events which are all fodder for quick click-bait journalism. I don't think enough RSes about this actual "phenomenon" exist to make this notable. There are maybe one or two, though. I think if we can find enough sources which discuss the phenomenon instead of individual deaths, then this is clearly justifiable as an article. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

            • @Alexbrn: I prefer not to put citations in the lede for content reflected in the body, but I have added them there to assuage your concern. I'm not sure how a "BLP angle" can apply when no people, living or dead, are named in the article (unless, I suppose, you count the fact that the "Herman Cain Award" discussed in the sources is named after a person). I did not include the mockery video because I prefer to reference print sources, and it is duplicative of the source in the article: Richman, Jackson (January 10, 2022). "LA Times Under Fire For Column on Mocking Deaths of Anti-Vaxxers". Mediaite. BD2412 T 17:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I have to admit to being torn, on the one had it is in bad taste and does smack of grave dancing. But on the other, if people read it and think "these people did not know what they are talking about, I will no longer listen" I think we have done that person a variable service. Very much unsure how to approach this isdea.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
• I would definitely say RECENTISM applies. If high quality sources are still commenting on this in a year, I might change my mind… but at the moment I have to agree that such a list is inappropriate for WP. Blueboar (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Blueboar: What "list"? The article specifically avoids listing names. I get the impression people are commenting on this without reading the article, or looking at the sources. BD2412 T 17:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
    • My bad - given the plethera of lists related to this topic that recently got sent to AFD (as well as a category at CFD) I used the wrong word. My judgement on the topic, however, stands. I think this is inappropriate for a list, an article, a category, etc... but would be willing to revisit if sources are still talking about it in a year's time. Blueboar (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Notability is not temporary, but given that there has been a steady flow of these stories for half a year, and there seems to be no sign that antivaxxers are going to withdraw from the field, there is no basis for expecting a change in the status quo of reporting of these events in any case. BD2412 T 18:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
        • Then there is no harm in waiting. Blueboar (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
        • The list... article AFD was closed as "Rough consensus is that a pure list of people who died is not appropriate for Wikipedia because of WP:OR and notability reasons, but that the topic is better covered in a prose article such as the one being prepared at Draft:Deaths of anti-vaccine advocates from COVID-19 (into which the information in this list has apparently already been integrated)". The article we're now discussing here is that one. So the prose of this article already has "rough consensus" to meet OR and N standards within the past week. DMacks (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• It seems to have a range of mainstream RS sources that discuss the actual phenomonon as a topic, not just stating individual name+cause-of-death or WP editors pulling together ideas and creating our own intersection-topic. In terms of bad taste, it's not written in a celebratory tone, and there are cites from other sources specifically commenting on the possible appearance of bad taste of the phenomonon (which again speaks to it as a known topic not synth) so it's not one-sided POV. What exactly is "fringe" about it? DMacks (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  I think the "fringe" aspect is that it is regarding a group of people who have a fringe belief. That's the connection. I would agree there are some RSes which discuss the phenomenon and not individual instances. But the article should be basically all these if possible. Because those are the actual notable thing. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Right now the information we provide might save lives, if anything validates wp:iar it is that. In a year's time it will be too late for many. We have a duty and an obligation (yes here I am invoking IAR to ignore wp:not) to help in the fight against Covidiocy and to help save lives. So I am no longer in any doubt, this list (or article either works) might help do that. As such I can see a value to it, more so than most of the rest of the content people fight so hard to keep.Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• Should we also have an article on “Vaccine advocates who died of Covid” to warn our readers that you can still get get Covid even if vaccinated? I would have the same reaction: no. Warning people is not the function of Wikipedia. WP is not the place to RIGHT GREAT WRONGS. Blueboar (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: That's a laudable aim (and "having accurate health content" is one of the few areas where WP:RGW-ishness aligns with Wikipedia policy). However, I'm not sure this article will do that. And the reasoning behind it would allow for "Deaths of people following COVID vaccination" maybe. Alexbrn (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources reporting on a phenomenon of "Vaccine advocates who died of Covid"? BD2412 T 19:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Blueboar (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Did you remember to add the redlink to your watchlist? ~ cygnis insignis 19:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

This is why I think an article may be better than a list of deaths, so we can show the difference between the two. But I am unsure that "deaths due to ignoring medical advice, whisk encouraging others to too" is quite analogous to "death despite taking medical advice, and encouraging others too". But then that might just be me.Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

One of the issues here is the implication (/assertion) that these people died "due to" being unvaccinated. Of course, the vaccines greatly reduce the risk of hospitalization and death, but we do not know in all these cases that the death was caused by not having the vaccine. This is part of the problem. It's analagous to those pushing for causal implications at Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination. Alexbrn (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Which is why we compare then (as RS have done) to say, "well the deaths among the unvaccinated are higher". Hence why article not list.Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Couldn't agree more with AndyTheGrump, ScottishFinnishRadish and Blueboar. I think the article is highly distasteful and a misjudgement. I see we got here as a compromise from deleted lists, but I don't believe this article topic falls within the scope of an encyclopedia. Policy-wise, I think WP:ADVOCACY, WP:SYNTH and WP:5P1 (various aspects of WP:NOT, e.g. not news, not journalism, not blog/directory masquerading as a prose-based article) are all viable grounds for deletion. It also seems to be tiptoeing around WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy, as some of the individuals listed in "Notable instances" (and the removed list on the talk page) are likely WP:NPFs, so WP:BLPNAME should be considered (which explicitly warns against giving weight to the brief appearance of names in news stories). I'd support an AFD and may nominate it myself if nobody else does so. Jr8825 • Talk 20:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • AFD is not cleanup. Please make a good faith effort to fix issues with the article through talk page discussion first. BD2412 T 20:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  I recognise that, however my issue isn't really with specific issues such as unnecessary coverage of non-notable individuals, which is tiptoed around in the current revision by not directly naming them in the prose. My concern is the scope of such an article. I simply don't think it's appropriate for an encyclopedia. Jr8825 • Talk 20:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps you should contact the New York Times and the Washington Post and the LA Times and Vanity Fair and The Hill, and ask them to retract their coverage of the subject, so that it no longer qualifies as a subject that meets the WP:GNG through coverage in reliable sources. BD2412 T 20:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• It's kinda amusing to me how some people here appear to have not read the article, assumed what it will say, comment about how awful it is -- and then refuse to backtrack when their assumptions are rebutted. Seriously, "distasteful" is not a reason to delete an article, if you have an issue with the article's content, then edit it? This is certainly a notable topic and people's dislike of it does not change that. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  No, distastefulness isn't a reason to delete an article, but the policies I mentioned are. Jr8825 • Talk 22:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  You have not meaningfully indicated what the violations are. Bringing up a list of things you feel like the article violates doesn't count; I can't see how after reading the article you'd conclude that it's advocating anything. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Elli: I'm happy to unpack my reasoning. I make the point about advocacy cautiously, as by extension it's an accusation the article fails NPOV. However, I believe it applies because of the article's scope – special coverage of anti-vaxxers who died of COVID can be construed as making a point given the politicisation of the issue, especially in the US, which this article is focused on. To take a crude example, anyone can die of COVID, but we don't have an article about Deaths of musicians who died of from COVID-19, even though there'll be a greater quantity of RS sourcing covering deaths of famous musicians from COVID-19.

  The 5P1 (encyclopedic content), WP:NOT and SYNTH arguments relate to each other and are about the article scope and sourcing. The majority of sources are factual reporting of individual deaths, and bringing them together under a broader title discussing the phenomenon of a group of people dying is SYNTH. The main argument in defence of the current scope is that there are a handful of news reports that make the point of linking the deaths of several right-wing US radio hosts, therefore discussing the deaths of multiple anti-vaxxers together, and a handful of long-form journalistic pieces which directly contemplate the ethics of this coverage. NOTNEWS applies to directly translating the first group of articles into an article about their subject, and the second group of articles (the long-form analysis pieces) are partly criticising this first group for linking deaths in this way and using them to make a point about the damaging impact of right-wing anti-vaxxers, which reinforces my synth/advocacy concerns about the appropriateness of us following such news coverage. Additionally, the second group of articles are soft news published in current affairs magazines or lifestyle sections of newspapers (as can be seen by their URLs) – WaPo lifestyle section, NY Times style section, NYMag, LA Times' business column. I'm not saying these articles aren't good sources, but they don't indicate this deserves dedicated encyclopedic coverage – Wikipedia isn't journalism, they're not experts, our focus is academic/factual coverage. Both groups of sources warrant inclusion in an article about media coverage of COVID or COVID in the US, not an article about anti-vaxxer deaths.

  I think our article's current focus on discussing the media coverage itself is a well-sourced but off-topic (relative to the scope implied by the article title) fig-leaf for the title scope and coverage of notable deaths, which is inappropriate. Maybe a merge can resolve my concerns about the content, by my issue with the article title (even as a redirect) will remain. Jr8825 • Talk 00:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it is fine to have an article about people who compile lists of unvaccinated people who died from COVID, because the media is covering the topic. It's not fine for a Wikipedia article to list those victims since that would violate neutrality - the article itself would be advocacy. There is btw a section about the Herman Cain Award subreddit that does the same thing. You might consider however changing the title. Perhaps "Mocking anti-vaxxers’ COVID deaths." In time, a COMMONNAME for this activity might arise. TFD (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I wrote the Wikipedia article on Mockery. Just saying. BD2412 T 04:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you, but it appears someone has gone and written 0.3% more of it than you. They really took the mick, eh? I'm sure a little copy edit will get you even though! Jr8825 • Talk 04:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I mean that I created the page. Wikipedia had no article on mockery. I made one. Everything added after that start is building on my work, which I'm glad to have editors do. The editor with that additional 0.3%, I sought out and invited to collaborate improve the page because I understood the utility of his knowledge base for that purpose. BD2412 T 05:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant that as a light-hearted joke. Jr8825 • Talk 05:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

What is the article actually about?

You know… I am not sure that I am clear on what this article is actually supposed to be about. From the title, it would appear that us is about the various deaths themselves. But on reading the lead, I would expect the article to be entitled something more along the lines of Media reaction to the deaths of Anti-vaccine advocates who died of Covid (as the lead focuses on “media reporting”). The body seems to be a “list” of media reports (albeit not in “list format”). So which is it? If the article is to survive a potential AFD nomination, it needs to more clearly define its topic and probably needs a complete overhaul once that topic is more clearly defined. Blueboar (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Well it's not just the media reaction, it is the direct phenomenon of people creating websites to track antivaxxer deaths and pouring into condolence sites to comment on the irony (all of which is reported in the sources). In other words, it is not just a media phenomenon, but a societal phenomenon. I note that it has been reported in the British Journal of Medicine (which has focused on antivaxxer responses such as accusing the doctors of intentionally killing antivaxxer patients), which is not a news cite. BD2412 T 19:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

David Oliver: When doctors are accused of faking covid experiences that article? ~ cygnis insignis 20:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that article (which is cited in our article). BD2412 T 20:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

"We’ve been accused of pushing “experimental” or “untested” vaccines with alleged high rates of harm and death—despite …" is the closest thing I see a "focus" on accusations of "intentional killing" of antivaxxers by doctors. ~ cygnis insignis 20:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I think some of the content would be better off at Media coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic#Media coverage in the United States. Jr8825 • Talk 20:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

That would be a merge proposal. However, there are two UK sources in the article right now, so it is beyond "coverage in the United States", and there are potential sources from other countries—Israel, for example, where "supporters of Shaulian have claimed that he was murdered by government authorities and that the establishment sought to silence Shaulian so that he would not disclose the truth about what they claim is a fictitious pandemic and a dangerous vaccine". BD2412 T 20:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm only seeing one British publication, The Guardian, and it's actually from guardian.com (Guardian US content, which covers US news with a separate journalistic team to British output). Am I overlooking the other UK source? I think it's a bit much extrapolating a single Haaretz news piece to a global article about the phenomenon of anti-vaxxers dying of COVID, as the title of this article implies. Jr8825 • Talk 23:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you not familiar with the British Medical Journal, i.e., The BMJ? BD2412 T 00:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The BMJ article isn't about deaths of anti-vaxxers, its use here is synth. Its subject is abuse of medical staff from COVID-19 conspiracy theorists. There's also some context here as abuse of NHS staff has been a major issue in the UK during the pandemic (e.g. [18], [19]). While the BMJ piece does mention anti-vaxxers changing their views once severely ill, there's a synth-y leap being made as it doesn't indicate they were "deathbed converts" – the writer simply doesn't indicate whether these were people who survived and changed their views, or were about to die and changed their views, and it's not possible for us to read into his comments to determine what scenarios he has in mind, since he doesn't spell it out or discuss deaths of anti-vaxxers specifically. The only mention of deaths that's relevant is "repeated accusations that doctors are falsifying death certificates of people they looked after; that most of those patients died from other conditions and only “with” covid-19; or that most people with a covid diagnosis really just had a “false positive” test, despite the clinical features we could see" – this is about COVID-19 misinformation/conspiracy theories and vaccine hesitancy, not deaths of anti-vaxxers in the way that seems to have been discussed in the US. Jr8825 • Talk 05:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the scope of the article should be about coverage of anti-vaccination advocates dying or being hospitalized with COVID-19. Glenn Beck is in the limelight for that right now, with his reliance on Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine drawing a rough response.[20] BD2412 T 05:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately that link isn't available in the UK due to GDPR. I hope to continue this discussion tomorrow (perhaps with this section on scope moved to the talk page) as a scope change might be a way forward, although I still have reservations about appropriateness and how we'd make it work. Maybe "Deaths of unvaccinated people during the COVID-19 pandemic"? – a much more widely discussed topic (i.e. references to a "pandemic of the unvaccinated"), but then how would we clearly distinguish the subject from people unable to get vaccinated because of unavailability or medical reasons, and how would we justify having that but not "deaths of vaccinated people...". Sorry for bandying about the AFD threat so quickly above, it was tactless. Perhaps we'll end up there, but I'm open to exploring ways of re-titling the content and more clearly defining the topic, or possibly merging. Jr8825 • Talk 06:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

...that said, broadening it beyond outspoken anti-vax advocates is also problematic because of stigmatisation ([21], [22]) and the medically vulnerable, irrespective of the figures. Jr8825 • Talk 06:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

That is what the first line and its three citations is about, and having that broader context solves a problem of scope. ~ cygnis insignis 21:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the concern with regards to the article is well founded. However, even as a critic of what the article could be, I think, so long as the article focuses on the phenomena and reactions to it we are avoiding grave dancing. Currently the Notable instances section concerns me. It was improved when specific names were removed but the links to the sources with names are all there. It's not clear why these are notable other than Wiki editors decided as much. That seems like a way towards creating a list (note, such a list does exist on the article talk page). Concerns related to RECENT etc are also reasonable in this case. At this time I wouldn't advocate AfD but I do think even oblique lists need to be removed and removed from the talk page. Springee (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Remove the notable cases section (which I think is inappropriate synth and possible advocacy) and the list of individuals (currently relegated to the talk page and unlikely to return) and we're left with an article with a needlessly inflammatory title which doesn't match the content, which is entirely about one aspect of COVID media coverage (one which seems heavily US-based). I fail to see how a policy-complaint article can be created with the title "Deaths of anti-vaccine advocates from COVID-19", I just don't think it's possible. Maybe a future SPINOFF article Media coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States is an appropriate article scope for where this content could belong, and the US subsection of Media coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic (I also linked this above) is a decent interim home for it. Jr8825 • Talk 23:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

This should all really be at the article talk page, not a tangentially related noticeboard. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. It's doubly odd that this is being brought up here, at a board devoted to maintaining Wikipedia's opposition to fringe views (because they are promoted by unreliable sources). Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia, and we do not support fringe views, but support RS when they expose them, and anti-vax positions are fringe views. Keeping this hidden by not covering it helps to advance fringe views.

Alexbrn, have you stopped to think of who benefits from this? You're aiding promoters of fringe views and the unreliable sources which promote them. These self-promoting people died because of their foolishness, and their deaths should not be in vain but should serve as a warning. You're trying to bury the warning. -- Valjean (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: there are some useful points here and it'd be a bit of a headache if the conversation was split up and resumed elsewhere, leaving things in two separate places. Perhaps this entire thread can be moved to the article talk page, if nobody is opposed? Jr8825 • Talk 05:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This noticeboard is not "devoted to maintaining Wikipedia's opposition to fringe views", but helping with the correct application of the relevant WP:PAGs for WP:FRINGE topics. Antivax and antivaxxers fall within the remit of WP:FRINGE so the topic is relevant here. It is naive in the extreme to think this page will "convert" people when the relevant health authorities have failed and it is not Wikipedia's purpose to WP:RGW. It's just as likely that readers will think Wikipedia editors are bunch of crass twats on a par with the antivaxxers themselves by trying to push the (somewhat over-simplified message) that these antivaxxers "died because of their foolishness" and using this as "a warning". Alexbrn (talk) 07:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean: the fact that WP, being an encyclopedia, has certain norms and standards about how to represent fringe views does not mean that it would be in any way opposed to fringe views. As pointed out by Alexbrn, since antivax is a fringe view, the article can be discussed here, if only because knowledgeable editors about it are likely to be found on this noticeboard. We should consider, however, that having such a lengthy thread about it here is probably as undue as the distasteful coverage about the topic elsewhere. But while I'm commenting spamming my new essay here anyway: I tend to agree that since reliable sources cover the coverage of antivaxxers dying of COVID-19, we have secondary sources, and it may be fair to have an article on it per WP:GNG. Then again, I'm pretty sure that it won't pass the ten-year test, and I do tend to think that fundamentally unencyclopedic articles like this create an unnecessary strain on WP's resources. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I do think there's some content here relevant to journalistic ethics, probably useful at Media coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic. Alexbrn (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"Think of it as evolution in action." just sayin -Roxy the dog. wooF 17:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I think Jr8825's concern about SYNTH are sound. Many of the sources even in the body of the article look like they are sourced to articles about people who died rather than sources about the phenomena the article is supposed to be about. Also, recent edits here basically added a name to the article body [23]. The edit was correct in it made the link more obvious but the source for the claim was about the death, not the phenomena of these lists existing or being reported. More and more I don't see how this article won't evolve into just a list of people who editors feel should be included in one of the deleted lists. Springee (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Interestingly, I came across a segment on YouTube on CNN about whether these deaths should be mocked. “Ghoulish but necessary“ is the LaTimes editor’s opinion. Technophant (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I think other articles came out as critical of that LA-Times article. That would be content I can see including. Examples of people who fit the criteria "anti-COVID-Vaxxer who died of COVID" is something we should not included unless the source talked about them in context of this type of reporting. Springee (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. The point of the article is not to say that anti-vaxxers are bad and those who died got what they deserved, but to say that there is a specific ongoing complex societal conversation to this end, which is itself the subject of objective examination. As the article says (per a source cited), "those who perceive themselves to be politically aligned against vaccination opponents taking pleasure in the suffering of perceived enemies". This is schadenfreude, amplified by the fact that the suffering is perceived to be karmic, and perceived to be happening to those on the "other side". BD2412 T 02:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

A few comments: first, to me a title like Media reaction to the deaths of Anti-vaccine advocates who died of Covid sounds unnecessarily indirect. Whatever the article contains will be based upon media reports, so adding "Media reaction to the..." to the front of the title seems like moving COVID-19 to What reliable sources have to say about COVID-19. Maybe it's not completely redundant, but investing the extra words doesn't seem to buy enough extra clarity to be worthwhile. Also, I'm not sold on the idea that there is a WP:SYNTH problem (or at least one so fundamental that the article needs to be torched). Grouping together events that are obviously, manifestly related is mere juxtaposition. What new conclusion is supposedly being drawn here? To me, a true synthesis would require something like invoking these stories to bolster a claim about American culture that none of the sources themselves put forth. I'm just not seeing that in the text at hand. (Maybe this topic lends itself to such syntheses, but we don't delete articles just because the topic potentially risks violating NOR.) XOR'easter (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

From the BBC a couple of hours ago - awful. -Roxy the dog. wooF 14:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the actual direct media coverage of these deaths (both vaccinated and unvaccinated, each potentially fueling someone's agenda), and the navel-gazing on the actual ethics of it, probably belong more as a subsection on one of our articles about the topic. Trimming the length will make WP:SYNTH less appealing to try and pad out the article, and it lets us cover the trends of both the 'look at this unvaccinated person who could have avoided death' and the 'this person was vaccinated but died of COVID anyway' articles. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Herman Cain Award

I've nominated the related Herman Cain Award article for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herman Cain Award. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Bad move. See the AfD. -- Valjean (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Male expendability

• Male expendability (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thoughts on whether this article as written is WP:PROFRINGE and possibly a WP:POVFORK for Male privilege?

Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

It reads more WP:PROFRINGE than WP:POVFORK to me. To put it another way, if we merged the content somewhere else, would we really want to merge it into Male privilege rather covering it in a broader topic like Hegemonic masculinity? Part of the problem is probably that it's a niche sociology topic, and one involving a value judgement related to the topic of discrimination. Small articles on controversial topics are definitely some of the most likely to attract fringe editing. There's an AfD for the article, but it looks like if the decision is keep it'll need a lot of attention to raise the level of sources and trim the WP:SYNTH. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback, Bakkster Man, and I think you're right. I see that Flyer22 raised the issue of SYNTH on the talk page a while back in her characteristically thorough and persuasive way. Thanks to Orangemike as well for starting the AfD. Generalrelative (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Just an update that the AfD has now become a target for SPAs, likely sock- or meatpuppets. Generalrelative (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I've added the 'not a ballot' notice, which might help. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Sure looks like someone's posted about it off-Wiki. Generalrelative (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I had a brief look on google earlier and didn't find anything obvious like a twitter post. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks for checking. Three of the SPA !votes come from first-time editors, which is highly suspicious. On the other hand, the article does get about a hundred views per day, so perhaps some of those viewers are just especially invested? Generalrelative (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Could easily have been in any part of deep web like a discord channel. Does definitely seem like someone has notified an offwiki community. Doesn't really matter as these votes shouldn't effect the consensus anyway, since they're so obvious and tagged. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Adding some related topics (sometimes it's good to have an idea if something should be merged or renamed, if the scope should be recast, etc.)
  • Gender role, including Gender role § Biological factors
  • Conscription
  • Some region/event specifics like Sex in the American Civil War (on the other hand, women soldiers exist (Women in the military), so do children soldiers (Children in the military)) and all are also potential casualties
  • Wartime sexual violence although women are not the only targets they were often considered part of the spoils throughout history
  • Women and children first

—PaleoNeonate – 06:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing

I hope I didn’t miss seeing an earlier mention, if I did, sorry. Doug Weller talk 20:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Animal cruelty and the Holocaust analogy

I have begun a discussion on the talk page of Animal cruelty and the Holocaust analogy regarding the lead images used in this article. Please see the images for yourself, and I would appreciate any input from this project's members. See Talk:Animal cruelty and the Holocaust analogy#Lead image used in article for further discussion.

Not sure if this totally relevant here, but since someone has cited WP:FRINGE on the talk page, I suppose it makes sense to alert people here (and it is usually fringe groups that make this comparison; most animal rights groups tend to steer away from overt Holocaust imagery or messaging). —AFreshStart (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here. What a profoundly inappropriate illustration. Indeed, the main violation seems to be WP:SHOCK, but some of the arguments on the Talk page do seem to hinge on the question of what constitutes WP:FRINGE among animal rights activists. Generalrelative (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The article didn't have a lead image until recently AFAIK, and was a lot better off for it. I think that the whole article suffers from being pro-fringe tbh, especially the section on PETA's claims and the long quote included there (PETA is considered fringe among animal rights groups; the Holocaust comparisons are just one reason why. To quote Time magazine: "Got Credibility? Then You're Not PETA").

Yes, the main violation was (or is, depending on if there's an edit war) gratuitous and arguably antisemitic shock-imagery. But I think Mathglot's point on the article's talk page – that that imagery is akin to Wikipedia's articles on the anti-abortion movements using pro-lifer stock images of mangled foetuses and the like in their lead paragraphs, whereas they don't use that imagery in their articles at all – is very telling. There definitely seem to be some people in this topic area (i.e. animal rights) who wish to push their fringe POVs into Wikipedia by any means necessary. I'm not sure how much attention this topic area gets from anti-fringe editors, but possibly another thing to add to one's radar? —AFreshStart (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory

An RfC which may be of interest to watchers of this page is currently ongoing at the linked talk page. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Three Gorges Dam#Structural integrity

Three Gorges Dam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In January 2021, the user Springnuts (talk · contribs) removed much of Three Gorges Dam#Structural integrity due to allegedly promoting a POV promulgated by one scientist based in Germany, Wang Weiluo (王維洛), and largely based on a Google Earth image allegedly showing deformation, and which was supported by news sources they deemed unreliable for science and engineering topics. However, it was re-added in November that year by an anonymous user from Sydney, who disputes the claim that it is undue. Neither the removal nor the re-adition was adequately discussed, so now I'm bringing the concern here. The reaction to the panic may be okay, but how much coverage and what kind of references should we use for details about the deformation? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Anomaly-hunters found a glitch in google maps and assumed that a concrete structure had smoothly bent without cracking? Bent upstream, no less?

The google maps glitch is now corrected, so I suppose they now believe that the concrete bent back?

Even if a few news sources picked it up, that seems very WP:UNDUE to me. It's silly on the face of it. ApLundell (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Off-topic tip: There is {{lang|zh|王維洛}} as a shorter and standardized alternative to typing out <span lang=zh>王維洛</span>. —2d37 (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, removed. If it's restored, please start an RfC. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Elizabeth Loftus again

• Elizabeth Loftus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

After failing to add POV and remove NPOV, user now demands third-party sources. Anybody familiar with false memories? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I just removed a couple of those tags after checking the sources and their content. I'm sure most of these can be removed. Most of the tagged sources appear to be third-party, so I'm not sure what their issue is. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 01:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I just boldly went ahead and restored. Looks like drive-by tagging, not legitimate concerns. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I was planning on doing the same, but was waiting for some feedback on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I would normally wait, too, but as an independent observer to the edits, they just didn't appear made in good-faith. Hopefully if more discussion is needed, it will take place. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

they just didn't appear made in good-faith I disagree. If you are someone whose worldview includes any of these:

• People getting sexually abused, then forgetting all about it, then recovering those memories in therapy,
• People participating in Satanic sects sacrificing children, then forgetting all about it, then recovering those memories in therapy,
• People reincarnating, then forgetting all about it, then recovering those memories in therapy,
• People getting abducted by aliens, then forgetting all about it, then recovering those memories in therapy,
• People being omnipotent aliens themselves, called Thetans, then forgetting all about it, then recovering those memories in Scientology sessions,

then Loftus and others who say that those memories are false and the therapies malpractice, are villains, their academic achievements based on fraud, lies, and conspiracy, and the corresponding statements in the article about her are false. For people who really believe that, demands of better sources are made in good faith. Of course, that does not mean they should not be reverted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Xurizuri for vastly improving the citations! --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I took it as an opportunity to improve the article. And now it's hard to argue there's an issue with those citations! --Xurizuri (talk) 10:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone have translation software that will translate a Spanish Word doc to English?

I've got a paper from this source[24] called Gunung Padang and the Indo-Malaysian megalithism: archaeology and Pseudoarchaeology which looks really useful to edit Gunung Padang (note I am finding this promoted in other articles as ridiculously old). But it's in Spanish and I don't have anything that will translate a multi-page document. Anyone? Too much work to do by hand. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 07:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I had good experiences with Google Translate [25]. The first paragraph comes out pretty well, modulo minor adjustments:

"ArqueoWeb, the first Spanish electronic journal specialized in archaeological research, emerged in 1998 from the hands of Ana Piñón Sequeira, Óscar López Jiménez, Beatriz Díaz Santana and Ignacio Prieto Vilas, then PhD students in the Department of Prehistory at the Complutense University of Madrid ( UCM), who were later joined by Antonio Uriarte González. They themselves say that it was during a course taught by Dr. D. Gonzalo Ruíz Zapatero, in which the first four coincided, that the idea of creating this magazine arose and that without the advice of said professor everything would have been much better. more difficult." --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: but the article itself (I think you're translating the website) is 36 pages long, not counting references. Doug Weller talk 08:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah, that's why it did not sound like the intro to an article about Gunung Padang. Well, the character limit is about half the text of the page, but even with that, it would take just a few minutes to copy 36 pages in and out of Google Translate. If that is too much work, you'll have to wait for someone suggesting another tool. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I've never tried that much, but I just did and got "The archaeological site of Gunung Padang, an example of megalithic heritage of monumental dimensions on the island of Java (Indonesia), has recently been mythologized by pseudoscientists based on geological investigations of dubious methodology, carried out by Danny H. Natawidjaja in 2012. His defense of Pleistocene chronologies, as well as the artificial nature of the mountain and its stone blocks, has inspired unsubstantiated fantastic theories that have quickly gained adherents and publicity throughout the world, due to their sensationalism. and revolutionary affirmations contrary to official academic currents. These speculations have connected with the also incredible proposals made by Stephen Oppenheimer in 1998 about the antediluvian Sondanese origin of the Neolithic and urban culture, so that Gunung Padang has come to be considered not only as the oldest pi - branch of the planet but also as supposed testimony of the existence of an advanced ancient civilization in Southeast Asia, even identified with Atlantis.

However, each of these wild claims can be easily dismantled, and should not confuse the lay public. Archeology places Gunung Padang within the regional typology of earth and stone terraces with a stepped pyramidal appearance (punden berundak) built during the Metal Age (Bronze-Iron) in the Indo-Malay archipelago (c 500 BC-500 AD), which can be related to other megalithic structures of the Austronesian tradition, such as the Polynesian marae. Likewise, it seems sufficiently proven that the ancestral origin of the people who built the ceremonial precinct of Mount Padang is found in Tai-wan, two thousand years earlier, instead of migrating there from Java." So I guess I should go that route. Thanks Doug Weller talk 08:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

And done, a bit messily because of the way the original document was formatted after conversion from pdf, possibly a bad thing to have done. But it's sufficient. Doug Weller talk 17:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I have a (strange kind of) subscription of DeepL Translator; can put it to use if you link the pdf. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks but I’m ok. Doug Weller talk 21:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Speaking about Gunung Padang, the latest paper that I have found about it is:

D. and Foe, A.W., 2021. Indoneasia’s own ‘pyramid’: The imagined past and nationalism of Gunung Padang. International Review of Humanities Studies, 6(1), pp. 125-137. Paul H. (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Predatory and/or low quality. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Predatory? It’s published by the university of Indonesia. Doug Weller talk 21:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

This particular article is decent, (probably) because of where it was presented for the first time. I do not oppose using it.

Mine was a comment on the journal with which I am acquainted due to my interests in Dutch occupation of Indonesia. The quality of their articles vary radically from damn excellent analyses to incoherent ramblings (check archives - OA); hard to feature material of both kind, unless you have some predatory aspect.

Fwiw, being published by a reputed university is not a bar against predatory or other shady practices. India under the current political dispensation being the best case. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Lots of academic publishing is low-quality but not predatory. --JBL (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

International Review of Humanities Studies: Not-predatory and uneven quality. It's not monetary aspects which create this strangely uneven output, but internal pressure within the academic organization. Sometimes, non-scholarly merits (like long-time teaching or administrative carriers) are honored with "pushed" degrees (UI is less prone to that than regional universities, but still) and publications based on the theses that come with these degrees. –Austronesier (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on Talk:Robert W. Malone/Archive 2#"Falsely"

A discussion on this page might be of interest to editors here. 2600:1012:B002:3AB0:752F:5712:DD20:5C21 (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits to Objections to evolution

See here. I'm not reverting because there's no way I'm restoring Creation Safaris as a source, and I have other work to do more in my field of interest. Doug Weller talk 11:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:This notice might be easier for others to understand with a bit more context. Maybe I'm alone here, but it's difficult to read through those recent edits and see what specifically you're concerned about. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pyrrho the Skipper: sorry. I thought I was clear. A straight revert, which in fact was done, would restore Creation Safaris as a source. I don’t think it’s an rs. I’ll add that the author of the source is this guy. Apologies for not being more specific. Doug Weller talk 19:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

There are other sourcing issues at the page (like christiananswers.com). I'm not familiar enough with coverage in the area to know which objections/rebuttals are due, in which case someone might add source improvement tags, or undue, leading to straight removal of poorly sourced content. Firefangledfeathers 19:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I replaced the Creation Safaris "source" but haven't yet gone through and evaluated any others. XOR'easter (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for working on this, —PaleoNeonate – 00:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Doug Weller, no problem and thank you for elaborating. Sometimes I'm too impatient/dense. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Centers (Fourth Way)

• Centers (Fourth Way) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wandered over to MfD and saw a ton of redirects being nominated for this article. Looking at the article it seems to just be an essay on the teachings. Tempted to send to AfD, but seems like the topic itself may be notable, just the content is inappropriate for an encyclopedia or at least the presentation. Anyway, coming here to get some eyes and opinions.Slywriter (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Cheikh Anta Diop

Anyone know much about him? I wasn’t sure of the recent edits, and just looking at the lead there are some statements that probably at least need attribution. I didn’t get further than the lead as I’m off to bed. Doug Weller talk 21:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I've worked on this a bit. The main problem I still see is discussion of some of his views using sources that don't mention them, to show that they are either wrong or supported, thus original research. Doug Weller talk 15:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

My OR tag I put on the article has been removed with an edit summary "All of the peer-reviewed sources refer to Diop's work. Doug Weller has been heavily critised as a editor by several account users for omitting evidence to present a highly misleading view of African historical topics. This is poor, biased editorship and complaints will be raised against his account". The problem is that some of the sources do cite Diop's work wbut don't actually discuss it - some of the text I've got issues with was added in 2007 by an editor whose only edits seem to be these.[26] Doug Weller talk 16:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

"Physicist"? Sesquivalent (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Turns out, yes. For those with access, the article about him in the Oxford University Press Encyclopedia of Africa (2010) is a decent source: [27] Apparently he founded the radiocarbon laboratory of Dakar, which specialized in the dating of Africa’s oldest archaeological and geological materials. Continuing his scientific work during the 1960s, he published Le Laboratoire de Radiocarbone de l’IFAN (1968, The Radiocarbon Laboratory at IFAN) and Physique Nucléaire et Chronologie Absolue (1974, Nuclear Physics and Absolute Dating). In these works he discussed IFAN, his scientific work there, and diverse methods of dating archaeological and geological samples, especially those used in research at IFAN. That's not to say that many of his ideas about race and history aren’t FRINGE. Clearly they are. It's also not to say that he made contributions to theoretical physics. But let's refrain from sneering at the man's real accomplishments. Generalrelative (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Cool. There was no support for it in the article, and it sounded like promotion, as these FTN things usually turn out to be. Nice to see the exceptions that have satisfying stories behind them. Sesquivalent (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Generalrelative (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the older versions of the article, it seems to me that some of his positions on the genetics of Egypt and East Africans were settled much later as definitely wrong, and the balance of evidence was never in his favor, but he had some reasonable (if motivated) objections to the state of classification in his time. I.e., his fringiness may be exaggerated by association with some of those who followed. Sesquivalent (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

PS: I had peeked at this article earlier and was overwhelmed by the shambles it was in. Thanks so much especially to TrangaBellam for taking a much-needed sledgehammer to the article. Hopefully now it can be rebuilt properly. Generalrelative (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

N.b. Diop is certainly well known in Black Studies circles. For example, he is listed as one of the forerunners of Asante's proposals. He is famous for adopting certain approaches that now read, if not quaint, then outright blinkered, but this needs to be seen in the light of the 1950s and 60s thrall of scientific racism within history, anthropology, and Egyptology. His opponents spent much of their time arguing, without any hint of self-reflection, that Egyptians were *actually* members of the "white race". The counter by Diop, somewhat spectacularly, was to use that very (what we now see as) pseudoscience on its own terms to show that they were Black. I think he probably was something of a race realist himself, but he did not live long enough to engage with the scholarship that showed how race is a social construct rather than a validated biological identifier. jps (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

JPS, I do recall that an earlier version had at least one quote from him where he distanced himself from any kind of essentialist view of race. The social construct view of race was already present in the 1940s when he began his studies, which is why it's important that we retain that idea from his thesis that "negro" etc. are Bergsonian "immediate givens". I haven't read enough Bergson to know exactly what that meant, but it seems to be a compromise to allow him to have operational concepts, and a pragmatic response to an academic world that still took racism for granted. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good point. The groundwork for our current WP:MAINSTREAM understanding of race was present, but Diop was engaging with groups (and entire fields!) who basically did not acknowledge this possibility, as far as I can tell. jps (talk) 12:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, if I understand Bergson correctly, my guess is that Diop is arguing that the racial percept be taken as seriously as one would take any other percept. jps (talk) 12:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

L-8

Patrol blimp in WW II crashed sans crew; the "theories" section plays up fringey ideas but ignores USNI explanations which are apparently too prosaic. I'm going to attempt a clean up but could use other eyes. Mangoe (talk) 05:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

More input appreciated

Talk:List_of_Shakespeare_authorship_candidates#Recent_WP:SPS_additions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:RSN#

This is turning into an argument about Cheikh Anta Diop. Doug Weller talk 23:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_a_preprint_quoted_in_an_article_by_someone_not_a_DNA_specialist_ok_as_a_source_for_DNA?? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Panspermia/Abiogenesis

See also: Talk:Abiogenesis § Panspermia in the lead

Drbogdan is reverting my attempts to clean up the lead of the Abiogenesis article by removing the paragraph on Panspermia, which inappropriately presents it as a mainstream scholarly view rather than the fringe theory it actually is. It's also not actually relevant as panspermia does not deal with the creation of life to begin with. As noted at Talk:Abiogenesis#Article's_length,_style,_and_complexity Abiogenesis is the #1345 longest article on Wikipedia and is a total incoherent dumpster fire. It needs to be nuked from orbit and rewritten from scratch. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris, Apokryltaros, Boghog, Chiswick Chap, Habil zare, Headbomb, Hemiauchenia, Jonesey95, McSly, Sunrise, Tgeorgescu, and Viriditas: - Please understand that I have no problem whatsoever improving the "Abiogenesis" article - including trimming the length - but perhaps the better way of improving the article may be by appropriate agreements with other editors rather than otherwise - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I've replied at Talk:Abiogenesis. Briefly, the Abiogenesis article feels rather long and messy but it has a lot to cover; we'd love to rewrite it but it'd be a major project. Its main text is about 50k (12k words), the rest being over 300 lengthy multi-author citations. On Panspermia, the historical part about Darwin and so on is not in doubt; the modern part is attested by dozens of peer-reviewed papers, so however uncomfortable the root idea, it can't be called fringe. On Panspermia's place in Abiogenesis, of course it just pushes back the origin of life to some earlier time and place, but in terms of life on Earth, it does represent an "origin", however unlikely. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Whether Panspermia is mainstream or fringes depends on what specific aspect of it that is being talked about. There are aspects, e.g. life originated Mars and was transported to Earth by impact ejecta, of Panspermia that are respectable, scholarly views. On the other hand there also aspects, e.g. plagues and Covid-19 came from comets, of Panspermia that are definitely fringe material. Paul H. (talk)

I'd like to point out that dozens of peer-reviewed papers doesn't prevent a theory from being considered WP:FRINGE/ALT. At which point They should not be classified as pseudoscience but should still be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective. If it's a non-mainstream view, we should describe it as such. Having strong peer-reviewed sources helps define that it's good science, just not as widely accepted an explanation as others. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Some day panspermia will be properly demarcated between the outre, wacky, but vaguely plausible (life came from mars on meteorites) and the outright crankish (the ISM is freeze-dried bacteria). I am something of the opinion that it deserves mention in the context of astrobiology rather than abiogenesis. As far as I know, there are no serious biologists working on panspermia in the context of abiogenesis and therefore is improperly WP:WEIGHTed for inclusion there at all. On the other hand, there are a number of textbooks on astrobiology which make the briefest of mentions of panspermia, so I suppose we can follow their lead. jps (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I think this interpretation is leaning in the right direction. Panspermia in general is neither considered fringe nor pseudoscience by those in astrobiology. However, NASA is careful to describe it as an alternate theory of the origin of life. The real reason we have editors on Wikipedia here and elsewhere categorizing panspermia as pseudoscience has more to do with guilt by association because of proponents like Wickramasinghe and Hoyle. It’s important to note that a hypothesis, theory, or claim, can still be taken seriously even if its claimants make the idea look absurd due to a preponderance of other bad claims. Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

My issue here is not that it is being included at all. It maybe deserves a sentence or two in the body, but I am not seeing how it justifies a substantial mention in the lead, which makes it out to be a serious alternative hypothesis, when in most scholarly sources it is only briefly mentioned, if at all. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Here’s a copy of the disputed text:

The alternative panspermia hypothesis speculates that microscopic life arose outside Earth by unknown mechanisms, and spread to the early Earth on space dust and meteoroids. It is known that complex organic molecules occur in the Solar System and in interstellar space, and these molecules may have provided starting material for the development of life on Earth.

My quibble would be with "by unknown mechanisms", as that seems to open the door to the wackiness, as jps alludes to above. Simply leaving it as "arose outside Earth" keeps it realistic, IMO. Viriditas (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Seems undue for the lede, frankly. XOR'easter (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem with including panspermia in abiogenesis is that panspermia says nothing about abiogenesis. Even if panspermia is correct, life has to arise somewhere. Abiogenesis does not have to argue that this place is Earth. So it does not belong in that article. jps (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes - agree - "life has to arise somewhere" - as noted in the related current discussion at "Talk:Abiogenesis#Panspermia in the lead" => "seems there was no "life" in the "very early universe" - and then there was life - on "planet Earth" at least - life may (or may not) have begun uniquely on Earth ("Terrestrial abiogenesis") - or elsewhere ("Extraterrestrial abiogenesis") and related to "Panspermia" - the notion of panspermia has been discussed numerous times in the archives of [the] "Abiogenesis" article" - also - seems the Britannica presents "panspermia" in the "abiogenesis" article as follows: "In addition, some scientists contend that abiogenesis was unnecessary, suggesting instead that life was introduced on Earth via collision with an extraterrestrial object harbouring living organisms, such as a meteorite carrying single-celled organisms; the hypothetical migration of life to Earth is known as panspermia." - seems "Panspermia" has a place in the "Abiogenesis" article - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

We don't have to take our lead from Britannica, of course. I don't think there is a serious argument for why panspermia needs special identification in abiogenesis since it really has nothing to do with the subject even as you or Britannica are presenting it. jps (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I think Drbogdan is on target, and if you’re a close reader of the current article on abiogenesis, you’ll find that panspermia is tightly woven and embedded into our coverage of the subject. For example, in the "Darwin’s little pond" section, we find that this hypothesis requires "interplanetary dust particles and meteorites [to have] transported organic molecules like nucleotides to these ponds". Our article on panspermia refers to this as pseudo, soft, or molecular panspermia, but it is seriously treated and discussed in any current exploration of the subject. For this (and many other reasons), it should be mentioned in the lead. The idea that panspermia is "fringe" is highly erroneous, and comes from an older era (pre-1990s) when even concepts like anthropogenic climate change were treated with disdain by non-climatologists. Viriditas (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Not my area of expertise, but I don't think I've seen "organic molecules from space" being referred to as "panspermia". The usages of "panspermia" I know of always refer to life forms, not to chemicals. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

That’s the difference between hard and soft panspermia. While it is certainly a niche discipline, it’s frequently discussed by experts in their respective fields. Matthieu R. Lalanne (chemistry postdoc at OUI) describes the concept in his dissertation: With the evidence of the presence of organic molecules in space, soft panspermia theories emerged, which argued that pre-biotic molecules originate from space. These theories upheld that the extraterrestrial pre-biotic molecules were distributed on earth when life began (abiogenesis). Recent studies investigated the isotopic ratio of chlorine in oceanic dorsal in order to find evidence of the formation of the ocean. It was concluded that most of the water on Earth has an extraterrestrial origin. Pre-biotic molecules such as amino acids may have arrived on earth within this water. Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

"Soft" panspermia isn't really panspermia at all. The idea that amino acids exist in carbonaceous chondrite asteroids is not a groundbreaking concept. This is a bit tangential, but the scientific consensus is that Earth's water derives from the initial planetary accretion, rather than being delivered later by comets. The current consensus is that Earth acquired most its water by accretion of carbonaceous chondrite material, particularly CI-like chondrites, from beyond the snow line in the solar nebula. [28], no idea if that any bearing on "soft" panspermia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

It’s not groundbreaking. Panspermia dates back more than 2000 years to Anaxagoras. As for cometary panspermia, that hasn’t been a thing for decades. Soft panspermia is defined by Darling as the idea that organic chemicals formed in interstellar space, became incorporated into the cloud of gas and dust from which the Sun formed and thereby seeded the Earth and other planets with the raw materials from which life could originate. Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Eyes needed on some pseuodhistorian articles

See the latest edit at Talk:Joseph Justus Scaliger#False history creator by User:BRealAlways Three edits at Talk:Anatoly Fomenko by the same editor, and another at Talk:Joseph Justus Scaliger (including for instance "archaeologists already have evidence that some form of advanced technology was used worldwide." and an accusation that archaeologists are covering something up. I'll notify the editor. Doug Weller talk 16:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I looked at the recent history and left them another warning (this time about FOC/ASPERSIONS) but previous ones for using article talk pages as a forum appear to have been ignored so far... —PaleoNeonate – 04:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Doug Weller: "and an accusation that archaeologists are covering something up." I never said archaeologists were covering anything up. When I said, "..., which begs the question whether archaeologists are covering up something for convenience sake.", that is not an accusation. It is the application of skepticism in view of evidence [[29]]. Just as a common perception that "the religious" will filter evidence according to their world view, the "anti-religious" may slant evidence in their favor as an antithetical response based on their beliefs. This is the basis of information inclusion and omission. While some of my talk edits may have been inappropriate, how does this vilify those who essentially do the same thing in the opposite direction? User:PaleoNeonate I can understand your concern that things go smoothly here. I had one editor tell me "We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology." I can appreciate that, yet I continue to see clear violations of the "working together" rule. To say this has nothing to do with an ideology is presumptive. If you are to "make an example of some", or even one, I see that as selective when it doesn't apply to all. From what I can see, you're being selective about who you warn of violations. The goal of these actions can be either good faith presuming innocence until proven guilty, or more of an "I'll stand on his toes until he gets sufficiently irritated". Using a position of power (WP admin) to accomplish the task of discouraging others is contemptible, and must be accompanied by a motive. I am sincerely hoping this is not the case, and your edits are honestly intended to promote good will among editors. I will have to say that it doesn't seem to be the case, but I could be wrong. I am fully aware of internet subculture movements. They allow actors to play roles in places they would otherwise not have access to. I would like to continue to contribute to making WP articles better. The tag-team approach I have been seeing doesn't give me much confidence that WP has placed proper controls in appropriate places. Specifically, I am not seeing why it would be necessary for me to feel that I must defend myself in this productive environment.BRealAlways (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The road to hell is often paved with good intentions. WP:FRINGE is a guideline; if you do not like it, have it changed by a WP:RfC. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Update: upgraded to WP:ANI (the theory was upgraded to law). —PaleoNeonate – 14:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Stronger warning against using predatory journals as source

I want to add stronger warnings against the use of predatory journals / explanations for why those should not be cited on Wikipedia. Others disagree. Please comment. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Staffordshire Bull Terrier

The article in question was promoted to GA in 2019. A discussion to merge Bull and terrier into the Stafford article was proposed by Cavalryman on 2021-06-02, but went nowhere. I removed the merge tag from the article on 2022-01-24 but was reverted. I went to the merger discussion, and strongly opposed because the material the OP wants to add is based on anecdotal evidence or fringe theories that conflict with DNA evidence. It is "claimed" or "believed" that the Stafford descended from bull and terrier crosses, as did several other breeds of dogs - see Genomic Analyses Reveal the Influence of Geographic Origin, Migration, and Hybridization on Modern Dog Breed Development, dark blue in Figure 1 - Cladogram of 161 Domestic Dog Breeds. The bull and terrier was never a recognized breed; many combinations of terriers and mastiff or bully-type breeds were crossed to create dogs that would excel in that sport. The DNA further establishes that all of the bull and terrier crosses map to the terriers of Ireland and date to 1860-1870, and are undocumented crosses, during this era of breed creation (Lee, 1894). I support keeping the Bull and terrier article for historic reference, and perhaps expand it with DNA research. When the initial merger did not gain support, the OP tag-bombed the Stafford article, then proposed a rewrite, then added a NPOV tag, then opened yet another discussion on the article TP. The OP wants to make the bull and terrier cross appear to be a specific breed of dog that survived for some 150+/- years and that it is the Stafford. The UKC states Today's Bull Terrier is the direct descendant of the original bull-and-terrier crosses made in England... whereas The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a descendant of the Bull and Terrier crosses made in Great Britain in the late 1700's. It was given the name "Staffordshire" in reference to an area where it was very popular, to differentiate it from the other Bull and Terrier breeds. The DNA evidence, plus verifiable information from 3 official breed registries (AKC, TKC) & UKC, recognized kennel clubs and other experts all dispute the fringe theory that the bull and terrier is the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. So...what should we do with the fringe theories that have been published in dog books that are promoting anecdotal accounts and fringe theories that cause confusion and conflict with the official registries, multiple experts and DNA evidence? Atsme 💬 📧 06:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Response, instead of copying swathes of text here, I would urge readers to review what the vast majority of sources say about the subject at Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier#Article's neutrality. Cavalryman (talk) 07:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC).

Please keep requests succinct. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Propose this is closed as not fringe. -Roxy the dog. wooF 15:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Roxy, if it's not fringe, what is it? WP:Fringe: In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. The prevailing view would be that of the official breed registries, experts and reputable kennel clubs. Why wouldn't DNA prevail over a fringe theory? Atsme 💬 📧 16:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Because the views of some breed registries and kennel clubs, and one DNA "suggestion", is not the mainstream view that can be found in multiple expert reliable WP:SECONDARY sources. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. 182.239.146.186 (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Who else would be an expert on dog breeds? jp×g 23:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Generally, researchers, historians etc. The problem with kennel clubs and dog breeders is they are defacto commercial organisations with an agenda to make money. Which is largely why the AKC has been woefully inaccurate over the years, because the motivation was not 'is this factually correct' or 'is this in the interest of the breed'. Its in dog breeder's interests to claim whatever breed they have concocted is distinct because it therefore acquires value and saleability. Part of that process is registering with the KC (for the most part, some breed associations deliberately do not associate with the KC's because of their lax attitude to dog health) - the short version is that the KC and dog breeders are at best, an often unreliable primary source for what they claim. They are not a reliable secondary source for statements of fact in wiki-voice. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I've (mostly in the cat sphere) been making the point for a decade that fancier and other breed[er]-promotional organizations, including the KCs in the dog world, are not reliable secondary sources. They lack independence from the subjects (specific breeds and groups/types thereof). They are best used as: A) the best primary sources for exactly what a particular breed specification says and when it was published, when a breed was accepted by that specific organization, what recognition level (provisional, championship, etc.) the breed has with that organization, and other facts specific to the organization; and B) reasonable but not infallible primary sources for what breeders, where, were involved in establishing a modern breed (they can be fallible in this if they only mention members of their own organization, for example). It cannot be stressed enough how much utter bullshit (especially when it comes to breed history and alleged behavioral traits of a breed) is promulgated by breeders and organizations of breeders, including in the pages of major magazines and now websites in the pet trade. Every "breed profile" article and the like must be taken with entire blocks of salt. Nor are all the "breed encyclopedia" books out there reliable; most of them are weak tertiary sources at best, which cannibalize from each other shamelessly, and several of them have clearly accepted paid entries for alleged breeds that are not recognized by any major organization (plus the authors have an incentive to include entries for every supposed breed because it makes their book bigger and "more complete" than competing earlier publications).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: If true, this seems like a fairly clear example of a fringe theory to me (someone advancing a claim that isn't backed up by any reliable source or consensus). jp×g 23:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I seem to be much too parochial. ;) -Roxy the dog. wooF 23:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I only briefly popped into this discussion to make a comment (not a !vote), but noticed that there is a single editor contesting every "oppose" vote (and even non-voting comments) at length, which is usually a bad sign. BD2412 T 00:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment, I was hoping editors commenting here would click on the above link but it seems some have not. I am incredibly surprised by this as this as the op is an editor I normally respect greatly.

What reliable sources state

Reference books that state directly that the Bull and Terrier was an early name for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier: Beaufoy, James (2016). Staffordshire Bull Terriers: a practical guide for owners and breeders. Ramsbury, Wiltshire: The Crowood Press Ltd. ISBN 9781785000973. - The result of the decision to breed more athletic dogs for fighting purposes was the emergence of the so-called 'Bull and Terrier', sometimes referred to as the 'Pit dog'. This is of prime importance in the story of the development of our breed as 150 years later this dog would be recognised by the Kennel Club as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier! Coile, D. Caroline (1998). Encyclopedia of dog breeds. Hauppauge: Barron's Educational Series. p. 146. ISBN 0-7641-5097-9. - The result [of crossing Bulldogs with terriers] was aptly called the Bull and Terrier, later to be dubbed the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Jones, Arthur Frederick (1964). The treasury of dogs. New York: The Golden Press Inc. p. 165. - He [the Staffordshire Bull Terrier] was first known as the Bull-and-Terrier ... Jones, Arthur F.; Hamilton, Ferelith (1971). The world encyclopedia of dogs. New York: Galahad Books. p. 481. ISBN 0-88365-302-8. - Quite apart from the name “Bull-and-Terrier” used freely in literature for many decades [for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier], respected authors like Pierce Egan in the Annals of Sporting (Vol. I.), 1822, refer to result of these crossings for the first time as “Bull Terriers”. Morris, Desmond (2001). Dogs: the ultimate dictionary of over 1,000 dog breeds. North Pomfret, VT: Trafalgar Square Publishing. p. 346. ISBN 1-57076-219-8. - The first recorded name of this dog [the Staffordshire Bull Terrier] was the Bull-and-terrier. It has also been referred to as the Bull-dog Terrier, the Pit dog, the Brindle Bull, the Patched Fighting Terrier, the Staffordshire Terrier and the Staffordshire Pit-Dog. Wilcox, Bonnie; Walkowicz, Chris (1989). Atlas of dog breeds of the world. Neptune City, N.J.: TFH Publications. p. 811. - This [the Staffordshire Bull Terrier] was the original “Bull-and-Terrier.” Some other reference books that support this without using that specific name for the Bull and Terrier: Alderton, David (1987). The dog: the most complete, illustrated, practical guide to dogs and their world. London: New Burlington Books. p. 102. ISBN 0-948872-13-6. - The origins of this breed are far from illustrious. It was developed primarily as a fighting dog in the early nineteenth century from terriers crossed with Bulldogs ... Billett, Michael (1994). A history of English country sports. London: Robert Hale Limited. p. 39. ISBN 0-7090-5238-3. - ... a new breed known as the bull terrier, or the 'half-and-half' breed. It was also called the pit dog and eventually the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Coile, D. Caroline (27 May 2001). "Back to the time of the gladiator". The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved 18 July 2019. - It [the name pit bull] is a generic designation for several breeds including the American pit bull terrier, which was the first breed registered by the United Kennel Club (UKC) in 1898; its counterpart, the American Staffordshire terrier, which was registered by the American Kennel Club (AKC) in 1936; and the ancestor of both breeds, the Staffordshire bull terrier. Fletcher, Walter R. (19 September 1971). "A Breed That Came Up the Hard Way". The New York Times. Retrieved 16 May 2019. - His [the Staffordshire Bull Terrier's] ancestors are believed to be the bulldog and English terrier and he was known as the Pit Dog or Pit Bull Terrier. What kennel clubs that provide an historical overview about the Staffordshire Bull Terrier actually state: the American Kennel Club - The Bull-and-Terrier, the Patched Fighting Terrier, the Staffordshire Pit-dog, and the Brindle Bull are a few of the Stafford’s historical aliases. [30] (archive link here go down the page to History, then 'Read more') the Australian National Kennel Council - The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the "original Bull Terrier", simply a renamed version of the "Bull and Terrier". [31] the Canadian Kennel Club - The Bull and Terrier might have disappeared if not for a group of fanciers led by Joseph Dunn, who appreciated the dogs for their own sakes and persuaded The Kennel Club (England) to recognize the breed as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the name of the English county where the breed was most popular. [32] the Société Centrale Canine - It [the Staffordshire Bull Terrier] was created in the 19th century in Staffordshire, by crossbreeding the Bulldog and various terriers [33] (please forgive the machine translation the Kennel Club does not really address the issue but says nothing contradictory [34] the United Kennel Club does not really address the issue either, but does mention other Bull and Terrier breeds, by which I assume they mean breeds that descended from the Bull and Terrier [35], again not contradictory

Reliable sources cited that are claimed to refute the above

Parker, Heidi G.; Dreger, Dayna L.; Rimbault, Maud; Davis, Brian W.; Mullen, Alexandra B.; Carpintero-Ramirez, Gretchen; Ostrander, Elaine A. (2017). "Genomic Analyses Reveal the Influence of Geographic Origin, Migration, and Hybridization on Modern Dog Breed Development". Cell Reports. 19 (4): 697–708. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2017.03.079. PMC 5492993. PMID 28445722. - ... when dog fighting was a popular form of entertainment, many combinations of terriers and mastiff or bully-type breeds were crossed to create dogs that would excel in that sport. In this analysis, all of the bull and terrier crosses map to the terriers of Ireland and date to 1860-1870. Flaim, Denise (2020-10-08). "Bull Terrier History: Behind the Breed – American Kennel Club". American Kennel Club. Retrieved 2022-01-27. - Basically the hybrid of its day, the bull and terrier wasn’t a bona-fide breed. Rather, it was a rough outline, a starting point for several breeds, including the dogs that today we call “pitbulls.”

Neither of these last sources state anything that is inconsistent with the Bull and Terrier being an old name for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, in fact it is consistent. The genomic study's timeline is a couple decades out from what the sources say, understandable given historic genomics is an ever improving field. And yes, before the establishment of the first kennel club in 1873, there was no "bona-fide" dog breed as we know them today.

The notion that the Bull and Terrier is extinct was introduced to that article by an IP with this edit, some 12.5 years after the article was first written. It was cited to this webpage, which is clearly unreliable as it is the personal website of an enthusiast with no discernible subject matter expertise, but critically that webpage does not claim the Bull and Terrier is extinct.

No source, reliable or not, has been presented making the claim that the Bull and Terrier is extinct. But, multiple sources have been presented saying they were renamed Staffordshire Bull Terriers. Cavalryman (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC).

• I am also generally convinced by the sources listed. It would appear that it is a fringe view that the breed is extinct, when according the consensus of expert opinion, it was just renamed. Any article on Bull and Terrier (or the Staffie) that didnt explicitly mention the prevailing expert opinion on this would be willfully inaccurate. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Calvaryman's original research is impressive but it does not supercede expert opinion, mainstream official registries, and DNA evidence, all of which supports the fact that the bull and terrier is not a breed. But let's say the Bull and terrier is not extinct, and that it is a breed as what's being claimed - the obvious next question is why merge the article into Staffordshire Bull Terrier when there is no scientific evidence to support it? Why not keep Bull and terrier and improve it as a historic reference documenting the ancestry of the multiple breeds that developed from that cross into recognized purebreds over centuries of evolutionary breeding? See the lead of the Bull and terrier article, and the Bull Terrier article. The United Kennel Club (UKC) states that today's Bull Terrier is the direct descendant of the original bull-and-terrier crosses made in England, specifically to bait bulls and, later to fight in pits, whereas the (English) Staffordshire Bull Terrier, is described as ...a descendant of the Bull and Terrier crosses made in Great Britain in the late 1700's. It was given the name "Staffordshire" in reference to an area where it was very popular, to differentiate it from the other Bull and Terrier breeds. It is a separate purebred dog breed, not subject to BSL, whereas other bull and terrier types (now called pit bulls) are subject to those laws. Cavalryman's proposal to merge or add the fringe material he has proposed (some of which is already properly identified in the article as "claims") would not only provide misinformation (after several months of his failed attempt to get the merge done), it will cause confusion, or worse, wrongfully influence legislation that could cause this purebred dog great harm. The fringe that was published in books claiming the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the bull and terrier is straight-up misinformation, and as I stated, supported only by anecdotal evidence and fringe theories, not by mainstream expert opinions, DNA evidence, or multiple mainstream official breed registries that prove otherwise. Atsme 💬 📧 16:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Original research does not mean what you think it does. Providing a list of secondary sources and stating what they say is not 'original research' as ENWP defines it. Secondly the AKC has already been addressed above and on the talkpage. Do you have anything else to add? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• This strikes me as a classic case of “Experts don’t agree”. Per NPOV, when this occurs, present the reader with the different opinions and tell them who says what. Blueboar (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Blueboar, I would be very happy to present two sides of any debate, but the experts are in complete agreement. The unanimous consensus view of writers and kennel clubs is they are the same. We are down to debating some ambiguous language used by one kennel club (of six presented here) in an article about a different breed of dog. Cavalryman (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC).

Blueboar, I agree that this is a case of experts disagreeing. Research has confirmed that attempts to visually ID the breed of a dog with unknown parentage is often inaccurate. More recent research tells us experts rarely agree when using that method of ID. To quote the NCRC article: Over 90% of the dogs identified as having one or two specific breeds in their ancestry did not have their visually identified breeds as the predominant breed in their DNA analysis. I'm also of the mind that it is very important to consider the fact that the British Kennel Club (KC) was the first to officially recognize and accept the name Staffordshire Bull Terrier as a breed. To reiterate, "bull and terrier" never underwent that process and is not the name of a bonafide breed; rather, it was a label used when visually identifying mixed breed bulldogs/bulldog types and terriers/terrier types of the 19th century. In 1874, the KC published the first Kennel Club Stud Book that included Bull Terriers, a recognized breed resulting from foundation bull and terrier crosses that were documented in the stud book. Regarding the Stafford, KC states: Unfortunately for the historian tracing a nice straight line is not easy when examining the background of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier if only because it comes under quite a few names. They might be called Bull & Terriers in some journals and at other times the dogs are called Pit Dogs, maybe Staffordshire Terriers, half-bred dog, or simply come under the general umbrella of the Bull Terrier. Cavalryman wants to say in WikiVoice that the "bull and terrier" was renamed Staffordshire Bull Terrier and that is simply not supported - it's a fringe theory at best. Atsme 💬 📧 21:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Atsme, that quote you have introduced above is literally saying the Staffordshire Bull Terrier has been called by all of these names, including Bull and Terrier. That source corroborates these two are in fact one. Cavalryman (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Atsme, I urge you to drop this now. Above:

• Six independent secondary sources and now four kennel clubs have been shown to state categorically that the Bull and Terrier is an old name for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. A further four independent secondary sources and one kennel club have been shown to strongly endorse this view.
• Not one independent source has been provided that says anything contradictory, and no source has been found that even suggests the Bull and Terrier is extinct.
• The only argument you are providing is that a lone kennel club in a 64 word breed history of a different breed of dog uses some slightly ambiguous (but explainable) language about the ancestry of that different breed.

The mainstream view is the Bull and Terrier is an early name for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, it has been demonstrated here and on the article talk page. And no sources have been provided that articulate any meaningful counter-narrative. Please just drop this, I am dumbfounded by your continued opposition. Cavalryman (talk) 07:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC).

I'm frustrated that the sides in this debate haven't yet come to a consensus. So I'll review it the way as I see it, as a non-expert lay person on anything to do with dogs. I've learned a lot just from this and related discussions; this is my understanding at the moment.

First point to understand is the distinction between the concept of a dog type and a dog breed. I believe that understanding that distinction is crucial to resolving this debate. See Category:Dog types and Category:Dog breeds.

Second point is to note that on 16 December 2019 SMcCandlish MOVED Bull and Terrier to Bull and terrier over redirect, with edit summary: "MOS:LIFE (do not capitalize general types/groups of dogs, only standardized breeds)".

Up until the version of 19:43, 24 December 2017, the article was titled with the proper name Bull and Terrier and was about an alleged dog breed.

On 3 February 2018, an IP editor changed "breed of dog" to "an extinct type of dog". With an edit summary ("Adding content with quotations that support the aggregated content. And adding new images.") which didn't really communicate the significance and magnitude of that change. But it was this change that eventually led to the page move 22 months later.

For my third point, let's look closer at types and breeds. Bulldog type is a type of dog, of which the Bulldog breed is one of its members. Terrier is another type of dog, and bull-type terriers is a sub-type of Terrier. Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and American Staffordshire Terrier are all breeds of the bull-type terrier type. But what to make of the bull and terrier type of dog? If it's now extinct, that would be consistent with there being no extant dog breeds of that type. The article doesn't mention any extinct breeds, but that may be because when this type was extant back in the early to mid-1800s no breeds were ever fully developed and certified from this type. Bull-type terriers says the extinct bull and terrier is the common ancestor of all bull-type terriers.

I suppose it's possible that Bull and Terrier (in proper name form) is an alternative or previous name for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier bull-type terrier, but that old name for the extant bull-type terrier breed should not be confused with the extinct dog type. Apparently the half & half bull and terrier type is extinct and only the bull-type terriers remain. Even the Bull Terrier is a bull-type terrier and not a half & half. There is no Bull-Terrier or Bull–Terrier! – wbm1058 (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• If the sources are telling us (and they seem to be, in the majority of them) that "bull and terrier" is an early name for what is now Staffordshire Bull Terrier, then we should merge to that article. If they're mostly telling us that the phrase is a short-hand way of saying "bull[y]-type dogs mixed with terrier-type dogs" then we're dealing with a rather transitory/transitional mixed dog type (at most), and either this is not notable and should be deleted (mention isn't enough – in-depth coverage as a subject unto itself, in multiple, independent, reliable sources is required), or it is notable and the current article should stand (and not be capitalized, because it is not a standardized dog breed).

  I think what we have here is yet another case of "I found this term in a dog encyclopedia and created an article on it because every term for anything to do with dogs should have a Wikipedia article, too." It's why we had an F-load of redundant articles on dog "types", dog breed "groups", and dog breed "categories" using every different name variation from different kennel clubs, each as a stand-alone article, instead of being merged into overall dog-type articles for the most part. It's taken a long time to clean up, and clearly the cleanup isn't done yet.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• Totally disagree - some of those independent sources are fringe theory and those saying the bull and terrier is a breed that was renamed to Staffordshire Bull Terrier dispute mainstream science. What you're saying is not backed by science, which speaks volumes to a very concerning misunderstanding about how modern breeds evolve. To even suggest that breed crosses of undocumented dog types have evolved into a single modern breed is incomprehensible. Read Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Terrier (purposely a dab) for starters. There are many others. The Bull Terrier was the first recognized breed that resulted from the bull and terrier crosses. Staffordshire Bull Terrier was initially rejected for valid reasons. It wasn't until many years later that it was recognized as a breed, and gained recognition as a purebred. There are alot of fringe theories circulating in books by so-called experts about natural medicine, herbal cures, and home remedies (some of which can be cited to Mayo Clinic, etc.) - but WP requires scientific based evidence to make such extraordinary claims acceptable for inclusion in an article. The same argument applies to anecdotal accounts of undocumented bulldog–terrier crosses; therefore, to say that the only breed that resulted from those crosses is the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is pure hogwash. Atsme 💬 📧 00:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC) ^{added underlined for clarity 17:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)}
• wbm1058, you are not the only one incredibly frustrated by this. Throughout this process I have:

1. been accused of cherry-picking sources but no sources have been presented that articulate any counter-narrative
2. been accused of engaging in original research for quoting reliable secondary sources verbatim
3. repeatedly had content from Wikipedia articles cited to me as evidence that every source on the subject is wrong, when:
   1. our content guidelines clearly stating "Examples of unacceptable user-generated sites are Wikipedia (self referencing)" and
   2. analysis of page histories and verification of cited sources shows the wording of these pages is an utter fabrication
4. been accused ignoring what kennel clubs say about these breeds because (according to the op) they are more reliable that independent writers, when as shown above the kennel clubs completely agree with the independent sources
5. been accused of ignoring genetic evidence when there is no genetic evidence that counters this view
6. been accused of promulgating a fringe theory.

Yet still, no articulate counter-narrative cited to anything approaching reliable has been presented here or on the article TP. Above I have presented a plethora of reliable sources that state unequivocally that an early name for the dog breed the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was Bull and Terrier (let's disregard capitalisation debates). No sources have been presented that state anything else intelligible. Yes, you sometimes read "Bull and Terrier-type" written, it is always with "-type" and it refers to Bull-type terriers.

Atsme, you keep repeating your claim that this is not supported by science but analysis of the sources you present show they do not counter anything proposed. Can you clearly point to any new sources that offer anything new? Cavalryman (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC).

I think it was premature at best to start a discussion on the fringe theories noticeboard, and I'm not sure I see any "fringe" theories – just plain old theories. All this discussion has accomplished so far is to shut down the discussions at Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier, as it's all forked to here. Having said, that, I'm still frustrated by your response which didn't respond at all to my points other than to say "let's disregard capitalisation debates" – essentially you disregarded everything I said, in favor of again repeating your "talking points".

Bull Terrier § History says Due to the lack of breed standards—breeding was for performance, not appearance—the "bull and terrier" eventually divided into the ancestors of "Bull Terriers" and "Staffordshire Bull Terriers", both smaller and easier to handle than the progenitor.

References

Can someone locate a book titled Bull Terriers: a practical guide for owners and breeders or similar that says "The result of the decision to breed more athletic dogs for fighting purposes was the emergence of the so-called 'Bull and Terrier', sometimes referred to as the 'Pit dog'. This is of prime importance in the story of the development of our breed as 150 years later this dog would be recognised by the Bull Terrier Club as the Bull Terrier!" or similar. Are the breed-centric books oversimplifying the history in favor of the breed which is the topic of the book?

What does Atlas of dog breeds of the world say about the Bull Terrier? Where did it come from? If [the Staffordshire Bull Terrier] was the original “Bull-and-Terrier.” then what was the Bull Terrier? The Bull Terrier was created by crossing a Staffordshire Bull Terrier with what? That they originally put the modifier "Staffordshire" in front of "Bull Terrier" when there was no need to do that because there was no other Bull Terrier, and then later the Bull Terrier was named with no concern that the breed name might be confused with the earlier [Staffordshire Bull Terrier] seems highly counter-intuitive to me. Can you explain that? wbm1058 (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Is this a fringe theory, YES or NO? If no, then this section ought to be closed and the "validation of sources discussion" returned back to the subject article's Talk page. 182.239.144.134 (talk) 02:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• wbm1058, in answer to your points.

First point - the sources detailed above all say it was a breed. Yes there is likely less deviation of appearance seen within breeds in the western world today than yesteryear, but that does not make them any less of a breed (the advent of breed standards has encouraged greater uniformity). Breeds seen in the developing world typically show greater variation in appearance as function (as opposed to form) is typically (but not always) what is sought from a mating.

Second point - I assume SMcCandlish's page move was based on a good faith reading of the article (SMC please correct me if I am wrong). As already stated above, that edit that introduced both the "extinct" and the "type" classifications to the article was cited to a clearly unreliable source, the personal webpage of an enthusiast with no discernible subject matter expertise (Atsme clearly agrees with that assessment, she added it to a list of unreliable sources in the dogs source guide she developed [36]).

Third point - you appear to have reached a conclusion that the B&T was a type not a breed (please correct me if I am wrong), I do not believe this is supported by sources. What is said on Bull-type terrier is actually consistent with the SBT and the B&T being one: the dog known as the B&T was the progenitor of the various other breeds (it is now called the SBT per the overwhelming majority of sources).

Regarding the Bull Terrier, most sources state the creator of that breed (James Hinks) took B&Ts and crossed them with some other breeds to achieve the appearance he wanted. Sources vary a little about which breeds were used for these outcrosses, the most common stated are the English White Terrier and the Dalmatian (the Atlas of dog breeds of the world adds some authorities believe Pointers, Greyhounds and Whippets added their influence). Hinks managed to achieve recognition for his breed before the original and so got the name. The world encyclopedia of dogs probably says it most succinctly: These dogs [Staffordshire Bull Terriers] were termed Bull Terriers and this name remained with them for over 100 years although in the mid 1850's James Hinks of Birmingham introduced an all-white variety by crossing the original Bull Terrier with the Old English White Terrier (now extinct) and the Dalmatian. This variety developed into a fancier's dog and later, when it was established as a breed, its supporters registered as "Bull Terrier" with the Kennel Club in Britain. Actually it was the original Bull Terrier (as in Bulldog-Terrier or Bull and Terrier) who as the original of his kind had a right to the name, but later when he assumed show-bench status on emerging from his gladiatorial past, he had to contend with the name Staffordshire Bull Terrier. As a note I would dispute the reliability of the Canterbury Bull Terrier Club as a source, breed clubs are in no way independent from their breeds.

Does that adequately address your points? Cavalryman (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC).

Precognition

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

Not sure what's going on here [37] but seems to be part of an extensive WP:GEVAL push. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Unusually, the user responsible stopped after the latest revert and started making a few pro-mainstream tweaks to the article, including the summary of the scientific rebuttal. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I knew that was going to happen. Dumuzid (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Attempt to reach consensus on medium/psychic BLPs

I have started a discussion over whether whether Wikipedia should describe psychics or mediums as "claimed", "self-purported", etc. Obviously, I do not think Wikipedia should be promoting fringe claims of individuals, but I am concerned that (a) the policy is being applied inconsistently here, and (b) co-ordinated editing, as related to the ongoing arb case, may be influencing decisions here. As this relates to fringe theories, I thought it would be of note to editors here. Thank you. —AFreshStart (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions and pseudoarchaeology

The discretionary sanctions for the Ancient Egyptian race controversy are no longer, but several Arbitrators said that pseudoarcheology was covered by the fringe/pseudoscience sanctions. Doug Weller talk 08:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the final decision on the race controversy hasn't been made although the votes look that way. Anyway the Arb comments stand. Doug Weller talk 08:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Brian Rose and COVID-19 conspiracy theories RfC

It would be nice to have some additional input at Talk:Brian_Rose_(podcaster)#RfC_on_text_around_conspiracy_theories to get a clearer decision one way or the other. Bondegezou (talk) 11:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Pilates lede

• Pilates (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

An editor (Finell) is trying to establish a new lede for this article with a take of its health "benefits" which seems at odds with what is cited in the article body. Edit warring too. More eyes could help broaden consensus. Alexbrn (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

... Ah. Not Pilate. Then "health benefits" make more sense. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I copyedited the lede here. I challenge Alexbrn, or anyone, to show where I added FRINGE content. I did straighten out some convoluted sentences and made the lede more concise. Furthermore, Alexbrn reverted my entire edit twice, including my addition of the first name of the author of a cited New York Times article and language improvements. It was Alexbrn who recently added the woo woo idea that Pilates is a mind-body thing [here]. Before he came along, the article said that it was a physical exercise system. That, in fact, is what brought me to the Pilates article. At age 75, I am looking for exercise that will improve my flexibility, core strength, and balance.

In addition, no one is more anti-FRINGE than I am. Years ago, when several editors were working to restore Speed of light to FA status (we succeeded), 2 relativity deniers were trying to push their POV into the article. An admin began an arbitration because of the 2 tendentious editors. Science won. FRINGE lost.—Finell 01:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

See no problem with Finell's proposed. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The problem is changing the text so is fails WP:V. Saying in Wikipedia's voice only that Pilates merely isn't effective for treating "disease", when the source (and Wikipedia) before referred more broadly to "any medical condition" is not good. More broadly, repeatedly trying to force an edit with snarky edit summaries is bad behaviour. Maybe Finell could try BRD in future? In general, performing composite edits which mix up gnoming with substantial POV changes is not a good idea. Alexbrn (talk) 06:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Problem solved: I changed disease to medical condition. And for this you post {Template:Uw-ew} on my Talk page[38] (even though you are involved in the war) and you warn me about discretionary sanctions involving complementary and alternative medicine.[[39]] I have never heard any say that Pilates exercise is any kind of medicine, including my wife, who is an exercise fanatic. As for "snarky edit summaries":

Finell diff1: Wikify, copy edit, NPOV

Alexbrn diff1: Not a summary and insufficient WP:V

Finell diff2: My copy editing did not add unverified content, but did add clarity is more concise

Alexbrn diff2: Inaccurate - better take it to talk rather than reverting

Finell diff3: Better take it to talk rather than reverting

Is Alexbrn an admin???—Finell 06:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

No but what's that to do with anything? Nil Einne (talk) 08:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• Finell has resumed edit warring without discussion. Pilates is a type of "mind-body intervention", which places it firmly in the category of alternative medicine. Calling it blandly a "a method of physical exercise" as well as being imprecise, unduly legitimizes it by placing it in the realm of "normal" regular interventions. Finell's lede (which they have at least modified to correct one of the WP:V mistakes they made) essentially said Pilates is a form of exercise with proven health benefits. Not quite right and the continued mashing of the revert key is deplorable. No, I am not an admin but an admin may be needed soon if the edit-warring without discussion continues. Alexbrn (talk) 09:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)