Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

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

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

Article alerts

Did you know

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

Categories for discussion

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

Redirects for discussion

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

Good article nominees

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

Requests for comments

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

Peer reviews

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

Requested moves

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

Articles to be merged

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

Articles to be split

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

Robert Lustig‎

Robert Lustig‎ is a low-carb diet advocate who has written books criticizing sugar consumption and promoting a high-fat diet. If you check out his books the only people that positively review them are fad-dieters from the low-carb camp, i.e. Mark Hyman, Gary Taubes [1]. I think pretty much everyone knows eating too much processed sugar is bad but this guy is a fanatic (apparently eating a donut is worse than smoking cigarettes!). Some false balance has been added to the "reception" section. See talk page discussion. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Psychologist Guy: I don't think he is low-carb. He is mostly anti-fructose. He says fructose has 8 of the 12 poisonous effects of alcohol. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

He is low-carb fundamentalist. He has spoken at many low-carb events such as the 2018 Low-Carb USA conference in San Francisco [2], 2020 Low-Carb Denver conference [3] (he has spoken there more than once) and is on several popular low-carb high-fat podcasts including the dietdoctor website [4], and writes low-carb cook-books. Here he is on the Low-Carb Down Under podcast [5]. Here he is promoting a keto diet [6] on Dave Asprey's podcast. I could go on. I have spent 10 years looking at all these people. Dave Asprey, Mark Hyman, Gary Taubes, Nina Teicholz, Tim Noakes, Aseem Malhotra, William Davis, David Perlmutter, Ronald Krauss etc. They are all in the same camp. Basically they think carbs (especially processed carbs) are evil and responsible for practically every disease. These views are extreme and not backed by evidence-based medicine. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

This looks like an argument within the academy, not a question of pseudoscience. Even if you think Lustig's arguments are weak, they were published in journals. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Jayabaya or Joyoboyo prophecies

See Jayabaya and Satrio Piningit. Terrible sourcing. This suggests the "prophecies" may be 18th century but with no evidence. One prophecy is "When carriages drive without horses, ships fly through the sky, and a necklace of iron surrounds the island of Java. When women wear men's clothing, and children neglect their aging parents, know that the time of madness has begun." Doug Weller talk 11:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Sounds very much the same as Mühlhiasl's prophecies. Vaticinium ex eventu is quite monotonous. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The fact that a spurious quatrain said to predict the September 11th attacks--and ascribed to Nostradamus--was in fact a satire composed in 1997 is one of the things that convinces me the programmers of our simulation have a sense of humor. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Difficult to source, but important for Indonesian National Awakening, Japanese occupation of the Dutch East Indies, Darul Islam (Indonesia), etc. ...in popular circulation from at least the early nineteenth century. Florida, Nancy K. (1995). Writing the past, inscribing the future. pp. 273–5. Will try to add some references on the talk page later. fiveby(zero) 14:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Georgy Rogozin

Read about him today in a news article; he was a Russian KGB leader who also engaged in a lot of paranormal/occult activity, such as claiming to read Madeleine Albright’s mind and raising the souls of the dead. Apparently his “discovery” about Albright has been parroted as fact by Vladimir Putin and various members of his government. But Rogozin’s Wikipedia article also presents all of those claims as fact, without offering any hint of a critical or skeptical perspective. This seems like it needs attention, especially given its relevance to the current geopolitical situation. I wonder if the article was directly translated from Russian, which might explain how slanted it is. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:2EB0 (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks IP--I just wanted to foot-stomp this one for emphasis. Real life has me pretty well wrapped up these days, but I went to have a look. The article needs a drastic re-write. Every time I tried to pick a small section or two, I ended up balking because it really demands something larger. Might find some time to try this weekend, but in the meantime, I would encourage one and all to peruse. Dumuzid (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

There have been a few edits to the article in the past two weeks, but the improvement has been very slight and a _lot_ more work is still needed. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:2EB0 (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Social selection

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

This article is already tagged as WP:FRINGE. Is "social selection" notable enough to have its own standalone article? Thegamboler (talk) 04:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Is Edward Dutton notable?

Edward Dutton (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Purveyor of all sorts of FRINGE, but mostly known for race-and-intelligence garbage (he was at one point editor-in-chief of Mankind Quarterly). Has not held any academic position for some time, and never above the level of adjunct, so definitely fails WP:PROF. Has popped up in news coverage of varying quality from time to time, e.g. [7][8][9][10][11][12], but I'm not sure how much this amounts to coverage of him. The only article I could find specifically about him is this one from the University of Aberdeen's student newspaper: [13]. As with other WP:FRINGEBLPs, the struggle with the current article is in threading the needle between BLP violation and using Wikipedia as a platform for the promotion of nonsense –– and as with previous marginal cases (like this and this) the simplest solution to the problem appears to be deletion. But since there are a number of sources which at least mention Dutton's work and/or hijinks, I thought I'd solicit feedback here before bringing this to AfD. Generalrelative (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't being EiC of Mankind Quarterly pass NPROF 8? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Only if you consider Mankind Quarterly to be a major, well-established academic journal. I don't believe that many here would describe it that way. Generalrelative (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

It's majorly infamous :) But in all seriousness it's a weird situation with this journal and probably not one the guideline writers foresaw - the journal is well-known, but for being really bad rather than being highly reputable in its field as would typically be the case for well-known journals. But I do think going forward with a full examination at AfD and letting that decide could be good. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually if you scroll down to the "Specific criteria notes" it's evident that the guideline writers did in fact foresee this: Journals dedicated to promoting pseudo-science and marginal or fringe theories are generally not covered by Criterion 8. But in any case I appreciate your suggestion and will likely move forward with the AfD unless someone has a persuasive reason why Dutton might satisfy WP:GNG (or some other notability criterion). Generalrelative (talk) 06:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so. Its subject area is ostensibly 'Anthropology', and it is near the bottom of the rankings in that subject. MrOllie (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

We had the same problem with the Woodley article, it looks well sourced but when you actually click on most of sources they do not mention Dutton, they mention him only in outline or they are self-published. I am not convinced Dutton has enough reliable sources either. I would definitely vote delete. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

See afd [14] Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, you beat me to it! Generalrelative (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Circumcision and HIV

An editor complained on BLP/N about Jah Prayzah#Personal life. I feel it's fine since subject's statement about circumcision seems supported by the available evidence as mentioned in our Circumcision and HIV (which I added a wikilink to) as there's no suggestion it provides great protection nor commentary on what circumstances (e.g. MSM) besides HIV and other STIs (I think the evidence for other STIs is not as strong as HIV although our article does mention it). But this is probably a better place to deal with something like this than BLPN. I've never seen this exact problem before, but I'm sure we have had to deal with stuff related to vaccines and treatments, especially junk treatments like ivermectin before. Nil Einne (talk) 12:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, the complaint was here Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Jah Prayzah. Nil Einne (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I've replied on the BLP/N entry with my thoughts. I find the complaint/notice completely unfounded as there's clear medical source consensus to keep the listing as it is. I've guided the other user to his next steps if they wish to continue pursuing the denial of the medical claims.

Also: You haven't added {{subst:ftn-notice}} or otherwise notified the other editor of your post here, which is specified above to be required/customary. I will place the notice myself for now to save you the hassle but please do it in the future. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 02:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean the sentence If you mention specific editors, please notify them which does not apply here since Nil did not mention specific editors? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh yeah I suppose, I thought it would still be courteous since he did mention an editor which... He's the subject of this notice. Or well, at least part of it. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 16:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• That circumcision has some protective effects against HIV transmission is established medical knowledge, and not fringe. What is fringe is the denial of this by the constant parade of anti-circumcision campaigners we see on Wikipedia. All the circumcision articles are a depressing time sink because of this, and the disruption is reflected in the articles' worsening quality. Alexbrn (talk) 08:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Helen Hadsell

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

It seems she won a few things, which proves the power of positive thinking and makes her a "parapsychologist". --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I think she probably wrote enough books and such to maybe make that an applicable category. It's certainly not the wackiest category I've seen. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I mentioned it here not because of the category - that was just the reason why I was aware of the article. The whole article is new and can probably use a few watchers. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

As I hope the article conveys, she won a lot of things because she became a skilled contestor, using the same kinds of skills that other contestors of the day used (such as creativity and perseverance and knowledge of how contests are run). Then she became a student/advocate/lecturer/author for all kinds of parapsychological beliefs, including that it was actually the power of positive thinking that led to her contest wins. I thought that the second set of activities made her prominent enough to be included in Category:Parapsychologists. But I'm not familiar with the category, so if it's too much of a stretch, feel free to take it out. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:CATV: It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. Some reliable source needs to call her a parapsychologist.

But of course, that rule is commonly neglected. In practice, categorization follows users' taste. For example, we have lots of articles in the categories "Critics of..." Judaism, Islam, Christianity, atheism, whatever, without any hints in the articles, sourced or not, that the person really "criticized" that worldview. Some user reads some vile attack on Jews written by a person and adds that person to Category:Critics of Judaism. Adolf Hitler needs to be removed regularly from that category. Maybe all "critics of" cats should be deleted. Also, there are local consensuses leading to sentences in the category pages starting with "this category is not to be used for...". It's Wild West out there, and I have given up on that part of Wikipedia. But I digress. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

List of paranormal magazines

• List of paranormal magazines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can everybody add their favorite gullible website, even those who cannot be bothered to learn the plural of "phenomenon", or are there any criteria for addition? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I generally remove anything from a list that does not have an article, or some sourcing strong enough to show it meets WP:GNG. Otherwise list articles would just be spam lists of everyone's podcast or newsletter. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Some of the listed mags are defunct. Should they be retained? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the list of skeptical magazines has that same criteria. The majority of them have no article and likely do not meet GNG. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

That's the criteria I use for all lists I look at. I'd apply the same to the skeptical magazine list.

I'd also leave the defunct entries on the list, since they're still notable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I cleaned up the list of skeptical podcasts, list of skeptical magazines, list of skeptical organizations and list of skeptical conventions. I only removed entries that had no bluelinks, so a convention run by a notable organization stayed on the list, or a podcast by a notable skeptic stayed on the list. I didn't do List of books about skepticism because I don't think I have the time right now to clear out everything that doesn't have a bluelinked author or book title. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

It's haircut day at Lists. Books are interesting because unlike a magazine, a book is published once (for all intents and purposes), and may not be notable enough on their own, but perhaps as part of list when the author is notable. But I guess it always depends. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

On lists like that, I leave it if the author is a bluelink. I did the same for the others I trimmed. If Jane G. Notable was the host of Unnotable Skeptic Chat I left the entry, same if "ObscureSkeptiCon" was held by Highly regarded skeptical posse. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't "magazine" have a real definition?

A blog is not a magazine. ApLundell (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Pap-Ion Magnetic Inductor

• Pap-Ion Magnetic Inductor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Something for medical users. Invented by physicist "Prof. DDr.". As of today, cures stuff according to journals I don't know. Yesterday it did not, but that was "outdated". --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I did a blanket revert, as the edit seemed to be entirely medical claims without WP:MEDRS sources or direct from the manufacturer. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I also placed a COI notice on the user's talk page. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

RfC as to whether Historicity of the Book of Mormon should be categorized as pseudohistory

Talk:Historicity of the Book of Mormon#RfC on category inclusion/exclusion Doug Weller talk 09:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The Enemy of Europe

• The Enemy of Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This new article puffs up a neo-Nazi book from 1953 that was not published widely and is mostly a summary of the author's previous book. It whitewashes the book and its author, includes a long and cherrypicked summary of the book, and has some unverified claims. The book up until now was not summarized at its author's Wikipedia page except as a link. I don't know if the article should be deleted/redirected or only much shorter and neutral. Llll5032 (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

We are now discussing redirecting to the author's page. If anyone would like to weigh in, see this and this. Generalrelative (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

RfC on Larry_Sanger's criticism of Wikipedia

This RfC on Larry_Sanger's criticism of Wikipedia may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Is there a fringe theory I'm missing here? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

There were arguments presented in the discussions that led to this RFC as to whether including Sanger's opinion would violate WP:FRINGE. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the issue is more that Sanger has become a pusher of fringe ideas and conspiracy theories and that context should need inclusion if his views are mentioned. Doug Weller talk 19:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but I struggled to find any evidence of that. He made one odd tweet about vaccines. He thinks the pseudoscience label on certain articles is not NPOV (that's borderline), but I can't find any conspiracy theories. Nevertheless, I understand the points made here. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I mean, he bought into QAnon, thought the Jan 6 riot might have been a false flag operation, and seems to think that covid and global warming are manufactured crises. MrOllie (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh.... I see. Thanks. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Accurin

The article on Accurin was recently expanded and it appears to be promoting Accurin by using non-peer reviewed studies.

Some cleanup or justifiable expansion is welcome. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 21:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel AfD-ed. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Attempt to get Indian government to sue us over Ayurveda

[15]]

"A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court to direct the Respondent the Ministry of Ayush and the Ministry of IT and Electronics to take necessary steps that compel Wikimedia Foundation to remove references from the articles regarding Ayurveda published on its website." "The petition said that the matter of concern for the petitioner is that the second line of the article published on Wikipedia, which is hosted by the Respondent Wikimedia Foundation, terms Ayurveda as a pseudoscientific, and needlessly at the start of the article cites the statement of Indian Medial Association that describes Ayurvedic practitioners as Quacks. " Doug Weller talk 14:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• And?… how is the WMF responding? Blueboar (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  I am no expert in the Indian legal system, but I don't believe any response is required at this time. The Indian government is the party sought to be compelled. If that is successful, then we might end up in a place where the WMF has to respond. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  It’s just for information. It may not get anywhere, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it did. Doug Weller talk 17:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• Bunch of quacks ineptly trying their hand at lawfare. Correct response is to fart in their general direction. Alexbrn (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  Been eating curry, Alex? - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:47, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  Probably elderberries, his hampster smells of them. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Tbh, we have a poor lead. I will try redrafting it, if I get some time. It is indeed quackery but that need to be cited to scholars, not IMA. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Never wrong to use even better sources. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if you're aware, but there was a very long and contentious RfC on summarising the IMA's position Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 20#RfC: What is the Indian Medical Association's position on Ayurveda?. While this RfC didn't discuss other aspects of the lead, nor even where we should summarise the IMA's position, I'd suggest trying to significantly reword or remove the part on the IMA's position would likely be a mistake. There was also another long and contentious RfC which came to the conclusion it should be called pseudoscience in the lead paragraph but not the lead sentence Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 16#RFC: pseudoscience in the opening sentence. Again doesn't directly affect any other aspect of any attempts at rewording, however it would need to be considered. And these RfCs might also be informative of the work it may take to get any major change. Nil Einne (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

They have a COI and are exhibiting ownership behavior, so we do not give in. We continue to follow our PAG. This will trigger a strong Streisand effect. They push and we push back harder in all forms of press and media. Screw them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Milk kinship

In the article Milk kinship there is a maintainence template from 2016 about undue emphasis to fringe theories. I want to establish what level this is legitimate. Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 00:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Nothing I can see looks like an obvious 'fringe theory'. The article could probably do with more input from someone familiar with the topic area, as is true for much such anthropological content on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

The editor who added the template did leave a note on the talk page explaining it: This article only mentions the Islamic aspect and fails to mention the Jewish aspect. Not really a fringe thing, just a statement that our coverage of the topic is too narrow. 2001:48F8:4002:684:9CD5:A12F:5EA5:7CE0 (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Tissue therapy

Hi everyone, I came here through a number of subsequent advice to write. At first, I wrote a draft on Tissue therapy (which may be considered a fringe theory), then the draft was declined, and I was advised to write at Teahouse, and finally I'm here (from there) writing, being absolutely ignorant what may be done further.
Tissue therapy is an invention by Vladimir Filatov, who suggested that tissues, placed in unfavorable conditions, produce so called biogenic stimulators, which can be extracted and used as a medicine.
Warning: Russian languege may be needed. Tosha Langue (talk) 03:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

The problem isn't that it's fringe. We have a lot of articles about fringe subjects. The problem is noability, and that isn't clear from the sources provided. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's right, @Anachronist! Probably, a good idea would be giving this to the Russian Wikipedia... Tosha Langue (talk) 03:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Now at AN: Closure review of the Skeptical Inquirer RSN RfC

This discussion at WP:AN is likely to be of interest to the readers of this board. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Now at AN: Close review regarding The Wall Street Journal

The discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Close_review_Talk:The_Wall_Street_Journal may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter (talk) 04:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Pursuant to that, the discussion at Talk:The_Wall_Street_Journal#Should_editorial_opinions_be_posted_in_the_lede_summary. has been reopened. XOR'easter (talk) 04:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Devra Davis

Devra Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Devra Davis is an independent researcher best known for promoting the fringe theory that 5G, Wifi and other sources of non-ionizing radiation are a cause of cancer, a claim disputed by almost every mainstream cancer research organization. I've noticed that the tone of the article now seems to bury her controversial claims, and position her as a mainstream researcher, which she certainly isn't! --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I may be responsible for some of that. I did a deep literature dive on the subject in August/September 2021, cognizant of recentism, and began a large expansion, trying to cover all prominent aspects of her career (books, research, background etc.) in approximate proportion to their prominence in secondary sources, and in a roughly chronologic order. The article had previously been affected by numerous rounds of puffery, promo, WP:SYNTH, and/or misuse of low-quality sources, but also what I saw as over-emphasis on recent 5G-related controversy and downplaying of other biographic info. Going back to at least 1990 she has been widely and deeply covered in secondary sources such as Science and the New York Times. I added reception of her books and expanded the section on wireless radiation activism, noting prominent controversies such as her Catalyst appearance. Her views have been widely covered, and I think the current version appropriately summarizes her claims (fringe though they may be) without promoting them. Some sources and authors are very critical of her (for instance Simon Chapman, and Robert L. Park who calls her a "[fear monger"), while mainstream publications tend to present her or her views without comment or qualifying remarks, e.g. simply "president of the nonprofit Environmental Health Trust"[16] or "Environmental health experts like Dr. Devra Davis, a Wyoming epidemiologist and toxicologist, have argued for years that there needs to be more public awareness about the potential dangers of cell phone radiation."[17] Criticism should be present—and it is—but I don't think the loudest critics should necessarily determine the tone and structure of the entire article. However I think there is still plenty of room for improvement in this article. Taking a broad, holistic view, what elements do you think need expanding? Which if any require less emphasis? This discussion ideally should take place on the article's talk page. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Mainstream publications get this game wrong so much. The problem with the claims is that they are promoted by people who have a severe lack of understanding about the differences and types of electromagnetic radiation. Their arguments strain credulity because the people making them (including Davis) have almost no understanding of the mechanics of electromagnetism. That's an important sense to convey: it's not that these people are "alarmist" (though they are), it's that their claims rest on an argument that at its most basic strains credulity. jps (talk) 11:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

This probably plays into the WP:FRINGE definition in the threshold between pseudoscience and an alternate theory lacking data. Specifically: Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in the basic laws of nature to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs, but lack the strong scientific evidence or rigour that would justify such major changes. Particularly regarding concerns around 5G specifically, is there a viable mechanism by which 5G would cause health issues that 4G didn't? Or really all wireless communications, as Wireless device radiation and health addresses (it's total power causing heating that's dangerous, not low power communications)? Those seem like the two topics to tackle easily using the latter article as an example: there's no evidence of health risks beyond total power level, and wireless communications power level thresholds are set 50x lower than produce observable health effects. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Ian Brown

Ian Brown is seeing COVID-19 conspiracy theory promotion from IPs. TPF 1951 (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

John Ioannidis

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

His stupid Kardashian paper is neither allowed to be criticized nor deleted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I mentioned this in article talk, but it's an interesting corner case. It's peer reviewed in BMJ Open (a quicker-turn, lower impact spinoff), but most of the controversy comes from claims Ioannidis either makes (or muses could be made, he's 'just asking questions') in the Discussion section of the piece rather than the actual Results. Are his claims in the Discussion considered peer-reviewed and requiring similarly reviewed sources for WP:PARITY, or is the Results section the only one that we consider to be reliable science that requires peer review to provide PARITY of critique? Bakkster Man (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm too lazy to add this to the talk page of the BLP, but: it looks so desperate when you're blowing up content in a BLP by citing a brand new primary publication, NB not in an article about the topic of the publication, but in the article about the author. –Austronesier (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Did you know shamans can speak bird language

WWG1WGA

Intelligence in Nature. “ Narby claims that "When shamans enter into trance and communicate in their minds with the plant and animal world, they are said to speak the language of the birds. Historians of religion have documented this phenomenon around the world." He then suggests that scientists and shamans should collaborate to "understand the minds of birds and other animals." He also claims that shamans communicate with some entity to negotiate the exploitation of natural resources and that the entity protects plants and animals from reckless and greedy humans.” Doug Weller talk 18:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

If Wyatt Tyrone Smith adds equally detailed summaries of the remaining 10 chapters of that book, that will be a really long article. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Wow, do they all have to eat dragon meat or something? Dumuzid (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

To some extent, a religious or mythical belief like that is beyond Wikipedia's remit to debunk, except he's making it a scientific hypothesis explicitly. More relevantly, there's like, one three-page review in a highly specialised journal. ( [18] ) and I think our article already goes into way more detail than could feasibly exis in that review, while leaving out context that an anthropological journal's review of it might give (has anyone seen that first source? Because I have an idea that if the review was positive, it would be quoted a lot more) Does this even make WP:GNG? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 18:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I can't speak bird, but I understand a lot of it. There's a whole lot of "lets fertilize eggs," "I want to eat," and "stay away from me and my babies!!" All in all, they're not very interesting conversationalists. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• Maybe it was the birds that started QAnon!. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think so, because they're not even real. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

  Convenient, neither is Q! PRAXIDICAE💕 19:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Is The Cosmic Serpent any better? Only independent source is a one to two page comment in a book entitled "Discarded Science", about terrible scientific theories that seemed like good ideas at the time. Maybe there's more to be found, but given the main source is, um..., Intelligence in Nature...

Also, I like the synth of mentioning a criticism of the book, and then outright claiming a documentary dealt with the criticism. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 20:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Seems to suffer the same issues, if not worse without an WP:INDEPENDENT source (and no apparent desire to add one since 2010). Bakkster Man (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cosmic Serpent
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligence in Nature

jps (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, there seems to be a lot of confusion as to whether and how certain sources can be used for notability. There happens to be a critical review of The Cosmic Serpent published in a compendium but available only in French. Aside from that, I am having a hard time finding anyone who paid attention to these claims in a way that would allow us to provide proper context. Even now in one of the AfDs we have editors arguing that they have no opinion as to the silliness or, let's be honest about what is really at stake here: WP:FRINGE nature of these claims. Better source would be nice to have! jps (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

There is a lack of WP:AGF in critique of my editing above, and would encourage reflection on that.

Despite the aspersions being cast here, I would like to draw attention to the critical review mentioned on the talk page, which is I think what you seek:

Das, Pranab (January 31, 1999). "Take Anthropologist's Conclusions With Grain of Salt". Winston-Salem Journal. p. 18 – via NewsBank.

I cannot access it, but for those of you seeking a critical review, here is what you are looking for. CT55555 (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Only one comment above was made after your first edit in the article, and it does not seem to be referring to either your edits on the article or AfD, let alone in an uncivil way. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Here's what I said: "I have no opinions on the validity or silliness of the contents."

Here's what the comment above says: "Even now in one of the AfDs we have editors arguing that they have no opinion as to the silliness or, let's be honest..."

I don't think it's a big leap that I've made. CT55555 (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Kim Iversen‎

I was asked to restore this deleted article to draft, which I did (I think the subject is pretty clearly notable), but shortly found myself needing to remove content sourced to the subject's Twitter and YouTube posts and other WP:RSP-disfavored sources presenting fringey takes on COVID-19 in particular. I expect that this will eventually return to mainspace, and will need eyes on it. BD2412 T 05:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned with how much weight is given to The Daily Beast's rather inflammatory article, in the lead, replete with quotes. WP:DAILYBEAST is a biased sourced with an unclear consensus on reliability, with a warning advising "particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons." (this particular article is in the Confider newsletter, previously called Source Material, which looks rather gossipy). Per MOS:LABEL, what the Daily Beast labels "parroting Kremlin talking points about Ukrainian neo-Nazis" might just be mentioning the well-documented existence of Ukrainian neo-Nazis. And what DB calls "seemingly defending the Chinese government's brutal treatment of Uyghurs" is not necessarily the same as "actually defending". Potentially disingenuous misreadings or interpretations shouldn't be quoted in the lead of a BLP, even if the underlying claims of grumbling staffers are true. And if DB is the only source covering what it calls a "saucy scooplet", then maybe it's better to err on the more conservative than scandalous side for now. --Animalparty! (talk) 10:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Confider is a news letter which defines itself as "Media scooplets you can't get anywhere else - that everyone will be talking about tomorrow" that "deliver[s] a buffet of juicy media morsels to your inbox". This looks worse than Daily Beast in general, and we already shouldn't be using Daily Beast for controversial statements about BLPs. So a particularly unreliable gossip newsletter of an already marginally reliable source definitely should not be used for controversial statements about BLPs. Endwise (talk) 11:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

My concern is that we take care to avoid presenting fringe views, or their propoundment, as mainstream. BD2412 T 16:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Peter James (historian)

Poor article about a fringe historian (not cuckoo fringe, just not mainstream). Doug Weller talk 09:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Ian Stevenson

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

Was Stevenson a well-regarded scientific authority on the study of reincarnation? Could there even be a "scientific authority" on this topic? - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

The medical and psych journals appear to believe so, as did the major medical school that opened up an entire department for his research, as did the major newspapers who published obituaries. I'm curious, have you ever read anything by or about Rhine or Pratt? Not, like, "Ghostbusters" but the actual science. I honestly consider the psychedelic research revolting but apparently it's been catching on for people with PTSD. To *me* it's far more fringe than the research of *if* something like reincarnation is possible through psych and medical studies; after all, all science needs to be proven. Most psychological theories have far less proof. Edited to add: See https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/patterns-reincarnation-cases for a list of peer-reviewed journal publications. It doesn't really belong in the article, but it's probably an easier read. Also see: Scientific American article: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/ian-stevensone28099s-case-for-the-afterlife-are-we-e28098skepticse28099-really-just-cynics/ . I'm disturbed by the notion that people will believe there are "expert", say, video game players, but won't acknowledge a body of knowledge (regardless of whether you, I, or anybody else agrees with it) obtained through rigorous studies and interviews is better than, say, reading an article by some dude living in someone's basement who believes in bigfoot and thinks he saw the virgin mary appear on his piece of toast. Just saying. 40.133.234.46 (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

His work has apparently gained no mainstream traction. It's WP:FRINGE: per the NYT obituary "Spurned by most academic scientists, Dr. Stevenson was to his supporters a misunderstood genius, bravely pushing the boundaries of science. To his detractors, he was earnest, dogged but ultimately misguided, led astray by gullibility, wishful thinking and a tendency to see science where others saw superstition." Wikipedia will of course take the side of "most academic scientists". Alexbrn (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Please don't confuse psychedelic research with parapsychology. It is true that there are some people who overlap, but the current interest of certain medical professionals (perhaps most famously the group at Johns Hopkins) looking at psychedelic drugs as treatments has basically nothing to do with any of the claims of parapsychology not the least of which are incredulous accounts of reincarnation. jps (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

all science needs to be proven No. Please see (for starters) Scientific method. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

He was definitely the high-water mark for parapsychology, which is probably saying a lot and not very much at the same time. Carl Sagan referenced his work in somewhat favorable terms in Demon-Haunted World, which I think may be indicative of a certain framework Sagan seemed to be partial to vis-a-vis intelligence and consciousness. More to the point, his work has been the subject of several pretty damning rejoinders that Stevenson himself acknowledged made his claims a bit problematic. Couple that with his obvious motivated reasoning and the lack of any meaningful follow-up or mechanistic claims and we end up with a life's work that is receding into the dustbin as most life's works are wont to do. Was he "well-regarded"? Comparatively, sure. Was he a "scientific authority"? Arguably no. jps (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Balkan egyptians

• Ashkali and Balkan Egyptians

This article about Albanian-speaking ethnic minorities in the Balkans, who from what I gather appear to be Albanised Roma people who have created new ethnic identities to distance themselves from the Roma. The article presents as fact a pseudohistorical account of the origin of Balkan "Egyptians", claiming that they descend from Egyptians sent to the Balkans by Ramesses II. This is apparently based on a document of the Council of Europe entitled History of the Balkan Egyptians by Rubin Zemon, a scholar based in Bulgaria. It doesn't appear to have been peer reviewed from what I can tell. this article from 2016 by Klípa Ondřej identifies Zemon as a Balkan Egyptian activist, [who] strive[s] to find real historical ties and ethnic origin of the group in Egypt. While sourcing abouts these groups is pretty scant, all other accounts from what I can tell consider them to be relatives of the Roma people. Help cleaning up the article would be appreciated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I found and incorporated one source, and toned down the absolute reliance on the POV author, but it could still use more support for the non-fringe view. This is a classic problem, a highly-active fringe author giving a detailed (if weak) argument that is easy to find and cite, and is hard to balance by the occasional passing mention by unbiased scholars. Agricolae (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Lots of primary sources on Copper peptide GHK-Cu

I found a very fringey looking advertisement on a local (physical) bulletin board, took it home, and looked up some of the research it mentioned. It led me to this page. MarshallKe (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@MarshallKe: What's the fringe part? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The advertisement I found was about selling patches that reflect your natural infrared light, "elevates" this copper peptide, and makes you young again by activating and creating new stem cells. While this is not in the article, the MEDRS-violating claims in the article support the claims of the advertisement. MarshallKe (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

It seems like a common component in anti-aging skincare (google "copper peptide anti-aging skincare"); the article says Several controlled facial studies confirmed anti-aging, firming and anti-wrinkle activity of copper peptide GHK-Cu but does not cite any sources. The source issues are worrying, but I know nothing about the subject matter, so despite being improperly sourced the article could all be completely fine and correct for all I know. Maybe people at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine will have a better clue. Endwise (talk) 10:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks more of a WP:MEDRS issue to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I also noticed that there is some significant overlap in the authorship of the studies; in particular, 5 consecutive references have F. X. Maquart as an author. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Move request Great Replacement ––> Great Replacement conspiracy theory

Folks here may be interested in the current move request discussion at Talk:Great Replacement#Requested move 16 May 2022. Generalrelative (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Yet Another JP Sears Scrubbing Flare Up

Over at anti-vaxxer/MAGA/conspirituality comedian JP Sears's Wikipedia entry, I'm seeing yet another flare up of scrubbing activity, particularly among embedded users hoping to censor anything deemed 'critical' of the subject, WP:RS be damned. In fact, the talk page there nowadays has about two to three users who appear to be there solely to remove anything 'critical' or 'political' about the article's subject (they haven't done a single thing else). See Talk:JP_Sears#Wikipedia_is_not_Censored:_Yet_More_Attempts_at_Removing_WP:RS_from_the_Article. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)