Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

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

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

Article alerts

Did you know

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

Categories for discussion

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

Redirects for discussion

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

Good article nominees

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

Requests for comments

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

Peer reviews

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

Requested moves

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

Articles to be merged

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

Articles to be split

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crank (person)

This discussion may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Not Rupert Sheldrake (Bret Weinstein)

• Bret Weinstein (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

It's maybe a question similar to the one in the Sheldrake case. Some recent editing in the lede around the question of whether Wikipedia should be describing Weinstein as an "evolutionary biologist". More eyes welcome. Bon courage (talk) 04:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

What was the Sheldrake case for those of us who are not aware? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_19 has several discussions about whether Sheldrake should be called a biologist in the lede. Also, several other of those archives including 10, 12, 13, 20 and 21. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Shadow government (conspiracy theory)

[Shadow government (conspiracy theory)] - why all the quotes? Looks like this needs some work. Doug Weller talk 15:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Thegotics

• Thegotics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thegotics is an interesting one. It's been sitting in the NPP queue for a while. The article states that it is the field of study concerned with the morphological, functional, evolutionary and behavioural elements of thegosis and the treatment of its related physical, emotional, and social disorders. "Thegosis" refers to the sharpening of teeth through tooth-grinding, and the sources discuss this phenomenon. However, the idea of "thegotics" as a field of study and a medical treatment seems to go beyond what the sources claim. The concept of thegotics seems to mostly be promoted by two researchers, R.G. Every and K.B. Scally - the article is quite closely paraphrased from the latter's website. The claim that There has been general acceptance of the phenomenon in some scientific disciplines but in the medical science disciplines, there has been strong criticism (sourced to an editorial by K.B. Scally) is a bit of a red flag. I think this could use more eyes from this noticeboard. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Expect problems with Graham Hancock fans when his Netflix series launches

Starts November 11. Doug Weller talk 15:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I used to enjoy his appearances with Art Bell, because he seemed at that time (a quarter century ago or so) to be a "safe" sort of fringe nonsense. Suffice it to say, that is no longer my opinion. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Articles worth watching include Graham Hancock, Orion correlation theory, The Sign and the Seal, Fingerprints of the Gods, Keeper of Genesis, Magicians of the Gods, and Robert Bauval. Any others? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

A bit more removed, but I have also added Robert M. Schoch to my watchlist. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Also see this search[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22Graham+Hancock%22&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1&ns1=1&ns2=1&ns3=1&ns4=1&ns5=1&ns14=1&ns15=1&ns100=1&ns101=1] Also will be worth searching for "Hancock, Graham". He shows up at really unlikely places. See Food and Agriculture Organization which I haven't touched yet. Doug Weller talk 10:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Probably the series is going to feature at least some of Hancock's old favourites: Atlantis, Göbekli Tepe, Karahan Tepe, Baalbek, Tiwanaku, the Pyramids of Giza, the Great Sphinx and the Sphinx water erosion hypothesis, the Cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis, and the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. – Joe (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I suspect that it will include another of Hancock's old favourites, the Missoula floods. A recent paper argues that the Missoula Floods might have been 80 percent smaller than are currently estimated. Go see:

Dzombak, R. (2022), Western U.S. “megafloods” might not have been so mega, Eos, 103, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022EO220069. Published on 3 February 2022.

Lehnigk, K.E. and Larsen, I.J., 2022. Pleistocene Megaflood Discharge in Grand Coulee, Channeled Scabland, USA. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, 127(1), no. e2021JF006135. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JF006135

David, S.R., Larsen, I.J. and Lamb, M.P., 2022. Narrower Paleocanyons Downsize Megafloods. Geophysical Research Letters, no. e2022GL097861. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL097861 Paul H. (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Vabbing

The brand new article vabbing could use some attention. First two sentences: "Vabbing is a term coined to describe the process of rubbing vaginal juice as a perfume. It has been described as being a very effective way to attract individuals of the opposite gender." Surely pseudoscience, right? –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Citation used in article: Professor Elgar says there's no research that vabbing works. "I think the whole idea of vabbing is hilarious, and I hope no one takes it too seriously."[1] Text sourced to that citation: There has been some science to support vabbing as per Dr. Marc Elberg of the University of Melbourne. Lol. Endwise (talk) 06:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Why the itch to label every bizarre fad or speculation "pseudoscience"? Is wearing makeup or torn jeans pseudoscience? Is there a prize for inserting the word "pseudoscience" the most often, as close as possible to the first sentence in an article? --Animalparty! (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I think people just want to be able to "TOLD YA SO!" their woo woo family members at Thanksgiving dinner, when they tell them to Google it. Earlier it appears, the easier it is for woo woo family members to be "gotcha'd!" when they Google it. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

The important thing is that you've found a way. [2] --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The quote from the article says There has been some science to support vabbing as per Dr. Marc Elberg of the University of Melbourne., and then goes on to mention some junk studies. Seems pseudoscientific to me. I can't say the same for the "lipstick on jeans" example though. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

It's definitely pseudoscience to claim that humans have pheromone receptors. But the easy solution is to just excise that poorly attributed idea entirely. The sources used are fine. We just need to focus on the facts rather than the wild speculations of the true believers. jps (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I know there's similar belief in scent cues from sweat, might need a check on Body odor#Humans as well. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, that section gives too much weight to human pheromones, and virtually none to evidence against. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Edzard Ernst copies from Wikipedia

According to this diff from user:Aliveness Cascade, a seven year veteran editor, yesterday. They made the same claims on the same Talk page in January, but that slipped past me at the time. After I stopped laughing, I remembered that a number of fellow FTN frequentors actually know Eddy, and I wondered what his reaction is? Thanks, - Roxy the dog 13:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

World Council for Health

• World Council for Health (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I created this recently (it's just notable I think) as one of the many pseudo-bodies in the UK lobbying with health misinformation, particularly wrt COVID/vaccines. It's started attracting more attention and could definitely uses some eye from fringe-savvy editors. Bon courage (talk) 14:51, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

M Sweatman publishing a blog attacking Wikipedia and two editors

Some editors may recall discussions of Sweatman and Göbekli Tepe, eg Talk:Göbekli Tepe/Archive 4 Pinging a few: @Aluxosm, GenQuest, Schazjmd, and Joe Roe:. The attacked editors are me and User:Hoopes. The blog, evidently the first of several, is here.[3]. Among other things it says that someone, probably me, deleted an article he created about Coherent Catastrophism. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coherent catastrophism and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coherent catastrophism (2nd nomination). SPI about the creator of the article, MystifiedCitizen, is here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FireDrake/Archive. Doug Weller talk 07:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

What worries me is how much of Younger Dryas impact hypothesis he considers "correct". That article really needs a close look from someone who knows the sources well to see whether WP:DUE is being followed. – Joe (talk) 08:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

A lot of what he considers "correct" is the basic self description of the ideas of YDIH proponents. I don't think that's a big deal, because we would have to include those anyway in order to rebut them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I still am not clear how Clube and Napier came to be the sanguine catastrophists in the context of the Velikovsky affair. This is the bizarre aftermath a generation later. jps (talk) 12:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Interested editors should check out Comet Research Group. I just removed material sourced to the dubious journal "Science Progress". jps (talk) 12:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Re: Younger Dryas impact hypothesis: That WP:PROSELINEy mess that is the "The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis " section needs a total rewrite. It also screams "cherry picking! cherry picking!". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis Wikipedia page needs some serious help to clean out the nonsense. I don't have enough confidence on the topic to push back. I would hope someone else would. I'm told that another one of these pseudoscience archeological shows is on Netflix in a week, a lot of people will be checking out the page. Please someone take care of it, I'll happily work on a page in return if it's something I understand in trade. Sgerbic (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that there's pretty much nobody with enough expertise on the topic to really take the article to task. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Their group does not pass the smell test. com/projects/killer-comets-are-coming/#/ The problem is that they seem to be able to collect enough interest from certain sectors that they have ended up with a higher visibility than they should. The argument that seems to be made by the up-and-up is as nefarious as those I used to read coming from plasma cosmology proponents who claimed on the one side of their mouths not to be cavorting with Velikovsky, but then always seemed to end up at their conferences with honoraria and trips to their favorite petroglyphs. jps (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

So I guess we just allow them full reign? There are experts on this topic, I'm sure some would be happy to help. We can't count on them to know how to do the editing though. I care, but would be eaten alive within 15-minutes of trying to fix this page. Sgerbic (talk) 00:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that pocket journals exist. The question really is one of trying to decide how much of the idea has been discussed by truly independent sources. What I suggest is contacting relevant experts in paleoclimatology and asking them what they think. After they stop yelling, try to gather some indication of where the best debunking may be. Some of it is already present in the article, no doubt. jps (talk) 01:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. I tried to raise the issue of a source written by Sweatman being used several times in the article, and was just met with months of stonewalling from the main editor of the article, whose rationale for keeping it in basically boiled down to "it was published in a journal". But the YDIH isn't the kind of blatant pseudoscience that sits entirely outside of academia. It's a fringe view held by a small number of legitimate scientists (and a large number of wackos besides), and so it does appear in reliable sources. The difficulty is assessing whether those are given due weight. – Joe (talk) 05:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm a new editor with very little WP editing experience but a lot of relevant subject matter knowledge. I would be happy to assist anyone who wants to deal with the aforementioned pages which I agree have serious problems from a scientific perspective. Proxy data (talk) 07:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I suggest being bold especially with an eye towards removing poorly-attested to claims in the article. One approach is to WP:STUBIFY the thing and rebuild from scratch. Also pinging @Hoopes: who seems to have some experience with this work. jps (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

In other words Proxy, go for it. The other editors here will fix the issues related to coding. Just make your changes with a strong reason in the edit summary so we can understand. Lets see if we can get this fixed. Sgerbic (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate this vote of confidence but I don't think I have the skills or experience to lead this effort, not to mention the time. Even though I do think this page needs a complete rewrite I would have to spend a lot of time learning about Wikipedia editing, the do's and don'ts etc before I could even start. Sweeping it clean and starting from scratch as I think jps is suggesting would probably be the best approach, but in my opinion would be a full time job that would be life dominating and my life is already pretty full with commitments. Normally when I start a writing project, I start with an outline, but WP is a community project so that outline would be a community project too. I wouldn't even know where to begin. Proxy data (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Although Wikipedia is a community project, it is fine for someone to do all the work themselves. One technique if you are nervous is to WP:SANDBOX your ideas. Don't worry about formatting, style, community building, etc. The oldtimers can shepherd that through. We are happy just to have the data dump, as it were. jps (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Sweatman's blog that precipitated this thread has disappeared (probably because of this thread). Did anyone think to archive it? If not, please check to see if you still have it in an open tab or a cached copy for the record. Proxy data (talk) 05:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

No archive on archive.ph or internet archive. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, some things are better left forgotten. I don't have any record of the page in any case. jps (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Drilling deep into the article structure

Do we really need sentences like this?

Proponents of the hypothesis have responded to defend their findings, disputing the accusation of irreproducibility or replicating their findings, and have published further research. Critics of the hypothesis have addressed the claims, and have published counterarguments.

This essentially says nothing of substance. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

No, we don't. When there is so much disagreement about every individual paper, I just look for a source that summarizes the entire debate. Listing every possible source has its uses, but in these cases it just invites cherrypicking and undue weight (not just by design but also by accident). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and just straight up removed the sentence. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I think that the entire structure needs to be revamped. It is currently written with a block structure which starts with “Evidence” and “Consequences” and then a huge “History” section that goes through the development of the hypothesis and its chronology. It really isn’t until deep into the article that we arrive at section 4: “Criticism”. The block structure creates the impression that the burden of proof is on the skeptics, which turns the scientific method on its head. It doesn’t really make it clear that the YDIH contradicts the basic and well-established understandings of every single field of science that it intersects with. In my opinion it should be presented with a tightly coupled parallel structure focused on the current version of the YDIH (even though it remains self contradictory and ambiguously defined). I’m guessing that most people who will be coming to read the YDIH page are not interested in immediately drilling down to the details of the claimed geochemical, mineralogical, geochronological, and stratigraphic evidence or the supposed paleoclimatological, paleoecological, paleontological, and archaeological consequences. They are going to want to know, up front, in general and nontechnical terms, what the idea is right now, who is promoting it, why it matters, why it has been so broadly and thoroughly rejected by the mainstream scientific community from the beginning, and why it is widely considered by skeptics to be a fringe theory and/or pathological science. I propose a more parallel presentation of information in which every element of the hypothesis is immediately followed by an explanation of how it contradicts mainstream accepted science. Likewise, every claim of evidence should immediately be followed by a factual statement about why that evidence is considered by mainstream subject matter experts to be flawed, irreproducible, misinterpreted, or contradicted in all cases where it is. Every assumption, explicit and implicit, should be accompanied by the fact-based statement backed by conventional science, whether it agrees or disagrees. In this way, both sides can be presented in a way that is completely fair, balanced, and factual, but would be much easier to read and digest for non-experts. The historical development and chronology is useful as background information, but I think it belongs at the bottom, maybe just before the popular culture and a section in which Comet Research Group spinoff ideas (both indirect and direct) of Hancock, Carlson, Sweatman (Gobekli Tepe decoded), Bunch (Tall el-Hammam is Sodom), and Tankersley (Hopewell comet) are discussed. Also, it is impossible to talk about the YDIH and all the associated knock-off pseudoarcheology without referring to the influence of the Comet Research Group, which was not formally incorporated until 2016 but came into existence as an un-named entity in May, 2007 with the first public announcement of the YDIH in its current form at the AGU joint assembly meeting in Acapulco with public statements to the media by Firestone, West, Kennett, and Becker (three of whom went on to be co-founders of the CRG for the sole purpose of funding, promotional, and media work on the 2007 version of the YDIH and its related spinoffs). The CRG and the YDIH are inseparable and the YDIH page should make this clear from the beginning of the page. Proxy data (talk) 23:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is very much in line with how we usually try to handle critical views (long story short: siloing them in one section is not a good idea). I've had a go at restructuring the article along these lines and I think it's already better, even though I haven't really added or removed any material. What seems to be missing now is a proper statement of what the hypothesis is, as well as more information on the mainstream view. – Joe (talk) 12:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Excellent work on framing, Proxy data. I think this is doable. We'll need to dig up sources for these points, but I think it is much better to approach framing this way. One thing I noticed when "drilling down" in the sources is that Allen West is not well-attested to. In fact, the author links from Google Books and Amazon go to the politician which, I assume, is not the same Allen West. Anyone know who the correct Allen West is? jps (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

@ජපස Allen West is actually Allen Whitt, "who, in 2002, was fined by California and convicted for masquerading as a state-licensed geologist when he charged small-town officials fat fees for water studies. After completing probation in 2003 in San Bernardino County, he began work on the comet theory, legally adopting his new name in 2006 as he promoted it in a popular book. Only when questioned by this reporter last year did his co-authors learn his original identity and legal history. Since then, they have not disclosed it to the scientific community." [https://psmag.com/environment/comet-claim-comes-crashing-to-earth-31180] Wikidata also identifies him as Whitt, but it's not an RS.. More on his alleged PhD here from Mark Boslough.[https://www.unm.edu/~mbeb/Publications/Boslough_Skeptical_Inquirer_Sodom_2022.pdf] Doug Weller talk 14:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Now that you've provided that information, I recall reading about it before, but this connection has been pretty thoroughly buried in the search results. Allen Whitt, probably, does not deserve as standalone article, I'm guessing. jps (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Another questionable sentence:

In January 2022, James L. Powell compared the hesitancy in accepting the hypothesis to other initially controversial ideas such as continental drift, lunar impact cratering, and anthropogenic global warming and suggested that a kind of groupthink had set in amongst critics.

Is Powell's opinion really due here? What does this sentence add to the article? Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

It's just the usual Galileo gambit, now extra crunchy with bits of Wegener. One can probably add that to every article about a pseudoscience since it has definitely been used to defend every pseudoscience. Just like one could add that there are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, to all those articles. Weightless fluff, sweep it away. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Done, removed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

References

References

Anthony Summers

I suspect that the article of conspiracy theorist Anthony Summers and the pages that mention him should be given a closer look. His article is a listing of his books in WP:PROMO tone, and many articles reference his theories (and his JFK conspiracy theories in particular) with varying levels of authority. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I converted it to a simple bibliography list. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

And that was reverted. Now being discussed on the Talk Page. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

See [Special:WhatLinksHere/Anthony Summers]. He seems to have a lot of promotion in our articles. Doug Weller talk 19:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

It would be great if there could be some consensus building about whether the current format of the books section is appropriate, or if it should be a bibliography only, or perhaps a brief prose summary. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Summers often gets a break because he is supposedly one of the "honest" JFK conspiracy theorists who eschews some of the wilder claims. I think I may have added some reliable secondary sources for his book reviews a number of years ago. Personally, I would rather see one article that contains a discussion about his books rather than separate articles about all of them. It's easier to pull weeds from one article than 15 or 20 articles. - Location (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer a prose section about his career than the current list format, but since I'm the only one banging this drum, I'm going to drop it. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

His bio of Hoover is slammed here.[4] but used in a lot of articles.[5]. Doug Weller talk 12:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

This thread caught my eye because I'm currently reading a new two-volume book on the ties between organized crime and intelligence agencies, and it mentions Summers a number of times. The NYT review does disparage Summers' Hoover bio on one level but it also acknowledges "In researching his book on Hoover, the author conducted more than 800 interviews and consulted much previously concealed documentation" and "the case that "Official and Confidential" makes is so overwhelming in its detail and extensiveness that it has to be acknowledged as ... impressive ...". Does anyone really think JEH was a paragon of integrity and sanity? I wouldn't be too quick to throw it out as a source, unless the wikitext is just prurient garbage or unprovable theories. Softlavender (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Regarding "prurient garbage or unprovable theories", Bugliosi called Summers the "chief peddler" of the Hoover-was-gay rumors and said his book on Hoover is filled with "scurrilous trash". Knowing what we know about Summers cherry-picking with his JFK conspiracy theories, I think using him as a source for anything or anyone remotely controversial should be used with extreme caution. - Location (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Is Hoover was a gay crossdresser controversial at this stage? As far as I recall even PBS has documentaries that mention this. Softlavender (talk) 03:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

WaPo: Cross-dressing J. Edgar Hoover story dismissed by historians.

FWIW: Not sure what you might have seen on PBS, but I've seen Frontline documentaries on JFK, Waco, and CIA/Contra/crack cocaine conspiracy theories that seem to give equal (read "undue") weight to various views. - Location (talk) 03:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Liberal Fascism

• Liberal Fascism (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Article on a book by conservative commentator Jonah Goldberg. The lead accurately notes that this book presents a view that contradicts the mainstream view among historians and political scientists that maintains fascism is a far-right ideology. However the Reception section is carefully weighted to provide the reader with a WP:FALSEBALANCE on the matter. It's also a WP:QUOTEFARM, but that's a lesser concern. I'll be doing a clean-up when I am able to find the time, but if others are inclined, help would be greatly appreciated. Generalrelative (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I think the framing w.r.t "mainstream history" is a bit off. The book is a paleoconservative jeremiad meant to muddy the waters since the right-wing provenance of fascism is so painfully obvious. Looking at excerpts from the book, I don't see much in the way of a rejection of mainstream history, just an ignoring of it. And authoritarianism, of course, can have any number of ideologies behind it. So it seems that Goldberg got excited when H. G. Wells said he wanted a leftwing Hitler. Sure, George Carlin reimagined the (perhaps apocryphal) Sinclair Lewis remark that if fascism came to America it would come wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross in terms of a corporatized, neoliberal approach which is just as much the bugbear of the right as it is left. This is a lazy political work in the same vein as many written by Coulter, D'Souza, PregerU, Candace Owens etc. It's not really a fringe theory, per se. Framing it as such seems to perhaps be missing the real context. jps (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Alex Epstein (American writer)

• Alex Epstein (American writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I saw concerns about the editing of this article on WP:BLPN, and thought I would cross post it here as it may be of interest. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Ghouta chemical attack

I am having a dispute on consensus on reverting the edit these edits in Ghouta chemical attack as I am being told the Syrian government and U.N investigation are fringe and shouldn’t be in the infobox, I don’t think the U.N or Syria accusations are fringe figures in the war as the U.N investigation is what government accusations of both sides are based on and the Syrian government is one of two being accused which makes it a key figure in the attack, the accusation and investigation have been reported on by mainstream media below https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2013/8/28/syria-denies-chemical-weapons-claim

and the u.n investigation, which can be found here https://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/politics/syria-civil-war

I don’t think the accusation of Syrian government opposition using chemical weapons is fringe as mainstream media has mentioned accusations of notable Syrian opposition using chemical weapons multiple times by Al Nusra Front, ISIS and the FSA which can be found below https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/world/middleeast/isis-chemical-weapons-syria-iraq-mosul.html https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2013/5/6/syria-rebels-reject-un-chemical-weapons-claim https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/syria-says-it-did-not-and-will-not-use-chemical-weapons/

I think the controversial nature of the Wikipedia page is leading to a bias in consensus on the balance/neutrality of the page and that the Syrian government accusations and U.N investigation links should be relisted in the infobox due to their notability in the attack Bobisland (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing different things. I don't see anyone saying the UN investigating is fringe. I do see editors saying the Russian and Syrian government's claims are fringe, which is likely a fair assessment. The other things editors are saying and the reason there is a dispute about inclusion of links is there is often no need to include any sources in the lead since the lead should only cover details which are already covered in more depth in the article. Note that while we occasionally include URLs in info boxes see e.g. TikTok or Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign, these are only for official websites or similar things of the subject of the article. References in the infobox are not intended to be used because they are "notabl"e or of interest to the reader, they are only used as with any references, to support some claim being made. The external link section is where URLs which may be of interest to the reader are listed. Nil Einne (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the assessment that the Russian and Syrian claims are fringe and should be properly attributed and couched in a lot of careful language, and do not belong in the infobox. Andre🚐 17:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Both the U.N and Syrian government accusations and investigations are references to support claims being made and yes they are also not wanting to include the U.N investigation and only including one claim in something that’s disputed rather than both and the U.N investigation which is based on evidence Bobisland (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

That makes no sense since the UN investigation is discussed in detail and I see no evidence on the talk page or edit history anyone has suggested the should be removed. In particular, it's discussed in the Ghouta chemical attack#Evidence of the attack, Ghouta chemical attack#Independent International Commission of Inquiry, and finally in fair depth in the Ghouta chemical attack#UN investigation section. Your comment also makes no sense for another reason. There is zero mention of the Syrian government claims in the lead. (There is brief mention in a footnote in the infobox.) Frankly, I don't think there should be any mention of the Syrian or Russian government claims in the lead, but in any case, until and unless there is mention of the Syrian government claims in the lead there is absolutely no reason to include references for it in the lead. If you want to propose we include mention of the Syrian government claims in the lead, or some details of the UN report, please concentrate on that aspect rather than getting distracted by whether we should include references for these two things in the lead. You're putting the cart before the horse. We include references for things we say, not for things you think we should say but we don't. (The Syrian government and Russian government claims are discussed in the body of the article, with references.) Nil Einne (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Since they aren’t directly mentioning re-adding the U.N investigation it doesn’t mean they aren’t against it as they’ve repeatedly disputed my claim that the U.N investigation isn’t fringe by calling the edit a improvement that shouldn’t be reverted when I mention it (or they ignore it) and I never said the Syrian government claim was in the lead only the accusation against the Syrian government which was placed in the same edit that removed all accusations into a note in which later edits removed the disputes altogether and editorialized the 3rd party accusations as a fact

“If you want to propose we include mention of the Syrian government claims in the lead, or some details of the UN report, please concentrate on that aspect rather than getting distracted by whether we should include references for these two things in the lead.”

I already disputed that the Syrian government accusations being stated as fact in the lead and all the other accusations links including the U.N investigation being removed, regardless the dispute of perpetrators doesn’t have to be in the lead to be in the perpetrators infobox Bobisland (talk) 06:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Mike Baillie

Stumbled across this article while reading Worlds in Collision, in which the author is quoted criticising the book. However, the section Mike_Baillie#Comet_theories seems to affirmitively support Baillie's comet catastrophism claims in wikivoice. I am aware this is a BLP, but the section should be heavily modified/cut down. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Padre Pio

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

---

• Padre Pio (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Are stigmata "real"? Is it fringe to describe them as such? See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Any external opinion is welcome. Unfortunately you are missing the point. The discussion is not about whether the stigmata are "real" or not. The wounds are real as there were many witnesses confirming the presence of such wounds. Then regarding the question of the origin of the wounds, whether self-inflicted or else, it's not up to you to decide. Some people think it was deliberately self-inflicted, others believe otherwise. Writing that "the stigmata are false/fake/artificial" is definitely not in line with the policy. SanctumRosarium (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

About 60% of the content in the "stigmata" section on that article is massively undue weight and should be deleted. For example, a huge quote is cited after the text "In a letter to Padre Benedetto, his superior and spiritual advisor from San Marco in Lamis, dated 22 October 1918, Pio described his experience of receiving the stigmata", this is primary sourced material. The section also cites material from Pio's friends and loyal supporters. In total about 5 or 6 physicians examined Pio's wounds. It's clear the physicians conclusions should be cited over the opinion of bishops and non-medical men. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Isn't that kinda what he's known for though? The stigmata accounts? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

If you look at the Gemma Galgani article the stigmata section is more balanced with just a few accounts and then some skeptical examination. Maybe we can cite one or two accounts on the Padre Pio article but currently the stigmata section is very unbalanced. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

It is written quite “reverently” compared to Gemma Galgani. Not exactly encyclopedic prose. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there is any meaningful "discussion" on the "origins" of the wounds. Religious cultists believe they were caused by God just as you would expect. The rest of the world including all of those who are the literal experts in such proposals is unimpressed with this assertion. We can leave it at that. jps (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The followers of Pio claim not only the authenticity of his stigmata, but also the authenticity of levitation (!), miracles, healings, prophecies etc.. This is all nonsense, of course, and is based on the "reports" of affect-laden followers. The user SanctumRosarium (nomen est omen!) now wants to press a Catholic summary into the introduction of the article. This is certainly not possible, because all the criticized things never happened, of course. In addition, extremely long quotations from followers are put into the article, which do not contain any encyclopedically meaningful information. They should be massively shortened, and in some cases deleted. A WP-article can present faith content, but it certainly cannot pretend that the view of believers and often fanatical followers is equivalent to an ideologically neutral orientation.

Catholic POV is what both users Rafaelosornio and SanctumRosarium in particular are trying to set. Both are believers in an ultra-conservative form of Catholicism. Their contributions are not suitable for a neutral encyclopedia. I ask for support to let the article remain reasonable. Mr. bobby (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The article desperately needs the addition of independent critique of a number of supernatural claims, e.g. Joe Nickell, J. Gordon Melton. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

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

CO2 Coalition‎ and Oregon Petition‎

• CO2 Coalition‎ (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• Oregon Petition‎ (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

New user edit-warring WP:PROFRINGE text into articles. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Sweatman is back

[https://martinsweatman.blogspot.com/2022/11/james-powells-response-to-mark-boslough.html?m=1] defending Allen West. Doug Weller talk 21:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Probably emboldened by this [6]. jps (talk) 03:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Interesting comments there about West dodging his lack of credentials. Doug Weller talk 18:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Speaking of YDIH, the recently active user Incendiex90 appears to be a member of CRG, going by their userpage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Attack on Paul Pelosi

• Attack on Paul Pelosi (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Lot of fringe- and fringe-adjacent edits emanating from mostly infrequent editors. More eyeballs may be helpful. Neutrality^talk 21:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Most were a bot I think. Doug Weller talk 10:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Book of Daniel

WP:FRINGE POV being advocated at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Book of Daniel. Please reply there.

DRN has been closed at premature. I was speaking of edits like [7] and [8]. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion is now taking place at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic ban. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu:

• The second-century date for the visions of Danial (caps. 7-12) is accepted as beyond reasonable doubt by critical scholarship. The dating of the tales in chaps. 1-6 is less evident and is keenly debated.
• Modern scholarship now judges that the book had a long process of development. Although oral traditions concerning Daniel may indeed go back to the end of the Neo-Babylonian Empire (mid-6th century BCE), the story collection appears to have taken shape during the Persian period and to have reached its final form in the early Hellenistic era (3rd century BCE). The apocalypses, however, can be closely dated to the time of the Maccabean revolt against Antiochus IV Epiphanes (168–164 BCE).

That division is obscured by the articles opening "The Book of Daniel is a 2nd-century BC biblical apocalypse..." and buried later in Book_of_Daniel#Development. fiveby(zero) 04:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Pam Reynolds case

• Pam Reynolds case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can there be “scientific consensus” among near-death researchers? - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Are they scientists? Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes. The idea that we should decide who is or is not a scientist is more-or-less a distraction. The better question is one of looking at whether their claims pass a basic baloney detection kit test. Publishing in JDNS is almost always a WP:REDFLAG in this area. jps (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. The issue isn't deciding if a person is a scientist, but rather if FRIND sources support their claims as being scientific. As far as I can tell (for whatever that is worth), all of the near-death experience "researchers" base their claims - and ultimately their in-group consensus - upon some combination of intuition, personal experience, and personal belief/desire, none of which are scientific. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

My point was "how can it be “scientific consensus” if they are not even scientists?". Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, sure. But technically a group of non-scientists could engage in research that is valid scientifically. That isn't the case here, at least not according to any FRIND sources I can find, but rather that wading into a distracting (and unnecessary) "Am too! Are Not! Am too!" debate/determination of who is or isn't a "scientist," we can just stick with what is available to us from reliable sources. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@AvantiShri:. Welcome to Wikipedia! We have been working on these kinds of topics for a long time. jps (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)