Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:03, 18 August 2023

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

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

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

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Physics Essays

I am not sure what the next step for Physics Essays is. It is an uncritical article on an obviously fringe journal. I asked on reference desk for reviews this journal's quality. However, nobody has succeeded. And since the AfD for the article was closed as "keep", I am at loss as to what I am supposed to do now. What is the protocol for dealing with a fringe article without any significant coverage? Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously a crackpot journal, so no physicist will waste their time writing a review about it. The difficulty is how to convey this to lay people, they won't be familiar with the bibliographic databases either, in order to understand that being included only by ESCI is a red flag. Tercer (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some physicist out there ought to be willing to write down what everybody knows about Physics Essays and a few others. As long as they made no specific claims about individual living people, even a blog post or a page on a faculty website would be admissible. XOR'easter (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very happy if a physicist other than me were to do that. Tercer (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this an article? There are no sources about this low-impact journal. jps (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus of the AfD was that WP:NJOURNALS was applicable and satisfied. It has always been low impact, but the fact that the people who calculate impacts did so for it means that it's worth recording. XOR'easter (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've complained about that indexing standard before, but have made little headway. I see literally no usable sources for this journal except for its inclusion in arbitrary lists. The closest I could find was a fringe physicist's blog where he complaining about another fringe physicist using the journal as evidence of publication. It's such bottom of the barrel scraping here that I am at a loss. This may be the example that shows why WP:NJOURNALS is corrupt. Anyone want to start a WP:VP on the subject? How about User:Headbomb or User:Randykitty? jps (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NJOURNALS asks that journals be catalogued in selective indices, the same indices that the whole academic profession uses to guide its business (for good or ill). Disparaging those amounts to rejecting the standards of the subject we're supposed to be documenting and substituting our own. (Do I personally want to burn down the academic publishing industry? Kinda, yeah. But that's a different hobby. Wikipedia isn't the place to throw Molotov cocktails.) The sources are present, reliable, and independent; stepping outside of the RS to find more will end up scraping the bottom of the barrel, whatever the topic. XOR'easter (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, if you want to find coverage of Physics Essay in books, it certainly exists. Nothing I can access sadly. "Electronics World + Wireless World Volume 96, Issues 1647-1658" is a maybe, but it's from the 1990s when the journal made more sense. There's also some criticism of Harold Puthoff around. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about disparaging indices, it's about whether there exist reliable sources we can use to write a sensible article. As Physics Essays illustrates, just because the journal was included in a selective index doesn't imply that such sources exist. Which makes WP:NJOURNALS fatally flawed. Tercer (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why the current article isn't "sensible". Sure, it doesn't have a giant disclaimer that the journal is bunk (a disclaimer which the people who like fringe physics will either ignore or take as a badge of honor). That's suboptimal, but not disastrous. So, I'm not seeing the fatal flaw. There's a downside, maybe, that applies in rare edge cases — journals respectable enough to have been selectively indexed at some point but which are now evidently schlock while also not having that schlockiness documented outside of the occasional forum post. How common are those journals? Every guideline has edge cases, hard cases make bad law, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 23:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current article claims it is peer-reviewed. The current article says it is publishing science. The current article heavily implies it is part of academic physics. None of this is true. Seems like it is doing a disservice to the reader to say as much, but apparently we are allowed (and perhaps even required if I read into the revert of my excising of these "facts" correctly) to say these things because this journal itself says it about them? In what WP:FRINGE world does this make sense? jps (talk) 02:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've argued at some length that the claim about it being peer-reviewed should be removed. XOR'easter (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For that I thank you. But look at the pushback! "Where is your source that argues otherwise?" The point is, we lack sources to such an extent that it makes it nearly impossible to write a factual article on the subject. Even a factual stub! jps (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't write articles to help crackpots. Who we should have in mind are people who don't already know about Physics Essays and read Physics Essays to find out. And we are not helping them right now.

I don't think this is an edge case. The existence of reliable sources is the very foundation of Wikipedia. A guideline implying we should write an article without them is rather destructive.

Think of a less contentious case: a journal that is indexed by Scopus and has an impact factor but is neither fringe nor influential, just irrelevant and uninteresting. I'm sure there are plenty of these. Why should we have articles about them? And, crucially, based on what could we write those articles? Tercer (talk) 06:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't we have articles about them? The information to write them is available—citation indices are good for that much—and they could benefit the encyclopedia, e.g., by being linked from whatever sources we use that happen to be published there. (Even a dull journal can publish the occasional thing worth citing in one of our millions of articles.) The article Physics Essays isn't a page written without reliable sources; it's a page written without access to all the reliable sources that we wished existed. XOR'easter (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia is not a database. If there's no information about a journal other than what is on the citation index there is no point in writing an article. I think WP:NASTRO does the analogous job very well: it explicitly excludes astronomical objects that are only one entry in a large database. The corresponding article would be an eternal stub consisting of little more than the name, position, and magnitude. Tercer (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is another downside for editors who are trying to source a page or evaluate a claim of notability and do not realize Physics Essays is not an RS! I always check wikipedia when I come across unfamiliar journals as sources, and while we here know to be suspicious of indexing in ESCI or Copernicus, for most editors if WP says it's a peer-reviewed academic journal without noting any issues they're going to assume it's legit. JoelleJay (talk) 04:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the same indices that the whole academic profession uses to guide its business (for good or ill). Disparaging those amounts to rejecting the standards of the subject we're supposed to be documenting and substituting our own. I disagree with this take as well. I think Wikipedia is at its best when it is extremely conservative in its standards for standalone articles. I want to see multiple sources written about a journal in serious, comprehensive fashions before writing an article on it. I don't want to just check to see something is on a list regardless if that is what tenure committees lazily do. jps (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before anybody starts an extended discussion about NJournals, it's probably worth while to have a look at the histories of that page and its talk page. Basically, each time there was an attempt to either invalidate NJournals or to elevate it to an accepted guideline (currently it's just a guideline), there are basically three groups of editors: 1/ Those who want to do away with it and require journal articles to adhere to GNG or be deleted; 2/ Those who argue that academic journals are what WP is based upon and that therefore all journals should be regarded automatically notable; and 3/ Those that support NJournals as it stands. Personally, I think that both 1 and 2 have undesirable effects and that the current praxis is a workable compromise. Personally, again, I'd tighten things a bit (getting rid of criteria 2 and 3), but that runs into the same "no consensus" situation. --Randykitty (talk) 21:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It should have been deleted because it lacks sufficient coverage in secondary sources. I've seen lots of non-notable articles survive AfD, so this is not unusual. There should be a deletion team that finds and deletes these articles.

WP:NJOURNALS btw is just an essay expressing the opinions of whomever contributed to it. Since some editors take it seriously, you might consider changing it. While you cannot improperly canvass, if you use notice boards to get wider input it should have a positive effect.

The article says nothing beyond what one would find if they went to the journal's webpage. In that sense, it's not doing any harm. And being fringe (I am unfamiliar with the journal) is not a reason for deletion. TFD (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A "deletion team" that goes around deleting articles that explicitly survived AfD would be a massive overruling of community decision-making. XOR'easter (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the problem with notability policies that end up thumbing their noses in the face of other established Wikipedia rules. To be fair, NJOURNALS isn't the only one that does this, but it seems pretty egregious that it is allowing an article to be written that claims without so much as a wink and nod that Physics Essays is a peer-reviewed scientific journal about physics. jps (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:VNT. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon. WP:TRUTHMATTERS. jps (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I envisioned something like Wikipedia:New pages patrol which goes around deleting or AfDing articles that do not meet policy. However, it does not include older articles.

While you may describe a vote of 8 editors community decision making, these types of votes usually have little input beyond the people who created and contribute to the article. Then there are editors who routinely vote keep regardless of the merits. And they don't even have to persuade uninvolved editors the article should exist, just get "no consensus." Having more uninvolved editors weighing in would better reflect community consensus. TFD (talk) 13:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should I send this to WP:Deletion review? There is now evidence that it is impossible to write a WP:NPOV-complying article on this journal. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The point of DRV is to reevaluate whether an AfD was closed properly, not to relitigate the arguments made there. It's for deciding whether the closer misread the consensus.

Nothing indicates that an NPOV article is impossible about this journal. The only problem is that no physicist has bothered to write down the obvious yet. NPOV means fairly reflecting what the reliable sources say. The article does that. If further reliable sources existed, they would probably have more to say, and our article would have to be expanded to reflect that. XOR'easter (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV is more about representing viewpoints published by reliable sources fairly. None of the listed sources provide any views about the journal, just general statistics. I interpreted it as violating NPOV because there is no views to represent, so we can not representing fairly [...] all the significant views. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the issue, then. If no one has bothered to mention the obvious issue, then that means that the topic is likely not notable per WP:NFRINGE. That's, like, the whole point of our WP:FRINGE guideline. And now that's being superceded by WP:LOCALCONSENSUS about academic journals which is being run like a petty fiefdom without accountability. jps (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Until and when you have reliable sources that establish this journal is a fringe journal, NFRINGE does not apply. --Randykitty (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That has never been how this has worked for anything but fringe journals. Every other topic covered by WP:FRINGE does not demand a source explaining that the thing is fringe because fringe ideas are often ignored. When they are ignored, we consider the idea to be so obscure as to be non-notable. That's the way we have done this for more than 10 years. jps (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing indicates that an NPOV article is impossible about this journal. I disagree. I think the fact that we cannot even get the statement "peer-reviewed" removed from the article means that we are running into impossibilities here. jps (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editors having a barney is a sign that the day ends in -y, not that an article is impossible to write. XOR'easter (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular case there are no sources about whether the journal is peer-reviewed other than the journal itself. I think it's a clear case of impossibility, as opposed to a mere disagreement. Tercer (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I see their point. They've deemed the journal worthy of a standalone article. WP:ABOUTSELF seems to cover the scenario where no other reliable source contradicts the claims of the journal. What's the alternative argument? That we can accept the indexing as a reliable source but nothing else? Then we end up with the stubbiest of stubs (which, to be fair, I tried, but I think I agree with User:Headbomb that WP:ABOUTSELF applies and I'm not sure that unduly self-serving is what is actually going one when the physics cranks who run that outlet are claiming "peer review" in their description of the activities of the place -- it's just misleading since it is obviously only going to go out to other crank or crank-sympathetic reviewers since literally no one else would ever agree to review for Physics Essays). jps (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to argue that the claim of being peer-reviewed is unduly self-serving. And as I said somewhere in this mess of a discussion, I think it is WP:UNDUE for the MOS:LEDE given the state of the article. By the letter of wiki-law, the lede should be talking about how the journal was delisted from Scopus! XOR'easter (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but until we have a source like "Delisting Review" that talks about delisting, I hesitate to say we can say anything about that given WP:OR. I wonder if WP:COMMONSENSE can be applied in this instance. I would argue "probably not" since it is directly relevant to a disputed claim (that the journal is garbage). jps (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ESCI requires that journal are peer-reviewed. Physics Essays is indexed in ESCI. That's one RS that considers ESCI to be peer-reviewed.

Peer reviewed is an activity that happens. It does not necessarily imply quality or meaningfulness. A kindergartner asking their classmate for feedback on drawing is peer-review. So do cranks asking other cranks.

The usual wording when the quality of the peer review is under question is something like "describes itself as a peer-reviewed journal, although the quality of the process has been questioned [citations supporting criticism of the peer review process at said journal]".

Find these sources, and we can include them in the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You know and I know that peer review does not necessarily imply quality or meaningfulness. However, we ought to consider the perspective of readers who don't necessarily know that; including that bare descriptor in the article can send a misleading impression to an audience less acquainted with the possibility that cranks can "review" other cranks, that too many referees just skim for typos, etc. We don't need more sources just to drop the "peer-reviewed" descriptor from the text. While one could infer from ESCI that some kind of review process at least nominally happens, that doesn't obligate us to use the words. XOR'easter (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On WP:FRINGE itself, we describe a situation that is relevant here: Journal of Frontier Science... uses blog comments as its supposed peer review. In my reading, we might accept such a thing as peer review even though for most of Wikipedia's existence the WP:FRINGE guideline has asked us not to do that. I suppose you are hanging your hat on ESCI indexing, then, but... hmm... that kind of hoopjumping seems a bit WP:SYNTHetic to me. jps (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, by your own standards you need a source explicitly claiming that Physics Essays is peer-reviewed. Tercer (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And we have it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only by syllogism.

“

(1) All ESCI journals are peer-reviewed.

(2) Physics Essays is indexed by ESCI.

(1) + (2) --> Physics Essays is peer reviewed.

”

A whole lot is riding on (1) being assumed to be correct. And, moreover, such arguments have tended in the past to be frowned upon per WP:SYNTH. YMMV.

jps (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(1) A reliable source says all the journals included in a list are peer reviewed.

(2) A journal is on the reliable source's list of peer-reviewed journals

(1)+(2) that journal is peer reviewed.

Every claim back by any sources have the same supposed weakness you just 'unearthed'. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have specific reason to doubt Clarivate and Taylor & Francis's claims that all the journals conduct legitimate peer review and it is documented in our article Emerging Sources Citation Index. I am less than enthused that you have not acknowledged this yet. jps (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NJOURNALS is an essay and carries zero weight in AfDs. So the fact that the keep !votes did not cite any policy or guideline should have been taken into consideration. JoelleJay (talk) 04:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had forgotten about this wrinkle. It may be time to revisit a question of AfD or marking the essay as {{historical}}. We need to break the juggernaut that is the NJOURNALS LOCALCONSENSUS. jps (talk) 11:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Articles should always be based on reliable, independent, secondary sources. Topics that are not subject to an official SNG default to the GNG, which requires SIGCOV in multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources. If a topic is only sourced to primary or non-independent sources, like databases or its own website, it should not have a standalone page. If a topic under GNG does not have SIGCOV, it should not have a standalone page. The journal is clearly FRINGE, so that means the higher standards of FRINGE also apply. All of the issues above regarding how the wiki page only regurgitates what the journal says about itself are a great example of how it is not possible to write an NPOV article from primary and non-independent sources. JoelleJay (talk) 04:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're misreading WP:ABOUTSELF. All five criteria need to apply for a claim to be acceptable. And we have a hard fail at criterion 4, namely there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. Tercer (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd say there is reasonable doubt there. XOR'easter (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this clause is meant to apply mostly to impersonations on Twitter and the like. Or the odd case where someone appears on the talkpage of the Wikipedia article arguing that some factoid or another is wrong. jps (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there is no doubt the Physics Essays website is authentic. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about criterian 1? the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. (emphasis mine). Saying that a journal that claims to debunk Einstein every week is "peer-reviewed" without any additional clarification is an exceptional claim. When layperson(like me) first hears the word "peer-review", there is an expectation that the peer-review is meaningful unless stated otherwise. Let's take account of the readers. Also, this discussion just proves the usefulness of notability. We have so little coverage to work with that original research and NPOV violations are inevitable. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the tag on the article is a good compromise so far. Other than that I don't see a solution for how to edit this article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The next step

I believe a structured approach would aid in determining consensus. So far, I see these three possible options presented in this discussion. Feel free to add more options as needed. Ca ^{talk to me!} 09:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 - Remove the term "peer-review" as a descriptor
Option 2 - Consider the website of Physics Essays to be unreliable and remove all information sourced solely to that source
Option 3 - Delete the article
Option 4 - maintain current status

Oppose first three, support option 4, for the reasons explained ad nauseam above and at the article's talk page. Option 3 is, frankly, absolutely ridiculous given the resounding "keep" at the recent AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 10:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Status quo as detailed on the talk page and above indeed. If you have reliable sources that dispute/question the peer-review claim, then we can revisit this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants - @Tercer @XOR'easter @jps @Steve Quinn @JoelleJay @The Four Deuces Ca ^{talk to me!} 10:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2 (but also okay with Option 1 and Option 3 and definitely not okay with the fourth one). I also think we need to look at redoing the AfD/marking {{historical}} for WP:NJOURNALS which has clearly become a place where WP:WikiLawyering reigns supreme. This is an essay masquerading as WP:PAG and I am appalled that it is being used to WP:POVPUSH for WP:FRINGE claims (even if this is just due to officious adherence to a set of policies essentially invented out of whole cloth without community input rather than something like WP:ADVOCACY -- but note that editors can end up acting as a WP:PROFRINGE advocate even if they aren't intending to do so). jps (talk) 11:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NJOURNALS is a terrible essay, as it advises people to write articles without having reliable sources to based them on. It's a mystery why anybody takes it seriously or confuses it with an actual policy. I support deleting it. Tercer (talk) 12:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to the results of the last AfD (which I initiated seven years ago(!)), the appropriate move would be to gain consensus for marking the essay {{historical}}. I think it is a good idea to have a WP:RfC that did this. jps (talk) 12:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through the deletion discussion, it turns out that WP:NJOURNALS was intended to be a guideline, which is why it is written as one. In the ensuing discussion it failed to gather support. Hence it should be tagged as {{failed}}. Definitely not as {{essay}}, as it was never intended as one, and not as {{historical}} either, as it that would imply it was at some point supported. Tercer (talk) 12:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:PAGs are descriptive rather than prescriptive. Because there has been a concerted group of people acting as though there was consensus for these rules to operate, in point of fact that was how Wikipedia worked for a time. Marking the essay as "historical" is a way to tell people to move on from this while preserving the history where many discussions referred to this part of Wikipedia in their arguments. The time to have marked it as "failed" would have been when it failed to gain a consensus. Wikipedia, remember, works on a "fake it till you make it principle" in a lot of areas. Or, in this case, "fake it until people notice and start sounding alarm bells". jps (talk) 12:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support first three. Optimally we would delete the article, since we don't have reliable sources with which to write a decent article, but that seems unlikely given that it just survived an AfD. Barring that, we should remove all information that can't be reliable sourced, which means almost the entire article. At an absolute minimum, we need to remove the claim that it is peer-reviewed, because this is not true even according to Physics Essays itself!. In any case, the status quo is clearly untenable given the shitstorm going on. Tercer (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Physics Essays says this
Articles submitted for publication will be reviewed by scientific peers. Realizing the interchangeable roles of authors and reviewers, the positive aspect of the reviewing process will be retained by providing the authors with the reviewers’ comments. Each author should judge which parts of the reviewers’ suggestions are appropriate to improve the quality of his or her paper. The editor, who is responsible for the Journal, will allow a large degree of freedom to the authors in this process.

This there is zero evidence that this is not the case (and plenty that it is e.g. [1]). If it's a journal for crackpots (which it is), the peers are other crackpots, and give crackpot feedback. Or the peers give relevant feedback, but the editor allows the authors to ignore that feedback under the "a large degree of freedom" aura. That doesn't mean there is no peer review. It means it's questionable or meaningless peer review. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When we claim in Wikivoice that a journal is peer-reviewed, the reader should assume that the journal is in fact peer-reviewed in the usual sense. Not that it's technically peer-reviewed, but actually has questionable or meaningless peer-review. Wikipedia is not a conman. Tercer (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a journal for crackpots (which it is), the peers are other crackpots, and give crackpot feedback. I am amazed that you are arguing this. Surely the peers relevant for peer-review of a subject are the experts in the subject, not the crackpots. The relevant epistemic community is never the community of crackpots. That this nuance is lost on indices is a shame, but we are under no obligation to repeat this mistake in our work here. jps (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 at minimum. WP:BURDEN comes into play here. The claim that this journal is peer reviewed has been challenged, and the standard to include information in an article (when challenged or likely to be challenged) is that it must be directly supported by a reliable source. It is not good enough to argue the negative (ie saying “but there are no sources saying it isn’t peer reviewed”)… we must prove the positive (by citing a source that directly says it IS peer reviewed). Blueboar (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Option 3~~ ~~I'll accept option 1 and 2 as solutions, but my strongest support is on deletion.~~ The AfD focused on whether WP:NJOURNAL is applicable or not. It is indeed applicable and passes the criterion listed. However, me and many other editors have attempted to find sources to no avail. The current coverage of the topic can easily exist in a directory of journals. This lack of sources leads to an wp:NPOV and WP:FRINGE violating article with no room for improvement. Besides, an essay cannot overpower an guideline unless in an exceptional circumstance, which I am not seeing here. And the notion that SNGs somehow trump GNG is completely untrue. NJournal even says it so: It is possible for a journal to qualify for a stand-alone article according to this standard and yet not actually be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. The new source added alleviates my concerns and provides reader with valuable context. I do still support option 2 though. Headbomb's argument is rendered null now since a reliable source discrediting Physics Essays has been found. I would not be opposed to a AfD renomination though. Others might have different ideas. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3, second and third choice option 2 and 1. There is no policy-based reason for option 4. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 Delete. It probably survived AfD because the discussion attracted little attention except from editors who either sympathized with the aims of the journal or just routinely vote to keep if there are any reliable sources at all. This discussion shows that if it was brought to the attention of a wider audience, it likely would have failed AfD. If a second AfD is attempted, it should be publicized through advertising it on relevant project pages. Bear in mind that any efforts to bring the AfD to wider attention must follow WP:CANVASS. TFD (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3>Option 2>Option 1. This should have been deleted in the first place because there were no guideline-based !votes to retain it and no secondary independent coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 and Option 2. I agree "peer reviewed" should be removed based on the several discussions involved about how to deal with this article and per WP:BURDEN. Also, relying on the website for accurate information is not possible at this point based on our discussions and the articles it publishes. The website description of the journal about itself is obviously a sham, and Wikipedia should not support this. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 and option 2 for reasons I have argued on, by now, multiple pages. Option 3 would require overturning an AfD out-of-process. XOR'easter (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

XOR'easter, we have not a single source that questions this journal's peer-review procedure or its status as a fringe journal. Options 1 and 2 are based solely on the opinion of WP editors. Hence, options 1 and 2 boil down to original research. Our article mentions what could be sourced: it was dropped by Clarivate and Scopus and its current impact factor is 0.6. I can't image an author looking at our article and then deciding to submit his work there. It would be even better if we could find some RS criticizing its contents/review procedures, but as it is it's pretty clear that this is not a prestigious venue for one's hard work. But as long as we lack such RS, we should not remove "peer-reviewed". --Randykitty (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty, you have WP policy backwards… We can not state that it IS peer reviewed without a reliable independent source to support that statement. Ok, sure, I suppose the same is true the other way… we also can not state that it isn’t peer reviewed without reliable sources - but what that means is that we must remain silent on the question, and not discuss peer review AT ALL. Blueboar (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not original research to deem a source unreliable, or to decide that a particular compound word is (a) the wrong adjective for what ought to be communicated and (b) not worth including in the lede. XOR'easter (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only acceptable wording if there's a concern, but no sources expressing that concern, is 'the journal describes itself as peer-reviewed' Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{WP:OR]]says things like The prohibition against original research means that all material added to articles must be verifiable. It does not say anywhere that you are not allowed to remove material. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If a WP editor looks at what a journal publishes and then decides "this is crap" and based on that decides that peer-review at this journal must be non-existent or bad, then I call that original research. --Randykitty (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But if we don't have a reliable source for such a contentious claim, it shouldn't be in the article. Editors make personal judgments all the time on whether a particular source is reliable, and it seems like no one here is arguing this journal is reliable, so we can't treat the journal's own claim that it is peer-reviewed as a reliable source for that fact. JoelleJay (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I found this: However, «Physics Essays» is not a reputed scientific journal but rather a free forum where extravagant views on physics (in particular, those involving parapsychology) are welcome; as for «mainstream» physicists, they do not seem to take Radin’s claim seriously.[2] "Free forum" sure suggests a lack of peer review. JoelleJay (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful source! The published version is here, in issue #4, not issue #3 as the preprint claims. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I call that original research It does not matter what you call it. It only matters what the policies and guidelines call it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree that WP:ONUS, among other things, gives a lot of preference for removing contentious claims from articlespace. To argue that a removal done of the basis of something like a due-diligence check of whether the aspects of editorial reliability are found at a particular source is "original research" is basically asking us to act like poorly programmed robots that rely on rules made up ahead of time rather than enacting common sense in the service of making an excellent reference work. We're not talking about penning an essay about the intricacies of attestations about peer review. We're talking about removing a label that has been questioned in good faith. jps (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Options 1 and 2. No need to overturn the AfD, but we should treat it as what it is. Actually, with respect to Option 2, I don't have a problem with citing it for attributions of opinion, just not for statements of fact. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC drafting proposal

I have started a discussion about possibly marking NJOURNALS as historical. Please join it if you are interested. jps (talk) 13:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about just editing the essay?

Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academic_journals)#Recommend_reinstatement_of_this_edit. More eyes and voices would be greatly appreciated. jps (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Related RfC about NJOURNALS

Y'all may be tired of this, but go ahead and take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academic_journals)#RfC_on_notability_criteria and see if you have any way to help.

jps (talk) 13:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roger A. Pielke

Roger A. Pielke draws exclusively on directories and affiliated sources. We cite his blog for statements of his contrarian beliefs on climate change, but we don't cite the articles to which he is responding, which point out that he is a contrarian. Almost all coverage is related to his son Roger A. Pielke Jr. who has no climate qualifications and is generally classified as a climate change denialist.

This article reads as if it were written by someone sympathetic to climate change denialism. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:JzG, I’m surprised this article hasn’t been fixed by now. Pielke is characterized as a climate denier, not a contrarian, by Joseph Romm and others, who have demolished his bizarre arguments, so it’s unusual that these arguments remain in his biography without challenge or correction. Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Panspermia (again)

A new user is trying to whitewash the Panspermia article. I'm about to log off, so I would appreciate other people stepping in. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Considering pseudo-panspermia is the primary form of Panspermia discussed in the literature and is frequently just referred to as Panspermia, why is the primary article dedicated to the fringe theory and not the actual plausible theory which uses the same term? It’s absolutely erroneous to say “panspermia is a fringe theory” when modifications of it are mainstream within astrobiology considering the “pseudo-panspermia” distinction is not one universally made in the literature?

I think there’s a bit of a mistake made in using that “fringe” citation given the context of the article it’s directly addressing, which was one that argued that SARS was extraterrestrial in origin and “had all the makings of an extraterrestrial incident”.

As a meteoriticist I have to say I found the lede lacking in nuance, there Warrenmck (talk) 00:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Pseudo-panspermia" is not a type of panspermia, It is an entirely different topic. There is no doubt that Panspermia sensu stricto is a fringe theory. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at scholar, "panspermia" seems to be overwhelmingly used for the concept sensu stricto i. e. The transport of living organisms. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What terms are you searching? Try appending "chondrite" and then restrict your searches to real journals (i.e. not the Independent Journal of UFO Research or what have you, not trying to criticize any credible journal here):

An 57Fe Mossbauer Study of the Metamorphic Sequence in Unequilibrated Ordinary Chondrites:

"these results for the possibility of interstellar panspermia are examined"

From AGU. Meteorites as Messengers of Potential Life:

"Scientists have discovered that carbonaceous chondrites contain large amounts of organic molecules, amino acids, and even water. These studies have led scientists to theorize that the origin of life on Earth is related to the arrival of meteorites on our planet. This theory is called Panspermia."

Is Glycine Able to Survive under Irradiation in Space? (Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres volume 39, pages1–89 (2009))

The question of the relative stability of these prebiotic compounds under the interstellar radiation field is therefore an important question to be addressed. In the panspermia hypothesis, the survival and transfer of the amino acids from space to planets is indeed a necessary condition for the appearance of life, and, especially, their resistance to the solar UVradiation in ice is a key issue

Implications of Captured Interstellar Objects for Panspermia and Extraterrestrial Life

Several studies have investigated the feasibility of interstellar panspermia (Melosh 2003; Adams & Spergel 2005), and recent numerical simulations appear to suggest that lithopanspermia between members of the solar birth cluster was feasible (Belbruno et al. 2012). Assessing the biological survival of alien microorganisms within interstellar rocks is not possible since we do not know their biological survival limits nor the travel time. However, as seen from Tables 8(a) and (b) of Mileikowsky et al. (2000), interplanetary panspermia between Mars and Earth could deliver as many as ∼1012 microbes in meter-sized objects (with suitable shielding) for transit times of ≲1 Myr. Hence, it seems plausible that much larger objects, such as the ones discussed above, could transfer alive microorganisms; in fact, Wallis & Wickramasinghe (2004) proposed that even a few kilograms of microbe-bearing fragments may suffice to seed the target planetary systems with life.

Comets and meteorites played an important role in our solar system by transporting organic molecules to Earth (Ehrenfreund & Charnley 2000; Thomas et al. 2006); the delivery of these biomolecules (pseudo-panspermia) imposes less stringent requirements than panspermia (Lingam & Loeb 2017).

The strong split Wikipedia is making here is not reflected in the actual field, at least not outside a niche of astrobiology, and astrobiologists are certainly not the only people discussing panspermia. Only the last paper there made the distinction between panspermia and pseudo-panspermia, but all refer to pseudo-panspermia.

I stand by my statement that "Panspermia is considered a fringe theory" lacks so much nuance as to be incorrect. Warrenmck (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGE is broader than Fringe theory. There is a difference between labeling in articlespace and the work that is done to comply with our guidelines. jps (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in 2021...

The best summary of mainstream viewpoint on panspermia would be something a bit like this. Is panspermia theoretically possible? Yes, there is a remote possibility that early solar system comets brought basic building blocks of life on earth (e.g. amino acids and the like). It's extremely fringe, given we've got all the ingredients already here on earth, with plenty of mechanisms to turn them into the building blocks of life, without the need to bring in space things. Panspermia just shifts the problem of the origin of life to a different planet, which somehow explodes without instantly destroying life/building blocks, which would then travel for millions of years in the inhospitable environment of space, and in a freak coincidence lands on Earth).
Anything more than basic building blocks arriving on earth, like full living organism, like bacteria, mushrooms, cephalopods, etc. is full on time cube nutter territory. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think that "It's extremely fringe" is true. As a meteoriticist I see references to panspermia in papers constantly, and I've provided a few above. Accepting panspermia as the origin of life is most certainly fringe for all the reasons mentioned, but it's not fringe in the way that the article seems to want to say, at least not considering the "Pseudo-panspermia" seems to be a distinction that doesn't universally exist among publishing researchers and may just be a shibboleth for a certain subsection of astrobiology?

"Anything more than basic building blocks arriving on earth, like full living organism, like bacteria, mushrooms, cephalopods, etc. is full on time cube nutter territory"

This is clearly true, but the notion that "panspermia" must be more than this is not backed up by the literature at present. Even if that distinction does exist in technicality within a subset of astrobiology, WP:COMMONNAME kicks in:

"In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals."

"Panspermia" is absolutely used in the literature to refer to amino acids and other minor building blocks, vs. entire life whole-cloth. If Wikipedia wants to make that distinction too then it should justify it, but I don't think that justification can be made and Pseudo-panspermia should be merged into Panspermia. Warrenmck (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that there is obvious rehabilitation that can happen for the idea, but Fred Hoyle was so bonkers towards the end of his life that he ended up pulling his student Chandra Wickramasinghe right down into the wackiness. Fred Hoyle, being far more famous than practically anyone else who is vaguely related to this idea, ends up making the main thrust very fringe-y. Unfortunate, but beyond the remit of Wikipedia to fix per WP:RGW. jps (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase this to be much more succinct: as someone who works and publishes in the pertinent field, I am surprised to learn that Wikipedia has an article calling it an unqualified fringe theory and I and I had never heard of Wickramasinghe until this post. I think the statement in the current article is deeply misleading and the attempt to bifurcate the article into panspermia and pseudo-panspermia is an artificial distinction not shared by the actual academics in the field in question. The article should be reworked, but it should not say "Panspermia is a fringe theory" when a whole host of papers directly discuss (what Wikipedia calls) pseudo-pansepermia as panspermia, and pseudo-panspermia should be merged into panspermia.

A bit clearer? :) Warrenmck (talk) 04:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are references to panspermia everywhere. But they're empty references, much like one might conclude "further research is needed", or an attempt to connect your research to sensationalist BUT WHAT IF LIFE CAME FROM SPACE??? nonsense to make it easier to justify grants under the well, it's technically possible defense. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So fortunate you have not seen the nonsense versions of panspermia. I think Headbomb is correct, however, that the off-handed and "serious" references to panspermia found in certain papers and texts that do not engage with the truly out-there ideas just are not paying attention to the way true advocates of panspermia have behaved. They may not even know that there are such things as "advocates" of panspermia. I saw something similar with references to coherent catastrophism in certain geology texts. I don't think the authors realized that the groups arguing in favor of comet wackiness were descended from Velikovskians, for example. jps (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To complement what Headbomb wrote, there's also the panspermia pushed with the intent to deny much of mainstream biology and its discoveries, like complex multicellular life having evolved here, and possibly abiogenesis, apparently through natural undirected processes. Some propose not only a rewrite of that but even claim that series of directed seeding events from space are responsible for mutations and evolution, we've even seen COVID era related claims pushed in WP, that it too would be from space (ridiculously preadapted space pathogen), etc. (Added in a second edit): then as far as we know, the universe is old and big enough for life to have developed elsewhere to be plausible, since it happened here. But it also seems to be rare enough that two independently evolved, advanced enough civilizations exploring space may never be able to meet or even detect eachother. We're looking for life in the solar system and the little material presented as evidence so far may be from Earth or simple molecules also used by life that may be more common than previously thought. This of course makes claims of Earth having been seeded by E.T. life extremely implausible, unless it was basic ubiquitous components, like that perhaps helped in abiogenesis... —Paleo Neonate – 21:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also a return to the four papers above *[3] (uses the wrong title, the article starts on the page before)

The article concludes "This translates to only a very slim chance that life can be transported from one solar system to another. It seems that the origin of life on Earth will have to be sought within the confines of the solar system itself, not abroad the galaxy."

[4]

This is presentation by high school students that read stuff online. I doubt they would have recognized nutters if they found any, especially if have the appearance of respectability. Completely unreliable for anything.

[5] This one I don't have access to, but again, from a conference. The threshold to get in them is extremely low. I don't know what it concludes, but again, far from a high quality source.
[6] is from Avi Loeb who sees extraterrestrial life in his cereals.

So yeah, those are far from 'serious' sources. The core issue, ultimately, is that you have astrophysicists trying to do biology without a lick of idea about what the state of research is in biology. All of what's needed for life can all happen here on Earth. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Stevenson

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

A user has put 1000s of words on the talk-page and has been deleting sources critical of Stevenson's reincarnation claims and is now adding dubious tags. I don't have time to go through all the edits as this is not normally a topic that interests me. Any experts in this subject area might be able to help. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is a slow but very dedicated rewrite focused on removing, invalidating, or watering down criticism of the subject's reincarnation research and or the concept of reincarnation in general. Non-summer vacation eyes appreciated. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fun times. I went a bit back in time. I'm a little confused about the argument about Baker. I see references to Stevenson in there. Maybe I've messed up the citation? Anyway... we'll see. @O Govinda: should be aware of this discussion. I will notify them. jps (talk) 01:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inner Healing Movement

Inner Healing Movement (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Religious memory recoverers, belongs on watchlists. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Phillips (writer)

A fringe mess. The repeated use of the term "controversies" is too mild for this fringe nonsense. There are too many publications listed (I just removed a self-published one described as a scientific examination - copied from the publisher) and don't belong just after the lead. Most of the rest is promotional, dubious sources, etc. Doug Weller talk 08:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Doug, ever watchful. Please edit as appropriate. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LK-99

LK-99 (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Since LK-99 is a supposed room-temperature superconductor, the relevant article is liable to attract some questionable attention. Keep an eye on it. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide of Beranton Whisenant

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide of Beranton Whisenant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Beranton Whisenant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A 2017 suicide of a private person (a low-profile civil servant). As the revision history makes clear, the only reason this article was created was because of social media disinfo that briefly seized on the case to push baseless conspiracy theories. Now up at AfD; more eyes welcome. Neutrality^talk 03:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad related AfDs

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad

This article is frequently recreated in a suspicious manner for almost 10 years now. It is about a non-notable book that aims to prove Islamic prophet Muhammad was actually Hindu God Kalki.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ved Prakash Upadhyay

The non-notable author of the above book. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation of UFO reports by the United States government

In principle, this seems like a fine subject for an article. As it is currently written, it seems to lack a great deal of context.

jps (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lab leak theory at NPOV

There's currently a discussion at NPOVN in regard to the COVID-19 lab leak theory that might be of interest to this noticeboard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion Concerning Kidnapping and murder of Aldo Moro

There is currently a discussion about splitting off the various conspiracy theories and moving them into a sperate article. The discussion can be found here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theory

Conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A push to add equivocating language in the lead describing how the term 'conspiracy theory' is used to disparage legitimate viewpoints. Discussion starts at Talk:Conspiracy_theory#Lead_is_not_neutral_and_article_maybe_is_not and continues from there. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, this recent book[7] is very good on what constitutes a conspiracy theory in general (and in relation to COVID-19 lab leaks, etc, in particular) and on how they are treated. Good to see scholarly books starting to appear on this topic! I recommend it. Bon courage (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Zuesse

The article on Robert F. Kennedy Jr. cites "How the 2004 Presidential 'Election' Was Stolen by George W. Bush" in support of RFK Jr.'s position. Is it a reliable source? It was published in what seems to be a group blog (i.e. not an actual publication with editorial oversight). Their blogroll links to websites such as ZeroHedge, Globalresearch.ca and InfoWars.

I think Eric Zuesse's articles speak for themselves:

"Ukraine: The International War-Criminal Is Obama, Not Putin": claims the Revolution of Dignity was a fascist neo-Nazi coup supported by the CIA; that the snipers shooting at protesters from rooftops were hired by Obama; that Ukraine engages in ethnic cleansing in the Donbass and plans to install concentration camps; that "hundreds" were killed in the 2014 Odesa clashes (in reality only 48)
"America's Nazi Allies in Israel and Ukraine"
"More About a U.S.-and-Allied Hoax Against Assad". The first paragraph of the article is:

On August 18th, the terrific "Moon of Alabama" blogger posted his brilliant exposé of an operation that the U.S. and its allies support and are lobbying to win the Nobel Peace Prize, but that's really just a group of people who help Syria's anti-Assad jihadists by medicating their injured jihadists, and by carrying off and disposing of the jihadists' victims' corpses. The headline is "The 'Wounded Boy In Orange Seat' — Another Staged 'White Helmets' Stunt". This story concerns staged (faked) photos by that Western-funded-and-backed jihadist organization — photos which have prominently been spread in Western 'news' media (and here's an example of that Western propaganda on August 20th, from NPR's sanctimonious sucker Scott Simon, quoting the New York Times's sanctimonious sucker Nick Kristof, both of them suckers of their own government's hoax, and passing it on to their fools who trust their deceived and propagandistic 'reporting'). It's all being done in order to fool Western publics to support their governments' financial and military assistance to (actually) the jihadists who have been imported by the U.S. and allied governments into Syria to overthrow Assad, who is supported by the majority of Syrians, while the United States and the jihadists it backs are despised by 82% of Syrians. They're imported to conquer land there, and to help bring down the Assad government and to replace the existing secular Syrian government with a 'pro-Western' government run by 'our' jihadists, who (unlike the secular government of Bashar al-Assad) will allow the fundamentalist-Islamic royal families who own Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to pipeline through Syria into the European Union, their oil and gas, so as to supplant Russia's oil and gas in Europe — the biggest-of-all energy-market.

"Military Blogger Alleges U.S. Now Aids ISIS to Oust Assad"

93.72.49.123 (talk) 21:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe author on a fringe blog. The very definition of unreliable. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the reference from the article. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More from him: [8] --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed all mainspace references except those in the Love Canal article. I replaced one with a proper source, two with citation needed tags, and removed two that were redundant. The source used for Love Canal is, unlike the others, at least not a blog post. Also it's from 1981 and I don't know whether Zuesse has always been this fringe. And since it is used multiple times it would probably require a closer look to determine its usability. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Coulthart

Ross Coulthart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Critique of this reporter's fringe advocacy being removed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims

I think this is a step backwards. But I should probably let others have a shot at this.

Please put this on your watchlists and try to tone down the breathlessness if at all possible.

jps (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The UFO-related articles in general seem to have attracted a lot of new accounts with few edits seeking big changes. See Luis Elizondo. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not surprised. Judging from the posts to the main UFO subreddit on Reddit and other forums, David Grusch has convinced numerous people, who were once on the fence, that UFOs are definitely extraterrestrial spacecraft and has excited the "UFOs are extraterrestrials" proponents that "full disclosure" is near and their beliefs have been and are justified. He and the Congressional hearings have really been a major boast to recruitment of new proponents and moral among the true believers. It seems like David Grusch, despite providing nothing new, has started a UFO feeding frenzy, which is likely being reflected in Wkipedia edits. The "David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims" article could useful as a clear discussion of what he did and more importantly did not say and the complete lack of any first-hand observations on his part. Paul H. (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See below. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, the UFO sub on Reddit shouldn't be taken seriously. There were some serious contributors many years ago, but they've been replaced with lunatics. Most of the people on that sub are over the edge. Viriditas (talk) 12:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, since I found the congressional hearings less than convincing. Viriditas (talk) 10:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Elizondo

Luis Elizondo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Complete removal of any criticism (leaving only praise) and a great many dubious edit summaries claiming synthesis, bias, unfairness, BLP concerns, etc. from a new editor with less than 80 edits (80% of them to this article). There is a great deal of reliably sourced criticism out there that will need to be added. This is on my to-do list. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just reverted, they've opened up a discussion at WP:BLPN, see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Luis_Elizondo. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complete misrepresentation. The article is swimming in negative tone, language, and littered with all manner of BLP-violating 'conditionals' that Elizondo 'claimed' this and that. I don't care about woo woo nonsense, but people on this board seem to be debunker/skeptic level. Which is fine, to each their own. Articles will be neutral to a fault no matter what you think about the subject.

Some of the "criticism" section was literally praise. Citing the NY Times article reporter from that 2017 event that she didn't think to believe him after their first meeting -- I listened to that podcast. Literally in the same minute before that, she said he was "completely credible" and that the subject made her initially doubt. Which she obviously got over as she wrote the article about his work. Leave bias at door or best yet in the garbage. My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now they've been indeffed. Discussion continues at BLPN. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Anti-vaccine activism

I think I have this draft off to a good start, but obviously there is a lot of building to be done. I may soon be going off-wiki for a few days, so would very much appreciate some extra hands. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Marius Guardino

David Marius Guardino (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Seems not very NPOV at the moment. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Supposedly known for claims of psychic contact with Elvis, this individual doesn't seem to meet WP:BASIC notability. I see mentions in Weekly World News, three or four CreateSpace self pub books, and one article in the Christian Post. The article contains a list of newspaper articles that are claimed to have carried a story about legal action involving the subject, but I'm not sure this would amount to any substantial coverage beyond trivial WP:SENSATION. A strangely-written article by an account (User:Diopolis) ~~that confusingly redirects back to the article itself.~~ ~~This is a good candidate for AfD.~~ - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the off chance it could be adequately-sourced, I dropped a note at WikiProject Skepticism. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a crack at it, if you can give me a bit of time before pulling the plug on it. Looks like fun. Robincantin (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

COVID Lab Leak essay MfD

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Adoring_nanny/Essays/Lab_Leak_Likely_(3rd_nomination) is up for deletion that would be of interest to many here. As a CT subject, it could also benefit from a set of admin eyes or two. KoA (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Lipton

A user is repeatedly removing Science-Based Medicine from the Bruce Lipton article claiming incorrectly it is a self-published source. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chronic lyme disease

There's an IP user edit warring at Chronic lyme disease. I'm not sure it's whitewashing, but I don't think it's an improvement either. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Vogel

Marcel Vogel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Includes WP:FRINGE ideas about plant communications and UFO metal samples, but I can't find any WP:RS discussing them. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prothero, Donald R. (2017). UFOs, chemtrails, and aliens. pp. 151–2. for the metal sample — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiveby (talk • contribs)

Thanks, good find. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kane, Carolyn L. (September 2014). "Synthetic Fluorescents: Day-Glo from Novelty to Norm". Journal of Design History. for Vogel Luminescence

Galston, Arthur W. (July 1974). "The Unscientific Method: By Ignoring Accepted Rules of Evidence, the Authors of a Popularized Book on Plants Reach Many False Conclusions". BioScience. brief mention

Nagel, A.H.M (March 1997). "Are plants conscious?" (PDF). Journal of Consciousness Studies: 215–230. shows just how far out there he is on plants, but careful with that author she's a proponent. Snippet on crystals in Chandler, Russell (1993). Understanding the New Age. p. 103.

Belgrade, Daniel (2019). "Talking with Plants". The Culture of Feedback: Ecological Thinking in Seventies America. can't find online but can email if you'd like, or WP:RX can get it. fiveby(zero) 14:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trauma model of mental disorders

Trauma model of mental disorders (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Unhappiness about the article's one-sidedness on the Talk page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Telegony (inheritance)

Telegony (inheritance) (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Pseudoscience or obsolete science? IPs prefer the first. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed both, and just left it as a theory. I also moved the 2014 report to the end of the article. It is a single, primary source, and, IMHO, could be removed until secondary sources are found. Donald Albury 21:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Mosley (broadcaster)

This guy has written a bunch of fringe books promoting the keto diet. He has some extreme views such as banning fruit, advocating fasting and promoting a dangerous 800 calories a day diet which has been criticized for increasing stress amongst those with eating disorders. Outside of that he does promote some sensible advice such as a type of Mediterranean diet.

In general the medical community have avoided reviewing his books, however, there was a detailed review by Red Pen Reviews for his book Fast 800 Keto [9] which gave the book a 58% score for scientific accuracy. Red Pen Reviews have reviewed other keto books and given them a much lower score. Mosley's Fast 800 Keto book is misleading because in the end he basically advocates a type of Mediterranean diet long-term which has nothing to do with Keto.

An IP is repeatedly removing the 58% score for scientific accuracy for the book and claiming incorrectly that doesn't apply to the book overall, even though we can all see the score at the top of the review says "overall score". There have been complaints in the past that Michael Mosley's Wikipedia article is too sympathetic for his low-carb fringe ideas about diet. I have re-written some of the article and I wouldn't say it is bad but there seems to be some attempts at white-washing any criticism of Mosley's dietary ideas from the article. I have looked online and I can't find any other expert reviews for Mosley's books. The Red Pen Reviews website is a very good source, but I would hate to see a review by them misrepresented on Mosley's Wikipedia article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is Mosley has the status as sort of the BBC's "David Attenborough of health" and is relayed uncritically by them.[10] without being whack enough to have attracted any published scepticism. Just goes to show yet again why we need WP:MEDRS for any health claims I suppose. Bon courage (talk) 04:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clean eating

This article is in a bad way, and looks like there is confusion to what clean eating is. See talk-page discussions. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Eating is marketing, not science.[11]. Bon courage (talk) 04:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this basically the same subject as natural food? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Otherkin

Otherkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This appears to be mainly written in a style which accepts certain supernatural claims as wholly factual. I'd encourage FTN to be cognizant of the fact that some academics refer to notions of Otherkin as religoius (and perhaps it should be handled as such), but the entire article itself is written in an in-universe style and cites twitter and blogs galore. I've removed a self published flag which was basically from a tweet, but there's a huge mess in this article in terms of it not even being vaguely encyclopedic. Not sure if this is best here or on some other, but given the mythical/fantastical creatures being treated as credible and "otherkin.net" being one of the primary cites I think this warrants some other eyes considering how intrinsically linked to the paranormal the topic is. Warrenmck (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

YMMV, but this article reads much better to me than others we have seen in this kind of gray area betwixt paranormal and religious beliefs. Definitely remove the less-than-reliable sources. I am not at all clear how they know that the "first" instance of this sort of thing dates to the 1970s. I guess maybe one of the couple academic articles written on the subject might clear that up and perhaps serve as a means to reframe and reposition the article in a more grounded history. But I don't really see all that much here that is taking fantasy elements as "plain truth". jps (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps that's a bit up to how you're reading it, but I'll concede it's probably less black and white than it could be and I could have phrased my post here better. I'm going to try to at least remove things which have zero citations that meet Wikipedia's standards, I've put out a call on the talk page for those with a veseted interest in the topic to help find sources that meet Wikipedia's standards, as well. Warrenmck (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ජපස There were enough good sources sprinkled in there to clean it up substantially while still leaving a decent article. It was a lot less messy than I was worried about, but I wouldn't mind a second set of eyes considering the amount of material I removed. Warrenmck (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...not at all clear how they know that the "first" instance of this sort of thing dates to the 1970s Ouija board told a group of magician to call themselves "Elf Queen’s Daughters" around 1970. Silmarillion 1977. Fiction, invention, and hyper-reality is underutilized, WP:RX can get the relevant chapters. fiveby(zero) 19:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the 1970s section as WP:SYNTH. Considering that there's a decent amount of scholarship referring to these beliefs as fundamentally religious in nature, WP:NPA applies. Please see WP:NPA#WHATIS. I'm really hoping that FTN can purge itself of these attitudes, there's no reason the people involves can't be responsible for improving the article and much of the underlying content which I assume was added by those into the concept was quite good. There's zero call for this on Wikipedia. Warrenmck (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Already prior to the publication of S[ilmarillion], a movement of self-identified Elves had emerged when a Ouija board spirit allegedly instructed a group of American magicians to name themselves the Elf Queen’s Daughters sometime around 1970. The original members of the Elf Queen’s Daughters told Margot Adler [citing The Magickal Movement] that their identification as Elves was tongue-in-cheek, but they inspired other people to self-identify as Elves, and these people went on to speculate about possessing Elven genes or Elven souls. The publication of S in 1977 consolidated the Elven movement’s foundation on Tolkien and inspired members to experiment with Valar-directed rituals. This did not last, how-ever, and from the 1990s onwards, most self-identified Elves have distanced themselves from Tolkien’s fiction... Davidsen, Markus A. (2017). "The Elven Path and the Silver Ship of the Valar". In Cusack C. M. (ed.). Fiction invention and hyper-reality : from popular culture to religion. Routledge. Who was i attacking? fiveby(zero) 20:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently reality is too absurd for me. My sincere apologies. Warrenmck (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Poe's Law on Wikipedia basically means you can't tell when someone is faithfully repeating another's position or making fun of it. jps (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And sincerely no worries, i'm obviously not a skilled communicator. fiveby(zero) 21:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fiveby this one was entirely on me. There's a Poe, then there's whatever this is... a Hyperpoe? Warrenmck (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Millionaire discovers secret to eternal life

Bryan Johnson (entrepreneur)

So, among other things, this guy takes 111 pills per day and has blood transfusions from his son, and claims he has reversed aging.[12] He's got lots of press coverage from the credulous to the amused, but nothing (I can find) properly sceptical/scientific about these ... exceptional claims. The question is, how should Wikipedia deal with this, if at all? More views on the Article's Talk page welcome. Bon courage (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can introduce him to Steve Kirsch and they'll turn us all into vorlons in no time at all. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The bio sourcing looks questionable, and even ignoring the aging BS it needs cleanup. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFC regarding the life-extension practices of Bryan Johnson

There is a discussion at this talk page as to whether or not the life-extension practices of Bryan Johnson (entrepreneur) should be mentioned in the article. Given that it is what he is most known for by the general public and media, I feel as though it would be violating both WP:notability and WP:NPOV to not include it, as long as his practices are described neutrally. The other editor feels as though it is too fringe to include and that it cannot be properly contextualized. We would appreciate if others could give their input. Thanks!Vontheri (talk) 05:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any particular reason to start this as a new thread rather than as simply an additional post or a subthread to the above thread on the exact same issue? Also I do not see any WP:RfC either here or on the talk page. IMO it's premature to start an RFC when editors have only just posted on this noticeboard for feedback. Nil Einne (talk) 09:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because I didn't see that Bon Courage had made the previous post. If I had noticed, then I would have posted there instead. He said in the thread at Talk:Bryan_Johnson_(entrepreneur) "Maybe a query to WP:FT/N is in order?" I interpreted the statement "maybe a query to ft/n is in order?" as meaning he was suggesting to me to make a post here, as I assumed he would have worded it differently had he already done so, and I would have expected that he would have informed me had he done so, as is typical practice. I also didn't expect that if he had made such a post that it would have such a sarcastic title. I assumed it would be worded neutrally, as I did, attempting to explain both our perspectives without bias.

I have never started an RFC before, so please forgive me that I was not totally familiar with the process for doing so. I am going to formally start the process correctly now. Only one other editor has given (minimal) input besides Bon Courage and myself, and to achieve consensus it would be preferable if more than just three people are involved. Given that it has been a couple days without additional responses, I don't think an RFC is premature.

Bon courage: posting to multiple relevant talk pages is not "spamming". Posting to only one page with a specific perspective would be canvassing. Posting to multiple pages, as long as all are relevant, was an attempt to attract a balance and diversity of views. I really don't appreciate the sarcastic attitude you keep presenting. It's okay to disagree, but please be respectful and civil. Sarcasm is not helpful in reaching consensus. Vontheri (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Posting to a well-frequented noticeboard is not canvassing. Really, you are giving the bollocks this guy pushes too much personal credence. The very headline of the source I linked is "Millionaire 'ageing backwards' by using 'son's blood to live forever'". If you think taking a rational approach to nonsense is sarcastic, maybe you shouldn't be editing FRINGE topics on Wikipedia. Bon courage (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CANVASS (on WP, a noticeboard post is not canvassing, but notifying individual editors may be) and WP:FORUMSHOP may be useful reading, but also WP:GEVAL, WP:RS, WP:MEDRS and WP:NOTPROMOTION; then WP:ABOUTSELF, that should not be used for self-serving claims... —Paleo Neonate – 00:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who says how much credence I am or am not giving to his practices/views? I haven't said anything about my personal views on what he's doing, because my personal views really aren't relevant. But if you really must know, I think he is prone to hyperbole and/or self-delusion, and probably some narcissism thrown into the mix (as is often the case with people of his level of wealth.) At the same time, I would be surprised if many of his practices, such as his dietary practices and frequent diagnostic testing doesn't have at least some sort of positive impact on his health, but I'm quite skeptical that he has literally reversed his "biological age". It's also quite possible that some of his practices could have negative health effects, such as the plasma transfusion.

I simply think it would be incomplete to not mention the thing he is most known for, which are his anti-aging practices, as I've said a hundred times already. I would be totally against anything being included that endorsed his views/practices. I just want it to be neutrally and factually stated that he does what he does. Nothing more, nothing less. To exclude it would be to make the article incomplete, comparable to if the article for George Washington described his military career but never mentioned that he was the first American president. Vontheri (talk) 18:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's lots of RS for Washington, so the comparison seems weird. Just calling this stuff "anti-aging" is POV. Bon courage (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have been spammed to several noticeboards and WikiProjects too. Bon courage (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Madhukar (author)

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

The biography of Madhukar may need some attention. I removed some unsourced content about Quantum mysticism (a topic I know nothing about). The article has many general references that are unlikely to be found online, and I'm unfamiliar with the publications. Politrukki (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult to find any WP:FRIND sources about this individual. A lot of self-promotional social media and listings with time and date of his retreat events. Boilerplate bio says he was born in Germany in 1957 and worked as a TV journalist before becoming a yoga master. He's mononomial(?) like Madonna and Cher, but there aren't any independent sources that find him notable enough to even mention his former first and last name. Someone with better Google-fu may be able to come up with sources to meet WP:AUTHOR. If not, a good candidate for AfD. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dark energy

Can someone please restore the Dark energy article to a sane state? Recent edits are clearly WP:OR (and most likely complete bollocks), but I'm not sure where the 'good' article ends. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone conveniently labelled "Original Article" below all of the huge WP:OR stuff, and I'm somewhat familiar with the topic and was pretty comfortable just deleting everything there. Warrenmck (talk) 23:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They attempted to get Vixra (a preprint website primarily used by crackpots/cranks) whitelisted [13], which is not a good sign. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... let's see what happens but I expect WP:NOTHERE Warrenmck (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on status of Polyvagal theory

Polyvagal theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Readers of this board may be interested in the RFC just opened at Talk:Polyvagal_theory#RfC_to_address_“unproven”_in_the_lead_of_this_article MrOllie (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on lede of Witchcraft

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

Readers of this board may be interested in the RFC just opened at [[14]] 2603:7000:C00:B4E8:315E:BA69:522B:4431 (talk) 14:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alkaline Water Scam

This company is mad that we identify alkaline water as a scam.

Don't know how much traction this campaign may be getting, but it was noticed by a third party so watch-listing alkaline water might be worthwhile.

jps (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Life Ionizers conducted an undercover investigation of the discussion page on Wikipedia about water ionizers and found that Wikipedia’s editors refuse to consider the input of experts who offered to contribute to the water ionizer article. The most likely reason for this is that Kangen water™ sales reps have tried to edit the article with their pseudoscientific claims.

LOL. When your grift doesn't work, blame other grifters. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "undercover investigation" must have been easy, like looking at the talk page history? Since all WP articles are expected to comply with policy like WP:PSCI and that WP:MEDRS quality sources exist directly supporting the criticism,^[1] I don't see that as the work of a few opiniated editors or of a nefarious global skepticism cabal... I saw an MDPI source promoted on the talk page, but that cannot be used in attempt to "balance" against much better sources (WP:GEVAL). —Paleo Neonate – 03:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Fenton, Tanis R.; Huang, Tian (June 2016). "Systematic review of the association between dietary acid load, alkaline water and cancer". BMJ Open. 6 (6): e010438. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010438. PMC 4916623. PMID 27297008.

[1] Fenton, Tanis R.; Huang, Tian (June 2016). "Systematic review of the association between dietary acid load, alkaline water and cancer". BMJ Open. 6 (6): e010438. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010438. PMC 4916623. PMID 27297008.

[1]

@@ Line 479: / Line 479: @@
 [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 01:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 :<blockquote>"Life Ionizers conducted an undercover investigation of the discussion page on Wikipedia about water ionizers and found that Wikipedia’s editors refuse to consider the input of experts who offered to contribute to the water ionizer article. The most likely reason for this is that Kangen water™ sales reps have tried to edit the article with their pseudoscientific claims.</blockquote>  LOL.  When your grift doesn't work, blame other grifters.  Thanks for bringing this to our attention. [[User:WeirdNAnnoyed|WeirdNAnnoyed]] ([[User talk:WeirdNAnnoyed|talk]]) 02:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
-:The "undercover investigation" must have been easy, like looking at the talk page history?  Since all WP articles are expected to comply with policy like [[WP:PSCI]] and that [[WP:MEDRS]] quality sources exist directly supporting the criticism,<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Fenton |first1=Tanis R. |last2=Huang |first2=Tian |date=June 2016 |title=Systematic review of the association between dietary acid load, alkaline water and cancer |journal=[[BMJ Open]] |volume=6 |issue=6 |pages=e010438 |doi=10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010438 |pmc=4916623 |pmid=27297008 |doi-access=free}}</ref> I don't see that as the work of a few opiniated editors or of a nefarious [[Special:Diff/1102541164|global skepticism]] cabal...  —[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] – 03:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
+:The "undercover investigation" must have been easy, like looking at the talk page history?  Since all WP articles are expected to comply with policy like [[WP:PSCI]] and that [[WP:MEDRS]] quality sources exist directly supporting the criticism,<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Fenton |first1=Tanis R. |last2=Huang |first2=Tian |date=June 2016 |title=Systematic review of the association between dietary acid load, alkaline water and cancer |journal=[[BMJ Open]] |volume=6 |issue=6 |pages=e010438 |doi=10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010438 |pmc=4916623 |pmid=27297008 |doi-access=free}}</ref> I don't see that as the work of a few opiniated editors or of a nefarious [[Special:Diff/1102541164|global skepticism]] cabal...  I saw an MDPI source promoted on the talk page, but that cannot be used in attempt to "balance" against much better sources ([[WP:GEVAL]]).  —[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] – 03:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 {{reflist-talk}}

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards