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

• 21 Apr 2024 – Category:Remote viewing (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by JzG (t · c); see discussion

Redirects for discussion

• 25 Apr 2024 – Rkkody (talk · edit · hist) →Heaven's Gate (religious group) was RfDed by Utopes (t · c); see discussion
• 25 Apr 2024 – Quantum realm (talk · edit · hist) →Quantum mechanics was RfDed by Utopes (t · c); see discussion
• 19 Apr 2024 – Open Floor (talk · edit · hist) →5Rhythms was RfDed by Utopes (t · c); see 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) is requested to be moved to Conspiracy theories about Jeffrey Epstein's death by SilviaASH (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

Origins of SARS-CoV-2

From Li-Meng Yan#Origins of SARS-CoV-2:

"Subsequent research has shown that proponents of the "natural" origin theory failed to consider a common laboratory technique known as serial passage. Using this technique, it remains a possibility that a laboratory did create COVID-19.

Pertinent to note here that on 2nd August 2020 Nobel Laureate Luc Montagnier argued that the Coronavirus disease 2019 was man-made. According to Luc Montagnier, the "presence of elements of HIV and germ of malaria in the genome of coronavirus is highly suspect and the characteristics of the virus could not have arisen naturally.""

References

Compare this with COVID-19 misinformation#Wuhan lab leak story:

"Though the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus has not been determined, unfounded speculation and conspiracy theories regarding the possibility the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology have gained popularity during the pandemic. One narrative describes the pandemic as the result of an accidental leakage of a coronavirus, another says that the virus was engineered as a bio-weapon. In February 2021 a World Health Organization team probing the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic said that that the coronavirus "most likely" originated in animals before spreading to humans, and rated the lab leak theory as "extremely unlikely". WHO researcher Peter Daszak said "The only evidence that people have for a lab leak is that there is a lab in Wuhan".:

References

Also compare this with Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Reservoir and zoonotic origin:

"Available evidence suggests that SARS‑CoV‑2 has a natural animal origin. Nonetheless, in the context of global geopolitical tensions, the origin is still hotly debated. Early in the pandemic, conspiracy theories spread on social media claiming that the virus was bio-engineered by China at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, amplified by echo chambers in the American far-right. A few individuals, including former CDC director Robert R. Redfield, have claimed, without evidence, that the virus may have been studied by and escaped from the Institute. Most virologists who have studied coronaviruses consider the possibility very remote, and the March 2021 WHO report on the joint WHO-China study stated that such an explanation is "extremely unlikely".:

References

Please help to reconcile these contradictory claims. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Yikes. That entire COVID section in Li-Meng Yan is way too sympathetic to this person's views. It needs trimmed down to just their assertions, while right now the section is trying to argue "yes, she's right." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, yes. This is what I call the "paradox of the nutjob". There are thousands and thousands of scientists who are experts in this field who essentially anonymously concur with the well-established and uncontroversial stance that the virus is of natural origin. They are anonymous because they are multitudinous, and because they are anonymous, it's easy to ignore them. A handful of nutjobs, who may have advanced degrees in the field even, come to a different conclusion, and because we have a name to put with them, it makes it seem like their narrative has more credence. However, the reason we can name them is that they stand alone in the conclusions, so of course we can name them. Because we psychologically trust people more when we know who they are, and because we know this scientist's name, we tend to overvalue their conclusions over the multitudes who have all reached the "natural origin" conclusion. Finding individuals with both the right credentials and with wild conclusions is usually pretty trivial, but finding them does not negate the many many thousands of people with similar credentials who aren't spouting nonsense like this. --Jayron32 13:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

While it's definitely something we're struggling with on the COVID articles, the issue here seems to be much simpler. A small, low-traffic article with WP:POV editing that isn't caught because it doesn't have the eyes on it. Eyes on this page can fix it, but the struggle is finding all the little corners that similar edits are being made. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I pulled the problematic paragraphs posted above for being clear POV-pushing. Especially the second one. I think the entire article needs some attention for ending up with a bit of WP:UNDUE weight. Most of the article seems to be written as a workaround for the lab-leak scenario, full of preprint papers. I think there's a case to be made that the WP:NOTE bits of the article are mostly covered in the lede and first section. The rest can probably be condensed into 2-3 paragraphs: "She's publishing a lot of unreviewed pre-prints that are almost universally debunked, she's supported by Steve Bannon and other right-wing money which has gotten a lot of media attention". Bakkster Man (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree per Bakkster. Article was written in a frenzy, a few of us have trimmed the worst excesses but haven't been inclined to wade through the cruft. Koncorde (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Jayron32, notice of meme theft. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Take it, my friend. It belongs to the world... --Jayron32 11:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Also per Bakkster. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for working on this, "proponents of the 'natural' origin theory" was indeed classic WP:NPOV violation since it's the most accepted hypothesis unless discovered otherwise and widely reported as such by the best sources. —PaleoNeonate – 18:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Looks much better, especially with the Luc Montagnier stuff removed as well. It's really sad how he seems to have lost either his mind or his scruples over the years. This isn't his first foray into stuff that is blatantly obvious quackers (seriously, malarial DNA in a coronavirus? He does realize that malaria is a protozoan and not a virus, right?). Hyperion35 (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  The article is still a rambling collection of mentions of everything this person was involved in. I'm taking out the TNT and will try to cut it down to something encyclopedic. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll follow you up, one of the primary writers of the existing article seemed to agree on the talk page as well that there's room to significantly reduce. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: I trimmed significantly more real estate, focusing more on the big picture instead of every little tempest in a teapot. The big piece of cleanup remaining would be to cite reliable secondary sources instead of the pre-prints themselves for the claims those pre-prints are currently cited to make. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

In the last few weeks, the same discussion about lab leaks has been smeared over the Talk pages of:

• COVID-19 pandemic
• Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2
• COVID-19 misinformation
• Investigations into the origin of COVID-19
• Li-Meng Yan
• Wuhan Institute of Virology
• Nicholas Wade

Should we point those to one single place in order to avoid repetition? (Probably too late for that.) Please add more links when you find them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

For comprehensiveness, I'm going to add a comment here about another page where disruption has spread to (albeit not on talk page): Francis Boyle. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Another one: PolitiFact. Someone is playing Chinese whispers - the Wikipedia article was far lableakier than the actual source it was based on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Michael R. Gordon: Guy who has pushed the lab leak idea in the WSJ. He is better known for pushing the Iraq-has-weapons-of-mass-destruction idea a few years back. An IP has tried to add his COVID publication to the article, but got reverted. May be well worth watching too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Here would seem to the natural place. Perhaps a new section Handling COVID "lab leak" content in Wikipedia articles ? However, since there's been a mega RfC on this I think there's little hope of this achieving much, and maybe creating more discussion will just fuel the WP:IDHT-based argumentation. The good sourcing hasn't budged so there's little more to say. Alexbrn (talk) 07:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

No longer in the text but another target was Gain of function research that was initially created to suggest it, —PaleoNeonate – 18:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps an AfD candidate. Created by a banned WP:SOCK user, probably could get covered as part of another article on viral research. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean the Gain of function research article? If so, while SS used socks it's unclear which was the first, the SPI page is under that nick and the article was created before. It's also plausibly notable by now and is not by itself a conspiracy theory, so I'm not sure if AfD would work (if you think it would, feel free to nominate). Its current text also seems to be acceptable, —PaleoNeonate – 22:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Bakkster Man I agree with PaleoNeonate as the subject is clearly notable and not fringe. As a dual-use technology, GoFR is a tricky subject to cover, as intentions can very easily be confused, as explained by Kenneth Bernard in the Nature article I referenced in the lead of the article. Its a pitty about all the socks running amok on this site. I was nearly accused of being a sock myself. AvidTyper (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@AvidTyper and PaleoNeonate: Yeah, I wasn't arguing that the topic itself is fringe or otherwise forbidden. AfD was probably a bit harsh. Perhaps more accurate would be a merge of that article (arguably created as a POV-fork) into the serial passage article, which is currently mostly focused on attenuation rather than GoFR. But I'm definitely interested in hearing reasons why the articles might be better maintained as two separate articles. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I would actually agree with Bakkster Man that the article could be merged with serial passage, but this article mostly covrers the DURC, not the science. My suggestion was to rename the article to "Gain of Function Research of Concern", because the phrase "Gain of Function Research" was born out of discussions on those concerns, and is too general. Gain of Function Research isn't a field of medical research in itself, which I tried putting in the lead, but it got reverted. AvidTyper (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• I think there are two separate quesitons here. One is whether Li-Meng's promotion of the lab leak theory qualifies for inclusion on that article. It probably does, but absolutely not based on those sources: one is a very low-tier source which entertains fairly high degrees of speculation, the other is Luc Montagnier, who put his credibility on the line to pimp homeopathy. When you gamble and lose, you don't get your stake back.

The second question is whether this speculation converts the firnge theory into not-fringe. Answer: No. It's still fringe. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Washington post in-depth coverage is fringe? WSJ anyone? History is not subject to MEDRS Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  History is not just something that happened in the past (last year even). Historical medical information can be identified as such by its being in historically-focused sources (e.g. articles classified by PUBMED as historical, history of medicine text book like https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/african-aids-epidemic/A6A3B07AE503E5F15C1E2E61A011224F this], etc.) Alexbrn (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  Alexbrn, Didn't you know? History is going to vindicate the conspiracy theorists because a journalist said their theory might not be as crazy as 99% of all the actual scientists involved say it is.

  In 50 years, people will look back on us and say "Look how stupid those people were for listening to the experts, instead of listening to crazy conspiracy theories! But don't worry, we know better now. We always believe the most sinister possibility, and respond accordingly! Now, don't forget to put on your gas mask; you can't fight giant irradiated lizards in a post-apocalyptic wasteland if you can't breathe!" ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Why do you trust that coverage, and not NPR's coverage which states "Virus researchers say there is virtually no chance that the new coronavirus was released as result of a laboratory accident in China or anywhere else"? Or Forbes which published No, Science Clearly Shows That COVID-19 Wasn’t Leaked From A Wuhan Lab? This is why the idea is still considered fringe (not pseudoscience, just WP:FRINGE/ALT) and why we depend on the scientific sources instead of chasing a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The NPR article is from April 2020. Were there new revelations since then that would change things? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

NPR on May 27, 2021 in Why The U.S. Thinks A Lab In Wuhan Needs A Closer Look As A Possible Pandemic Source: "The idea that the coronavirus could have leaked from a lab in Wuhan, China — instead of jumping from animals to humans — was dismissed as a conspiracy theory by many scientists a year ago. That has changed now. " Terjen (talk) 02:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• At this point, the lab theory of Covid 19 cannot be considered "fringe". It's likely false, but it ain't fringe. [1] has Fauci saying it should be investigated and Newsweek saying it isn't fringe ("Once considered a fringe theory..."). Kaiser Health News is reporting something similar [2]. There are tons of others. At this point it's certainly a viable theory (which I believe will be shown to be false). Hobit (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Hobit: I'm not so sure that it isn't fringe. There appears to be a disconnect between the media and the academic sources. There have been multiple calls for investigations of all sorts (ex. this in search of an intermediate host), but I've not seen a credible scientific paper which states anything positive about the lab leak, accidental (other than it being "possible") or otherwise (this other scenario is considered to be ruled out, as reported by the WHO investigation). We can definitively report the lab leak as a notable idea in some relevant places, but beyond that, I have not seen anybody satisfy even the basic burden of proof that the extreme unlikelihood of the lab leak is contested within the relevant academic community. I'm compiling a list of papers on the topic at User:RandomCanadian/The origins of COVID-19: literature review, and many papers don't seem to mention anything but a zoonotic origin. If you know what you're doing, help is appreciated. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

  Like beauty, credibility is, to some extent, in the eye of the beholder. My academic credentials aren't in this area, so I have a harder time judging. But I'd say the mere publication of credible work which examines this question as a focus and considers a lab source to be a real possibility is a good sign the view is not fringe. So [3] (which is a meta study of the question), is enough to move it out of fringe science IMO. Very few people with a clue believe it's true, but few would be shocked to find out it is. Closer to my own area, "P=NP" isn't a fringe view though the (vast?) majority of people in CS theory find it unlikely. It's a minority opinion about a question we can't yet answer. Hobit (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  That paper was discussed previously, and was found to be in a dubious journal (not related to medicine and not MEDLINE indexed), and also not a review paper (since it contains significant new analysis). The original, French language review paper, (in a credible journal, [4]), agrees with other research in that it rules out deliberate engineering, while saying that strong, definitive evidence is not yet available to make a clear conclusion ("Sur base des données actuelles (voir Tableau I), il est actuellement difficile de statuer à propos de l’émergence du SARS-CoV-2 et de déterminer s’il est le fruit d’une transmission zoonotique naturelle ou d’une fuite accidentelle à partir de souches expérimentales.") However, that would be one paper among many others, and also one from about 9 months ago (+whatever the delay for peer review, likely at least one more month). Also in broad agreement with other papers, which say that while it is not possible to disprove the lab leak, it is extremely unlikely. I'm not sure it would be enough to change the status of the lab leak meaningfully (it still would be a possible, albeit unlikely, hypothesis) - it would be (remain) qualified to be included in articles about minority views, but likely not prominent enough among experts to be mentioned directly as a significant competing hypothesis, on equal grounds with the preferred zoonotic origin, in broader articles. Even back then, Sallard et al. were also astute enough to note that the political nature of things: "La controverse s’est amplifiée, dans un contexte politique tendu où le président des États-Unis accusait la République populaire de Chine d’avoir laissé échapper le virus manipulé d’un laboratoire P4 à Wuhan..." RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  As I said, I'm not an expert. But when the leading public health official in the US thinks it's worth looking into and Newsweek thinks it isn't fringe, IMO we shouldn't call it fringe. Hobit (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Hobit: When I say "fringe" I'm nearly always thinking of WP:FRINGE; "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." Lab leak being a political conspiracy theory or being the opinion of few experts doesn't change that outlook. Per having taken a look at multiple sources, I'm confident that the lab leak is such a non-mainstream view (which is not supported by scholarship in its field), and would thus be subject to the general consideration described thereafter: "If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." And then we're off to the same debate that has been raging since May last year (and before), about where it is DUE to mention the lab leak and where it is not, except that now scientific scholarship (preferred source) hasn't changed much if at all but the popular press is off in another direction... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  Sure. Do you agree that the mainstream view is that this is worth investigating? The prevailing view of experts seems to be "probably not, but we should look into it". Do you agree? If so, do you agree that such a thing isn't "fringe"? I'm trying to see where we are disagreeing about this. Hobit (talk) 11:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  "Such a thing" is very vague. The conspiracy theories run a wide gamut from this being a bioweapon released for population control, to the virus having tell-tale human signatures, to it being a known truth that there was a leak and it is being covered up i.e. "China lied, people died". The muted thought that "yeah, it's a remote possibility, but probably worth checking out" is not fringe. But that's not what the (mostly American) fringers are saying, is it? Alexbrn (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  There are plenty of people making crazy claims. The issue at hand is if Covid 19 may have come from a lab. I'm trying to get us to agree that the theory that the virus came from a lab isn't fringe at this point. Do you (all) agree with that? Hobit (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  On the precise question, I disagree. The lab leak is WP:FRINGE ("an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field") in scientific terms. Other issues, such as its notability (independent from its status within the scientific community) and calls for further investigations (not all of which are explicitly because of it), are different, but that is a question about DUE which is best decided on individual articles (since context matters). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  If your understanding of fringe is what we are using, we've got problems as an encyclopedia. When we don't know an answer and serious folks in the field think it is worth looking into, the theory isn't fringe--it's part of the mainstream of science. There are lots and lots of things we don't know. Some things we can be quite sure of. But if mainstream scientific thought thinks a theory is worth exploring, it isn't fringe even if the vast majority of those people think it is unlikely to be true. Do you work in the sciences or have a background there? Your understanding of fringe and mine are pretty divergent. In my experience, the interesting part of research in the sciences is figuring out answers to questions that don't have an obvious answer. This would seem to be one of those cases. We suspect what the answer is, but until we know, all reasonable theories are on the table. And a lab source for the virus certainly seems plausible. Hobit (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  When we don't know an answer and serious folks in the field think it is worth looking into, the theory isn't fringe--it's part of the mainstream of science. That is not the standard by which we judge fringe topics, else we'd not consider anything fringe. There are "serious folks in the field" who advocate creationism, anti-vaccination, ayurveda, acupuncture and fruit juice colonics as a treatment for cancer. And when it comes down to it, we can never truly know anything. The definition of a fringe theory is a theory which stands at odds with the majority view of experts. Note that there is a broad spectrum of fringe theories, ranging from the batshit insane to the utterly serious and credible. The lab leak hypothesis may be becoming more credible, but until it's considered more likely than a zoonotic origin, it will remain a fringe theory. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  There are "serious folks in the field" who advocate creationism, anti-vaccination, ayurveda, acupuncture and fruit juice colonics as a treatment for cancer. No there really aren't. I have a personal relationship with one of the best, and most qualified folks who have argued for Intelligent Design. That person is an NAE member. And no one in their right mind would call them a "serous person" in the field. There just aren't any folks there who are. And thus it is a fringe theory. Fauci is as serious as it gets. Peter Hotez is. [5] is published in a serious place. We are past fringe theory at this point. Hobit (talk) 03:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  Hobit, that's a circular argument and you know it. Michael Behe is still a professor of biochemistry, and the list of MDs and DOs who advocate fringe medical woo is only not impressive if you're aware of how many reject that nonsense. Yeah, that crap isn't taken seriously except by a small minority, but you know what else isn't being taken seriously except by a small minority? The lab-leak hypothesis.

  The fact that this minority is growing doesn't make it not a minority. WP:CRYSTALBALL seems to apply here.

  At the end of the day, you're arguing that we shouldn't follow our established policies wrt to this matter. And while I'm open to such arguments, I need to hear from you why WP:IAR should apply, not why our other policies shouldn't. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  A) it's not a circular argument and B) I certainly don't know that it is. If you're going to make a personal attack like that, maybe Wikipedia isn't the best place for you? But to address the relevant parts: You seem to be claiming that *any* minority opinion is fringe? If so, sure, this is fringe. But that's not a reasonable definition. And I'm claiming that labeling something that's accepted by the mainstream as a real possibility is "fringe" doesn't make sense and isn't what our policies say. And I'm also explaining why it's a bad idea (pretty horrible for Wikipedia's reputation to label something many of the leading experts say we should be investigating as "fringe" science.. If no one gets to it before I return from vacation, I'll start an RfC on the issue. I suspect most would agree this isn't fringe at this point, but I could be wrong. Hobit (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  Hobit,If you're going to make a personal attack like that, maybe Wikipedia isn't the best place for you? The irony here is palpable.

  You seem to be claiming that *any* minority opinion is fringe? Yes. See WP:FRINGE/ALT. All minority opinions are fringe, but not all fringe is pseudoscience. You should really familiarize yourself with our policies before you debate them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  A) you claimed I intentionally made a misleading argument. That is a personal attack. Pointing it out is not a personal attack. B) I think you misunderstand the guideline you are citing. I'll start a new section below. Hobit (talk) 04:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

  Do you work in the sciences or have a background there? although most FTN regulars have a fairly good understanding of scentific processes, it's not very relevant as WP is not a research paper. It would matter for WP if there was the discovery of plausible evidence and that it was reported by the majority of the best sources. Those sources would also presumably report about the extent and containment of any such incident, what may result in terms of safety regulation revision or assessment, etc. At least one more article would result, undoubtedly and there'd be sources and material to write. Meanwhile yes, relevant bodies can keep investigating what they consider worthwhile, that doesn't concern WP except for reporting about notable official investigations at the relevant article. —PaleoNeonate – 01:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  A lack of understanding of the nature of scientific research is a problem when judging it. As noted in our article on fringe theory: "A fringe theory is neither a majority opinion nor that of a respected minority". There is a respected minority (and perhaps a majority at this point) who think it is worth looking into. "The term fringe theory is commonly used in a narrower sense as a pejorative, roughly synonymous with pseudo-scholarship." this isn't that. And it is embarrassing to Wikipedia to claim that it is. Again, I strongly suspect it is a wrong theory (and I'm nowhere close to an expert in this), but it's a reasonable one. That should mean that we don't call it fringe. Hobit (talk) 03:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Hobit: We should use the definitions in WP:FRINGE instead, as that's the WP:PAG that applies to how we discuss topics. Specifically, the breadth of the definition there which applies to WP:FRINGE/ALT, which is the bit that produces the most disagreement. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think "is it fringe or not" is the right discussion. There's the unlikely hypothesis and the motivated conspiracy theories. Moreover, if there eventually was evidence of a leak found, it would still be implausible as the origin of an epidemic, and it's even less likely to be the origin of the strand, that is understood to have naturally evolved like they always do. However, human activities including deforestation and climate change, as well as trade practices, are considered to increase the likelyhood of contact with animal pathogens and possibly also mutations via intermediary hosts (this has been increasingly studied in relation to avian and swine influenza). So the possibility of a lab leak isn't even very important, meaning that propagating undue noise, especially without evidence, advertently or not, suggests a conspiracy theory (everyone must be lying and hiding the evidence, etc). Unfortunately there are campaigns dedicated to doing just that. —PaleoNeonate – 08:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• If we DON’T call the entire thing fringe, should we distinguish between the “intentionally leaked” and the “accidentally leaked” sub-theories? Blueboar (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
  • If we address those two theories at all (and I'm not sure we should) then yes IMO that would be wise. Hobit (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

There is a respected minority (and perhaps a majority at this point) who think it is worth looking into. Exactly. Enough people in relevant fields think this theory is plausible enough to investigate so its not a fringe view any more. Bonewah (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest the mainstream view is "worth looking into, but unlikely", which has been more or less the status-quo we settled into after the WHO report was published. The trouble is disentangling the people going on the record that the lab origin was possible and requires investigation, and those who think it's likely. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

From a Wikipedia perspective, "worth looking into, but unlikely" makes the view not fringe. Bonewah (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

If that were true, believers in little green men, Bigfoot, and cold fusion (etc.), would be uncorking the Champagne! Alexbrn (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Im not sure how why you think that is relevant. If major zoologists, National Park officials and Government bodies were to all say that bigfoot's existance was "worth looking into, but unlikely", then, yes, Bigfoot would not be fringe. Bonewah (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Great! Since bigfoot has scientific supporters I trust you'll be arguing it's not fringe over at our article. It's amazing to me the the lab-leak boosters somehow think Wikipedia hasn't seen all these types of argument before and developed its WP:PAGs over the years to make it hard for fringe idea to get unduly boosted in its articles. Alexbrn (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Many scientists, such as Baric or even Reiman, think that a zoonotic origin is still more likely (with Baric being "affronted, on behalf of the natural world", saying Mother Nature is perfectly capable of doing this on her own), and some calls for investigation have even been explicitly about investigating zoonotic links ([6]). How and why lab leakers are still trying to engage in personal interpretation and argue that this makes the lab leak a view which is not a fundamental departure from the prevailing view is beyond me, but I'm quite sure it involves a lot of conspiracy-theory-groupthink, and very little of Wikipedia policy such as preferring academic sources and being biased towards actual science and not science by press conference; towards actual conspiracies and not conspiracy theories. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Ive not looked into it, but i doubt 'prweb.com' is as reliable a source as Dr. Fauci. Or Joe Biden. Or the WHO and most, if not all major news organizations. This isnt bigfoot, this is serious business that is being reported everywhere. (EC) Baric thinking that a zoonotic origin is still more likely does not mean that a lab leak is fringe, just that Baric thinks its not as likely. And i cant help but notice you guys seem to be running counter to what reliable sources are saying, that the Lab leak hypothesis is pretty mainstream. Should i bother to provide links to all the major news orgs now reporting on this? I cant imagine you have missed them at this point. Bonewah (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

In news (as somebody said recently) "controversy always gets the mic". Bigfoot, aliens, lab leak. All big news, all fringe. Alexbrn (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Should I bother to provide a link to a list of sources saying how the scientific consensus hasn't changed, in addition to a list of scientific sources about the lab leak? WP:SCHOLARSHIP is explicitly preferred to WP:NEWSORG, especially when these are WP:MEDPOP and misrepresenting science with sensationalist headlines - the lab leak may be mainstream among politicians or non-experts, but among scientists with relevant expertise, it is still as fringe as it has been, and WP:FRINGE describes how to deal with such views which are fundamentally at odds with the prevailing views of the relevant experts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Fauci and Baric seem to be relevant experts in this regard. At least as far as Fringe is concerned, i think the lab leak theory falls into WP:FRINGE/ALT Alternative theoretical formulations category, i.e. "In other cases an alternative theoretical formulation lacks significant evidence to show its validity, but when such evidence is produced, the theory can become mainstream.". But, as noted above, the relevant discussion always seems to be somewhere else on Wikipedia. Bonewah (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree, WP:FRINGE/ALT. In case you've missed it, the coverage currently is at Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#Investigations, as this is the page with sufficient relevance and length to discuss the concept at length and follow the WP:FRINGE and WP:GEVAL guidelines to give the discussion due weight in a due location. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: TonyBallioni made this point at RSN a few days ago, with much more elegance than me (1234), but yes. I think that if the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Atlantic, Vox, Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Anthony Fauci and InfoWars all started saying Bigfoot was "plausible" and "warranted an investigation", it would mean one of two things:

1) it's a mainstream opinion that Bigfoot warrants an investigation, or

2) every mainstream media outlet and governmental agency is participating in a massive conspiracy to mess with Wikipedia editors.

Now, I'm not saying that mainstream media outlets and governmental agencies don't engage in massive conspiracies, but it seems beyond the remit of Wikipedia to expose them, or to use our big brains to draw conclusions that aren't supported by a consensus of reliable sources. jp×g 14:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The point at RSN was that such sources should not be suppressed. It would still be fringe (if the preponderance of serious RS was opposed). Alexbrn (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

That is a particularly silly false dilemma. I immediately thought of a third possibility: that all those sources copied the idea from each other because they are all part of a big echo chamber, the members of which all have certain properties in common. For example, all the people you chose to list are American. There you have a common property, one which has certainly played a role in the belief in Iraqi weapons of mass destruction a while back. Another common property: none of them has any relevant expertise, they are all Uncle Jimmy-Bubba spontaneously commenting from his armchair. A fourth possibility is that you are lumping people together who have vastly different degrees of acceptance of the idea in question - after all, professional skeptics think "that Bigfoot warrants an investigation", although they think it's all bollocks, because that is what skeptics do, investigate bollocks. I am sure there are other possibilities you have not thought of either. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

For the record, this has been said before, but I'll reiterate that "SARS-CoV-2 was deliberately created as a bioweapon", "the current coronavirus pandemic is the result of an accidental release of a pathogen under study at a nearby research facility", and "the proximate origin of the COVID-19 pandemic is unknown" are vastly different statements, which are frequently conflated in discussions on the topic. The first is completely whacked-out, doesn't seem to have any evidence supporting it, and I've never seen someone seriously advocate for it. The second seems unlikely, and there is no real evidence conclusively saying it's true or false. The third, which is the one most of these discussions actually center around including, seems to be fairly well supported by reliable sources; it's harder for this to be false, since it is a statement about lack of knowledge rather than a proclamation of certitude. jp×g 14:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes - Wikipedia's content on misinformation mirrors what RS says about misinformation. Editors seem to want to have lots of forum-ish discussion about it., and the fact that you think the statement "the current coronavirus pandemic is the result of an accidental release of a pathogen under study at a nearby research facility" is "fairly well supported by reliable sources" shows the levels of delusion wrt what the sources actually say. Alexbrn (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC); amended 14:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, correction: jpxg said that the third possibility was fairly well supported by reliable sources. The third option they gave was "the proximate origin of the COVID-19 pandemic is unknown".

They described the statement you quoted as "...unlikely, and there is no real evidence conclusively saying it's true or false." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah, silly me. I think we can all agree that the statement "the proximate origin of the COVID-19 pandemic is unknown" is neither misinformation nor fringe. But that's not the line the misinformation-mongers are pushing. Alexbrn (talk) 14:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, I agree, on both counts. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn:The second statement breaks down two different way. Is "an accidental release of SARS-CoV-2 under study at a nearby research facility" a possibility, and if so is it likely. The former has significant (nearly complete, at this point) overlap with "the proximate origin of the COVID-19 pandemic is unknown". And, this is what we have reliable sources for (most notably, the WHO-China study). The conflation between that well sourced possibility and the varying sources on likelihood is the issue. And it happens in both directions, from dismissal of even the most benign mention as conspiratorial thinking, to claims that it's the most likely explanation for anyone who isn't a CCP plant.

In short, the possibility of such an origin is not fringe, the claim that it was likely is. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree. But the statement as written by JPxG was "the current coronavirus pandemic is the result of an accidental release of a pathogen under study at a nearby research facility", which contains no mention of possibility. This is a problem with this whole area, with arguments eliding "remote likelihood" with the lab leak being a slam dunk, in a way which brings a certain meme[7] to mind. Alexbrn (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I think JPxG fell to the same trap that makes this topic difficult to discuss. Without careful, precise wording it's easy to give the wrong impression. His first mention gives one impression, but his later reference to it does suggest the unlikely nature. If so, I think we're all in agreement that the possibility is due to be discussed, so long as WP:FRINGE/ALT is followed making clear that the mainstream views its likelihood as low. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

From what I see in the scummier bits of the web, I think "out there" the Motte-and-bailey fallacy is being deployed. The "lab leak" idea when scrutinized is defending with "I'm only saying it's possible", but once the pressure's off, the idea is prosecuted as a certainty. I'm not sure we have sources (yet) going into this degree of conspiracy-analysis, though it's (err) likely in a few years we might ... Alexbrn (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The way I phrased my message may have been confusing, so I will lay out the sentence in a more unambiguous way:

Statement	Support	Likelihood
"SARS-CoV-2 was deliberately created as a bioweapon"	None whatsoever	Virtually impossible (≈0.00001%)
"the current coronavirus pandemic is the result of an accidental release of a pathogen under study at a nearby research facility"	A few people	Unlikely (≈1–10%)
"the proximate origin of the COVID-19 pandemic is unknown"	WSJ, WaPo, The Atlantic, Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Anthony Fauci, etc	True (≈99.999%)

There is a substantial difference between "XYZ is true", "XYZ is possible", "evidence exists showing that XYZ is true", and "Dr. Jones thinks XYZ is true". jp×g 17:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, which is why anybody "supporting" your second statement in the table would be holding essentially a religious, not a scientific view ("I believe! ...") Alexbrn (talk) 03:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Technical analysis

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

Technical analysis briefly claims that the subject is at least sometimes considered to be pseudoscience, and is listed on the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. But noticing that the article gives relatively little coverage of the criticisms compared to other fringe topics, does the article cover them in a neutral (and up-to-date — all the criticism-related sources are from before 2008) manner? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

That's because it's not a fringe topic. Every large investment bank has hundreds of staff doing technical analyses, large corporate & goverment treasuries tend to have at least a small team assigned. For a geek, technical analysis is about as mainstream as it gets. You've kind of answered your own question, the criticism is indeed outdated. Personally I'd not bother editing the article at all. The over generalisation re pseudoscience serves some purpose – some TA does lean in that direction, day traders should always be on guard, and it helps signal to the reader there may be better places to seek info on the topic. The Investopedia treatment is good. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Every large investment bank has hundreds of staff doing technical analyses So what? Every pharmacy sells homeopathy.

Even a cursory glance tells me that this cannot work. It's just superstition, with its usual hallmarks. Haven't there been experiments where a chimpanzee was better at picking stock than experts doing that thing? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

TA can involve PetraBytes of data & advanced maths. The discipline's closer to scientifically respectable activity like weather prediction that any superstition. There have indeed been experiments where monkeys do best, though AFAIK more aimed at active managers in general, not specifically at TA specialists. Admittedly, there's empirical reason to think that much of TA has no more predictive power than reading tea leafs. So here's the thing , Goodhart's law applies to the financial markets: "Any observed statistical regularity will tend to collapse once pressure is placed upon it for control purposes." It doesn't matter how rigorous your math. So the best TAs have huge incentive to avoid journalists & public spirited scientists. Anyhow, I thought I'd offer my opinion as I've some experience in these things, but if anyone wants to go and write "Fringe!!!!" all over the article, no objection from me. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Algorithmic trading based presumably on technical analysis at least has some kind of merit, otherwise Renaissance Technologies would not be as successful as it is. I think the idea that technical analysis is pseudoscience is the result of confusion with the fact that the majority of hedgefunds consistently fail to beat the market and passive investing (at least during a bull market). Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Technical analysis is a lot like diet science. There is some legitimate work going on, but it is nearly drowned out by all the hucksters who are trying to sell something. - MrOllie (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

If nothing else, I'd want more and better sources before I'd be prepared to definitively classify this as psuedoscience or fringe. --RaiderAspect (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

May I chime in here? I was stalking Hob Gadling's talk page, don't know how I got there. Technical analysis is woo pseudoscience. You will have a wicked time convincing its proponents though. I worked for two hedge funds. I worked for a big bank's proprietary trading desk. We would occasionally look at TA or "charting" because there are all sorts of arcane terms, e.g. Bollinger bands, hanging crosses, triangle formations, that would make us laugh. But it is like scrying or reading tea leaves. Rest assured, Renaissance Technologies does NOT use technical analysis for its algorithmic trading! No quantitatively based trading strategy is dependent upon technical analysis (unless they are doing it just to anticipate the behavior of the poor souls who DO believe in it, and use that as a means to front run them). "Technical analysis" has nothing to do with quantitative methods. Sometimes it is contrasted with "value analysis" or "fundamental analysis". The latter two are the same, and are legitimate because they are based on financial accounting and industry research. High frequency trading and algorithmic trading are a different approach than fundamental analysis, but have nothing to do with looking at the patterns that time series data form on a chart, and make inferences about markets based on that, i.e. "technical analysis". There's nothing technical in technical analysis, but some people will kick up a huge fuss if you say that. Usually, those people are peddling scammy "charting methods" or paid newsletters as Mr. Ollie suggests. I have never, ever spoken to anyone who is a paid employee of a municipal bond fund, hedge fund, employee retirement fund, mutual fund, or pension fund that considers technical analysis anything but woo. You need sources though. I'll see if I can find any.--FeralOink (talk) 10:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I notice that FeydHuxtable said this, "Every large investment bank has hundreds of staff doing technical analyses, large corporate & goverment treasuries tend to have at least a small team assigned. For a geek, technical analysis is about as mainstream as it gets." Maybe he is thinking of quantitative trading? I am certain that no large investment bank has any staff doing what is known as in the investment and asset management industry as "technical analysis". Retail traders like it, some even make money using it, although Lord knows how! My job title has had "quantitative financial analyst" or "quantitative financial researcher" or such in it for 20 years. I use applied probability and statistics to do my work. Sometimes there's some numerical analysis, usually not. Lots of PDFs (probability distribution functions, e.g. Gaussian, Weibull, binomial). Monte Carlo simulation, Markov chains, correlation-covariance matrices, that sort of stuff. Technical analysis people don't even use algebra (no, not lie algebra! they don't even use anything as fancy as high school algebra).--FeralOink (talk) 11:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of what happens to the above discussion, I have update-tagged the section of the article that discusses its scientific status due to the lack of post-2008 sources. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Lab Leak Again

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Lab Leak Again --Guy Macon (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

And at the main COVID-19 article. Alexbrn (talk) 09:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

And now Drastic Team, which I've boldly redirected for the time being. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Sources were: an op-ed post on Washington Post (with a consent warning), a press-release for a Ridley book via The Telegraph, a CNET post that's misleading and only usable for computer tech news, a dubious conservative TV channel. —PaleoNeonate – 09:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: I've also found this (obviously not in the proposed page) which makes a passing mention without naming the group: "Nonetheless, some aggressive proponents of the lab-leak hypothesis interpreted the letter as supporting their ideas. For instance, a neuroscientist belonging to a group that claims to independently investigate COVID-19 [...]" - of course, when the group in question claims to be "an independent team of scientists, analysts and sleuths who have come together to investigate the origins of Covid-19."; and also claims that "many of its members opt to remain anonymous to protect themselves from possible reprisals" [I'm not going to link to their site, for obvious reasons], we're faced with the blatant and obvious conspiracy theory that "The scientific establishment (peer-reviewed journals, universities) are trying to suppress the Truth about [flat Earth theory];" and that "[Professional astronomers] have a clear conflict of interest." (fill in the metaphor with "lab leak theory" and "Professional virologists", and you get the picture). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, you're probably right that they're also thinking of that propaganda network... I agree that it's not enough to have a standalone article still, especially for the lack of a direct mention (and even brief mentions might not be enough for GNG perhaps)... As usual if it's only a question of TOOSOON, RS with coverage will eventually explode about it, —PaleoNeonate – 20:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

CNET? Oh, right, the malware distributor. XOR'easter (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Some discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19#How_we_discuss_and_explain_COVID_origins StrayBolt (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

No mention of DRASTIC at COVID-19 misinformation. If someone wants to add info on it, please do so. otherwise I am going to nominate the redirect for deletion. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that any of the sources used in the previous DRASTIC article are good enough for the misinformation article. No objection about draftifying or nominating for deletion if someone doesn't find/add more, —PaleoNeonate – 20:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Closing a browser tab: Rogers, Adam (2021-05-28). "The Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory Is a Tale of Weaponized Uncertainty". Wired. Retrieved 2021-05-28.. XOR'easter (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• New useful source from SBM.[8] It didn't last last when added to COVID-19 misinformation as it's apparently "not neutral"! Alexbrn (talk) 11:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Link to the actually disputed use of the source. The discussion at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation#Contested new material related specifically to this article by this author for this purpose (notably, the quoted reference to the lab leak as "in essence, a conspiracy theory"). Gorski articles in SBM are quoted multiple other locations in the article where the use of the citation hasn't been disputed. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Viser, Matt; Abutaleb, Yasmeen (2021-06-05). "Trump and his allies try to rewrite, distort history of pandemic while casting Fauci as public enemy No. 1". Washington Post. Retrieved 2021-06-06. Still, there has been no new evidence on the lab leak theory and the existing evidence is entirely circumstantial, meaning no one can actually answer the question of whether there was a lab leak or whether the virus occurred naturally. But many Republicans have rushed to claim anyway that they were right all along. XOR'easter (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Ling, Justin (2021-06-15). "The Lab Leak Theory Doesn't Hold Up". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 2021-06-15. Noteworthy for evaluating the "Bioscience Resource Project" and finding the same problems we noticed at WP:RSN bloody months ago. XOR'easter (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Ivermectin, still

Still the fake COVID-19 treatment du jour, now also embraced by antivax types as the alternative THEY don't want you to know about.[9] Recent interest/campaigning in social media (e.g.) seems to be resulting in an uptick of attention to content here, and all the following would benefit from the eyes of fringe-savvy editors:

• Ivermectin
• COVID-19 drug repurposing research#Ivermectin
• COVID-19 misinformation#Ivermectin

Alexbrn (talk) 09:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems to have spread to COVID-19 pandemic in Goa. Brunton (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

To set the record the record straight, no one is saying on all these pages that ivermectin treats Covid. The discussion is about the fact that certain countries use it anyway in spite of WHO recommendations. Please refrain from casting aspersions on editors who don't agree with you. Can't say about others, but I was happy to get vaccinated against Covid some time ago. Alaexis_¿question? 09:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

More

Also, add to this list:

• Pierre Kory
• Paul E. Marik

These gentlemen are two of the most prominent advocates of the drug as a COVID treatment. Alexbrn (talk) 13:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Update

A call to arms has gone out on twitter[10] and sure enough the Pierre Kory article got a good going over by new accounts (I have since tidied). This twitter brigading is becoming a real issue. If there's an admin watching this page might be worth semi'ing. BTW, does anybody know what tool was used to make that screenshot? Looks useful. Alexbrn (talk) 07:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Lots of activity at Pierre Kory now following the arrival of new-account editors. Alexbrn (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Massive Australian Precambrian/Cambrian Impact Structure (MAPCIS)

There are a lot of fringe claims of impact craters that tend to be ignored in the literature. I recently came across the Massive Australian Precambrian/Cambrian Impact Structure which appears to have gained almost no attention outside the authors conference abstracts, which are effectively self-published. As such I have nominated it for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massive Australian Precambrian/Cambrian Impact Structure, maybe someone can find better sourcing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The author of the hypothesis, Danielone2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Has come to the AfD to attempt to stop the article getting deleted. Their original account Daniel Connelly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which originally created the MAPCIS page was blocked by the arbitration committee in 2013, despite them having not made any edits since 2011. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

As it turns out, per a comment by Beeblebrox at the AfD, the block appears to have been to enforce a one account rule and Danielone2 is not in volation of an ArbCom block. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Bohemian crater

As I was going through questionable impact crater proposals, I found the Bohemian crater article. The opening sentence of the article is hilarious

The Bohemian crater, also called Czech crater, is a working hypothesis that considers the Bohemian Massif as an approximately two billion year old potential impact crater of 260 kilometres (160 mi) diameter.[1] This is contrary to the mainstream geological theory of plate tectonics, which explains the Bohemian Massif as the result of collision of independent continental units, occurring more than 300 million years ago.

. As far as I can tell there is no coverage of this theory outside the main proponents conference abstracts, as such I have nominated it for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bohemian crater. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be part of a wallen garden, alongside Rajlich's hypothesis and Petr Rajlich, created by the user Srewter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) back in 2017. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Rajlich's hypothesis is also mentioned in Shock metamorphism and the largely unsourced section on Geology in Cavitation. The Petr Rajlich article looks like a candidate for AfD. Paul H. (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed both references. Rajlich definitely fails WP:PROF, but he might pass the GNG in czech sources, but I can't find much, other than this article in Museologica Brunensia which briefly mentions him, there is also a brief interview with him from Czech Radio from 2007 about the "Bohemian crater", which mentions that the Czech magazine Tyden also ran a piece about the claim (I think this is it, but it's only the opening paragraphs.). Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Another interview here, this time in Deník. Even though the claims are fringe, they appear to have attracted some popular attention in the Czech press. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Azuara impact structure and Rubielos de la Cérida impact structure

The Rubielos de la Cérida impact structure and Azuara impact structure, were both created and extensively edited by the similarly named SPAs Decubridor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Descubridor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at the turn of the last decade, who I presume are the same person, and the articles have received little editing since. There appears to have been some controversy where they were removed from the Earth Impact Database in the early 2000s, with the main proponents complaining in self-published publications about "bias" on behalf of their opponents. I think they have received enough coverage that they pass the GNG, including the criticism in the highly cited (430 citations) 2010 paper The convincing identification of terrestrial meteorite impact structures: What works, what doesn't, and why, but the articles are currently profringe, as the seem to take the impact hypothesis as true when the claims are strongly disputed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Michael Taylor (demoniac)

• Michael Taylor (demoniac) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bad name for an article. Wikipedia should not pretend demonic possession is real by labeling people with a fantasy word superstitious simpletons use for them. (There may be more articles like that, but I could not find any.) What is the right name? Also, the article could probably use NPOVing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

He's famous for supposedly being possessed by demons. What else do you call it? If you insist, however, Michael Taylor (murderer) is available. - Sumanuil (talk) 07:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Hob. He’s primarily famous as a murderer, his excuse is secondary. Demoniac is a description used by a small minority of believers. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

How about Michael Taylor (killer)? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Hob Gadling and A Quest For Knowledge. Moving to Michael Taylor (murderer). This should be non-controversial so a full move discussion seems needlessly WP:BURO. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

This is highly inappropriate as I pointed out on the article talk page and was ignored. This man has been acquitted of the crime of murder. It is a WP:BLP violation for us to brand him as such. 2600:8800:1880:68:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

He is a murderer. He was acquitted on an insanity defense, which means he's not fully responsible for his crime, not that he didn't commit it. And a murder is distinguished from a killing by being unlawful: the killing of his wife was unlawful. Since there are no reliable sources contesting the claim that he unlawfully killed his wife, there's no grounds to call this a BLP violation. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The only editor raising objections seems to have given up on supporting them. Unless there are other objections soon, I will remove the RM on the article talk page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure what gave you that idea. 2600:8800:1880:68:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Anti-vax report published in The Hill

I'm concerned how this ref is/was being used:

• Srikanth, Anagha (24 March 2021). "12 prominent people opposed to vaccines are responsible for two-thirds of anti-vaccine content online: report". The Hill. Archived from the original on 25 March 2021. Retrieved 25 March 2021.
• Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rashid Buttar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Joseph Mercola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  Rough consensus. --Hipal (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• Ty Bollinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kelly Brogan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Christiane Northrup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sherri Tenpenny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sayer Ji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've trimmed back some of the information in a few of the articles after just quickly glancing at the ref vs article content. I'll be looking into this closer, but hope others could look as well.

I've not even looked to see what other references cover the same report. --Hipal (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Here's the direct report: --Hipal (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• "The Disinformation Dozen" (PDF). Center for Countering Digital Hate (PDF). 2020. Archived (PDF) from the original on 18 May 2021. Retrieved 19 May 2021.

It's linked from https://www.counterhate.com/disinformationdozen , so the link is ok. --Hipal (talk) 01:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• Center_for_Countering_Digital_Hate#The_Disinformation_Dozen covers the report. --Hipal (talk) 01:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't get what the issue is here. The report was covered in numerous other outlets, not just The Hill, including Poynter Mercola is one of the 12 prominent anti-vaccine influencers named in a Center for Countering Digital Hate report linking the group to a large portion of all anti-vaccine content on Facebook. NPR, National Post, The BBC, The Financial Times, Vox, New Statesman, The Independent, Stuff.co.nz. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm concerned that it's being used with content that violates BLP, OR, and POV.

Thanks for all the references. They should help us figure out how to present encyclopedic information on the topic with proper weight and without original research. --Hipal (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks like we now have consensus on how to get rid the V/OR. The POV issues seem to be moving along nicely. --Hipal (talk) 03:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Addressing the POV issues may be more difficult... --Hipal (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Covid origin statement at Nicholas Wade

Attention needed at Nicholas Wade (again) where previous consensus language regarding Wade's advocacy of the lab-leak hypothesis is being disputed on both the talk page and through aggressive editing. Generalrelative (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Direct link to discussion: Talk:Nicholas_Wade#Consensus_claim Terjen (talk) 02:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually no. The conversation begins, and the relevant consensus is established, earlier: Talk:Nicholas Wade#Origin of Covid. Generalrelative (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Quantized inertia

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

The horror! A new user found out that Wikipedia is biased against this concept!

Both article and Talk page have been pretty lively the last few months. The term has been mentioned on FTN three years ago: [11] --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Now at AfD. XOR'easter (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

It looks likely that the AfD is getting attention from the inventor's social-media followers. XOR'easter (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

It's a shitshow. But his tweets are hilarious. Conspiracy theories about Wikipedia, and has even the classic appeal to Jimbo Wales. Tercer (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Those are pretty amusing, but my favorite one is IMO, the question of our time is "What is real?".

Like, whoah, man, what is real, anyways? Is, like, my hand real? Deep stuff. I wonder why nobody has thought of this before, man. Hey, don't bogart the joint, dude, puff puff pass. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The AfD has been closed as delete. XOR'easter (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

"All minority opinions are fringe"

There is some debate above about what counts as "fringe" and what Wikipedia should label as fringe science. Is it a reasonable reading of WP:FRINGE that "All minority opinions are fringe"? And if so, should we be labeling things that fall under alternative theoretical formulations as "fringe" in Wikipedia's voice? Thanks for any feedback on the issue. Hobit (talk) 04:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Honestly I believe ir depends.

Let’s say 70% of scientists agree with view A while 30% agree with view B.

Even tho most scientists agree with view A, view B isn’t a fringe view because many scientists agree with it.

However if only 0.00000007% agree with view B it could be classified as fringe.CycoMa (talk) 04:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

There is another factor. even if a thousand scientists have examined a million crows and they were all black, the theory "there may be a living crow that is naturally fluorescent orange" is considerably less fringe than the theory "there may be a living crow that does not require oxygen." The first one would be really weird and would cause scientists to study such things as whether it is genetics of environment, etc. The second one would cause scientists to have to reject pretty much all of biology and a big chunk of physics. It would be more fringe. Likewise you run into cases where pretty much every scientist says "the evidence strongly favors A over B, but B is certainly possible" and other cases where where pretty much every scientist says "the evidence shows that B is impossible". In both cases "B is proven to be true" is fringe, but "B is possible" is fringe only in the second case. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Adding onto Guy Macon’s comment, I’m gonna give an example. The example I’m use is denial of evolution, the reason denying evolution might be considered a fringe view is because the theory of evolution is basically a fundamental concept to all of modern biology.

If you say evolution is a hoax you are basically saying almost everything in modern biology is wrong.CycoMa (talk) 06:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE does distinguish between WP:FRINGE/ALT (minority scientific opinions), WP:FRINGE/QS (arguably pseudoscience), and WP:FRINGE/PS (definitely pseudoscience). In other words: FRINGE is not necessarily pseudoscience. The analogies there between an alternate hypothesis and pseudoscience are useful: 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. Pseudoscience usually relies on attacking mainstream scientific theories and methodology while lacking a critical discourse itself (as is common among Biblical creationists), relies on weak evidence such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence (as for example in parapsychology), or indulges a suspect theoretical premise (such as the claims of water memory made by advocates of homeopathy). Bakkster Man (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• The OP asks should we be labeling things ... as "fringe" in Wikipedia's voice?. I think this shows a common misconception. Articles hardly ever say something "is fringe", but the identification of something as "fringe" is an internal matter for Wikipedia editors, which mainly has the effect of raising the bar for sourcing quality and introducing the need to make sure any such "fringe" idea is properly contextualized within the mainstream view of sources (which may require a WP:PARITY of sourcing). Alexbrn (talk) 07:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

There is "fringe" and then there is WP:FRINGE. Note that the pejorative connotations of "fringe" are connotations only -- to be clear so are the pejorative connotations of WP:FRINGE. There is no value judgement involved here and "fringe"/WP:FRINGE really just refers to some idea being on the "edges" of the full complement of verifiable discourse. Are there instances where minority opinions are firmly interwoven into the fabric of the WP:MAINSTREAM discourse? Of course, and those are therefore not so very fringe/WP:FRINGE. Such instances are indicative of ideas that tend to be discussed in lively debate and are not so idly dismissed in the same way those on the fringes are (these positions tend to be found in contexts like philosophy and historical/literay criticism and the like). It's also important to understand as others are eluding to above that "fringe" is not a label and certainly NOT a WP:LABEL as we are discussing it here. Finally, mark me down in favor of vacating essentially all the arbcom edicts from that case which were penned at a time when things were a little more wet and wild and woolly at this website. Some years past, I asked for these content rulings to be vacated because they cause confusion as is rightfully noted in this section. Is psychoanalysis fringe? You better believe it is in the context of neuroscience, for example. Arbcom should never have stuck its nose into this type of demarcation. jps (talk) 11:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this take. The WP:FRINGE policy does not require us (or even suggest) that we use the word "fringe" in articles. Instead, WP:FRINGELEVEL has the following guidance: Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection, either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or carry negative labels such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. This should answer the original question: "don't label as 'fringe', document level of acceptance". Which means, an opinion which is verifiably minority should be treated as such, without using pejorative terms. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Lab leakski

• 1977 Russian flu (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• List of laboratory biosecurity incidents (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Different narrative; familiar situation. Sources seem fairly sceptical about this being from a "lab leak" yet after some recent editing Wikipedia has been in danger of over-egging it – not least listing this as a definite leak in the list article above (should this not be just confirmed incidents?). Probably could do with additional scrutiny. Alexbrn (talk) 09:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The editor above tried to use the claim from a single source [12] which states the lab leak theory is less likely than vaccine accidents, to conclude that the lab theory unlikely and challenge a series of other scientific papers which claim otherwise (for instance, [13], [14],[15], and [16]). A direct dispute of the aforementioned conclusion is made here [17]. The editor tried to push his own interpretation of the situation. --Kutu126b (talk) 09:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

All those papers are older than some newer sources we have. It's important our content about what the scientific position on this is not out-of-date. PLOS ONE is generally not a good source for anything. pmid:30348266, a 2018 review article, says: "Several possibilities have been suggested for the origin and re-emergence of the H1N1 virus, including possibilities of a laboratory accident or the virus deriving from a vaccine trial attempting to generate H1N1 vaccines". Wikipedia should not be amplifying this into a certainty, or near-certainty. You edit-warring and personalisation of the situation are noted, and unwelcome. Alexbrn (talk) 09:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean "old"? So now you have chosen to attack scientific publications? The 1977 Russian flu took place more than 40 years ago and scientific consensus about the lab leak theory started to form since the 2000s. One paper in 2015 claimed that vaccine accidents may be more likely (which, again, received immediate dispute) does not change the scientific position as a whole. This is not how science works. You have tried to deny the saying from the abundant publications written by reputable scientists, either by calling them "dodgy claims", "old", "not a good source for anything" or even my personalization. I don't know what political agenda you have here, but this is not how science works. Kutu126b (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I did not write "old". If you continue your personal comments you risk being sanctioned. WP:FOC. We need to reflect the WP:BESTSOURCES giving the current scientific view. That would mean avoiding blogs, newspaper articles, letters, and out-of-date sources, and not presenting the situation as more certain that sources support. Alexbrn (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Im not sure why this was brought up here. Neither the subject, the1977 Russian flu, nor the theories of its origin (lab leak, vaccine accident, bioweapons accident) have anything to do with WP:fringe. Best i can see from the sources given is that no one knows for sure where the 1977 flu came from and that all the theories listed have some merit. If the question is what sources should we use or exclude, then the reliable sources noticeboard would be the appropriate place. If the question is wording, then im still not clear why its being brought up here. Bonewah (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE#ALT which is a fair way to describe this and the other hypotheses about its origin, as there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus, though the lab leak hypotheses seems to be the closest thing to one. They're all presented with roughly equal weight in the "Virology" section of the article, with this one (being apparently the most popular) getting highlighted in the lede, which seems to be a pretty good distribution of weight. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE#ALT covers claims which depart significantly from the mainstream views. If there isnt a clear mainstream view, then WP:FRINGE#ALT wont apply. WP:undue maybe, but not FRINGE. Bonewah (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Bonewah, There is no part of that sections which says or implies what you just claimed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

And the unqualified listing of this pandemic as being caused by a biosecurity incident, is certainly out-of-alignment with the mainstream sources. Alexbrn (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, I absolutely agree, as I mentioned below. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

MPants at workThe 'Fringe theories in a nutshell' section, the lede and the 'Identifying fringe theories' sections all say this. As to the article in question, id say the mainstream sources all say it was not a natural origin. As to what type of unnatural origin ( biosecurity incident, vaccine mishap, bioweapon mishap, etc) id say the sources ive read so far all say they are all possible, with no obvious mainstream view as predominant. As such, i would not describe it as unquestionably a 'biosecurity incident', unless 'biosecurity incident' means any non natural origin. Bonewah (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Bonewah, The "in a nutshell" hat note categorically does not say that, the lede very clearly qualifies that as being in "a very broad sense", and the alternative formulations is part of the "identifying" section, which also uses the "very broad sense" qualifier in it's introduction.

I'll note that this is not the first time you've blatantly misrepresented this policy, and state again: you'd do much better to ask for help interpreting our guidelines than to presume to lecture more experienced editors on what they say. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Its possible for reasonable people to disagree. Maybe you would do better to take a look at your own behavior before telling other experienced editors what they should 'presume' to do. Bonewah (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Bonewah, You made multiple demonstrably false statements. That's not "disagreement". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• Kutu126b, Alex is right to view articles in PLOS ONE with a skeptical eye. Their review and publication practices motivate them to accept low quality work, and they've had more than one controversy about it, even publishing a paper that appeared to contain an endorsement of creationism.

Your second source does not advance the lab leak hypothesis or ascribe it any weight among researchers; it merely mentions it. As such, Alex is definitely not disagreeing with it.

Also, your claim that Alex is relying on a single source is demonstrably false. You should stop making it.

Finally, I would note that I agree fully with Alex's characterization of the way you're approaching this. You're fighting a battle here, where you should be trying to find a point of agreement. We're diplomats, not warriors on WP.

Alexbrn, The way the main article present the situation as of This edit to 1977 Russian flu looks very close to perfect. I'm going to make one edit, however, which I think brings it closer to the best representation we can give it. As for the list article: if this isn't a clear example of that, as it most certainly isn't, then I agree with you that it clearly doesn't belong at the list.

I've watchlisted both pages. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

MPants at work 1) Regarding the behavior and language, what do you mean "the way you're approaching this" and "fighting a battle"? And what do you mean "your claim that Alex is relying on a single source is demonstrably false. You should stop making it." Be respectful to others, would you? Prove your words with justification and reason. I have never talked to you before and I urge you to stop playing the boss role here and telling me who is right and who is wrong. I remind you that Alex came to the Russian flu page directly calling some of the well-sourced content "dodgy claims". It was only after I pointed out on the talk page that he stopped deleting the content and changed his words to "dodgy sources". He is obviously not so familiar with the topic before making his initial edits. 2) Now if you want to simply discuss the content and the sources like an unbiased Wikipedia editor, I remind you that the scientific consensus on the origin of the 1977 Russian flu is that it is not a natural event, and the lab accident being the most probable. I never denied other origin possibilies, as I am the original author of this article and it was me who listed other possibilities in the article with reliable sources. Like User:Bonewah said above, I don't understand why Alex brought all this up here, as the disagreement is certainly not about "Fringe theories".Kutu126b (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Kutu126b, Thank you for proving my point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

MPants at work, no, thank you for showing not knowing how "proof" works. Disrespecting others who never talked to you in an ironical way does not make you prove anything. I'll stop this meaningless discussion. --Kutu126b (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Science-Based Medicine

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Science-Based Medicine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There's an editor edit warring over a notability tag and removing multiple references there. More eyes would be appreciated, as they seem to be very combative about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, some not-great behaviour there. On the larger question I've had quite a good look and I suspect SBM is actually not notable per Wikipedia's criteria. Not that it really matters from this noticeboard's perspective; what matters is that it's an acknowledged RS for its niche. I think it's probably only a matter of time before the site gets fuller attention in secondary sources, but for now an article on it might not be appropriate. Alexbrn (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, I strongly suspect it would survive an AfD. It's just so broadly cited by other reliable sources that the fact that no-one's done a write-up of the history of the site is not really that telling, from where I sit.

Plus there's the association with The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe, Steven Novella, David Gorski, Harriet Hall, Wallace Sampson Mark Crislip and Kimball Atwood.

I mean, I get that not everything a notable person does is, itself notable, but at a certain point, the associations start to rub off a little. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia realpolitik means it probably would survive an WP:AFD. Alexbrn (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Apparently applying skepticism to skepticism is a bad approach... I’ve taken a note of that. My initial attempts to address the issue with MPants were good natured, fact based, and comradely [18][19] they however did not seem willing to respond in kind. The proper response to a notability tag is either to get a consensus on the talk page or add in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources to the page itself *before* removing the tag. We can’t give Science-Based Medicine a free pass just because they do good work in the fringe theories/skepticism space. WP:GNG doesn’t get renegotiated just because we personally are fans of the blog, even if thats how some choose to treat AFD these days. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, there's plenty of bullshit there. this was, apparently the response Horse thinks was not "good natured, fact based and comradely". Also, the proper response to being reverted by two different editors is to start a discussion about it, not to revert again. As to the proper response to the tagging, allow me to quote from the template documentation: "The template must not be re-added. Please do not edit war over it. Questions of notability can be resolved through discussion or through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If the article exists within the scope of a specific WikiProject it may be beneficial to invite feedback from the group."

The "proper response" described above is apparently made up from whole cloth, as I can't find it anywhere. Ironic, really. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I opened a talk page discussion about it. I then merged it with yours because our editing windows overlapped and we created duplicate sections. Your edits were reverted because you restored a perennially unreliable source to the article, please don’t forget the context here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Also I’m confused, nothing about what you’re talking about now is relevant to this noticeboard. What are you doing? Are you just trying to drag me through the mud in the public forum you think will be most sympathetic to you? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

If someone agrees with Mjolnir now, you can say it's not because he has a point but because we are sympathetic to him. This is a form of poisoning the well. But it's a bad idea to use such a trick in a place where lots of people know it. You should argue on the factual level rather than the personal one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Why is the reliability of Science-Based Medicine being discussed on the fringe theories noticeboard rather than the reliable sources noticeboard? Oh. Wait. It has. Multiple times. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Science-Based Medicine.

Why is the notability of Science-Based Medicine being discussed on the fringe theories noticeboard rather than at AfD? Oh. Wait. Nobody thinks it would be deleted at AfD but certain individuals still want to complain about it not being notable and to imply that AfD is biased.

Why are the things that a couple of editors said about each other being discussed on the fringe theories noticeboard rather than at the user's talk pages or WP:ANI? Oh. Wait. Nobody believes that there is anything sanctionable about the behavior but certain individuals still want to complain about other editors on a noticeboard that is supposed to be used for talking about fringe theories.

At the risk of having ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants dial up the aggression even further and tell me to fuck off another half dozen times, this really looks like a case of WP:OTHERPARENT. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

At the risk of having ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants...

If he did, it would be good advice, since you're not adding anything except shit-stirring here. --Calton | Talk 06:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Operação Prato

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

Recent activity by IPs seeking to add fringe interpretations to the article. The latest IP adding text trying to connect a supposedly "strange incident with some fishermen" to the topic. The cited source seems to be discussing declassified Brazilian government documents being of interest to Brazilian UFOlogists back in 2010 [20]. It's probably WP:UNDUE, however because of language and access problems, I can't make heads or tails of what the source is saying. Those having familiarity with the language are invited to review. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Adding Special:Contributions/138.185.100.200 to audit-list, —PaleoNeonate – 01:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Obvious predatory journal

How'd you deal with stuff like this? When the abstract contains "Regardless whether the “pandemic” itself is real or an illusion manufactured out of fear by vested interests"; I know to look no further. The editorial team seems to contain actual names, but the email addresses are cleverly (or not at all) fake ones (they're all gmail). The publisher is included here "Open Journal Systems" but not at User:JzG/Predatory/O. Should we just update the list here? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't use obviously rubbish sources. If an editor questions that, there are various WIKRONYMS to produce, but that shouldn't be necessary, right? Alexbrn (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Considering you know what, can never be too sure... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Fwiw it doesn't appear to be used anywhere on Wiki...BEACHIDICAE🌊 20:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The second sentence of the article does not inspire confidence: "It was headed by George W. Merck (see Error! Reference source not found.2018) ... " Alexbrn (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• This isn't just a bad journal, it's a crazy person's blog pretending to be a journal. Compare the name of the author of that "paper" and the name of the editor in chief of the journal, then google for a bit of background. His PhD is in linguistics, and his website outlines his theory that all diseases, disorders and even deaths are caused by "disruption of biological messages by toxins."

This is batshit lunacy which managed to make its way into the ivory tower of academia, and might well play a role in that man's recent early retirement. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I notice on the editorial board is one James Lyons-Weiler, who is written about here. Hey! Is this is a fringe COVID topic Wikipedia isn't covering?! Alexbrn (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone know if predatoryjournals.com is being actively maintained? Their last announcement is from 2017. jps (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@ජපස: Doesn't look like it. Yale Univ. lists a couple of ressources, including an apparently updated https://beallslist.net (says last updated a few months ago in March). This in Nature provides a link to Cabell's list. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

More details about predatoryjournals.com in Beall's List. Paul H. (talk) 00:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

predatoryjournals.com was never maintained, it's simply a basic mirror of beall's original list. If you want something maintained, use https://beallslist.net/. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: Added ijvtpr.com to WP:UPSD. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• Headbomb and RandomCanadian. I agree this journal, blog, or whatever appears to be sketchy. Especially saying whether Covid-19 is real or an illusion. It looks like this online publication traffics in conspiracy theory controversy. Also, I pressed on a "about the journal" link and one of my security programs blocked it with a message that says, "Attackers might be trying to steal your information..."

This would be information such as "passwords, messages, or credit cards." This might be a phishing site. So, it might be best to see if this publication is used as sourcing on Wikipedia. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Pyramid power

Can someone with more patience than me deal with the idiot currently trying to insert the usual bollocks into the Pyramid power article - I've used up my patience ration for today, and am about to lose my temper. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: I've given them a final warning. If they revert again I'll report at the relevant place. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Quranic code

There is a fringe theory, accepted by very few Muslims, that the Quran contains miraculous patterns based on the number 19. It seems to me that this article has little excuse for existing, quite besides the lack of good sources and fan-craft. Zero^talk 04:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll raise you Bible code -Roxy . wooF 04:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I cut out all but one of the "examples". To the extent that these were cited at all, it was either to self-published material or it was classic WP:SYNTH based on citations to simple character counts. Both make the overwhelming mass WP:OR and highly WP:UNDUE. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, it's all back. Another article which is full of nonsense about a fringe theory is Ivan Panin. Zero^talk 12:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

At AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quran code (3rd nomination). Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I haven't seen an article like Ivan Panin in a long time. It was fun going through it with a machete. jps (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• If you convert my name to numbers using their ordinal place in the alphabet, sum it up, then subtract the year I got my first pair of hammer pants, you get 69. Then, if you add the caliber of my favorite handgun and subtract the number of chambers in the cylinder, you get 420.

Which doesn't mean anything, but it does make me giggle sometimes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Integral yoga

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

Is there anything worth keeping here? All in-parallel-universe... --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

How bout its spin-off Supermind (integral yoga)? jps (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

And then there is the (perhaps less problematic?) Intermediate zone. jps (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Pah! Nothing beats Doga! Alexbrn (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

True! But this is a bit where I'm somewhat concerned. I would much rather Wikipedia document with care and clarity the philosophy of Sri Aurobindo instead that of the yogi down the street with the Doga Yoga studio. There is a lot of academic work showing that Sri Aurobindo influenced a wide range of people/ideas/beliefs while Doga Yoga is just a new commodification of an already sprawling industry. The above articles, of course, smack of a ridiculous amount of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, so I'm not convinced they deserve preserving in present forms, but a summary of Sri Aurobindo's ideas would be useful and arguably within our remit. jps (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integral yoga was posted. jps (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

AFD Sacha Stone

Editors may wish to weigh in on this AFD. I note that the nominator was a significant contributor to Integral yoga and that this AFD nom occurred shortly after I AFD'd on that article. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Sucharit Bhakdi, one year on

• Sucharit Bhakdi (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Remember him? Early in the pandemic there was some drama over how to treat his various statements about how the pandemic was a "false alarm" etc. Now, months later, there is an antivaxx angle (apparently the vaccines are "deadly" and will decimate the world population). Could probably usefully be watchlisted by fringe-aware editors Alexbrn (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

List of integral thinkers and supporters

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of integral thinkers and supporters

Comment, please!

jps (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

My concerns about the new proposal for a new WMF sister project.called Wikifacts

I posted this at RSN also, but I think it's of relevance here. Tell me off if I'm wrong. :-)meta:WikiFacts is described as "A Wiki of Facts, as part of or along with meta:Wikifunctions. WikiFacts will be a structured base for facts, and each fact will be given an id number. WikiFacts allows sharing knowledge on point, accurately and concisely. It allows verification and pointing out factual errors precisely, thus fighting misinformation. Demo website at: WikiSpore:WikiFacts_Spore." I'm told that by its proposer, User:Vis M, that it is meant " to extract information from books and simply list it under a topic. Fact-id was proposed to give focus to the facts than topic, and also to allow easy and precise citations." When I pointed out that facts can be in dispute, with the claim that the US election was stolen as an example, I was told that "qualifiers can be add to denote scientific facts, historical facts, general statements, strictness, consensus, estimates, opinions, etc. The main purpose is to breakdown articles into statements, and give focus to individual pieces of facts & statements than topic."

I think this runs against at least the spirit of WP:V and WP:RS. Not only because I think people should read the sources (although I admit I sometimes copy material from other articles without reading every source and I suspect this is very common) but because in many if not most cases context is vital and a plain fact/statement might simply be cherry-picked, eg avoiding the next sentence which says "But of course this is nonsense". I could say more but I'd prefer to see other people's views.

I'm not sure I'm happy with the WMF spending money on meta:Wikifunctions (actually named "Abstract Wikipedia" either - that looks like a done deal however.. Doug Weller talk 13:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

might simply be cherry-picked, eg avoiding the next sentence which says "But of course this is nonsense" Cherry picking will be avoided, and each 'fact' piece will contain the "buts" for it. That was the main intend, to stress on the particular facts/subtopics in its entirety along with the cautions, instead of a full topic article. Anyway, it was just a proposal for people to join in. spirit of WP:V and WP:RS, this is what it aimed particularly, by adding citation for each of the subtopic and also allowing on-point discussion to correct the sense. The proposal is just to cut down things in to sub-topics for smartphone era. And it is just a proposal, to welcome inputs and modifications from others. The main purpose of the proposal was to fight fake information and fringe theories by allowing on-point corrections and disprovings, and it ironically got posted here!

"with the WMF spending money on meta:Wikifunctions" I don't know why you are worried about it. WMF collect money to give service to the people, and they are doing exactly what they should do. Wikifunctions would definitely have a significant impact on the humanity. I am only delighted whenever OpenAccess communities start new projects and only wish they spend more money on useful new projects like this. - Vis M (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)There are some cases where we can state a fact quite clearly. To follow your example There is no evidence that the 2020 United States Presidential General Election was significantly affected by any fraud, is a fact. I can see some sort of utility to collections of statements like that, especially given the number of mundane and obscure facts out there, the totality of which is nearly constantly being researched by someone.

But what about bleeding edge science? What about Compound X produced an average reduction in observable symptoms among laboratory mice of 50% when administered at a rate of 1mg per kg of body mass per day ? What happens when the study this was derived from falls victim to the replication crisis? Does the fact get updated? Or do we approach the writing of these facts by including every relevant detail, turning it into In a study involving 480 laboratory mice acquired from Acme Lab Supplies on January 20th, 2011 and bred through 12 generations, conducted by Researchers A, B, C and D between June 14th 2020 and March 12th 2021, with a control group of 120 mice and cohorts of 120 mice each receiving Compound X, Compound X1 and Compound X2, after being infected with Virus Y on June 3th 2020 and allowing the virus to incubate until the start of the study, at which point 90% (431) mice were displaying observable symptoms consistent with the disease and the remainder were expected to begin showing symptoms within a week, the observed effects on the Compound X cohort were a reduction in fever of 1.3 degrees (out of an average fever of 2.6 degrees) and an approximate halving of the delta of reduced food consumption, along with an approximate halving of the delta of decreased energy as measured by time spent on running wheels and distance traveled from preferred bed when pacing...

How, exactly, does one simply break down that fact the way the examples are broken down? There's going to be disagreement over how to do it. A lot of disagreement, and I guarantee each side of that debate will have valid points.

And then you have things like unanswerable questions. Is There is no way to prove or disprove the existence of a deity a fact? Philosophers generally consider it so, but what's to stop a deity from taking a physical form and proving its own existence to us? Who's to say we won't solve physics entirely at some point in the future and thus prove beyond any epistemologically reasonable doubt there there is no intelligent being directing any aspect of the universe?

What sort of notability requirements are there? I'm fairly sure that MjolnirPants' wife has a fondness for flavored sparkling water, isn't going to cut it, but what about the decorations I was awarded in the Army? What about the amount of pressure it takes to penetrate a human eardrum with an object whose contact area is 0.24 cm²? What about the average age of first mating of an African dung beetle?

And while I understand that the paradox of knowledge is not really a show stopper, it's something that's going to need to be accounted for. And the Gettier problem is going to be a bigger issue, by far, because it really questions the underlying process of determining what is a fact.

And then what happens when a fan of some fringe theory that's not quite pseudoscience shows up. Is it a fact that the hospitalization of three workers at the WIV prior to the Covid-19 outbreak evinces the lab leak theory? Is it a fact that loop quantum gravity has "advantages" over string theory in certain calculations?

I mean, honestly, I can see the utility to writers and researchers of having a database of cold, hard facts. But I'm not sure a wiki is the right way to do it. This seems like something that would be best left to trained professionals. Even then, some of the problems I mentioned will still be problems. As a wiki, I could see each of these problems becoming a deal-breaker.

And for the record, no, I would absolutely not ever cite such a wiki for a claim on this project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

WikiFunctions looks like a Wolfram Alpha competitor, but, if history is any guide, it probably won't be able to compete. WikiFacts is something I cannot follow. Couldn't Wikidata do most of what Wikifacts is trying to do? jps (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata doesnt even have a comparable BLP, so god knows the nightmare this sort of 'fact' based bullshit would cause. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Given that wikis aren't WP:RS, this shouldn't affect Wikipedia directly, if policy is followed. Which it must be, if necessary by blacklisting the entire website. It is a shame that the WMF is wasting money on this nonsense, but Wikipedia surely isn't going to rewrite core policy to give preferential treatment to an internal 'source'? That would be a PR nightmare, and I can't think of any proposal more likely to piss off those who have worked on the project for years, trying to keep the endless stream of crap sources out of articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'd much rather the WMF spend money on fixing actual problems which haven't been solved in nearly a year than proposing farcical projects. Is this April Fools or something? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

  @RandomCanadian: "proposing farcial projects" are you referring to the WikiFunctions or WikiFacts? I guess technically WikiFunctions could still be called a proposal but as Doug Weller pointed out, it's almost a done deal now having received approval, whatever the wisdom of it. WikiFacts, AFAICT, no one from the WMF is involved in that proposal. Definitely I see no indication User:Vis M has any connection to the WMF other than what you and I have i.e. volunteers at one or more WMF projects. While it's fine to say you don't think the WMF should spend money on developing and hosting something like WikiFacts (or WikiFunctions), blaming the WMF for being open enough to allow proposals from random people like WikiFacts seems a little lame. I doubt much time or money is spent evaluating projects coming from random people which don't receive significant community support, or attract the eye of someone at the WMF who wants to push it and neither of these seems to have happened with WikiFacts which has been withdrawn by Vis M anyway. I'd hardly be surprised if no one from the WMF even knows of the proposal. Nil Einne (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

  Yup, I am just another wiki editor. I have no connection with WMF in anyway. - Vis M (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

  I saw the WMF in the title and near the end of the OP, and also saw it referred to in some of the comments, and thought this was some WMF proposal. Doesn't change the criticism of the WMF, fwiw. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

  (EC) I should add I don't disagree with the general point on the WMF's apparent poor record on fixing actual bugs or problems where no one disagrees there is a problem that needs to be fixed and any decent fix is unlikely to result in much community opposition. My favourite example is the CAPTCHA problem for users with limited vision, a problem which is ?15 years old now and still has no signs of any real resolution [21]. Other the fact as one commentator (sort of) pointed out the CAPTCHA itself hasn't advanced in longer (I think) meaning that it's now probably somewhat easy to bypass and since there are a lot of other shitty sites out there, maybe most people with limited vision already have a solution. But I also feel unreasonable criticism harms our attempts to get reasonable criticism taken seriously, and whatever problems the WMF has in fixing problems/bugs, it just seems silly to blame the WMF for WikiFacts. WikiFunctions is a different issue, but your comment suggested you were referring to some simple proposal whereas WikiFunctions seems to have been something developed over 8 years or so. So while I can see reasonable criticism of the WMF's decision to develop and accept it, it doesn't really fit with your original message. Nil Einne (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Robert_Lanza#Request_For_Comment_Robert_Lanza

This RfC may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Bernarr Macfadden‎

Samuel Enderby has been removing criticisms on the Bernarr Macfadden article and adding Macfadden's own fasting book as a source in the lead [22], in this diff he also removed 3 reliable sources. This is obviously a false balance and appears to be white-washing. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

DISC assessment

DISC assessment is a proprietary form of psychometric testing developed in the 1950s. I fear that the article has become advertorial in tone. All of the critical information has been moved into a "Criticism" section. --Salimfadhley (talk) 08:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

In December, the C stood for Conscientiousness in the lede. Now it is Compliance. That looks like a profound change to me. The article sometimes used/uses one, sometimes the other.

And lots of stuff about that Merrick Rosenberg chap was added since then. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I was slightly happier with this version from over a year ago. Since then most of the content seems to be advertorial in tone. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• As a general rule, I tend to view most pre-1980 (or at least anything prior to the evidence-based revolution that resulted in the DSM-III) ideas in psychology and psychiatry with a lot of skepticism. I'm glad that we have some of the criticisms in there, but at the very least the lede needs to acknowledge that it has never been accepted by any serious organizations and has no scientific evidence to support it. In general, psychiatry tends to be poorly covered in Wikipedia, but this is more a function of society than anything specific to Wikipedia itself. Psychiatry tends to attract a lot of fringe whackadoodles, including occasionally some editors who are in denial about their own diagnoses, as well as a famous psychiatry-denying religious group whose propaganda used to be included in many Wikipedia articles, sometimes deliberately and sometimes in ways that deserve their own plaque in the CIR Hall of Fame. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree, an up-top mention that it's pre-evidence based and hasn't been subjected to modern rigors is the least that should be changed. The Criticisms section is giving me a WP:REDFLAG through the use of a lot of red links, which gives the mistaken implication that there are few notable criticisms. But this all seems pretty typical for a pop-psychology article, how do we typically handle these issues? Bakkster Man (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Bruce Pascoe and Dark Emu (book) debunked

See [23], [24] and [25]. Doug Weller talk 18:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Interesting, this appears to be a substantial critique. The issue with previous critiques is that they were bad faith attacks by right-wing pundits as part of the Australain history wars. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Black veganism

This article was recently created but I think there is a WP:SYNTHNOT problem here. Is there really such thing as "black veganism"? It is not supported by reliable references. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

It does appear to be an actual term in use, and supported by the reliable references in the article.

• NYT: Like many food trends that seem new, black veganism has historical roots. Eating vegan has long been a practice, especially for followers of religious and spiritual movements like Rastafarianism and the African Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem, a religious group with black nationalist underpinnings that rose up in the 1960s and still runs a chain of vegan restaurants in cities like Atlanta; Tallahassee, Fla., and Tel Aviv. Avoiding meat is also a core principle of the Nation of Islam, whose founders believed that pork was at the heart of the slave diet, and preached vegetarianism as the most healthful diet for African-Americans. Many people who give up eating animal products do it for their health, or for animal welfare. The same is true for the new veganism among African-Americans, but there is an added layer of another kind of politics. “It’s not just about I want to eat well so I can live long and be skinny,” said Jenné Claiborne, a personal chef and cooking teacher who recently moved to Los Angeles from New York. Her first cookbook, “Sweet Potato Soul,” is due out in February. “For a lot of black people, it’s also the social justice and food access. The food we have been eating for decades and decades and has been killing us.” Ms. Claiborne, 30, is part of a new generation of vegan cooks who are transforming traditional soul food dishes, digging deeper into the West African roots of Southern cooking and infusing new recipes with the tastes of the Caribbean. As a result, ideas about the dull vegan stews and stir-fries that were standard-bearers among the early generations of black vegan cooks are changing — albeit slowly.
• BBC: "The vegan community has been white for so long, and sometimes it feels like they want to keep it white," he says. While the diet has been stereotyped as something exclusively for soy-latte swilling, upper-middle class white hipsters, there is a long history of black veganism in the US and abroad, he is quick to point out. "You love to see yourself represented. That's one of the main reasons why the black community has really galvanised around the vegan idea," he says. While many vegan organisations lobby to improve animal welfare, and Black VegFest is no exception, Mr Adewale also makes sure its platform addresses wider issues in the black community like the fight to end police brutality.

While there might be SYNTH issues in specific parts of the text (didn't check) it does appear to be a real, notable (if often overlooked) movement/community/lifestyle. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The BBC news and New York Times are not academic or scholarly sources and the national of Islam is not an example of veganism, they were vegetarian. The idea of "black veganism" is very new and is only reported in recent news sources, it has no historical basis. All of the scholars who have dealt with the history of veganism have never mentioned it because race has nothing to do with veganism historically. You could argue it is a new idea supported by a minority of fringe writers but the article is a mess. I don't see why we need this article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

What part do you dispute? That there's 'no such thing' as "black veganism"? That it lacks a historical basis? Or merely that it's too recent a development to be notable? Only one of those statements seems to fit a "fringe theory". If you think we don't need this article, AfD would be the right venue (and please courtesy link here, if you submit). Bakkster Man (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• My impression is there's some RS on the slighter wider topic of intersection of race and veganism (e.g.), though I'm not sure how this stuff would fit best on Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The response to the claim that veganism is associated with the white privileged can be found in academic papers, it goes back nearly 10 years [26] but that is not about black veganism and in total there are not many papers on veganism and race. If those sources are to be used they would fit on the main veganism article. The black veganism idea is very new. In 5 years there might be more sources on it but right now it is not really supported outside of a few newspaper reports. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Newspaper reports, about a self-identifying movement, with multiple published books on the topic. We've got author articles considered notable for less. I just disagree that the lack of academic sources necessarily means this topic is non-notable enough to delete the article. I guess I just don't make the connection that this concept of Black Veganism is a purely academic one living on the fringe, and thus in some way problematic to have an article on the topic lest it give undue weight to bad science.

Specific claims being made about historical context without WP:SCHOLARSHIP, those should be addressed as a fringe idea? But I don't see the argument for deleting the entire article. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what to do about this one either, but it does strike me as a sort of WP:NEOLOGISM, at least in terms trying to claim notability enough for a standalone page. I'm not seeing much meat in the article really focused on black veganism specifically, but more sort of namedropping and other tangential material. It at least needs some pruning. At least at my current read, this subject comes across as individual authors trying to carve out theses rather than a mainstream academic notability.

On a wider scale though, I usually edit agriculture and food topics, and I have been seeing a trend with vegan-related articles like Vegan organic gardening and farming in terms of WP:ISNOT:

6. Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories such as these are not considered a sufficient basis for creating an article

That gets a little beyond the focus of this noticeboard, but there does seem to be a wider issue of XYZ veganism pages that seem superficial in terms of page notability (rather than due weight integration into relevant articles). If you have articles "X people that are Y", there are definite policy concerns that can easily crop up. Like Psychologist Guy mentions, SYNTH can often show up, especially when trying to assess where a topic falls between fringe, minority, to mainstream focus for notability or how much content should be included. KoA (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Wow, Psychologist Guy, did I miss the ping where you notified me/the article talk OVER A WEEK AGO that there was a discussion? —valereee (talk) 21:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll respond to this tomorrow with a list of the various mentions of this being a thing. It would be best if I don't do it tonight, I've already had a glass of wine and it's never a good decision to respond when you're both pissed and pissed. —valereee (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: This noticeboard isn't generally a 'notify pages of a discussion' thing like a disciplinary or RfC board. It's generally more intended to get more eyes on a topic or getting a second opinion if someone needs a gut check (I note that Psychologist Guy doesn't appear to have edited the article itself, suggesting he was swayed by discussion, rather than using the board to WP:CANVASS), which should be participating in article talk if there are concerns to address (unlike an RfC where that conversation happens off the article's talk page). Questions of etiquette aside whether someone should have reached out aside, it's pretty typical so I wouldn't take this post as something personal. The Talk comment was perhaps less WP:CIVIL than it could have been. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man, that doesn't excuse not notifying well-intentioned editors. I'm not exactly famous for creating articles about fringe theories that anyone would have to worry I was canvassing a subreddit about. This is really unkind. —valereee (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• So, I'm usually editing about tangible things rather than ideas, and when I do write about ideas I find it more difficult. I feel like the actual issue here is not that this isn't a thing but that it's not easy to write about and I haven't done a particularly competent job, which is why the first thing I did after getting it as right as I initially could was to open a talk section asking for input. PG's argument seems to be that veganism isn't political, so this can't be a thing. Of course veganism can be political. Vegetarian ecofeminism -- also a thing -- is inherently political. And the fact he's arguing that Black veganism equates to Asian veganism affirms to me that I haven't written the article well or clearly enough, as Black veganism connects the use of non-human animals to that of humans w/re considering certain bodies -- certain beings -- to be objects appropriate to be used by other bodies however they like. There is no Asian equivalent in the US. It may be a revolutionary idea, but that doesn't make it a fringe theory. —valereee (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the link to Vegetarian ecofeminism comprehensively refutes the overreaching argument that this can't be a thing. I think the big difference (and the only significant tweak I see for the article) is the lack of WP:SCHOLARSHIP to date on black veganism, especially relative to the vegetarian ecofeminism article. I don't think it means anything more than softening some of the language that isn't backed up by a journal. I made an example edit on the one sentence I saw that needed it. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Joan Roughgarden, sexual selection, and gender in animals

Comments are needed at Talk:Gender#Yes, Roughgarden's views are fringe. Thank you. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Misinformation or censorship: science reporting and social media Joint online event with the group Challenging Pseudoscience, at the Royal Institution

6:30 on the 22nd, free. Registration is now open and will close at 17:00 on Tuesday 22 June 2021.[27]. Doug Weller talk 16:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The Game Changers

This article is a bit of a mess. A vegan on the talk-page wants to include a rebuttal to the criticisms of the documentary, I don't oppose that but I think it is false balance to put it in the lead. See the talk-page discussion. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I started pecking at this but it's so depressingly poor I'm not sure I can continue! yeesh! Alexbrn (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

It's weird when dueling maximalist pseudoscientific proponents fight on conspiracy theory podcasts. jps (talk) 15:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Why do references 5, 6, 7 and 8 get to stay in the introduction and imply that the film is pseudoscience, misinformation, has been debunked and etc, while a criticism of one of the articles does not? with a general line of, "however, there have also been rebuts to some of those criticisms [insert reference]". Seems reasonable to me.

Plus this "ජපස" person should be blocked from editting the article. Simply look at it, it will be evident as to why... (bias does not get harder, the fact that this person is allowed to make edits on Wiki is beyond me). RBut (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Whooah, you're talking about one of Wikipedia's most experienced editors there, particularly for WP:FRINGE topics. Of course, that's no guarantee they're doing it right but still ... WP:CLUE is a thing. On the wider point, if there are still lots of shitty sources used, be WP:BOLD and cull them! Alexbrn (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Generally speaking, advocating for the sanctioning of an experienced and highly competent editor with the rationale "just look at their editing" is a better method of getting yourself sanctioned than of getting anyone else sanctioned. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@RBut: You need to stop picking fights. I harbor no particular disdain for your position or the desires you have to make sure everything is fair, but what is fair on Wikipedia is not necessarily what you might think is fair or what I might think is fair. The film, rightly or wrongly, makes dramatic health claims which may or may not be validated by reliable sources. You have also pointed out, rightly, that some of the critics of the film may be problematic in other ways. Lord knows we don't need to preference the opinions of people who believe in such fantasies as the so-called "paleo diet". But the way to resolve these issues is to stick to very high-quality sourcing. The article right now has some fairly good sources and some that are perhaps not so good. I would start there. Which are the sources you think are the most problematic? Then, if consensus agrees, we can remove those sources and the content sourced to it. If you find good sources that are not polemical or, even better, entirely independent, we can use those to improve the article as well. jps (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Before you step on any more land mines, have you read WP:GOODBIAS? - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@MPants at work:Well simply look at the edit that was done. It was hypocritical... It said the previous version used WP:PEACOCK while simultaneously editting it and using WP:PEACOCK. "Puffery is an example of positively loaded language; negatively loaded language should be avoided just as much.". It did that. Introduce negatively loaded language.

@ජපස and Jps: Please explain why source 10: http://proteinaholic.com/response-to-layne-nortons-review-of-the-game-changers/ - is no good and does not deserve to be in the introduction, while source 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 which you consider high quality and do.

5: https://nz.news.yahoo.com/the-game-changers-vegan-documentary-claims-meat-could-kill-you-023401631.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmVzLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKXpatllbE53RcufmjuE2oWHPdkugfpjo428Czc7K8dUua7PeQPaZFU7060KEMePYzGGpD17lb1qddfuMQCWtwEUXpjW31rsZC8yYBQaGumCvD0SMMcg4nQzA_giw_vETuSuMRmFmix6RNyYSEKCdwyO2ci4myO22kMvfXsNlIN6

6: https://www.menshealth.com/nutrition/a29067926/the-game-changers-movie-fact-check/

7: https://www.biolayne.com/articles/research/the-game-changers-review-a-scientific-analysis/

8: https://tacticmethod.com/the-game-changers-scientific-review-and-references/

9: https://www.mysportscience.com/post/2019/11/06/is-game-changers-game-changing-or-is-it-sensationalism RBut (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the dispute or the subject of the article, but I'll tell you right now, that source 10 is a blog, which is generally not a good source. Unless the author is an acknowledged expert, it's completely unusable. Even if the author is, it's still not ideal. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Same regarding a lack of familiarity of the dispute, but I'll also note that sources 8 and 9 are also unambiguously blogs (with 7 being labeled as research, but still what I'd generally refer to as a blog). A bit less WP:SELFPUB than 10 (with the exception of 7), but blogs nonetheless. I can't comment on what's reliable versus unreliable on content, but purely from a platform viewpoint I think 7-10 all deserve some scrutiny. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll note that source 10 is written by a surgeon, whereas sources 7 and 9 are written by PhD's in nutrition. They're all selfpub, but the latter ones are higher quality. You're right that source 8 is (relative) garbage: it should not be used at all. Source 6 is clearly not a blog, but an article in a popular and highly regarded magazine. Source 5 is a little funky (I can't find the byline), but otherwise arguably the best source of the bunch, depending on how you judge Men's Health. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Right, but as you mentioned: Unless the author is an acknowledged expert, it's completely unusable. Even if the author is, it's still not ideal. All four of the blogs are apparently written by doctors of some kind. Which isn't to say they must be given the same weight, but that the difference between them in quality/reliability is not the author's credentials (assuming all relevant, actual experience) or the source being a blog post. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I remember what I said. I also said They're all selfpub, but the latter ones are higher quality.

All four of the blogs are apparently written by doctors of some kind. That "some kind" part is the rub. Would you trust a gynecologist to treat prostate cancer? Better question; would any competent gynecologist even try to treat someone's prostate cancer?

(Hint: the answer is "No" to the second question. The answer to the first is entirely yours, and answered entirely at your own risk.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I think I agree with all of that, I was still a bit stuck on the original comment, specifically "blogs are unusable" having only been applied to only one of the 4 blog posts. All of them require that secondary analysis to see if they fit that exception, and I'm not looking to wade into that one :) Bakkster Man (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

If you take a look on the Game Changers wiki's talk page we have already done an analysis. Ref 7 is an advocacy site, previously funded by animal agriculture (also happens to most heavily critize the documentary). Ref 6 and 8 lacks credentials. 6 was written by a journalist that heavily promotes meat while 8 by an engineer. Ref 9 lacks references, which qualifies it under "primary source" (lowest quality evidence, sources that should be avoided via Wikipedia's guidelines). That is the world of health documentaries. There will be no respresentatives of the World Health Organization reviewing it. My argument basically is, is that reference 10 (above) should be added in the introduction with a general tone if the references above are justified. It simply makes it less biased. Alternatively I can rewrite the page with less biased references, however it will have to abide by some different criteria as the reliance on blogs and etc is a requirement, some a tertiary source (e.g. the WHO) is not possible to find. At best I have found blogs that reference secondary and primary sources for their rebuts. So what I propose are review that give credit where credit is due, and criticize where criticism is due, while also containing mostly secondary references. WDYT? RBut (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Who is this "we"? "Lacking credentials" is not the way sources get impeached here... especially when the subject is a film. So to glibly dismiss editorials or reviews because the person who wrote it "lacks credentials" is fairly rich considering the filmmaker does not have "credentials" either. WP:PARITY cuts both ways. Now, I'm not saying that we necessarily need to include all these references. I'm not a fan of tacticmethod.com but I would be okay with including comments that were attributed sourced to that website as long as we're honest about who the author is. Same goes for biolayne.com except that we dwell on this particular critic due to the Joe Rogan section. Now, I'm not convinced that the Joe Rogan section adds anything to the article... except that the filmmaker themselves decided to engage. Once that happens, I think there is a case to be made that this touched a nerve and if you're going to talk about the filmmaker's performance in that debate, you're going to have to include the statements from the horse's mouth. We're in the weeds here, but it's not our fault. That's the way the film ended up being handled by various people. jps (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Bakkster Man, I worried a bit that the (friendly) sarcasm in my comment would rub you the wrong way, and I'm glad to see that it apparently didn't.

The whole topic of nutrition seems (in my very limited experience looking into it) to have a much heavier reliance on selfpub sources, which makes sense. There's a lot of money to be made in that associated industry, which means lots of experts (and non-experts presenting themselves as experts) are strongly motivated towards entrepeneurialship, and that means means blogs a plenty.

As you said, it looks like too hot of a mess to made wading in appealing, and a topic that's begging for a good essay on sourcing to get elevated to guideline status. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but my point was that the criticism you will use against reference 10 applies to all the references listed above. So when you say 10 falls under blog, so do references 7, 8 and 9. Another criteria were if the person is not an acknowledged expert it would also be an issue, well look at reference 6, it is by somebody with no credentials (while reference 10 does have the credentials). RBut (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

By the way I understand that this is a new topic for many people and it is easy to brush off, but the Game Changers is not the buzzwords that are claimed it is (in the introduction of the wiki page). I completely agree that there are a few areas to critique, some of them being that a few of the referenced studies are primary sources with small sample sizes. However the general message is on point. If you look at Canada's latest dietary guidelines where industry was excluded and the review was purely motivated by science versus financial incentives (well, Canada does have free healthcare so it is motivated by reducing healthcare costs), the majority of the plate (around 95%) is made up of whole food plants, because that is what the science shows: https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/canada-food-guide-unveil-1.4987261 or alternatively, go here and download PDF (on the right, it says "Download the alternative format") for the full referenced article: https://food-guide.canada.ca/en/guidelines/

"The guide was prepared using high-quality scientific reports on food and health, excluding industry-commissioned reports given the potential for conflicts of interest, according to Health Canada."

"Health Canada recommends eating "plenty of vegetables and fruits, whole grain foods and protein foods. Choose protein foods that come from plants more often." For instance, fruits and vegetables make up half the plate on the report's front cover and nuts, beans and seeds are more prominent."

So take this into consideration. This is a tertiary source (considered to be the highest quality by Wikipedia guidelines). However these are recommendations towards the average person, and not an athlete. RBut (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

While I understand your syllogistic reasoning here, this is pretty clearly WP:SYNTH. It's a good idea to stick close to explicitly stated conclusions in the sources. Also, I can assure you that not all healthcare in Canada is free! You raise valid points, and I am hopeful there is appropriate compromise to be had here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes of course. The purpose above was to show that there is support for a predominantly (mostly) plant based lifestyle by high quality, tertiary sources. There are other major organizations as well, for example the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (and around 10+ other major dietetic organizations around the world) that support it as well. Even the UN (but they do it moreso for the environmental benefits as well reducing the probability of zoonotic disease). RBut (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Plant-based doesn't mean vegan. The major dietetic and health organizations around the world are not supporting a vegan diet. They recommend a balanced diet of vegetables, fruit, nuts, legumes, grains and lean animal protein which is getting closer to plant-based but it is still not quite there yet. They all still recommend animal protein sources (seafood, eggs, chicken). You might call this "semi-vegetarian", similar to the Mediterranean diet. Generally they are telling people to reduce saturated fat content and stay away from red or processed meat but that is a long way off from avoiding all animal products. James Wilks was asked about plant-based i.e. a diet made up of mostly plants with a minimalistic amount of animal protein and he said no, that's not good enough and not what the Game Changers is about. On the talk page I listed 4 reviews that were mostly negative about the Game Changers written by registered dietitians (one of them was plant-based). I believe those reviews should be used on the article because they are experts on the topic. The negative reviews greatly outnumber the positive. We should not create a false balance but I agree that Garth Davis could be used on the article but not in the lead. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Psychologist Guy:For one, there is no reference for the claim that that James Willks does not support a mostly plant based diet. He included people in the film that eat such a diet (Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Nate Diaz that eat mostly plant based). And two, the references you included might be by experts but some of them contain no sources. They do not fit into the criteria of Wiki's guidelines... it is called a primary source (source that has no place on Wiki). It's also a logical fallacy called an appeal to authority. We went over this. Let's say I can find another credentialed authority that does not reference their claims and then claim the exact opposite that was claimed to your authority, how are you going to figure out who is truthful?.... For three, I never tried to create a balanced support. The published sources in the article are extremely flawed to which I attempted to add one single rebuttal by an expert. I asked people: "Justify those articles while simultaneously claiming the Dr Gath one is flawed". Nobody does. Either the request is skipped or admittance is shared that those sources are flawed, however they still remove the Dr. Garth one while leaving the other ones up. For four, the majority of those organizations you mentioned have sponsors from fast food companies such as McDonalds and soft drink companies such as Coca Cola, and especially the Beef, Dairy and Egg industry. Expecting their analysis to be 100% scientific over financially motiavted is illogical. I just visited Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (the largest dietetics organization on our planet) and one of their top articles currently promotes eating healthier for kids in fast food places, with one of their recommendations being a roast beef sandwich, inadvertently I also checked thier sponsors, ooh "National Cattlemen's Beef Association" hmm... (they also had Egg, Dairy, soft drink companies and a lot more). Please tell me what science that is based on (recommending beef sandiwches for kids), I'm actually hoping you will respond to this request. They're the most objective organizations we have right? here's my suggestion: Check out latest Canada's dietary guidelines. A country with free health care, a country that excluded industry comissioned reports from their last nutritional guidelines review. What this stands for is that their analysis was purely motivated by science and reducing health care costs. What they found the best dietary recommendation to make was predominantly plant based, around 95%. Same as James Willks.... RBut (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned over the idea of including Garth Davis as there is a WP:REDFLAG for me with his participation in What the Health. jps (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@ජපස:If Gath Davis is a WP:REDFLAG, can you please explain how references 6, 7, 8 and 9 do not qualify as WP:REDFLAG? RBut (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

A general point: a claim that some kind of health intervention has an effect is pretty much always shading into being WP:EXCEPTIONAL and needs strong sourcing; a claim of "nah, doesn't work" is a commonplace (this is, after all the default assumption in science) and so generally weaker sourcing suffices. Alexbrn (talk) 07:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Can you please expand on this more. What evidence for which claim are you looking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RBut (talk • contribs) 07:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I was making a general point because I'm seeing questions like "if source X is bad, how come source Y is okay?". Editors should bear in mind that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS so different strengths of source are okay for different strengths of claim, and claims of health effect are nearly always stronger than claims of no health effect. Alexbrn (talk) 07:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok, well that source was critiquing one of the other sources and their references. RBut (talk) 08:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

You're asking me to defend a position I have not taken. As you'll see above, I don't think that we should be promoting the claims of anyone who may be problematically WP:FRINGE in terms of their advocacy whether it be stridently vegan or stridently paleo diet. However, given that there is an entire section devoted to some conflict on the Joe Rogan podcast (which I am not convinced is worth discussing in depth), it would be quite strange to discard sources from the main interlocutor while allowing pontification from the filmmaker. That said, to argue that an editorial in Men's Health magazine is equivalent to the blogpost of a cast member of What the Health is somewhat disconfirming. Perhaps dial back your WP:ADVOCACY here and try to figure out how to collaborate with others? jps (talk) 11:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

[28] I think when you are so used to dispute, it may be easy to mistake a neutral improvement for a smear. I explained myself on the talkpage, but this is a classic enough example, I thought I'd plop it here. Anyone else thing my wording changes are "negative"? jps (talk) 11:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@ජපස: Alright, what is your position on reference 6, 7, 8 and 9?— Preceding unsigned comment added by RBut (talk • contribs) 15:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

See above. Briefly, I think that if we are going to discuss Joe Rogan, we have to accept attributed statements from biolayne.com. I agree that if we are going to use tacticmethod.com, it should be attributed to the author. I don't think "credentials" is a valid consideration for inclusion/exclusion of sources in this instance given that the filmmaker doesn't really have "credentials" either. jps (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@ජපස: Right, how does Dr. Garth not qualify to be included as a reference?— Preceding unsigned comment added by RBut (talk • contribs) 17:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

See above! My concern (note that this is not a disqualification) is that his involvement with various polemical works that may stray from dispassionate evaluation into promotion of his particular advocacy may not make him any more reliable (or unreliable, for that matter) from the detractors. At the very least, we would need to attribute anything he says and it would help the reader if we indicate that he may be motivated to support the main ideas of the film, for example. jps (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@ජපස: How about biolayne? he was previously funded by animal agriculture. Should we warn readers that he may be motivated by more than a psychological motivation?— Preceding unsigned comment added by RBut (talk • contribs) 18:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely! I am not thrilled with how he is being described in the article right now. But instead of funding sources (which we do not mention for the film, I might add), what I'm more concerned with is his advocacy of the paleo diet. jps (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Why would you not be concerned if he was directly funded by the opposing side of the research presented in the documentary while being concerned that Dr. Garth might have a bias? RBut (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Because receipt of funding, while it can indicate problems and should be disclosed when there are conflicts of interest, is not nearly as disconfirming as someone who actively promotes a competing POV. For my work, I get funding from the government. That does not necessarily mean that I am compromised when discussing the government. On the other hand, if in my work I advocated strongly in favor of the government as a political position, that would be an important thing for a reader to know when considering my review of the "GOVERNMENT IS BAD" documentary. jps (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

So using your analogy, if somebody were paid to say "GOVERNMENT IS BAD SUCKS!" it is not as much of an issue if somebody came to the conclusion by reviewing the evidence that "GOVERNMENT IS BAD MAKES SOME GOOD POINTS!"? RBut (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

No. I'm saying that a person who advocates for a position in a consistent fashion to the point that they are affiliated with discourse that have been subject to WP:MAINSTREAM critique needs to be properly contextualized. It doesn't matter what the position is. It only matters that the position is WP:FRINGE. jps (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Can't be that fringe if Canada's non industry funded dietary guidelines came to the same conclusion. That plants should be maximized in a diet and have benefits. RBut (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

What the Health is fringe. I think there is no two ways about that. jps (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Having a few scenes in a documentary is a stonewall argument to discredit you for life? RBut (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

100% agreement with this statement, and the point it makes.

But, can we actually change the game already? I've got Super Mario Cart and 4 controllers. My 6yo is deceptively competent at it, if you like a challenge. This discussion between you two probably belongs back at article talk, as you've gotten back to the discussion of specific changes.

ජපස, if you need an extra pair of eyes, you know my talk page is always open to you.

As a final note, RBut, please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) each and every time you write a new comment. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Fair. I'll just end with a point that it hardly think it is "discrediting" someone to point out WP:REDFLAG may apply to them as a source due to an appearance in a documentary with a similar agenda to the one they are commenting upon. jps (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Right. If they were paid to do it however it's no biggie (of course only if they were paid to present the agenda of the opposing side though). RBut (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

RBut, James Wilks does not eat a 95% plant based diet, he is strict vegan (he does not eat meat, dairy or eggs). In the debate with Chris Kresser he was asked and he said he does not eat animal products as meat is bad. Wilks definition of "plant-based" is vegan but the documentary did not use that term because of the baggage that is sometimes associated with it. There is a recent interview with Wilks where he explains his vegan diet [29]. He lives off oats, vegetables, lentils and soy which is completely unbalanced (Wilks does not seem to have researched antinutrients) but he wiped the floor with Chris Kresser who nobody in the nutritional world takes seriously (he is an acupuncturist). Kresser made an embarrassing mistake of claiming that vitamin B12 is never added to livestock feed so Wilks had an easy time shooting down his arguments. It seems Wilks got more attention for his debate with Kresser than the documentary itself. However if you look at the reception of the documentary it was negatively reviewed by dietitians for making exaggerated nutritional claims and the experiments on the show contained no blinding, randomization or control group. So far you have only given us one response to criticisms of the documentary from Garth Davis. There doesn't seem to be any other reliable sources defending the documentary. Other users have rejected the idea of adding Davis as a source to the article so I am not sure how we can proceed with this discussion. Like I said the criticism of the documentary out ways the positives. We can't have an entirely balanced article, because that would be a false balance and undue weight. The mainstream view is that documentary contains pseudoscientific claims so that information is summarized in the lead. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Psychologist Guy: Where does it say that James Willks does not support anything other than fully plant based? "Some people like to jump all in, but for others, a gradual approach works best. We like to say it’s not “all or nothing”, but rather, “all or something”. The research shows that any shift towards eating more whole plant foods can be beneficial. We’ve actually put some tips for people who wants to eat more plants on our website."

And unbalanced based on your assessment? And what if by the assessment of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics it is balanced? How are you measuring this unbalance-ness? And why would he have to research anti nutrients? (which is also the talking point of carnivore advocates) telling somebody to research anti nootrients does not make any point if you understand how anti nootrients work. Are you suggesting he's deficient in nutrients because of anti nootrients? and what about the anti nutrients in animal products? Plus no worries, I already figured out how this works. The validity of the arguments of any of my references do not matter as long as they have previously supported a plant based diet. The flawdness of the references of the criticisms of the Game Changers also do not matter, as long as they argue for the mainstream view. Those sources could literally claim anything, no matter how flawed or hypocritical and editors would stay silent because tons of meat is supported by the mainstream view. Even if they go completely against Wiki's guidelines. I basically figured out there is a pretence of non bias and following Wiki's guidelines. Here is your reference (which was not accurately presented by you):

"As far as diet, I usually have oatmeal for breakfast, either cooked or overnight oats. On Sundays, my wife makes pancakes or waffles for the family and I’ll make a simple healthy syrup made of berries, dates and water. I’ll have a smoothie most days, which usually has a banana, berries, greens, nuts and seeds, and soy milk. For main meals, it’s a real mixture. Things like lentil pasta with veg, cottage pie made with lentils, beans and rice with veg and guacamole, lasagna made with tofu, and enchiladas." RBut (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

That still doesn't include animal products so I don't see how a longer quote changes anything. Moreover, I saw multiple claims that the Canadian guide agreed with the diet being promoted, but the guide doesn't advocate against the consumption of animal products (even if it recommends including a good ratio of plants)... I will also ask a relevant question, because you appear to be invested to prevent criticism in the article: do you have a conflict of interest in relation to the film or related people? Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 04:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Did you read the quote? It says it's not an all or nothing approach but rather all or something because any shift towards more whole plants can be beneficial. And the guidelines removed dairy, made most of the plate plants and said opt in for plant protein over animal protein, which is another way of saying replace animal products... And it is weird that you read the whole exchange and came to the conclusion I have a bias but not anyone else here. I have no more bias than anyone else. Since your name is PaleoNate, is there any chance you have a bias towards promoting a diet with little science behind it? the Paleo diet. RBut (talk) 07:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Longtime WP editors been engaging with you in good faith, RBut. This is in spite of you declaring early on your intentions as ones that mirror WP:ADVOCACY fairly closely. I've seen similar sorts of conflict play out many times before, and given that I'm going to offer you some advice: you need to learn to work collaboratively with the people who are active here and not respond with knee-jerk combativeness and rudeness. If you don't alter course, you'll probably find yourself subject to things like WP:BANs and WP:BLOCKs. jps (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I took a page from your book. This is being a hypocrite:

You misread my response, commented something that made no sense, to which I tried to get you to clarify, and then: "If that's not what you intended to communicate, you might want to try toning down the rhetoric a bit. jps (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)"

You were upset because you misread my quote and blamed me. When I pointed it out that I do not understand what you are trying to say you followed up by projecting your emotions onto me: "I literally quoted you. It is directly above. Wait, are you upset with the word "red"? My god. jps (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)"

Very professional yourself there pal... RBut (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

RBut -- I mean this with all due respect and in good faith, but you really do seem overly combative with editors who, while they may disagree with you, are being quite civil. I am not accusing you of anything, but given your behavior, it certainly seems understandable to draw an inference that you are somehow connected to the article subject. Please try to remember that reasonable minds may differ on a subject, and disagreement is often in good faith. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Here are my current two concerns: should references 4, 5, 6 and 7 be allowed but reference 8 as a response to ref 5 not? To catch everybody up, ref 4 and 6 lack credentials (4 a journalist, 6 an engineer) and 6 is a blog, ref 5 is an advocacy blog but has credentials and references, ref 7 is a blog and has credentials but contains no references (primary source), ref 8 advocacy blog has credentials and references, is a response to ref 5.

And the second concern, is "The film viewing is an approved activity for continuing education credit by the Defense Health Agency[11] and the American College of Lifestyle Medicine.[12][13]" has been moved down to the "reception" section. Does that make sense? Why can this not stay in the intro as it was (given as ref 4, 5, 6 and 7 reside there, it seems to be the most approriate place for it). 1. It was marketed as being accredited/endorsed by those organizations, 2. It's in the intro of the documentary, 3. These organizations have accredited courses examining the science behind the documentary that secure credits for CE/CME (continuing medical education) which includes: "Physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, registered nurses, pharmacists, registered dietitians, certified diabetes educators, physical therapists, occupational therapists, psychologists, social workers, and more!". Clearly it is accredited/endorsed otherwise those organizations would have sued the documentary into oblivion. So I proporse changing it back to "It received generally positive reviews by viewers and endorsements by the American College of Lifestyle Medicine and the Defense Health Agency". And please "ජපස" let everybody else analyze for at least a couple responses. RBut (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I want to add a few things which are not necessarily relevant - call it nitpicking, preaching, and pep talking. But since this is not an article Talk page, here goes.

First, you seem slightly concerned about user names. I am pretty sure there is a policy about not talking about other users' names, but I cannot find it at the moment. But, just for the record, ජපස and jps are the same person, "ජපස" being just Sinhala script for "jps", which is the usual moniker here. "Paleo" just means "old". A PaleoNeonate is an old newborn. Nothing to do with the caveman wannabe movement.

Second, that article is about people who eat only plants. Completely unexpectedly, people who eat only animals disagree with them, but happily, that part of the article is much reduced now, although I am just waiting for people who only eat fungi to chime in. And the people who only eat bacteria. And the people who only eat archaebacteria.

The opinions of paleo diet advocates do not belong in Wikipedia articles about vegetarianism. But there is also veggie fringe, and that does not belong either, unless with skeptical sprinkle added. The people you are talking to here are experienced with things that do not belong here. You should not care about what they eat, or what user names they chose. The reasoning is what counts, and if it does not hold water, the motive behind it does not matter. Neither does it if it does hold water. Not in Wikipedia.

You have been a bit personal at the start, suspecting people, accusing people. Then you got much better, using actual reasoning. Then you were at it again. Now you are back to good, after Dumuzid had a say. That is the way to do it, thanks. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Eat food, mainly plants, not too much. -Roxy . wooF 10:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I thought we were getting to a point where we might have had some better working environment, but no dice: [30]. jps (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The escalating SPA activity at this article has caused significant WP:DISRUPTION and editor exhaustion. I've dropped a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#The_Game_Changers for what it's worth. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Oscar love curse

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar love curse, which concerns a supposed superstition. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Given that the list of supposed victims of this 'curse' consists mostly of living individuals, and given that it fails to cite any source whatsoever for said individuals inclusion on said list I've started a discussion at WP:BLPN [31] Regardless of whether it is 'fringe' or not, it appears to violate basic WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Another WP:PROFRINGE lab leak essay

• See WP:LABLEAK

Highlights include:

• An opening premise of "As shown by Jon Stewart", with the link to Jon Stewart showing as a "Generally unreliable source" for those wise enough to have Headbomb's handy script installed)
• Some pseudo-mathematics "proving" the "lab leak" is likely
• A criticism of Wikipedia for "relying heavily on scientists and their publications to provide information on COVID-19"
• A suggestion that rather than following the WP:PAGs, WP:COMMONSENSE is used. Hmmm, why does this remind me of something?
• And more!

One to savour this. But, on a more serious note, should this really have a WP: space link? Alexbrn (talk) 05:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

No, we definitely should not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

This is like the poster child for WP:NOCOMMON. Certainly does not belong. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

It needs to cite Betteridge’s Law. Brunton (talk) 10:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm tempted to give it (the redirect) the RFD treatment or even the CSD treatment by pointing to the similarity between that and "LABLEAKLIKELY"... In either case, this certainly supports the proposal for the topic ban of the author... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

RFD'd. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Well that was quick! Agreed, if this is what passes for a well-sourced argument around here, we've got bigger problems...--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Behavior modification facility – violates WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS?

The article Behavior modification facility seems problematic, as it lends considerable credence to the work of behavior modification facilities, even though they are, as far as I can tell, widely criticized as being abusive and not using evidence-based methods. See for example this BBC News story[32] on the facilities. I would appreciate if someone with medical or related expertise could take a look at the article. I also wonder to what extent WP:MEDRS applies. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

In my (limited) understanding from looking at some of this in the past, this is a field with some legitimate aspects - for example it's probably a legitimate & caring thing to modify the behaviour of somebody with a neurological condition that leads them compulsively to want to gouge their own eyes out. But around, and on top of, this there is a whole boat-load of fringe stuff yes. So it makes for a difficult topic to deal with broadly, as sources must be chosen carefully for whatever claims are being considered. Alexbrn (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Alternative medicine in a nutshell

• [ https://xkcd.com/2475/ ]

--Guy Macon (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Essays that promote pseudoscience or conspiracy theories

See Wikipedia talk:Advocacy#Is it OK use Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, as long as you do so in an essay in userspace? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Linking WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:UP#NOT for completeness, —PaleoNeonate – 09:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Ironically, the most pertinent essay on this whole thing was WP:Randy's enablers which got deleted (well, merged then vaporized) because it seemed a bit much. The original text can be seen in this diff. My take is that it not possible to get a user-space essay deleted unless it's downright obscene/offensive. So don't bother with it. Alexbrn (talk) 10:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

That sounds almost like a dare. In fact, if the sun were over the yardarm....Hyperion35 (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Question at village pump

• Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Why do Wikipedia editors dislike pseudoscience so much?

For those who have two cents left to spend. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Steve Kirsch video attacking Covid vaccinations

This video[33] is circulating on Twitter via the usual crazies. (And some are crazy, eg"If factcheckers say it's a hoax, it's true" and claiming I'm a paid deep state agent). The website itself is a respectable source I think. Doug Weller talk 15:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

trialsitenews also keeps coming up as a "source" for the ivermectin-cures-covid types. It is most certainly not a respectable source. Alexbrn (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

If more sources cover it, this seems like an opinion that could be mentioned at the author's article; on the other hand, not an expert in this and likely lacks access to the necessary information for a decent analysis, also obviously not MEDRS and this particular article is only an op-ed... —PaleoNeonate – 14:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I noticed the ivermectin thing today also. I can't find any sources commenting on trailsite or on Kirsch. Doug Weller talk 19:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

List of top Covid myths

here. Doug Weller talk 15:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Naftalan oil

I am expecting some pushback regarding this edit:[34]

Related: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Croatian source for for claims about the medical effects of bathing in high-naphthalene-content crude oil. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Jeremy Griffith

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

Someone posted concerns about fringe POV in January. More eye may be needed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I've looked and I haven't found much critical analysis of his ideas, probably because they are not even wrong. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Interesting review of one of his books in the Sidney Morning Herald, which is quite critical in some aspects. Probably worth incoporating into the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Stigmata

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

I think this one belongs on some watchlists. Should "a psychoanalytic study of stigmatic Therese Neumann" be quoted? Is leprosy a relevant explanation for St. Francis' stigmata? Did Padre Pio really report that his stigmata were gone after his death? I think the last one is a mistranslation, but I don't know the answer to the first two. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Quantum Psychology

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

This article describes a book about a fringe-sounding topic without any sourced critical commentary of the book. It has been tagged for notability since December 2019. Some of the other articles related to Robert Anton Wilson, such as Eight-circuit model of consciousness, also lack this information. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Lab Leeks! Lab Leeks! Get your hot, steaming Lab Leeks here!!!

Another Wuhan Lab Leak page with WP:NPOV problems: Drastic Team. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The problem with Drastic is that pretty much all coverage of them is favourable by dubious sources, and those that cover the lab leak idea critically don't mention them at all. It like to see an entry for UnHerd at the RSN, as they seem to be a contrarian opinion magazine ala The Spectator or Spiked. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I worked on that page a bit earlier today. Another problem it has is over-quoting and WP:SCAREQUOTES. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I took a look at some potential improvements yesterday, there's just not good sources. It seems the sources mentioning DRASTIC by name tend to be 'puff pieces', and those criticizing their behavior tend not to (the Wired article being one of few exceptions). Pseudonymity compounds that difficulty. One of the members being... outspoken on Twitter about WP (perhaps in part due to this ban) in particular makes it a tricky article. That it survived AfD by a wide margin this month as well, I dunno how to handle it. Not that I think it should be deleted, but it definitely feels slanted for the reasons above, and unlikely to change any time soon without additional critical sources on a topic most don't want to touch. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I just did a rewrite, attempting to be descriptive without the puffery. I invite others to improve on my no doubt ham-handed effort. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I've heard that members of the group have sauntered over to Wikipedia to argue about it. Definitely fucked up if true, and I've been keeping an eye on the article for that reason. @Novem Linguae: I appreciate this edit. I don't know how the hell that huge hunk of dreck got in there (although I was away for a few days, so probably during then). jp×g 13:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Whether the media writes "Puff pieces" or not, if they are reliable sources they establish notability and guide the due weight of coverage (and discounting "puff pieces" because they're positive explicitly violates WP:NPOV). Rowan Jacobsen writing for Newsweek and Katherine Eban writing in Vanity Fair are legitimate journalists who have covered the group in detail, as have others. The organization is not a biomedical topic although it's related to biomedical topics, and even if the members promote a fringe theory, we follow the balance of viewpoints as we do with any fringe organization such as Institute for Creation Research, stowing our personal opinions about which sources are too negative or too positive. The world's knowledge does not stem solely from the pages of peer-reviewed review articles. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, my 'puff piece' comment refers mostly to the primary-sourced interviews of members (a significant proportion of the article's sources) being weak for determining notability per WP:GNG, not necessarily their perspective (same argument applies to depending on 'hit pieces' to determine notability. And, as I mentioned, I'm not looking to overturn the existing consensus of notability, only pointing out the difficulty of writing an article about an unambiguously divisive topic, with so few reliable sources on one side of the dispute.

To put it another way, we're put in a bind if the media organizations viewing a group in a positive light find them notable, but those who view them in a negative light ignore them, it can skew NPOV (and the same if roles are reversed). No dispute from me that the group should be a notable fringe group, and that we're right to start with WP:VNT. The problem is if critical coverage of said fringe is lacking, for whatever reason, verifiability ends up potentially moving us further from neutrality than we'd end up with if there was more coverage. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Request for more involvement/input regarding fringe >> Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Amhara people on NPOV noticeboard

There is a discussion about Amhara people NPOV which possibly contains fringe, venue for discusssion [[35]], your input is welcome. Thanks Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Bret Weinstein

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

Apparently a leading light of the Intellectual Dark Web, this gentleman has recently had his Youtube channel suspended after taking ivermectin and proclaiming himself COVID-proof, raising concerns about vaccine safety, &c. The cries of "censorship" has meant his output is now getting wide attention and sharing. Recently there has been increased attention on his article, and particularly on whether anything critical can be said. As always, the eyes of WP:FRINGE-aware editors could be helpful. Alexbrn (talk) 13:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Related, but not directly is a report at the BBC today -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Roxy, I have updated the COVID-19 drug repurposing research with that source although one fears if that trial (the first really good one) comes up with the "wrong" result for the ivermectin cultists, they will disown it. I should add, BTW, that the Bret Weinstein bio, inevitably, also involves the "lab leak" question; see

• Browne M, Kavanagh C (23 June 2021). "You're probably not Galileo: scientific advance rarely comes from lone, contrarian outsiders". The Skeptic.

Alexbrn (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Note Weinstein's wife and co-presenter Heather Heying is also promoting ivermectin, and her article has started to attract some sneaky editing.[36] Alexbrn (talk) 12:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest regarding Covid-19

See User talk:Francesco espo#Conflict of Interest. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Be sure to update if this goes to action. I suspect DS would mean a much dimmer view might be taken over arguing no COI on a technicality. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• They have a point; this really is stretching the definition of COI. I suppose the argument is that bringing attention to the lab leak theory will drive traffic to their website? That's a very weak 'interest' and the consensus across multiple discussions, reflected in the guideline, is that simply being interested in or writing about a topic off-wiki is not a "role or relationship" that creates a COI. If this editors' edits are a problem, I think it'd be better dealt with under WP:FRINGE and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. – Joe (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

In this case, however, the individual appears to operate a website to promote a single issue, a position that the editor then comes to Wikipedia to promote, using their own website as a source. To be clear, the problem here isn't just a COI, but an undisclosed COI. Additionally, though, operating that website also implies that the account is a SPA and engaging in advocacy, and that they are likely WP:NOTHERE. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

+1 to this. It's exactly my thoughts. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Where have they used their website as a source? I looked for that (because it would be a more convincing COI) but didn't find it. – Joe (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Could someone check the revdeleted content in the history of DRASTIC to see whether Francesco espo copied material from their website at [ laboratoryleak.com ]?

In [37] Francesco espo wrote "As I've written in other pages, the content is mine, laboratoryleak.com is my website. In any case i deleted that content." --Guy Macon (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Drmies, see above --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Shibbolethink, see what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs)

Yes, that material was copied from their website - no need for anybody to look: that's the reason it was revdeled. On a graver note, we have a frivolous thread at ANI about, you've guessed it, the covid subject again - where there are also allegations of a COI (someone should tell them the difference between WP:INVOLVED and WP:COI). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Copying content is not the same as inserting a link as a source, though. Again I'm not saying there can't be a problem with their edits, but forcing them to make some sort of 'disclosure' (which isn't even required by policy in this case) isn't going to help anything, and this kind of precedent would stop, for example, an expert on apes from contributing CC-licensed articles on apes they've previously published elsewhere. – Joe (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Never mind all that, he's admitted to being an unreliable source on the COIN page. content cited to him should be removed. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 11:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, this site was never cited by anyone for anything. jp×g 13:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Copying content is basically using it as a source, though (although also a potential copyvio issue). I do think that disclosure is necessary. Certainly if I were going to cite something published by my agency (which would almost certainly meet MEDRS standards), I'd include disclosure, and most likely I'd post it on an article talk page instead, with the citation and suggested wording, and let another editor look over it and decide whether to add it to the article if they believe that it is appropriate. Don't we have a WP:CITESELF guideline on this? Hyperion35 (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

If you look at the history of this article, almost none of the original revisions' content (written by the article creator) remained by the time the AfD closed. Compare what they wrote, weighing in at a whopping three sentences, with this revision; almost the entirety of the latter's content was from myself, Hemiauchenia, and Novem Linguae. The revisions consisting of content from "laboratoryleak.com" were revdelled -- what content is being disputed here? jp×g 13:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

It should be noted that, as of the time of writing, there are no less than one, two, three, four, five, six separate threads on this noticeboard about the COVID-19 lab leak (and this is the second one you've created about the same article). Is this really necessary? jp×g 13:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Credit to the user in question: I will read these policy pages and keep off the COVID-19 lab origins topic until I understand what to do. Which is, quite honestly, exactly what we'd hope for from a user. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• This is a mountain based on a mole hill here. Francesco espo (talk · contribs) has made no edits to DRASTIC since June 1, and most of the previous edits have been deleted, and none of the content added by the user exists in the article's present form, which has since been edited by numerous (presumably) completely unbiased Wikipedians. Contrary to aggressive claims by User:Guy Macon (who dumped a truckload of wikilaw on the user's talk page and proposed topic bans in what I see as a very bitey fashion), the user is not an SPA, as they have made more edits to articles about snakes, sharks and Italian culture than anything related to COVID-19. There may indeed be a conflict of interest with respect to DRASTIC, but it so far hasn't been much of an issue that affects other articles. I suggest a wait-and-see approach, that is if the editor hasn't already been scared off from making any disease-related edits ever again. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit counts for Francesco espo:

11 Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology

11 Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Normchou/Essays/Does common sense point to a lab leak origin?

10 DRASTIC

10 List of snakes of Italy

6 Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19

5 COVID-19 pandemic in Italy

5 Traditions of Italy

4 Talk:Uyghur genocide

3 Talk:DRASTIC

3 Wikipedia talk:Biomedical information

2 List of laboratory biosecurity incidents

2 Talk:COVID-19 misinformation

2 User talk:Novem Linguae/Essays/There was no lab leak

2 UEFA Euro 2020

1 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drastic Team

1 Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:China COVID-19 cover-up

1 Bluntnose sixgill shark

1 Common thresher

1 Culture of Italy

1 Corn snake

1 Vipera kaznakovi

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Nice counting! --Animalparty! (talk) 07:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NeuroQuantology

NeuroQuantology has come up on this noticeboard before, so this AfD may be of interest. XOR'easter (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Linus Pauling Institute

• Linus Pauling Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is this, originally the "Institute of Orthomolecular Medicine", a bona fide "research institute"? I found it via the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons's Art Robinson. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah, nutritionists, the cornerstone of modern science. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

It's about as bona fide a "research institute" as AAPS is a real "medical society", and about as trustworthy as that guy in those commercials who promises to send you that miracle holy spring water. Lemme put it this way, if a bit crudely: FAAPS is an apropriate acronym for AAPS's fellows, because it describes well their process of intellectual output. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Bingo. Got em. Anybody who recognizes the way pseudoscientists cite Linus Pauling as the second coming of Andrew Taylor Still will see the irony in this institute's name.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Article on why people fall for conspiracy theories

[38]. Doug Weller talk 14:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

2020 article by a retired geologist on the Kensington Runestone

The Kensington Runestone: Geological Evidence of a Hoax,Harold Edwards. 2020, The Minnesota Archaeologist.[39]

Abstract: "Analyses of the geology, geological provenance, fabrication, and lack of weathering show it consistent with an 1898 date and not a 1362 date. The agstone that was used as the raw material is not native to the Kensington area. Toolimpressions and other features of its fabrication are consistent with nineteenth century practice, not four-teenth century practice. All of the letters are virtually unweathered. A calcite-rich coating covers the lowerleft corner of the front. This coating is consistent with stucco applied to the surface of the sandstone. This coating is less weathered than the calcite in 61-year old marble tombstones found in Minnesota, so it could not have been exposed for 536 years. It is well established from karst geology that calcite weathers at least one and a half times faster below ground than at the surface, so if the artifact were buried for any lengthof time, its calcite-rich coating, including its inscription, would have been obliterated. This artifact was created near the time of its discovery, and is a late nineteenth century hoax" Loads more detail. But I'm too busy/tired, sorry.

Doug Weller talk 14:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• seems like something that should be added to the article. Are you getting pushback? Blueboar (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

RFC on how to depict DRASTIC (twitter group researching COVID-19 origins)

DRASTIC has an RFC for NPOV depiction of this twitter group researching COVID-19 origins. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

RFC on whether to FORK Snake Oil ("oil from a snake" and "the pseudoscience term")

Snake oil has an RFC for whether this article should be split into two articles: "literal oil from a snake" and "the pseudoscience term." A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

AfD that may be of some interest

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe (2nd nomination). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Was just gonna cross-post this! Thanks MP.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

That's the most bizarre AfD nomination I've ever seen: literally finding additional sources which give non-trivial coverage of the subject in the nomination, and then arguing for its deletion... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The glorious ambrosia of WP:FRINGE is one hell of a drug, my friend. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: Yeah. Well, anyway, I have some experience with closing AfDs, and this one seemed eligible for a speedy termination on multiple grounds so there you have it. I've also given a BOOMERANG treatment on your AE thread (though you seem to be managing that just fine on your own). Cheers,— Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomCanadian (talk • contribs) 23:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

haha, thanks. No I think you're right on both counts, and I appreciate the help even if I already gave the admins a diff-splosion of ASPERSIONS. :) --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• I just want to make sure everyone here survived that sudden and "unexpected" blizzard. We all good? Nobody has frostbite? I've got a decent book on building igloos and substantive cold-weather survival training (from almost 20 years ago, but still) if anyone needs help. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

The danger of the spike protein in RNA vaccines, according to … their inventor?

• spike protein (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• RNA vaccine (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Robert Malone is an individual who has appeared on social media to (as this Reuters fact check puts it) say that the spike protein as used in several COVID vaccines is "very dangerous" and "cytotoxic". He styles himself and is referred to in such forums as the "inventor of mRNA vaccines".[40]

Over at RNA vaccine#History there has been repeated editing trying to get this "inventor" characterisation into Wikipedia, despite apparently there being no suitble WP:RS for it. While there is no doubt Malone was a scientist publishing early work in this field (see here) for example, his role does not even seem to have been so much that he is even named in historical overviews of the topic, in contrast to - say - Katalin Karikó. Alexbrn (talk) 08:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

The main issue with Malone is there aren't any reliable sources that discuss him in detail or the merits of his claim to have "invented" mRNA vaccines, though I see the Daily Mail and Fox News have uncritically parroted his claims. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

"According to his company website, he designed and developed in-vivo transfection experiments that led to numerous publications and over 10 patents on mRNA vaccination.

However, the claim that he’s the inventor of the mRNA vaccine technology underlying the covid jab is not widely accepted by independent researchers documenting the intellectual property landscape of this discovery."[41]

The best source for claims of who invented mRNA vaccines appears to be "A network analysis of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine patents" in Nature Biotechnology[42][43] Especially interesting: [44]. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Related: Fact Check: COVID-19 vaccines are not 'cytotoxic' --Reuters Fact Check

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Is this a dispute about how to accurately label his involvement? If so, perhaps it would be more accurate to describe him as “one of the scientists who’s work directly led to the vaccine” or something similar. Or is the dispute more about what he says? Blueboar (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think the sources even go quite that far. They cite some early work (for which he was one of several authors), showing that there was some kind of possible therapeutic potential for mRNA. That's what the article more or less currently says, but there's been a push to single him out and name him as a figure, when the sources don't. Alexbrn (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

RFC: "joint WHO-China report" or "WHO-convened report?"

Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19 (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19 has an ongoing RFC for how we should refer to the report authored by the WHO and based on a study conducted jointly with China. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

ODNI Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

ODNI Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena has been released today [45]. It's a bit underwhelming, to say the least (no aliens). The abstract describes it as a report that "relays the progress the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force has made in understanding UAP", so it's possible that this could be a section of the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force article. However, the WP:RS coverage of this report will likely be sufficiently robust enough to justify a new article, and it's always possible for fringe to creep into it. As a classic sci-fi film once said, watch the skies! - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd recommend Tyler Rogoway for some reliable analysis on this topic. He's been providing coverage in the lead-up to this report, and I suspect he'll continue to do so. Some of his prior work. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Hmph. There I was, all excited, ready to re-write a large portion of Wikipedia in response to the news that they were among us. But - it's just a big nothingburger! Alexbrn (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Articles impacted are Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force, Pentagon UFO videos, and UFO to varying degrees. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Too late, someone already created an article 24 June 2021 the day before the report's release, the mis-named Pentagon UFO Report. The Office of the DNI is a cabinet-level position reporting directly to the President and is not part of the Pentagon. I expect to participate in the eventual vote to delete/merge this mess into a section of the UAP Task Force article where it belongs, sigh. 5Q5|^✉ 12:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Mary Baker Eddy

A couple of users usually associated with the Christian Science church turn up on this article every few months and try and re-write the article to remove any criticisms of Eddy. Usually this involves trying to remove the fact that Eddy was a practicing spiritualist for a period of time or wore glasses or took morphine. What they usually do is remove Martin Gardner as a source and add Christian Science biographies of Eddy which are basically entirely apologetic. An account [46] called "metaphysical historian" has been re-writing some of the article with an unreliable self-published source "A Story Untold: A History of the Quimby-Eddy Debate" which relies heavily on Eddy and her family which is clearly not neutral. If you check this users talk-page they were told not to add this source to Wikipedia articles because it is self-published and unreliable back in February 2017 but now they are back doing it again adding it to multiple articles. This user is very likely the author of that self-published fringe book. This user is clearly a spammer and just wants mention of their book added on Wikipedia for example adding it to the Warren Felt Evans and others. Any help with clean up would be appreciated. Psychologist Guy (talk) 09:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The good state of this page (and Christian Science) was largely due to the work of SlimVirgin aka SarahSV (who we have very sadly lost). She would also keep the CS church at bay and believe me there have been some very concerted efforts to get the text changed (sometimes in details that a lay person would find surprising, but to believers is mega important). I shall re-watch these pages and it would be good if others could too, as it would be a shame to let them slip. Alexbrn (talk) 09:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Psychologist Guy is in fact the spammer who refuses to address the latest research from published sources but instead hides behind a fictitious notion that a fully published book can be dimissed as "original research" because it conflicts with his out of date information. None of his recent edits have anything to do with substance but rather in Orwellian fashion he believes that research that goes against his preconceived notions does not need to be addressed in a scholarly fashion but instead cancelled so that no one knows about it. In 2017 SlimVirgin, without bothering to read the 1500+ page scholarly book which was offered free of charge at that time online—and a work used readily by real non-Christian Science scholars—dismissed it as self-published. Without addressing the logic of that determiniation, suffice it to say the book was duly published in three volumes and is readily available for anyone to read. Perhaps Psychologist Guy should actually do that before throwing mud at other people and slanderting them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metaphysical historian (talk • contribs) 06:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community takes a dim view of people using the Project for self-promotion by spamming their crappy sources around the place, and especially so if aggravated by nastiness such as is on display. Continue trying it and you'll likely find yourself sanctioned. Alexbrn (talk) 06:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Metaphysical historian I am interested in reliable sources. Keith McNeil [47] is not a reliable source. It says "As a member of The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, his main interest initially was of the history of Eddy and the Christian Science movement, but in time that interest broadened into a history of mental healing in America, including the history of New Thought.". Keith McNeil is a Christian scientist and his book is self-published. It is not a neutral source. The book relies on Eddy and her family as witnesses, it isn't reliable at all. I understand McNeil wanted to write a favourable book about Eddy but that is not neutral research at the end of the day. Robert Peel did the same thing and was criticized by scholars as an "Eddy apologist". Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Your edits are not acceptable because you have just been going around and adding the Keith McNeil book at the bottom [48] of articles. That fits the definition of trying to promote the book, i.e. advertisement. Also this is a bad POV edit [49] in which a scholar Charles S. Braden was removed so you could add the McNeil book without even a page number. I have flicked through the McNeil book the agenda is to downplay Phineas Parkhurst Quimby and praise Eddy. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)