Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

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

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

Article alerts

Categories for discussion

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

Redirects for discussion

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

Good article nominees

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

Requests for comments

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

Peer reviews

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

Articles to be merged

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

Articles to be split

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

Rudolf Steiner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit war

Please see [1] and [2].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relatedly

Just came across:

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

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

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

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

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

Dysgenics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Dysgenics for IQ (via undisputed fertility differences) is probably correct" is the de facto mainsteam view, in the sense that nobody goes on the record claiming that there is no such effect, never mind attempting to present data disputing it, while extremely mainstream people (the kind with access to entire national databases in Scandinavia) occasionally put out studies duly confirming it exists. The discussion here is not the RS/AC one about inserting statements into the article that this is or isn't the majority expert opinion, but whether this "mainstream that dare not speak its name" view should be treated as fringe. Even the outdated (as in predating genomic tests) book by Lynn got respectful reviews from his opponents on other subjects. It just is not a FRINGE topic, however interesting it might be to eugenicists and racialists. Sesquivalent (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Bechor Zvi Aminoff

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael Cremo

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mass formation

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

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

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

To wit: [12]. jps (talk) 03:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Hiding an off-topic discussion is labeled "disruptive editing": [13]. jps (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Guide for the Perplexed

Hello, Fringe Theories Noticeboard,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While it seems problematic to me to imply that the author is right with no secondary sourcing, I see this as more of a nitpick compared to the bigger picture: that the article presents the book's arguments extensively without putting them in the context of their reception, whatever that might have been. In terms of journalistic ethics (e.g. [14][15]), the article fails to give what it criticizes as "materialistic scientism" a chance to respond to the criticism; in terms of Wikipedia policy, the article seems to pay little or no attention to WP:NPOV, especially given that it seems to present the book as opposing mainstream thought in science and in society at large. I pass no judgement on the book's claimed conclusions, but the article's presentation seems to me altogether too credulous or uncritical for Wikipedia's intended (N)POV. Given all that, should I move this to WP:NPOVN? (Does the venue even really matter?)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elizabeth Loftus again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've got a paper from this source[16] called Gunung Padang and the Indo-Malaysian megalithism: archaeology and Pseudoarchaeology which looks really useful to edit Gunung Padang (note I am finding this promoted in other articles as ridiculously old). But it's in Spanish and I don't have anything that will translate a multi-page document. Anyone? Too much work to do by hand. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 07:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I had good experiences with Google Translate [17]. The first paragraph comes out pretty well, modulo minor adjustments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent edits to Objections to evolution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Centers (Fourth Way)

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

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

Cheikh Anta Diop

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

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

My OR tag I put on the article has been removed with an edit summary "All of the peer-reviewed sources refer to Diop's work. Doug Weller has been heavily critised as a editor by several account users for omitting evidence to present a highly misleading view of African historical topics. This is poor, biased editorship and complaints will be raised against his account". The problem is that some of the sources do cite Diop's work wbut don't actually discuss it - some of the text I've got issues with was added in 2007 by an editor whose only edits seem to be these.[18] Doug Weller talk 16:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

L-8

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

More input appreciated

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

WP:RSN#

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

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

Panspermia/Abiogenesis

See also: Talk:Abiogenesis § Panspermia in the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s a copy of the disputed text:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Soft" panspermia isn't really panspermia at all. The idea that amino acids exist in carbonaceous chondrite asteroids is not a groundbreaking concept. This is a bit tangential, but the scientific consensus is that Earth's water derives from the initial planetary accretion, rather than being delivered later by comets. The current consensus is that Earth acquired most its water by accretion of carbonaceous chondrite material, particularly CI-like chondrites, from beyond the snow line in the solar nebula. [20], no idea if that any bearing on "soft" panspermia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Cosmic ancestry

The related Cosmic ancestry article has been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmic ancestry. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Eyes needed on some pseuodhistorian articles

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

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

User:Doug Weller: "and an accusation that archaeologists are covering something up." I never said archaeologists were covering anything up. When I said, "..., which begs the question whether archaeologists are covering up something for convenience sake.", that is not an accusation. It is the application of skepticism in view of evidence [[21]]. Just as a common perception that "the religious" will filter evidence according to their world view, the "anti-religious" may slant evidence in their favor as an antithetical response based on their beliefs. This is the basis of information inclusion and omission. While some of my talk edits may have been inappropriate, how does this vilify those who essentially do the same thing in the opposite direction? User:PaleoNeonate I can understand your concern that things go smoothly here. I had one editor tell me "We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology." I can appreciate that, yet I continue to see clear violations of the "working together" rule. To say this has nothing to do with an ideology is presumptive. If you are to "make an example of some", or even one, I see that as selective when it doesn't apply to all. From what I can see, you're being selective about who you warn of violations. The goal of these actions can be either good faith presuming innocence until proven guilty, or more of an "I'll stand on his toes until he gets sufficiently irritated". Using a position of power (WP admin) to accomplish the task of discouraging others is contemptible, and must be accompanied by a motive. I am sincerely hoping this is not the case, and your edits are honestly intended to promote good will among editors. I will have to say that it doesn't seem to be the case, but I could be wrong. I am fully aware of internet subculture movements. They allow actors to play roles in places they would otherwise not have access to. I would like to continue to contribute to making WP articles better. The tag-team approach I have been seeing doesn't give me much confidence that WP has placed proper controls in appropriate places. Specifically, I am not seeing why it would be necessary for me to feel that I must defend myself in this productive environment.BRealAlways (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

References

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

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

Staffordshire Bull Terrier

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What reliable sources state

Reference books that state directly that the Bull and Terrier was an early name for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier: Beaufoy, James (2016). Staffordshire Bull Terriers: a practical guide for owners and breeders. Ramsbury, Wiltshire: The Crowood Press Ltd. ISBN 9781785000973. - The result of the decision to breed more athletic dogs for fighting purposes was the emergence of the so-called 'Bull and Terrier', sometimes referred to as the 'Pit dog'. This is of prime importance in the story of the development of our breed as 150 years later this dog would be recognised by the Kennel Club as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier! Coile, D. Caroline (1998). Encyclopedia of dog breeds. Hauppauge: Barron's Educational Series. p. 146. ISBN 0-7641-5097-9. - The result [of crossing Bulldogs with terriers] was aptly called the Bull and Terrier, later to be dubbed the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Jones, Arthur Frederick (1964). The treasury of dogs. New York: The Golden Press Inc. p. 165. - He [the Staffordshire Bull Terrier] was first known as the Bull-and-Terrier ... Jones, Arthur F.; Hamilton, Ferelith (1971). The world encyclopedia of dogs. New York: Galahad Books. p. 481. ISBN 0-88365-302-8. - Quite apart from the name “Bull-and-Terrier” used freely in literature for many decades [for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier], respected authors like Pierce Egan in the Annals of Sporting (Vol. I.), 1822, refer to result of these crossings for the first time as “Bull Terriers”. Morris, Desmond (2001). Dogs: the ultimate dictionary of over 1,000 dog breeds. North Pomfret, VT: Trafalgar Square Publishing. p. 346. ISBN 1-57076-219-8. - The first recorded name of this dog [the Staffordshire Bull Terrier] was the Bull-and-terrier. It has also been referred to as the Bull-dog Terrier, the Pit dog, the Brindle Bull, the Patched Fighting Terrier, the Staffordshire Terrier and the Staffordshire Pit-Dog. Wilcox, Bonnie; Walkowicz, Chris (1989). Atlas of dog breeds of the world. Neptune City, N.J.: TFH Publications. p. 811. - This [the Staffordshire Bull Terrier] was the original “Bull-and-Terrier.” Some other reference books that support this without using that specific name for the Bull and Terrier: Alderton, David (1987). The dog: the most complete, illustrated, practical guide to dogs and their world. London: New Burlington Books. p. 102. ISBN 0-948872-13-6. - The origins of this breed are far from illustrious. It was developed primarily as a fighting dog in the early nineteenth century from terriers crossed with Bulldogs ... Billett, Michael (1994). A history of English country sports. London: Robert Hale Limited. p. 39. ISBN 0-7090-5238-3. - ... a new breed known as the bull terrier, or the 'half-and-half' breed. It was also called the pit dog and eventually the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Coile, D. Caroline (27 May 2001). "Back to the time of the gladiator". The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved 18 July 2019. - It [the name pit bull] is a generic designation for several breeds including the American pit bull terrier, which was the first breed registered by the United Kennel Club (UKC) in 1898; its counterpart, the American Staffordshire terrier, which was registered by the American Kennel Club (AKC) in 1936; and the ancestor of both breeds, the Staffordshire bull terrier. Fletcher, Walter R. (19 September 1971). "A Breed That Came Up the Hard Way". The New York Times. Retrieved 16 May 2019. - His [the Staffordshire Bull Terrier's] ancestors are believed to be the bulldog and English terrier and he was known as the Pit Dog or Pit Bull Terrier. What kennel clubs that provide an historical overview about the Staffordshire Bull Terrier actually state: the American Kennel Club - The Bull-and-Terrier, the Patched Fighting Terrier, the Staffordshire Pit-dog, and the Brindle Bull are a few of the Stafford’s historical aliases. [22] (archive link here go down the page to History, then 'Read more') the Australian National Kennel Council - The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the "original Bull Terrier", simply a renamed version of the "Bull and Terrier". [23] the Canadian Kennel Club - The Bull and Terrier might have disappeared if not for a group of fanciers led by Joseph Dunn, who appreciated the dogs for their own sakes and persuaded The Kennel Club (England) to recognize the breed as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the name of the English county where the breed was most popular. [24] the Société Centrale Canine - It [the Staffordshire Bull Terrier] was created in the 19th century in Staffordshire, by crossbreeding the Bulldog and various terriers [25] (please forgive the machine translation the Kennel Club does not really address the issue but says nothing contradictory [26] the United Kennel Club does not really address the issue either, but does mention other Bull and Terrier breeds, by which I assume they mean breeds that descended from the Bull and Terrier [27], again not contradictory

Reliable sources cited that are claimed to refute the above

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

• wbm1058, in answer to your points.

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

Second point - I assume SMcCandlish's page move was based on a good faith reading of the article (SMC please correct me if I am wrong). As already stated above, that edit that introduced both the "extinct" and the "type" classifications to the article was cited to a clearly unreliable source, the personal webpage of an enthusiast with no discernible subject matter expertise (Atsme clearly agrees with that assessment, she added it to a list of unreliable sources in the dogs source guide she developed [28]).

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

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

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

• I'm going to take a brief step into this, but in my experience, breed clubs like the AKC are distinctly not reliable when it comes to breed history, and my cursory inspection of the various sources presented is that the Bull-and-Terrier is the same as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Happy editing, --SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree, I have found too many glaring errors in kennel club blurbs to take them seriously doe anything other than what their standards state and acknowledging when that specific kennel recognised a breed. But in this instance it seems the kennel clubs are in complete agreement with the independent sources. Cavalryman (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC).

Personal opinions do not hold much weight when determining WP:DUE, WP:V, or WP:RS. They align more closely with WP:OR. There is plenty of criticism, much of it deserved, about the "designer breeds", and the evolution of dog breeds that have resulted in defects and/or changes in original function, but arguably so. When the original function of a dog becomes illegal, it makes sense to modify the breed, as what happened during the evolutionary process of the Bull Terrier and Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Breed standards align more closely with conformation, temperament and showing, they are more suited as family dogs, not fighting dogs. Unfortunately, some of the modifications in a few of the purebreds not only changed function, it created serious health & conformation issues; the modern Bulldog is one of them. The primary role and function of reputable breed registries/kennel clubs is important to the future of purebreds, their history, genetics, developmental improvements and so forth. Scientific American explains it well. Also see Dog Related Websites and Recommended Resources from A to Z, (2018) by Dana Palmer, Sr. Extension Associate, Dept of Animal Science, Cornell University – p.4 under Dog Breeding includes the AKC and UKC. Do the research and you will find that the breed registries are often cited for genetics, purebred history, etc. such as the citation to Kennel Club in the Bibliography, pg. 231, for Introduction to Genetics in The Complete Textbook of Veterinary Nursing by Victoria Aspinall, a member and fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. The AKC, KC and a few others reputable breed registries are considered reliable mainstream sources that are used by academics, researchers and scientists. Atsme 💬 📧 19:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Atsme, a couple of points:

• As shown above the kennel clubs almost universally agree that the Bull and Terrier was renamed the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Are you saying they are reliable but just not for that point?
• The dogs source guide developed by you advises against using kennel clubs as sources for pretty much everything except breed standards and numbers of registrations, WP:WikiProject Dogs/Reliable sources#Adding content. Yes that specific content was initially added by me [29], but you thanked me for adding it [30] and later edited that content [31].

Can we please just agree that this is in no way a fringe theory? Cavalryman (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the IP's question Is this a fringe theory, YES or NO?: It does not matter.

• If it is, then the fringe-savvy people here on this noticeboard have been alerted by the very first notice, swarmed to the Talk page of the article, and discussion should have continued there.
• If not, then discussion should have continued on the Talk page of the article too.

Are we finished here now? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Precognition

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

Not sure what's going on here [32] but seems to be part of an extensive WP:GEVAL push. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Attempt to reach consensus on medium/psychic BLPs

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

Discretionary sanctions and pseudoarchaeology

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

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

Vacated now. Doug Weller talk 20:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Brian Rose and COVID-19 conspiracy theories RfC

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

Pilates lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problem solved: I changed disease to medical condition. And for this you post {Template:Uw-ew} on my Talk page[33] (even though you are involved in the war) and you warn me about discretionary sanctions involving complementary and alternative medicine.[[34]] I have never heard any say that Pilates exercise is any kind of medicine, including my wife, who is an exercise fanatic. As for "snarky edit summaries":

Finell diff1: Wikify, copy edit, NPOV

Alexbrn diff1: Not a summary and insufficient WP:V

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

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

Finell diff3: Better take it to talk rather than reverting

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

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

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

  I have quite a bit of experience with Pilates. For me it is definitely a type of physical exercise. Some practitioners might add some Mind–body interventions. It is undoubtedly an excellent way to improve one's flexibility, core strength, and balance. I have Parkinson's and it is highly recommended, see [35] which says " Pilates exercises are often used in physiotherapy centres to help rehabilitate people after injury or manage the physical problems experienced by people with long-term conditions such as Parkinson's". Also[36] and[37]. Every doctor and Parkinson's nurse I've spoken to about it has encouraged it. Doug Weller talk 15:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  In my experience is much more of a physical exercise now, rather than a mind body intervention. Yoga and martial arts like Tai Chi are similar as well, in that the practice has generally migrated over time to a purely physical exercise. I'm pretty sure the elderly at the local Tai Chi classes at the elder recreation center aren't practicing to focus their chi so they can do Jedi tricks, they're just looking for low impact exercise that keeps them active. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  Unusually, there's actually a systematic review of how Pilates is defined: PMID:22579438. Alexbrn (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  That's 2012, h ow it was defined a decade ago. views may have changed. A 2014 article.[38]. Lots of studies on its use with back pain which treat it as a physical exercise. Doug Weller talk 17:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  They may have changed. The 2012 review seemed to find the mind/body aspect de-emphasized for back pain usage and I imagine it also varies between countries. A bit of Googling shows Pilates is much marketed as "mind/body" today, and Pilates gets featured prominently in the Mind-body intervention article here. A good modern overview source would be ideal. Alexbrn (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  Apologies if this 2018 systematic review has been discussed already, but a quick search revealed: [39]. There could certainly be a conversation about how the journal and/or methodology factor into the source's reliability here, but it is a secondary source and the findings appear to be significant. Generalrelative (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  Comparing the above source to this 2015 review from Cochrane [40] reveals that the two describe similar conclusions. The Cochrane review emphasizes the dearth of high-quality studies but does note that there is some evidence for the effectiveness of Pilates for low back pain. They just want to emphasize as well that more high-quality research would be beneficial, and that as yet there is no conclusive evidence that [Pilates] is superior to other forms of exercises. That sounds like a thoroughly NPOV statement to me. Generalrelative (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, and it's better than doing no exercise for sure, which is also true of yoga or other forms of exercise. As the Cochrane review says "The decision to use Pilates for low back pain may be based on the patient's or care provider's preferences, and costs". I suppose an interesting question is that if you're "just" doing exercises for core strength, suppleness, balance etc. without the Pilates secret sauce (the contrology aspect promised "complete coordination of body, mind, and spirit") is it still actually Pilates that you're doing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbrn (talk • contribs) 18:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• I mean, the authors of all these studies use the term so why wouldn't we? I'm unfamiliar with this topic area so this is not a rhetorical question. Is there a policy-based reason why not? Generalrelative (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• This 2019 review and meta-analysis about the effectiveness of Pilates for patients with multiple sclerosis is interesting too: [41]. And its findings appear to be entirely consistent with the Cochrane review: Pilates is a feasible therapy for people with MS though potential beneficial effects of Pilates are not significantly greater than those derived from the performance of other physical therapies. And of course, more high-quality studies would be beneficial. Generalrelative (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• I just saw that the Cochrane review was independently replicated, which is always a good sign: [42]. Their take-away: There is low- to moderate-quality evidence that Pilates is more effective than minimal intervention with most of the effect sizes being considered medium. However, there is no conclusive evidence that Pilates is superior to other forms of exercises.. Generalrelative (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  I’m guessing there may be two strands of Pilates. Doug Weller talk 18:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe. But are those described in the sources? Or could it perhaps be that encouraging people to establish a mind-body connection when they exercise is actually pretty standard for athletic pursuits of all kinds? From my own personal experience, I cannot think of an example of a sport or exercise program I was involved in where some kind of mind-body connection wasn't explicitly encouraged. It's a huge topic for weight lifters too, for example. Though I sense that I may be stepping into a hot topic for fringe watchers here, I'm happy to play devil's advocate for a moment. Generalrelative (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  The Pilates Foundation hints (bottom of this page) there are two varieties, the trad version and a modern more anatomically-focused one. Alexbrn (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  Aha, thanks. I wouldn't object at all to something like that appearing in the article, though of course a secondary source would be stronger. Generalrelative (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  You know,I think that’s likely. That there’s a connection between the mind and the body isn’t fringe. Doug Weller talk 19:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  Depends how it's couched. In Rolfing for example it is posited that physical manipulation can release repressed memories or effect personality change. Anyway, I digress. This (totally unsuitable) source[43] seems to suggest a Pilates "split". I wonder if this is mirrored in suitable sources ... Alexbrn (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  No, I mean it’s mainstream, you can find a lot of sources like this.one Doug Weller talk 19:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) If so I would definitely support inclusion. On a more meta level, I think the issue here is that an encyclopedia works by sorting phenomena into categories, so anything that's really more of a spectrum will inevitably give rise to hard cases. And it seems to be that mind-body intervention is just such a spectrum, with woo on the one hand and uncontroversial best practices on the other. Clearly most Pilates instruction falls somewhere along that spectrum, with significant outliers on both sides (including the practice's founder, who evidently did fall on the woo side of things). I'd say that the current version of the article does an okay job of conveying this, but more nuance would indeed be helpful. And of course frivolous / outlandish claims of extreme advocates need to be guarded against, as with all topics that border on fringe. Generalrelative (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing what fringe perspective is being advanced here; the two versions seem very similar. Comparing this, with the revised proposal version second:
  • "mind-body exercise" vs. "physical exercise"; this seems like something that could reasonably be described either way, since the former is a subset of the latter and there is sufficient sourcing for either (but honestly in a quick search it seems like most sources just refer to it as "exercise".) The other changes to the first paragraph are just rewordings.
  • There is however only limited evidence to support the use of Pilates to alleviate problems such as lower back pain vs. There is limited evidence that the Pilates method can alleviate such problems such as low back pain- both of these seem reasonable; they cautiously note one area where there is some weak evidence of effectiveness per the source. The "however only limited evidence" wording honestly reads to me as slightly less neutral (it sort of feels like it is pushing the reader towards a conclusion of "it's not really good for back pain" whereas the source is closer to thus, while there is some evidence for the effectiveness of Pilates for low back pain, there is no conclusive evidence that it is superior to other forms of exercise - the latter part of that statement, note, is probably more important and is in neither version.
  • Evidence from studies show that while Pilates improves balance, it has not been shown to be an effective treatment for any medical condition other than evidence that regular Pilates sessions can help muscle conditioning in healthy adults, when compared to doing no exercise. vs Studies show that the Pilates method improves balance and muscle conditioning in healthy adults, but it is not effective to treat any medical condition. Both the things the rewrite says there is evidence for were already in the original. The one thing that caught my eye here is that the rewrite omits "compared to doing no exercise", which is important because the sources emphasize that there's no evidence Pilates has any advantages over any other form of exercise. So I would include that in some form; it's important to be clear that the advantages described here are just the standard advantages of doing any sort of physical exercise.

Aside from that tweak I feel the rewrites are fine from a WP:FRINGE perspective; they don't actually change very much anyway. As far as the definition goes, I think that we could reasonably describe it as a "physical exercise", a "mind-body exercise", or just as a form of exercise in the lead without violating fringe - even the main source being used for "mind-body exercise", by my reading, emphasizes the fact that it is discussed in many different ways. I don't know which we should use - it's more a matter of WP:DUE and what the sources say - but at the very least I don't think it reaches the point of being fringe to treat Pilates as a form of physical exercise without focusing on the mind-body aspect. If anything, if it is true (as seems possible from some of the discussions above) that Pilates has both a "regular mainstream exercise" strand and a more woo-woo "alternative mind-body exercise" strand, WP:FRINGE would somewhat encourage us to focus on the more mainstream strand (while noting the existence of both.) But that would depend on what sources exist. --Aquillion (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Pilates is "just exercise" exactly as much as Yoga is "just exercise". There are many practitioners that don't get deep into the woo bits - more so in Pilates than in Yoga -, but the foundational ideology is there and that is how it should be defined. One can practice Yoga or Tai Chi or whatever and say "for me, it is just exercise", I surely do. The place I go to is full of Joseph Pilates's quotes about "body and spirit" this and "breathing and posture" that on the walls. Exercising has health benefits, not surprising. Light exercise and stretching help with balance and flexibility, whoopity doo. Strengthening back muscles help with back pain, quelle surprise. None of this is particular to Pilates. VdSV9•♫ 22:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Are you really saying that "breathing and posture" are woo-woo? See[44][45][46]. Your argument that anything called Pilates is always tainted by its Joseph Pilates's ideas of "contrology" isn't logical. Where it just involves exercise (not that light at times if you do it fast), stretching, balance, flexibility, it isn't fringe. Other types are. Doug Weller talk 08:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

This might be of interest to those involved with articles on evolution

Climate change driving evolution so fast that animals are changing in weeks.The book discussed is by Thor Hanson (biologist). Doug Weller talk 14:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

VERY interesting, Doug. Thanks for sharing. Atsme 💬 📧 01:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19

• Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Since the article's creation it has remained a dead stub so I would have slowly expanded this article. But as soon as I started, using a review in The Guardian, I was accused of advocacy. It is itself an advocacy book pushing for views that have no scientific consensus (and discredited speculation like about RaTG13, or that preadaptation to humans and the furin cleavage site are suspect, etc.) Consequently I thought this would be the right place to post a notice, in case someone else familiar with the politics/science dichotomy on the topic would like to work on the article (I'm no longer interested). —PaleoNeonate – 13:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Comet fringe being added to Hopewell tradition, sadly from WAPO

Sources were [47] and [48] although the original source is here. The lack of understanding is shown by this comment by a co-author. "It looks like this event was very injurious to agriculture. People didn't have good ways to store corn for a long period of time. Losing a crop or two would have caused widespread suffering." The artifacts studied in the paper are said to date from "252–383 CE". But the Hopewell weren't eating much maize at all until about 600 years later.[49]

The claim is that a comet burst set fire to a number of habitation sites simultaneously, but there's no evidence that they were contemporaneous or even habitation sites instead of ceremonial sites with the burning episodes being intentional anthropogenic ceremonial fires.

It gets worse. The main author is Kenneth Tankersley[50]. Most of the others seem to be grad students. We use him in several articles including Massacre at Ywahoo Falls. Also at Sheriden Cave and others. He used to claim he was Cherokee[51] (note his claim for ancestry from Red Bird) but when the Cherokee Nation denied that he later change to being a member of the Alabama recognized Piqua Shawnee tribe.[52] which of course is not an RS but is interesting. He is used as a source for Red Bird River Petroglyphs and Chief Red Bird but his claims have been rejected. [53][54]

On the other hand, he definitely has his supporters. And no surprise, he's a member of the Comet Group. Doug Weller talk 13:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The regular participants in this noticeboard should be aware of pretendian. The Indigenous Peoples of North America WikiProject is also working on some guidelines on the topic. Montanabw^(talk) 16:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

By the way, the last paragraph of Red Bird River Petroglyphs article states:

"A sign adjacent to the relocated stone in Manchester states that "At least 8 Old World alphabets are engraved on it. These alphabets were extinct when Columbus arrived in the New World in 1492. The alphabets are first century Greek and Hebrew, Old Libyan, Old Arabic and Iberian-Punic which probably dates from the 9th century B.C. Ogam, Germanic runes and Tiffinag-Numidian are also on this stone." [4]"

This is really awful psuedoarchaeology and the source of it is a web site featuring original research by a Young Earth creationist. Should the whole paragraph be deleted? Paul H. (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I useed the Chrome extension Who Wrote That" and found that about half of the article was written by this guy whose hobby was pseudoarchaeology.[55] He was an editor here.[56]. Doug Weller talk 07:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I think we should distinguish the claims made by the sign vs the claim about the sign. The statement about the sign is apparently true [57] [58] [59]. IMO ideally we should mention the sign with proper context. This would include details like how it came about, it doesn't sound to me like any of S8Int or Joe Kuz or BereanBelievers.org are the originators of the sign so I don't think the above claim is accurate. It may be someone with similar YEC thinking or it could be something else completely. Proper context would also include discussion about how what the sign says is surely nonsense. Sadly I guess because the artefact is of limited interest and there is a lot of nonsense out there, the best I could find is Bill Thayer's site which I'm not sure is an RS and only provides limited context. In that case, it might be best if we just remove mention of the sign but we have to accept that what our article says is factual, the sign is apparently there. Nil Einne (talk) 11:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The sign certainly may be there, but we do have sources that say there are no ancient languages on the stone. The Red Bird River Shelter (15CY52) Revisited: The Archaeology of the Cherokee Syllabary and of Sequoyah in Kentucky and [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-antiquity/article/abs/there-is-no-cherokee-syllabary-at-red-bird-river-shelter-15cy52-reply-to-tankersley-and-weeks/3871ABA366083A1E0C8D2F6F901A8122 There Is No Cherokee Syllabary at Red Bird River Shelter (15CY52): Reply to Tankersley and Weeks Doug Weller talk 12:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll try to find time this week to add them. Doug Weller talk 12:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

While looking at "Rock Art of Kentucky," 1999, by Fred E. Coy, et al., I realized that the Red Bird River petroglyph site (15CY51) and the Red Bird River shelter petroglyph site (15CY52) are two different archaeological sites. I was confused by the similarity in names, so others might be careful about this situation. Hopefully, I apologize if I have mislead others. Paul H. (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Paul H.: so have I as I realised last night as shown by my post above about the languages on the stone and my source which is about the other site also. Doug Weller talk 09:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Also see this by Jason Colavito. Doug Weller talk 11:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

And this Did a comet airburst destroy the Hopewell? Comment on The Hopewell Airburst Event, 1699-1567 Years Ago (252-383 CE), by Tankersley et al. (2022).] written by a Canadian archaeologist. Doug Weller talk 08:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Abrey Kamoo

This probably doesn't belong here, but I don't know a better place. The article Abrey Kamoo has been created in good faith, but it looks as if it is a 1904 hoax which was picked up by newspapers then, then largely forgotten, and in 2020 reappeared in the "Guides Gazette" (whatever that is)[60]. People living a remarkable life is a perfect subject for stories; people having too many remarkable things makes me wary though...

• Her mother (or father) was part of a triplet, she was part of a triplet, and she had two pair of triplets herself
• Her father was still alive at the age of 114 when she died in 1904
• She studied medicine in Heidelberg disguised as a man for 4 years, no one noticed this
• She enrolled as a drummer boy when he was at least 46 years old, again disguised as a man, and again no one batted an eyelid
• Her original first name was Abbredalah. I can't find any evidence that anyone ever had this first name
• Her original surname, Kaloss, doesn't appear as a name either, it seems (not certain about this)
• Matthew C. Perry suggested that she would study in Germany??? Why? Why would a Navy captain suggest that a Tunisian-bron woman should go to Germany to study medicine?
• Her fiancé Enrique (William) Kamoo, Egyptian: doesn't seem to exist outside these stories of Abrey. Name is a hotchpotch of "exotic" elements, but not very convincing.
• They established a hospital in New Orleans, which again left no traces outside this story

It looks like she invented a fanciful story about her life (where only the last part, that she lived with a son and no husband in Boston and worked in skin care, seems to be truthful), some of the less savvy newspapers of the time ran with it, and now we have an article perpetuating the same myths. But that is just "common sense" which is trumped by the "reliable sources", so is there a way to deal with this? Fram (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I found elements of the story odd as well, but I just went with the sources. I did feel it was appropriate to qualify the final statement about her father with the phrase, "According to the Los Angeles Herald's report of her death", and to point out the Guides Gazette article's outright error about the day of the week in a footnote. The Guides Gazette is a newsletter available on the website of the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Assuming for the moment that the story is true, Commodore Perry presumably thought Germany was where she could get the best medical education; also, her mother is said to have been of German descent.

Even though I've been editing Wikipedia for a long time, I still consider many procedural matters to be above my head. Based on any discussions here or elsewhere, the article can be kept as is, modified or deleted; I'll be interested to watch and help out with whatever happens. Thank you for your rapid response, Fram. Gildir (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• Middleton, Lee (1993). Hearts of fire-- soldier women of the Civil War. p. 87. as "Tommy Kamoo" or Mrs. Abrev Kamoo
• Hall, Richard (2006). Women on the Civil War Battlefront. pp. 56–7. Also as Abrev Kamoo. Attributes to Coco.
• Coco, Gregory Ashton (1987). On the Bloodstained Field. pp. 46–7. Apparently attributes to newspaper, but can't find full text.

not terribly reliable but another spelling to try. fiveby(zero) 20:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• Crane, Chas. A. (March 23, 1905). "Kamoo". Zion's Herald. Abrey
• Smith, Nicholas (1905). Masters of Old Age. pp. 75–6.

Coco, Hall, and Middleton all appear to derive from a March 2, 1904 story in The Lancaster Examiner, but here is "Her People Had Triplet Habit". The Washington Times. February 24, 1904. p. 10. Can't find anything on father or husband. Would at least attribute the story to the papers. fiveby(zero) 02:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I have expanded the article with additional qualifying statements and citations to the Washington Times and Zion's Herald articles that Fiveby found. It probably still needs further work, though. Gildir (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Perry arrived in Bristol July of 1838 to investigate European lighthouses and steam, and made an eight day trip to France in November. Nothing found for North Africa, Germany, Russia. He left Portsmouth December 10 and arrived New York January 14, 1839.[61] That's a slow passage, but via New Orleans seems improbable. fiveby(zero) 13:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

"Report on the Navies of Europe, 1839" fleets of England, France, Russia, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, Sardinia, the Kingdom of Naples & Sicily, and the Ottoman Empire. fiveby(zero) 13:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Hall takes on a number of fakes and urban legends.[62] Probably should go by what he has to say. fiveby(zero) 17:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Abrey Kamoo (Abbredalah Kaloss) is listed as having died on February 22, 1904 (Monday) in the article February 1904. It lists four newspaper articles that are also cited in this article as sources. Paul H. (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Man, this one is a doozy

Aajonus Vonderplanitz has to be one of our most bizarre fringe related articles, and it doesn't seem like our regular fringe-aware community has had much involvement in its development.

Basically, this guy advocated for a raw food diet, but taken to an extreme. It seems as though much of the article is based on his own reported, and highly dubious, descriptions of his life, such as that raw carrot juice cured his dyslexia and his cancer (naturally). Most of his bizarre claims are presented unchecked, except that they are qualified by noting that they are his claims. At best, his claims are described as controversial, despite the reality that they're about as controversial as flat earth theory. Which is to say, there's no controversy here among the relevant scientific community.

This definitely does not meet our standards.

I'm not sure what the solution to this is from a BLP standpoint, or if this article should even exist or just be merged into the history section at Raw Foodism.

But one thing is for sure: this article needs some serious attention and I don't have the time to give it these days, so I'm just dropping a note to you guys.

N^oformation ^Talk 23:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)