Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

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

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

Article alerts

Did you know

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

Categories for discussion

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

Redirects for discussion

• 25 Apr 2024 – Rkkody (talk · edit · hist) →Heaven's Gate (religious group) was RfDed by Utopes (t · c); see discussion
• 25 Apr 2024 – Quantum realm (talk · edit · hist) →Quantum mechanics was RfDed by Utopes (t · c); see discussion
• 19 Apr 2024 – Open Floor (talk · edit · hist) →5Rhythms was RfDed by Utopes (t · c); see discussion
• 18 Apr 2024 – Mental gymnastics (talk · edit · hist) →Cognitive dissonance was RfDed by Utopes (t · c); see discussion

Good article nominees

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

Requests for comments

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

Peer reviews

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

Requested moves

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

Articles to be merged

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

Articles to be split

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

Spiritism

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

This article has at some point been expanded from the Portuguese version. But it is full of original research and uses many in-universe sources, mostly in Portuguese, which makes it difficult to evaluate them. Needs a good going over by someone knowledgeable about fringe issues, who preferably also understands Portuguese. Skyerise (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Wildly, I think that the Catholic Encyclopedia (for all its weirdness) has a better entry than Wikipedia on this subject: [1]. jps (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

That article seems to cover the topic of spiritualism generally (which we have a separate article for, see spiritualism) rather than this particular offshoot which is popular in contemporary Brazil. Admittedly, I don't really understand what distinguishes classic 19th century British-American style spiritualism from contemporary Brazilian spiritism. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

That might be a little out of date, see spiritism and spiritism in Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion which is 'Kardecan Spiritism'. The hatnote needs improved, maybe something like "this article is for 'Kardecan Spiritism' for the belief or religious practice based on supposed communication with the spirits of the dead see spiritualism" but not to be confused with spiritualism (philosophy). fiveby(zero) 15:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Brazilian spiritism is an entire organized religion. It's a spin-off of Allan Kardec's ideas, but it has gained popularity in Brazil because of Chico Xavier's work. He was an obvious fraud, but millions of people literally worship him. There are lots of issues with this theme in the Portuguese WP, and it's really hard to push back against the true believers. Please don't let the English project be contaminated by it. VdSV9•♫ 21:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

What do you all think of moving this page to Kardecan Spiritism per WP:Principle of least astonishment? jps (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@ජපස: This should have been discussed on the talk page of the article, not here without any notification. The distinctions are historical: Spiritualism is the proper name of an historical socio-religious movement, not to be confused with Spiritualism (beliefs); Spiritism is the proper name of a distinct historical socio-religious movement, not to be confused with its successor belief, Espiritismo. These all have distinct articles becuase they are historically distinct. If the article had been put through requested moves as it should have been, these distinctions would have been valid arguments against moving the article and creating a completely unhistorical disambiguation. Please take the time to get input from other disciplines before leaping to the conclusion that different movements with different names are "the same". They aren't. Skyerise (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I think you haven't followed the logic here. I am certain that adherents and many who study this subject call it "spiritism". However, independent reliable sources (see fiveby's accounting below) identify the term spiritism with other things as well. This means that we need to decide whether the Kardec version gets top billing, whether DAB gets top billing with the Kardec version renamed, or some other solution, but the argument has to be done at the level of WP:ASTONISH, I would say. jps (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

After the move

Reënacting the move from 2007 to Kardecist spiritism that appeared to be undone by an acolyte, I was doing some cleanup and happened upon

Spiritism in Costa Rica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Should that article exist?

jps (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the Spiritism in Costa Rica article was created by a blocked sock, so there's that to consider. The La Nación source being cited discusses a number of occult movements like astrology and spiritism that arose in the history of Costa Rica. I can't tell if it supports the rather substantial article text. For the time being, a redirect to Kardecist_spiritism#Demographics with a few sentences on Costa Rica would be appropriate until more sources are added to show that it's notable for a WP:SPINOFF. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Missed the move, but how about a DAB? what links to 'Spiritism'. I'd just do it but my last spirit DAB attempt did not go well. fiveby(zero) 16:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

DAB would be fine, but I'm not sure there are other articles to point spiritism to. jps (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

[2], seems spiritism is currently mostly used as a synonym of spiritualism. Will clean up the WhatLinksHere articles to bypass the DAB. fiveby(zero) 14:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Spiritualism is a distinct tradition and a church. Spiritism is not a synonym for it. The dab page should be deleted and the article moved back before more damage is done. Any historian in the area could tell you they are distinct names for distinct traditions, one which developed in the English-speaking world and another in the Latin-speaking world, which have similarities but which are also quite distinct in name and details. It's a disservice to our readers to imply that they are "the same" because they are both "fringe".Skyerise (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• "spiritism". New Oxford American Dictionary (3rd ed.). another term for spiritualism (sense 1)
• "spiritism". Fowler’s Dictionary of Modern English Usage (4th ed.). Coined in the 1850s as an alternative to spiritualism (also first recorded in the 1850s in the sense 'the belief that the spirits of the dead can hold communication with the living'), it has lost ground since and is now far less often used than the longer term. Spiritualism is the usual term for this sense, and also for the philosophical sense 'the doctrine that the spirit exists as distinct from matter, or that spirit is the only reality'.
• "spiritism". Oxford Dictionary of English (3rd ed.). another term for spiritualism (sense 1)
• "spiritism". Merriam-Webster. SPIRITUALISM sense 2a

fiveby(zero) 21:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Note, there is an RM here discussing this aforementioned move. Natg 19 (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

PROD was contested. Now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiritism in Costa Rica. jps (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Huh. This will probably end up as a merge to Kardecist spiritism, and i was thinking about and preparing an argument for the talk page that we need to be doing the opposite. Separating the French Spiritism of Kardec from Espiritismo and the current manifestation. Spiritism in France is an interesting narrative which i'll make a pitch for: Édouard Buguet's trial was popularly viewed as a trial of Spiritism itself. While our article calls them spiritualists, and Houdini may also, these were 'Spiritists'. A long line of Kardec's followers testifying: "Yes, i've heard Buguet's confession", "Yes, I see the box of wooden dolls, I see the faces pasted on", "But it's the spirit of my mother in this photograph". There was contemporary debate and recent arguments as to why they believed this in the face of the evidence.

I think we should try and organize all these 'Spiritism' articles to bring such content to the forefront, describe Kardec's metaphysical system before the newer manifestations which only pays lip service to it. That looks like not much fun and a bunch of work trying to do amidst all this junk which has been imported from pt wiki. Anyway, you moved the article, now i'm go to argue to move a bunch of the content out, or just delete it. Nineteenth century fringe is sometimes fun to read about and maybe educational, modern fringe is no fun, just depressing. fiveby(zero) 19:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

That would be fine with me. However, I still think that Spiritism in Costa Rica is likely not a tenable article. jps (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

UFOlogy promoter BLPs

BLPs

• Garry Nolan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ross Coulthart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jeremy Corbell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• George Knapp (television journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Luis Elizondo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jaime Maussan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bob Lazar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Timothy Gallaudet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Related

• Sean M. Kirkpatrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• To the Stars (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

UFO articles

• Westall UFO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Japan Air Lines Cargo Flight 1628 incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 1952 Washington, D.C., UFO incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ancient astronauts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 1984 Hudson Valley UFO sightings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Eyes needed on new SPAs showing up at these WP:FRINGEBLPs of UFOlogy promoters. Apparently UFO Twitter and the Reddit UFO community think I am some sort of "disinformation agent" [3],[4] and they are trying to mobilize followers with some disturbing rhetoric, which has quickly evolved into a conspiracy theory that I am a sock of Mick West. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

They've been pinging me on the X from time to time as well. That they are not a fan makes me think you are doing something right. jps (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted the problematic edits to Knapp, if that helps. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. All this attention feels a little stalky. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I would take it as a badge of honour. Displeasing the UFO fanatics is a sign that you're doing a good job. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I see those gentle, pro-woo folk claim you are a member of "The Anti-UFO Taliban." Do you get a membership card with that? FWIW, I've added those pages to my watchlist and will try to help. I note also that Luis Elizondo has received a recent spike in SPA activity. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 12:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie Blocked. Jeremy Corbell works for newsnationnow, of course they call him an investigative journalist, but we shouldn't. Someone needs to revert at that article. I see a couple of the other SPAs have also been blocked.. I see JoJo Anthrax has given out some CT alerts. Let me know if I can help more as an Admin. I read the REDDIT page. Doug Weller talk 14:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Thankfully, their attention has shifted to Sean Kirkpatrick, whom they are really, really, really mad at. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

This is not accurate in the slightest. Jeremy Corbell has zero official affiliation or employment with NewsNation. If you have evidence or proof saying otherwise, please link.

Fox News also calls Corbell an "investigative journalist" or "investigative reporter" (https://www.foxnews.com/video/6344773221112/)

How many independent news sources do you need before calling someone a title?

Also: "of course they call him an investigative journalist, but we shouldn't"

I'd ask simply why? This sentence alone feels fairly problematic and "gatekeep". CrunchyDolphin (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@CrunchyDolphin As I've said on your talk page, NewsNation's business plan has depended a lot on UFOs[5], he writes for them and is publicized on their YouTube channel. I consider paid writing to be work even if there is no official affiliation. If you return here after your block expires please note that the contentious topics sanctions apply to behavior on talk pages as well. Doug Weller talk 09:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I had a very odd conversation with someone in the wee hours this morning who wanted to alert @LuckyLouie to the fact that these people were going to dox him today and make his life miserable. He showed me how they were going to do it, obviously I can't show here but it seems like it will work. They remain convinced that Louie is West and if not he is their enemy. They did a second video yesterday on their evidence[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjHqE3GsI9o] This has just gotten beyond stupid. Some advice please? Sgerbic (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, those knuckleheads are sending out phishing emails and DMs to Wikipedia editors under the guise of a concerned Wikipedian needing the information to get in touch with me. Just ignore it, my contact info is double screened with a special auto tracking feature to ID spammers and miscreants. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't listen to a 2h ranting podcast but I quickly went through about 50m speeding until I found non-Gerbic related WP screenshots then listened a bit at those places. It was somewhat entertaining, but also confirms my previous impression about not being familiar with Wikipedia (and some paranoia). "GreenC ... is he one of THEM?" "Oh, yes" (an experienced regular who is not part of WP:SKEPTIC, not part of GSoW, a rare participant at WP:FTN). Then it's about Hemiauchenia, "he's pretty hardcore, look all the accounts he has in all languages..." actually a standard WP feature, WP:SUL. I remember a claim about "getting their denialist dogma in the world" (how can you "deny" a lack of evidence, then since we rely on independent non-promotional sources, it's a diversion to focus on editors instead on the text and sources, where WP:FOC is relevant). They're also apparently impressed by the number of edits, but that's nothing surprising for someone who cares about the encyclopedia and is actually there for the project (it's the opposite of WP:SPA). They also argue that he's a proficient editor of the RU Wikipedia (I only see a few citation related edits that may not even require knowledge of the language, personally. I rarely but sometimes also edited in languages I didn't know in relation to sources. If it was something Hemiauchenia wanted to keep secret, why would they be doing it as the same account anyway? And to my knowledge, still not GSoW affiliated (I also am not). I'll stop there, it doesn't deserve more of my time (and I will not be watching video updates). —PaleoNeonate – 04:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Can confirm that I'm definitely not a Russian speaker. I've made a small number of edits to numerous wikis for which I don't speak the language, so picking my small number of contributions to ruwiki to conclude I speak Russian is odd, but I guess such unevidenced leaps of logic would be expected for UFO believers. Almost none of the regulars here (including me) have any connection to GSoW, as was demonstrated in the ArbCom case. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Break1

Hey so welcome to GSoW Louie! I just discovered these threads a few hours ago, and was just coming over here to notify everyone. The posts are amazing. They are going to hold off donating to Wikipedia, going to report Louie and GSoW, and many more things. I read a post somewhere in that mass of comments about who all are considered a part of the GSoW team (or cult as one person said). When I find it I'll add it here, they should know they have been found out and have not been showing up to meetings, or sending me their cut of Big NASA payments that cover up the existence of space aliens or something. This guy on X seems to be really excited to join GSoW and keeps posting how to get involved in my training.[6] Sgerbic (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding Westall UFO as apparently Louie "is a paid disinformation agent or he is doing an Oscar level impersonation of one". Sgerbic (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Well this guy on X is encouraging his followers to out Louie "And his ardent attack dog JoJo Anthrax"[7] He calls out "Psyops Susan Gough" who I have not heard of before, for a minute I thought he was just misspelling my last name. Apparently that is a real person who works with Kirkpatrick.Sgerbic (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

"Ardent attack dog?!" And here I was thinking that I was his sock. Or was he my sock? Or am I the Walrus? Coo Coo Ca Choo. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I can't keep it straight either. One of the commenters on the UFO Reddit thread kept contacting me on Twitter a few years ago about wanting to edit the remote viewing Wikipedia page as he knows he can do it. I kept asking him to tell me what color my socks were, he didn't even try. I knew socks would be important eventually.

I can't find that post that lists all my GSoW team members according to the Reddit thread. I've given up, there is so much "out there" content I can't follow it. If someone does see it, please let these people know that we are going to have to change the secret handshake yet again and we are moving the meetings to Tuesdays and I'm sick of the potato salad that everyone keeps bringing to the meetings. Sgerbic (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

This section tying astronomy to a UFO sighting, cited to The DeBrief, the Guardian, and some journal paper, may be WP:OR, hard to tell. Cosmologist or astronomer needed to evaluate this claim. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Might also want to read "A glint in the eye: Photographic plate archive searches for non-terrestrial artefacts" by the VASCO project authors where i guess you could say they are a little more forthright as to what they are doing as opposed to the MNRAS article. Is Acta Astronautica really widely known as one of the top aerospace engineering journals? fiveby(zero) 19:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The MNRAS source is about a 16th magnitude transient. This is not a naked-eye visible situation jps (talk) 12:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I've done some astronomy. What specific question are you asking? I'm new to this behind the scenes Wiki stuff so I don't get the jargon. AstroDoc (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@AstroDoc: Are the sources Astrorudolf is using in this edit: [8] enough to justify what they're adding to the article? Similar material is also present in the technosignature article. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 08:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Sorry that you're having to deal with these yoyo's, LuckyLouie. I've gone ahead and watchlisted your talk page so I can at least help there if they keep harassing you. Silverseren^C 23:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

On the off chance that anyone is interested, some researcher named Heatherly will be exposing my GSoW group "with receipts" and a statement from Luz tonight in this interview on the Matt Ford show. I'm not planning on watching[9].Sgerbic (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Break2

"Disclosure" really has taken some weird turns! Dumuzid (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Are you sure this isn't a comic parody? The title is "UFO Coverup: The Wikipedia Secret Cabal". - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

You are welcome to watch and let me know what you think. But I'm pretty sure from what others have told me that this is a serious UFO believers channel and they plan on roasting me or attacking GSoW or something. Here is what they are writing "On today's Livestream with Dr. Michael Masters, we have a significant announcement regarding details of the organized cabal manipulating Wikipedia. We have the receipts the attorneys will want to see. More to come."[https://twitter.com/GoodTroubleShow/status/1749172454466199756?fbclid=IwAR1-Y7pvMcQJeYX1QGLtWNdpq6TMqnMjUvUwCaKjgAlv0BytK4Qa_JK_8-A] They even have a written statement they plan on reading by Luis Elizondo apparently they have the "goods" on me.Sgerbic (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Ugg there is the pinned tweet for the person they are interviewing tonight who will expose GSoW.[https://twitter.com/RobHeatherly1/status/1726806320295166442] "Yes, isn't that interesting. One editor archived their own Talk Page Nov. 10th. Wonder why? David's page was rolled into "David Grusch Claims" page by the same small half dirty dozen editors that actively monitor and control over 10k Wiki pages by page majority rule, including Lue Elizondo's page (I recognize the snark!), Ross Coulthart (stub, aweful attacks), Tim Burchett, Bob Lazar, Jacques Vallee, George Knapp, Chris Mellon, Garry Nolan, Jeremy Corbell, Hal Puthoff. **ALL UFO** related pages, other bunk, pseudo science, religion, conspiracy theories, paranormal, COVID-19, Covid Lab leak "bunk", scroll to the bottom of each page (mobile view works better than PC) and follow the edits, check Talk for each page, and each editor. Let's figure out who LuckyLouie is, shall we? And his ardent attack dog JoJo Anthrax. There are others, but these two... Perhaps he was already banned from the platform for previous sock puppetry? I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Court of public opinion will decide. There are around 5 others of particular interest, that combined have dominated entire genres on Wikipedia for over 17 years now." Looks like they are coming after all of us on FTN. Batten down the hatches, the storm is coming.Sgerbic (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

"I'd say Wiki has an infestation and liability issue on hand they need to sort out. I was suppressed on my attempt to set the record straight. Perhaps others will have better luck..." this is from that Heatherly character - I suppose he is admitting that he is trying to edit Wikipedia pages but got banned?Sgerbic (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

There I am again, an "ardent attack dog!" Oh mama, I made it! And I can't wait to participate in WP's liability issue.

If they only knew the TRUTH: I am actually a gray on a mission of disinformation to get people like this guy off our backs. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 07:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

If it was a Double Secret Cabal I might have been interested. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 08:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Triple Double Secret Cabals next up! I didn't watch the video interview last night, but others did and they shared screen shots with me. It went on for 3-hours and the comments were unreal. The guy they interviewed said he spent 60-hours last week going though my old videos on GSoW from back in 2013 even, he shared screen shots from FTN conversations (probably they are reading this now) they completely don't understand how Wikipedia works, thinks we work for the government who endorses us ... yet they think that we need to be reported to the government so we can be stopped. They 1,000% believe that Lucky Louie IS Mick West, I think at one point they were trying to geo-locate Louie. It didn't dawn on any of them that Louie's Wikipedia account has existed long before Mick was investigating UFO's and there could possibly be two different people working on two different things. They thought that JoJo and Louie having their own Wikipedia user pages was evidence of something nefarious. Edits to BLP pages were "systematic character assassinations" and they think we have committed crimes and should be arrested. They used A.I. with some posts written by Louie and comparing them to the writings of Mick West to see if they compared. They said on Reddit, "Wikipedia is a propaganda free for all" which my "informant" said makes no sense if it is a free for all, wouldn't using it for propaganda not be very efficient or useful? Oh and @Hob Gadling got mentioned “Hob Gadling is a GSoW editor they call in when they need the big guns. He’s like a drunken guy who walks in to command the room”. All the "information" they gave was public information, but the interviewer said he was "blown away" by all that was uncovered. Another comment "It's almost racist to call homeopathy quackery because there are MANY indigenous medicines that have been successfully proven to have medicinal properties".

Now that I've said all this, here is the good news ... I saw this happen on the Reddit thread, and heard this from someone who follows the UFO community. On the Reddit thread it took a while but after the first day there were UFO believers that are also Wikipedia editors and they were pushing back on what was being said. They could see clearly that the community of UFO believers they are associating with are "loose" with the "evidence" and that is going to make them question the other bits of evidence. Some of the comments about Wikipedia were waaaaay out there, these editors knew that. The other person I talked to who follows the community said that there are a lot of UFO believers that are very new to the topic and they aren't quite so invested in it. They are reading the Reddit comments and watching the video and then reading the UFO Wikipedia pages and are starting to understand that what the UFO community says isn't fitting with the sources on Wikipedia. And maybe they will start backing away from the true believers. So very interesting experience. The Susan Gerbic Wikipedia page got vandalized last night, added that I was an "American intelligence asset and propagandist" but then the IP self-reverted their edit 3-minutes after making it. Maybe they thought that the edit would track them or something. Sgerbic (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe they were happy to have a screenshot they can post on various fora as proof of WP censorship. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I am GSoW too? Nice. I thought I had started wikiing six years before GSoW was born, but if UFO believers say it, those contribution histories must be fake.

there could possibly be two different people working on two different things They are probably not far away from the realization that all skeptics are the same person. After all, it is difficult to imagine for such people how even one person could disagree with them without being paid for it by someone. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Love! HR is upset you moved and didn't get your paperwork filed in time. Come to the meetings more often please, it's okay if you bring potato salad againSgerbic (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• Maybe it's time to remind promoters about what Wikipedia is and isn't (WP:NOT). The harassment of specific editors because they are among patrollers or administrators is unfortunately not a new thing, but it is unlikely to succeed, the reason being that those regulars are there for the project, are familiar with its policies and are only some among many editors who are all expected to follow those policies. Biography subjects do not control the articles about them, just like those with a conflict of interest (WP:COI) cannot be allowed to use Wikipedia for their marketting. WP is also not about the promotion of particular or popular opinions, but reporting about them by representing what decent sources have reported. More useful links for reference: WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, WP:PSCI. For conspiracy theorists, everyone is trying to censor them and the cabals are everywhere, in government, on Wikipedia, etc. From Wikipedia's point of view (not only for LuckyLouie or GSoW, or FTN participants, but for all edit patrollers), when promoters try to get their way, there are pages to protect. Other than reverting and reporting edit warring and sockpuppets, pages that are a persistent target of WP:SPA sockpuppetry can be protected. That's all standard for WP... —PaleoNeonate – 00:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think YOU should go on this interview show tonight and tell them this! Sgerbic (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  Anyone who is threatening to "hold off" their financial contributions to the Wikimedia Foundation in an attempt to make our content more "fringe friendly" should be advised to "hold off" their donations until our sun, 93 million miles away, goes supernova. Cullen328 (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, too long. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

• The idea that there is a cabal manipulating wikipedia is implausible. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  Well these people think that aliens from other planets are walking among us, mutilating our cattle and hollowing the earth, a cabal manipulating Wikipedia is low-grade conspiracy to them. They probably believe there are multiple cabals fighting it out behind the scenes. Sgerbic (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Break3

Y'all remember when Deepak Chopra and Rupert Sheldrake were the aggrieved parties setting up to reform Wikipedia? Before that, it was the cold fusioneers. Before that, it was Dana Ullman and the homeopaths. Then there were the EVP fanatics? The Velikovskians? The creationists? The perpetual motion enthusiasts? When have we ever not had this fun barrage?

Same as it ever was. Today it's the UFO true believers and the antivaxxing COVID Lab Leak preachers. Tomorrow it will be something else.

jps (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Don't forget the AYUSH propagandists. I got harassed by OpIndia on twitter for my Ayurveda edits, hah. JoelleJay (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, I got fed up and joined the Reddit group.[10] This guy (llindstad) claims to be an experienced editor and Admin, but there's no account here with that name. I've challenged him to reveal this identity. "llindstad · I'll talk to other editors tomorrow and bring this user's history to their attention. It's our achilles heel, that we can't control bad faith actors from within our own ranks. But we'll see. One potential fix is to lock his page.

To be fair. His old page was a bit fawning, yet his accomplishments are legit and real. This isn't up for debate whether LuckyLouie likes it or not. I can also see that he's very active censuring other UAP related wiki pages.

Update: User LuckyLouie has received a formal warning from a Wikipedia administrator (not me, and not something I deserve credit for). He then deleted the warning from his talk page: https://imgur.com/a/C2RkMaL. I'm still investigating this user. He appears to be part of a group of accounts that specifically target the UFO community." And "Rindstad 6 days agoI've been a wiki editor for 14+ years. Bad faith edits are hard to prove and usually result in nothing, but I'll file a complaint. Perhaps my account history adds some extra credence to it." There was no formal warning by an admin. Someone from that group posted to his talk page, I blocked the editor, User:Johnuniq protected the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 16:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/The real AG bragged on the X thread about their edit, the first in a couple of years. Hm, is this meatpuppetry? Doug Weller talk 20:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

New activity at Mick West [11] - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

What are the chances this new editor doesn't come from Reddit or the X thread? The editor at the BLPN discussion is upset about my comment. But how do we handle all this? Where can we go to discuss it as an issue? Doug Weller talk 08:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Also see this Reddit thread Doug Weller talk 09:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I note that a discussion about the Luis Elizondo page has been started at BLPN, a discussion that appears directly related to some of the activities/events described here. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder that these are still BLPs. WP:CSECTIONs acting as a coatrack for picked quotes are still a no-no for BLPs. There were some legit problems with Elizondo's article, and I'm sure there are with many of the others. We shouldn't ignore legitimate BLP concerns because they're coming from people behaving like assholes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

True. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I add to this the friendly reminder that per the policies at WP:NOT, Wikipedia articles, including BLPs, are not to be used for publicity, promotion, advocacy, or public relations. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 08:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. It's actually the same section of NOT that covers both of our concerns. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

By an editor with warnings for BLP violations. Doug Weller talk 10:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

At X I explained about AN an ANI, response:"Excellent idea to try. Need concise complaints that indicate which policies are being violated. I have assembled a comprehensive document with relevant information to appeal to the Wiki Admin board. Others have tried to follow Wiki recommendations to post Villiage Pump where Admin are supposed to be neutral and evaluate the concern. Instead, affiliated editors were alerted the complaint, and the user was blocked from editing other than their own Talk page for daring to raise a complaint against their closely affiliated fellow editors. Apparently, if a novice user that hasn't made much of any edits first posts a complaint, they are accused of not being on Wiki to build an encyclopedia and summarily blocked. I'd be highly interested to know about anyone else's attempts to bring concerns to the recommended boards... "

Any ideas what VP threads they might be? Doug Weller talk 19:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Someone here on this thread named Cruncy came here to FTN to complain about an article and was blocked. Is that the kind of thing you are talking about? Possibly I'm not clearly understanding the issue. People who are editing for the very first time and clearly show that they do not understand even the basics of Wikipedia are raising concerns on various noticeboards ... how is that help? Just pick any of their "concerns" awards removed from a Wikipedia page ... OUTRAGE!!!!! But actually the awards were moved and citations were added. Okay then how dare people remove the honorifics on an article ... SENSORSHIP!!! Well that is a Wikipedia policy that happens on all Wikipedia pages, see Neil Tyson mentions around Wikipedia, you should never see a PhD after his name, if you try to explain, they handwave and move on to the next outrage. These people making the most noise with hours long videos creating hateful comments are not listening to reason, they don't want to listen ... outrage is how they get clicks and popularity. This isn't about improving Wikipedia and developing a consensus. This is a group of people who have a different agenda (and this is not a UFO problem, it is common to all the FRINGE topics, just some are more organized than others) we just have to continue doing what needs to be done, and wait them out. Remember there are many people watching the outrage that know how Wikipedia works and/or sees the ad hominem attacks and says to themselves "I'm otta here, this community I thought might have answers are not serious about the topic and are disrespectful and unhelpful". Sgerbic (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, there are a few people there who have explained how Wikipedia works, even about the “Dr” thing. The rest are clueless at best. Doug Weller talk 20:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I've seen those comments also, and those are the people who are not so invested in the frenzy of the topic, they are the ones I'm talking about who hopefully will walk away. Hope they don't lose interest in the subject completely, we can really use reasonable people discussing the subject respectfully.Sgerbic (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Is sensorship something similar to mediumship? ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Break 4

Wow. jps (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide context? All I am seeing is West's tweet that just says "No". Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

It's in reply to the question "Is Mick West Lucky Louie?" Schazjmd (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm amazed they're still banging on this drum. It reminds me of when the UK press was obsessed with the idea that Philip Cross was really Oliver Kamm, something that was obviously false to basically anyone familiar with Wikipedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I am he as you are he as you are me... JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it came with the tweet to which West was responding. jps (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The Earthlings have rumbled us. I think we should return to the home world. Bon courage (talk) 04:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

It is very strange to suddenly find oneself the object of jps-level notoriety on the interwebs. Oh well. I hope this doesn't discourage experienced editors from improving UFO related articles (shout out to User:Feoffer, who is currently improving many of these articles). - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Then there is this strangeness[https://twitter.com/SapphireBushman/status/1751769442697265229] Sgerbic (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the shoutout. It won't discourage me, Louie, and you know why? Cause "I don't have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you!" <grin>. Anybody shows up with pitchforks and torches outside my castle, I get to be like "Hey, I didn't wanna WP:ASSERT it was Mogul, the FTN gang forced my hand!" Seriously though, I'm not really sure what all this thread is talking about, but I'm really sorry it's happening to you. Thanks for all you do, couldn't imagine the project without ya'll. Feoffer (talk) 12:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

It's the latest manifestation of this.[12] Bon courage (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Anyone have a clue as to what this might be about?[13] You need to read the editor's talk page for context. User:Hob Gadling the editor says you were very helpful, as was User:Rp2006. Mick West was unblocked recently, there was socking but his appeal explains it well. Doug Weller talk 13:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Since most of what the user wrote is delusions, my and Rp2006's alleged helpfulness was probably also a mirage. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

That seemed pretty obvious. I can't figure out the post today about some Village Pump though. Doug Weller talk 14:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

My impression is that they meant the help desk. A good block in any case... —PaleoNeonate – 00:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense. Doug Weller talk 10:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Found my ID here... and I have absolutely NO idea what this statement is referring to. Can someone explain? Rp2006 (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Here[14]. I removed it. Doug Weller talk 18:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

OK... I STILL have no idea what that was about! I have not been involved in the kerfuffle I am reading about here, nor do I make it a special point to edit UFO related pages! I did make a comment on a talk page recently though, but I do not see the relevance to what's going on here! Rp2006 (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You're one of the few confirmed members of GSoW, which the UFO fanatics have been spinning conspiracy theories about. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

How is it that I am "one of the few confirmed members of GSoW"? Confirmed how and where? And if I were a member of that group, how is someone making such a claim not doxing, and contrary to WP rules? Rp2006 (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I seem to recall a brouhaha regarding your editing which sort of mutated into a discussion of GSoW. I am not sure if it was ever 'proven' that you were associated or if you 'admitted' it, but I can see how someone might come away with that impression. That said, it would be a bit of a deep cut, but I guess conspiracy types and ancient alien "theorists" are kind of used to deep cuts. Just a thought! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

That poster was just spouting nonsense, don’t look for meaning. Doug Weller talk 19:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Apparently @Rp2006 you have been really helpful! I think this was about the conspiracy theory that Louie had archived his talk page on November 12th as if there was something odd about that. They do know that editors often archive their talk pages, for no reason other than to keep it fresh and able to find things ... right? Kinda creepy that somewhere in Archangel1966's files is a stack of screenshots of Louie's talk page. Some people collect odd things ... whatever floats your boat. Sgerbic (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Again... I have not been involved with ANY of this, regarding a Talk page archive or otherwise, so I do not understand why my ID has come up. This is quite disturbing. Rp2006 (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Rp2006, those on the outside stirring this up are likely connecting you and others to GSoW because of the 2022 Arbitration case. 5Q5|^✉ 13:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

That's the one I was thinking of above! Getting old is not fun, but I guess it beats the alternative. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe that editor was referring to this Help Desk discussion. For some reason it did not get far. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Damn it's all about Louie .... Louie Louie Louie ... Louie gets all the credit and he has never seen the inside of The Secret Cabal, nor JoJo they can't get past the secret handshake. Sgerbic (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Disruption now at Sean M. Kirkpatrick [15]. I've reverted but there may be more to follow. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

SPA activity

A couple of excitable new editors at Pentagon UFO videos as well. - MrOllie (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Should we have a CT alert on the talk page? Doug Weller talk 10:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Three "new" WP:SPAs within the last 12 hours, yerrrs. Bon courage (talk) 13:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Now a discussion on Maussan's talkpage: Talk:Jaime_Maussan#Request_for_Removal_of_Irrelevant_and_Misleading_Information. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, CT notices have been sent to the new editors' Talk pages. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Given current disruptions, it's reasonable to add semi protection to these pages per WP:SEMIGUIDE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Protected the Pentagon page but I can only protect those with recent disruption. Doug Weller talk 19:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Somebody's been trying to include an article by "thedebrief.org" on Kirkpatrick's bio, so I've made a RSN post, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Thedebrief.org. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I reviewed a bunch of Twitter threads last night and on that basis think that we may be at the end of the campaign directed at Pentagon UFO videos. All in all, I think the interactions went okay. Putting my WP:ENEMY hat on here, there is a fair critique to be had that the article focuses quite a bit on Mick West, but I think there is nothing for it as his ideas seem to be the ones that the best sources are paying attention to. There is, of course, the NASA report which fully debunked one of the videos and the NYMag source that came out a few days ago focuses on balloons in ways that may deserve a bit more coverage. I feel for the fact that Graves is upset his interview with The Debrief is being blackballed, but I think the message was delivered to him that inclusion of his recollections in Wikipedia would require mention/attention paid by more mainstream sources than The Debrief. That's as good as we can hope for. jps (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I've been reviewing X notifications also, as the only editor in this mix that uses her real name, I'm under attack every hour. They are all over the map of reporting me to Wikipedia or the Govt or they are suing me or about to sue me or something. All this is of course ridiculous. But what is concerning is their constant threats to out the real life names of the GSoW team, apparently they will make those people accountable. Not sure what they plan on doing, but I'm sure it isn't to send them a bouquet of flowers. When we went though the ArbCom "trial" I raised my concerns about Wikipedia editors who attempted to make a list of my team members. It was strongly suggested that I should create that list myself and maintain an open editing project here on Wikipedia for those editors. The concerns for the safety of my editors should their real-life personas be revealed were poo-pooed and hand-waved away by Wikipedia editors. I ignored this and shut the group down further and it is impossible to know who and who is not GSoW.

Which leads to the next issue, all of you who have made an edit in support of the rules that rankles this UFO group are now considered a part of GSoW in their view. We are on week two of this mess and they have not let up on this piece of twine they think they have got their hands on, any moment in their minds they will pull on the thread and the whole conspiracy will be revealed. And when this finally dies down as jps states, in time it will revive within this community, or it will be another area of FRINGE that we might not even have on the radar right now.

Those of you who are saying that you are not a part of GSoW, these people don't believe you, of course you would say that. And while I have the floor I want to say that you should be proud to be affiliated with GSoW, these people make me proud every day and if you knew them you would say the same. BTW for those of you on the team, remember meetings are always the second Tuesday of the month when there is a full-moon and I wish people would stop bringing potato salad, potatoes are for French fries and salad is for a bowl with ranch dressing.

Buckle down editors, these people aren't going away, my psychic powers tell me that they are just now ramping up. Sgerbic (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

FYI "The page on the Pentagon UFO videos is officially locked by the Guerilla Skeptics." and SusanGerbic how about unlocking the page?" [https://twitter.com/StandForBetter/status/1753156374534467777] This is just a tiny percent of the flack I'm receiving every hour. Sgerbic (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I responded. Doug Weller talk 19:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

LOL "She isn’t an Administrator and I didn’t lock the page, semi-protected from being edited by non auto-confirmed accounts. I can also block meatpuppets. ... I'm not a guerilla skepic". Thank you for trying Doug, I'm curious what that response will be but believe they won't understand what that means, nor believe you. The world of reliable sources and critical thinking alas is not in their world. Sgerbic (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Let me know if there is anything else I can do. Doug Weller talk 20:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Break 6

Thanks, Sgerbic. A few thoughts:

1. If you wanted to organize a GSoW WProject, people could use their pseudonyms of course. But I understand where you are coming from in wanting to maintain secrecy.
2. While there is almost certainly more bark here than bite, any kind of threat or harassment is simply unacceptable in my book. Please document harassment and share it with the WMF safety. They may not be able to do anything, but the paper trail is good to have.
3. GSoW, for better or worse, serves as a kind of paranoid touchstone for the frustrations with Wikipedia that pseudoscience pushers of all stripes experience. Like Avi Loeb's magnet dragged along the seabed, GSoW serves as the attractor for the ire of these personalities. And you make a good point that because there is a lack of critical thinking essentially by definition in those whose ire is provoked, there isn't much in the way of disabusing them of their conspiracy theory about how the GSoW rules all Wikipedia pages. While I don't want to invite more harassment of you, there is a service being done by redirecting this kind of advocacy away from Wikipedia proper and onto metaconcerns about cabals and the like.

I'm going to go give you a barnstar now.

jps (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm really touched jps and Doug. Thank you both! Sgerbic (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Well it's still going on, now jps is being accused of ... something and a Xitter account who is knowledgeable about Wikipedia editing has joined the circus. Timothy Gallaudet has made quite an admission here [16]. Sgerbic (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The Timothy Gallaudet article certainly needs a lot of trimming, as much of it currently reads like a breathless, promotional press release. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 04:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Is that an admission of paid editing or just ZCOI? Doug Weller talk 07:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I think this is as close as we're going to get that there was funny business going on in the writing of that article. It would be nice to try to pare it down to facts and clear notice by independent sources. I alerted WP:BLPN to the problem as well. jps (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

We do have at User_talk:LMG2000#February_2024 an editor's statement that Gallaudet is their father, so pretty clear COI. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and rewritten George Knapp (television journalist) because I felt it was a bit unbalanced. Knapp has this sort of odd duality of being a well-regarded local journalist in the Las Vegas area as well as being heavily involved in UFOlogy stuff, and it's important to properly represent both aspects of his career, though finding reliable sources for his local Las Vegas journalism has been challenging. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that bio was the target of two SPA's in January who piled on the MOS:PUFFERY and WP:RESUME rather thick. I noticed UFO enthusiasts often represent Knapp's journalistic awards as being for his UFO work, thanks for the rework to clarify that. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

A discussion about the Knapp article will be on Coast to Coast tonight [https://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2024-02-25-show] "Ali Duncan, who ran into difficulties when she tried to correct errors on George’s wiki page." Wonder if you fixed these "errors" in your rewrite? Sgerbic (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm interested in listening, but given that it starts as 6 AM UK time it's not exactly convenient hours. The problem with Duncan's edits is that a lot of them were based on less than ideal sources (one of them was literally an Amazon listing) and were arguably written in a somewhat promotional tone. I think much of the content that Duncan was seeking to include has been re-introduced in a more neutral and better sourced way. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Sgerbic, thanks for making improvements on 1984 Hudson Valley UFO sightings. Some recent SPA activity there, so I took the liberty of copyediting a bit while undoing various attempts at WP:GEVAL. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much, just saw those changes you made. It's like the elk who lay in the mud and some Bigfoot crew who were being filmed for a TV show, got all excited and made a cast of the elk print and the next thing you know it's some big piece of evidence and it has a Wikipedia page. OMG it's just a plaster cast of an elk laying in the mud, Skookum cast. Same with the 1984 sighting but in this case it was a hoax. Please people, just because I rewrote it, I have no feeling of ownership to it, make changes to improve it as needed. What I have been looking at and scratching my head over is this article, 1994 Michigan UFO event I've read these references and looked around and can't find meat to put on this bone. People saw strange lights over a frozen lake one night and called in and said "what are these strange lights over the frozen lake, they might be UFO's" and the answer was "gee that is strange I wonder what they are?" then MUFO gets involved and says "that is weird, we don't know what it is either but it might be UFO's". And that is that, the article is full of people from decades later talking about what they say in 1994. Heck, maybe aliens from another planet visited a Michigan frozen lake one night in 1994 and liked the way the lights (that look like Christmas tree lights) looked when "beamed" onto the surface of the ice and then buzzed off laughing that the humans are going to be all freaked out. I don't understand why this is a Wikipedia article, but there are citations from notable sources, so I guess it remains. But in essence it is probably the equivalent of an elk laying down in the mud. I would love to have some opinions on this. Sgerbic (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

You may be able to persuade User:Feoffer to help with the Michigan article, but you must do something about getting our Deep State/CIA/antitheist funded paychecks up to date, they are late again this month. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what kind of source really helps an article like this, but you might try: McCann, Hugh (March 20, 1994). "Experts downplay UFO sightings over state". The Detroit News. fiveby(zero) 01:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh that is interesting fiveby and the article next to it on the religious aspect. Maybe, just maybe I might do something with this article tonight. If anyone finds something more can you please add it to the talk page? Louie I keep telling you that I've contacted HR about this multiple times, they keep saying that you told them to invest the money in bitcoin, so that's what they are doing. I'm not familiar with Feoffer but would welcome any help. But probably so as not to derail this conversation (too late) to have conversations on that talk page. Sgerbic (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the pings, I've tried to help out with both cases. Feoffer (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you - welcome to the Cabal - note: no more potato salad at the monthly meetings. I was sick for days after whatever it was that Louie brought. Sgerbic (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

And now heading to Coast2Coast

Just when you think it can't get more frenzied: [17]. jps (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I never thought the world would have me yearning for the days of Art Bell, and yet.... Dumuzid (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Break 7

Sceptics, prepare your cats.

Still more, lets call it press: George Knapp’s Bio on Wikipedia: A Guerrilla Skeptic Assault. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

No mention that his Emmys are Pacific Southwest Chapter awards. Doug Weller talk 16:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Have to admit I'm not too clear on what that means in this context. Are they not-Emmys or lesser-Emmys? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Much lesser, read his talk page where they are discussed. Doug Weller talk 17:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Craig Weiler has a long history of axe grinding against Wikipedia going back over a decade. His opinion has no real value as serious critique. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I think Weiler is amazed that he is getting a new life, strange bedfellows with the UFO world. Sgerbic (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The comet pushers are back with their own journal for fringe material

Found this on Brad Lepper’s Facebook page. You may remember that Kenneth Tankersley and his colleagues’ paper on a comet supposedly wiping out the Hopewell culture was retracted back in August by Nature’s 'Scientific Reports.' Well it’s back from the dead – in the pages of a new journal devoted to 'Airbursts and Cratering Impacts.' The journal’s editorial policy privileges papers that “run counter to a prevailing view” and “have been rejected by other journals.” And Tankersley is on the editorial board, which should help to ensure that this somewhat revised version of the paper won’t be retracted: https://www.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.14293/ACI.2024.0001 Doug Weller talk 20:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Related: Talk:Younger Dryas impact hypothesis § Comments about Wikipedia by editorial staff of new New CRG journal (permalink) —PaleoNeonate – 09:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Part of this discussion concerns whether the policy of this new journal Airbursts and Cratering Impacts Policy complies with Wikipedia:Reliable sources guidelines or are there some issues? Any feedback or guidance would be appreciated. Dmcdysan (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, I found the following article A prehistoric cosmic airburst preceded the advent of agriculture in the Levant published in ScienceDaily, which practices Churnalism, which I assume makes it not a reliable source. Is my understanding correct? Dmcdysan (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Probably. In these cases it's worth keeping in mind that if a comet strike had some causal linkage to the advent of agriculture in the Levant, one would expect the entire scientific community to be all over it, not just one journal. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus, some papers link the Abrupt climate change of the Younger Dryas and its cessation to the adoption of agriculture, for example, see Younger Dryas § Effects on agriculture and Rosen 2012. The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis is one of several hypotheses contributing to the YD abrupt climate change event.

Here is another webpage related to this topic: A prehistoric cosmic airburst preceded the advent of agriculture in the Levant where the Subscribe page states "The UC Santa Barbara Current is the official source of news for our campus community." In the context of YDIH-related news (e.g., in the "In popular culture" section of a related article). this appears to be a reliable source. Note that Kennett is a co-author of the first YDIH paper in 2007 is affiliated with UCSB, so not a third-party source per Wikipedia:Fringe theories § Independent sources. Dmcdysan (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

National Geographic - a reliable source or fringe?

WP:RSNP says there is a consensus that it's reliable. However, it's on Headbombs list of unreliable and shows up that way with their script. Take a look at this YouTube video and others[18]. I think it has to go to RSN again maybe for deprecation. Doug Weller talk 07:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Deprecation would be overkill. NatGeo has gone down the toilet in recent years and no longer has any full time writers, but much of their historical written content is good. Anything covering fringe topics like crystal skulls, the illuminati, or ufos tends to be terrible though, both recent and historically. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia Maybe. I was never sure about using them for DNA. In any case, RSNP needs to be changed, right? Doug Weller talk 11:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you asking about National Geographic (American TV channel) or National Geographic? fiveby(zero) 14:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Fiveby Both. I'm not sure when the magazine lost its credibility, maybe quite a long time ago, see National Geographic#Controversies. Doug Weller talk 15:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

A handful of incidents over 40 years doesn’t seem too damning. We should look at the normal indicators of reliability, like do they have editorial standards, or do they publish corrections, or do other reliable sources cite them. Their TV content is probably a distinct entity from their written magazine article content. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Since Disney took over, National Geographic has change. The print edition has been discontinued and there has been widespread staff layoffs. This certainly reflects a change in standards and reliability of which the video series can be used as an indication. The past cannot now be used as a indication of the present. The reliability of a source can change with time with their editorial policies. Paul H. (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

So have their editorial policies changed? Going online-only isn’t a sign of unreliability, and neither is laying off staff. Are there reliable sources which debunk National Geographic articles? I don’t know, I haven’t looked into it in detail, but I don’t think it follows logically that bad TV content automatically means the written content should be equally suspect. I do agree that reliability can change over time and that the RSP entry should be updated if a decline in standards can be demonstrated. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Barnards.tar.gz It is. Doug Weller talk 18:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Not if the scandals generally have nothing to do with reliability (dead thread I know) Dronebogus (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Along the lines of what others have said... There's the magazine, which should be considered generally reliable (doesn't mean always reliable, of course); there are the maps, which probably don't come up as sources often but I don't think I've seen any problem about them; there are the tv specials/films that were produced before or independently of the tv channel, which I think are as respected as their peers Nova, Nature, etc.; then there's the website and tv channel, both of which should probably be considered "yellow" at RSP for being popular science content that is at times too credulous of fringe ideas. A simple note at RSP that it's not a reliable source for fringe subjects might be sufficient? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites I think that needs a discussion at RSN. Doug Weller talk 15:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller and others, I posted the following at Talk:Younger Dryas impact hypothesis § 2013 National Geographic Article - Quotes from Walter Broecker asking if specific direct quotes from the renowned climate scientist Wallace S. Broker could be used in the YDIH article. Please consider including this in the RSN discussion. Thank you. Dmcdysan (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

"However, it's on Headbombs list of unreliable and shows up that way with their script."

My script doesn't touch anything related to National Geographic. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Headbomb Apologies, I thought I saw it but unfortunately didn't come here with a link. Obviously I must have been wrong. Doug Weller talk 08:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

At least you've confirmed something I was thinking though - see Talk:Edward V of England#The Princes in the Tower by Philippa Langley. Deb (talk) 10:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Dinosaur of Ta Prohm

New article created by User:Eocursor. Looks good but sadly depends a lot on Atlas Obscura and I can't determine whether the actual source meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Atlas Obscura articles. Hopefully Eocursor can help clear that up. Also, Naish, Darren (2001). "Sea serpents, seals and coelacanths: an attempt at a holistic approach to the identity of large aquatic cryptids". Fortean Studies and Raven, Thomas J. (2021). The Taxonomic, Phylogenetic, Biogeographic and Macroevolutionary History of the Armoured Dinosaurs (Ornithischia: Thyreophora) don't discuss this alleged dinosaur. Doug Weller talk 14:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

There's definitely too much of a reliance on self published sources, particularly Glen Kuban, but it's otherwise not awful. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Not awful but we need to know if the Atlas Obscura source, whatever it is, meets RS. In fact the actual article in that compendium should be referenced. Doug Weller talk 07:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Human–dinosaur coexistence (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• Ica stones (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Those are other articles edited by the same user. And the name of the article is obviously begging the question. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Those articles seem ok. If you mean the title human-dinosaur coexistence, the phrase seems to be used quite a bit[19] [20].. Doug Weller talk 12:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

No, I meant the "Dinosaur of Ta Prohm" article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling Sorry for the confusion. But I have seen that phrase used a number of times on the web myself, and there is this.[21].

As for Atlas Obscura, I'm confused. The source used seems to be a "Places" article and those shouldn't be used[[22] but I also found [23]. Doug Weller talk 15:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Candida hypersensitivity

• Candida hypersensitivity (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Talk page has new discussion about attributing statements to SBM and Quackwatch, and another on citing styles. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Recovered-memory therapy

I've proposed larger deletions of category "Research" under recovered-memory therapy. Detailed reasoning/proposal in my post on the talk page. Looking for opinions re: WP: GEVAL and WP:REL. Lefthandedlion 22:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I've responded to you on talk. Sgerbic (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Sgerbic. I will continue going through the article as I don't believe there is much opposition that RMT is fringe and deserves a page which clearly states that these techniques are:

a) discredited b) dangerous c) used by a minority of therapists who have been under legal scrutiny for their use since the mid 90s. Lefthandedlion 23:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Neal D. Barnard

• Neal D. Barnard (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Diet guru, and the usual problem of whether everything they wrote gets listed in Wikipedia (regardless of whether it gets attention in RS). IP editor now at 4RR pushing this, and more eyes needed. More generally, I do think we need something - maybe in WP:FRINGE - about bibliographies. Bon courage (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the big list of publications was not due on this article.

To the general point, it seems like comprehensive bibliographies of publications with no secondary source coverage must be based on the publications themselves as primary sources, to which the following bit of WP:PRIMARY might apply: … be cautious about basing large passages on them.

I do think there are cases where a comprehensive bibliography is encyclopedic, such as for highly notable authors whose body of work as a whole is discussed by secondary sources, even if not every work receives secondary source coverage.

I’m not sure there’s anything specific to FRINGE subjects though - unduly self-serving bibliographies could be found on any bio. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

This is true. I actually think the yardstick should be whether a topic/person has received 'bibliographic' treatment in RS, but that's maybe too subtle a concept for Wikipedia. The usual compromise is to say 'selected works' may be listed where they have received at least some attention from WP:SECONDARY sources (more then just being cited, that is). Bon courage (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

We also need to bear in mind MOS:WORKS which says "Lists of published works should be included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists. The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles. Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged..." This applies equally to all authors; there are no separate guidelines for authors on fringe topics, although it isn't clear (to me, at least) how to interpret the phrase "...appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship..." --Gronk Oz (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

And also what is an 'author', especially when invoked alongside 'other artists'? James Joyce yes, but somebody who publishes journal articles or cook books is not an 'author' in that sense. Bon courage (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with both of you. And for journal publications that generally means listing only the works that are both highly-cited and have the subject as first or senior author. JoelleJay (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Mormon Fringe

Mormonism seems to be a hot topic at the moment. I happened across

• Origin of the Book of Mormon (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Tell me, is there not a WP:FRINGE issue here? Is this article not pretty much en embodiment of WP:GEVAL? Bon courage (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The earliest versions of the article present differing views within Mormonism of the book origins. Mormon scholars disagree with other Mormon scholars; that's a pretty straightforward article. However over time non-Mormon sources were introduced, so the premise is flawed, i.e. religious claims and independent analysis being presented as equally valid. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Ain't great. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS). Levivich (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Religious Fringe

Are sources that uncritically present an in-universe view of religious events reliable? For example:

1. Sources saying that Jesus did raise Lazarus, rather than that Christian believe that Jesus raised Lazarus
2. Sources saying that Muhammad traveled to Jerusalem in a single night on the back of the winged steed Burak, rather than that Muslims believe that he did
3. Sources saying that an alien dictator committed genocide in Earths volcano's, rather than that Scientologists believe he did
4. Sources saying that Mormon scripture originated in ancient times, rather than that Mormons believe it did

I don't believe they are; sources that push positions that have widely been discredited is a strong indication that they are unreliable. Further, it is an indication they are unreliable for the rest of the content in their work, such as on matters of faith that have received less coverage in serious sources.

However, I believe this position is somewhat controversial, so I want to see if I am alone in holding it, and if not how we can get it written down somewhere - perhaps on WP:RSP? BilledMammal (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Said sources should be treated as non-independent and hence to be used sparingly and not to demonstrate notability, IMO. There's a lot of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS about this versus other Christian and religious analysis, but we're not a theologic work; if sources independent of a church hierarchy isn't talking about stuff, it shouldn't be included, and if the only sources talking about it do so with an "in-universe" standpoint (analysis of the Lazarus story that asserts its truth) they should be discarded when crafting the overall structure of an article. Specifically to the LDS stuff it'd be best to get this discussed at RSN/listed at RSP because otherwise it's going to be a talk page/merge discussion/AfD piecemeal effort that's going to get nowhere. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I made this point a couple times and just got pushback from the same editors with claims that BYU/LDS authors are just as NPOV regarding LDS topics as non-adherents, and that a book by an adherent constitutes "mainstream secular attention" if it's published by a non-LDS publisher (and that having such a publisher transforms a non-independent source into an independent one!). JoelleJay (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

BYU is a very interesting case. On most matters, they are completely mainstream scholars, but their honor code means their scholars of religion and history don't have full academic freedom. On LDS history, they're Bob Jones, not Havard Divinity. Feoffer (talk) 08:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Given BYU biology prof Michael Whiting's statements on Native American genealogy, we might want to expand that list of fields lacking academic freedom... JoelleJay (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

As an attempt to draft an RfC on this, how does the following wording look?:

Sources that present an in-universe view of religious events should be considered reliable only for what adherents of the relevant religion believe, and should not be considered independent of the religion.

I'm concerned it may get shot down as too broad? BilledMammal (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the first clause is OK, and the second is problematic and ought to be dropped because it tends to imply that outsider sources are independent, which is rather frequently not true (an awful lot of them are frankly adversarial). This isn't going to solve the notability issue, though. In @JoelleJay:'s examples, it seems to me that the problem is that these aren't important figures even within LDS theology, not that nobody outside the church has head of these people. And of course narratives taken from a single source need make it clear it's the source that's talking, a principle which applies to all texts, not just religious ones.

I looked at our article on the raising of Lazarus (which is actually a section of the article on Lazarus himself) and note that the narrative is entirely "sourced" to the KJV, which surely counts as a primary source on this. Be that as it may, the theological import is entirely sourced to believers. And that is as it should be; any outsider cited had better be sourcing reliable believer authorities in order to be credible. Mangoe (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see that implication about outsider sources; it makes no comment on them, and their independence would need to be assessed separately. Can you explain further why you see otherwise?

I also think this will solve the notability issue, because if we assess these sources as either not being independent or not being reliable they won't count towards WP:GNG.

Looking at that article on Lazarus it seems to say he was risen by Jesus, not that Christians believe he was; I've added an NPOV tag. BilledMammal (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

BilledMammal, would you comment on an example here? The article Nahom came up on this noticeboard awhile back. It's probably a pretty important concept within Mormon scholarship, probably something that WP should cover, but once an individual editor goes out and creates an article like that the set of sources get pretty limited. There are a bunch of your "in universe" sources, and only Dan Vogel and Jerald and Sandra Tanner as "independent". Vogel is just a single footnote, and the Tanners are probably a good example of JoelleJay's "outsider" sources which should not be cited. S. Kent Brown does a fair job of laying out the problems and here he says what should be made very clear to the reader for that article:

For those who believe that Nephi’s narrative is authentically ancient, the possibility of a connection between the area of the NHM tribe in south Arabia and the Nahom of Nephi’s narrative is credible. For those who do not believe that the narrative of First Nephi authentically goes back to a record written in the early sixth century B.C., any proposed link will lack merit. It is a matter, in my view, of one’s beginning assumptions. Since I believe...

But that is just some post he made and the URL is expired. I doubt (but don't know for sure) if he would publish that remark in one of the journals in question, either it's just WP:BLUESKY or maybe not something he would say to the audience reading those publications.
For Nahom, to write the "excellent article" per jps below i think pretty much requires the "in universe" sources (and some allowance for original research). An Afd based on your GNG argument is probably unlikely to work. Maybe a merge to a parent article such as Proposed Book of Mormon geographical setting would be appropriate, but offhand that article looks to have quite a few problems itself. fiveby(zero) 16:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that the Wikipedia principles we already have outlined work fine (though it is absolutely clear to me that there are a lot of editors here -- even fairly well established ones -- that are confused by this). It is true that there are some articles on some religious beliefs which stray from best practices. We encounter them from time-to-time on this board and elsewhere. But best-practiced scholarship does not really lend itself to hard-and-fast principles. I have no doubt that it is entirely possible to write excellent articles on Mormon beliefs using many Mormon sources (yes, even scriptural or devotional ones!) with an appropriate framing provided by secondary and tertiary contextual commentary to establish WP:PROMINENCE, notability, and the like. This approach seems to have been lost at many of our articles on Mormonism in favor of a weird "Professor So-and-so at BYU says that this verse in the book of Mormon is about Jesus." Wikipedia should be documenting how widely held such beliefs are and what the consequences of such beliefs are. For example, Mitt Romney was only asked pointed questions about his beliefs a few times on the campaign trail and there is a fascinating thread to follow from that to declaration of the LDS church clarifying (or muddying the waters, according to some) what "strong drinks" were which coincided with a proliferation of self-made soda stations in Utah and now the Stanley cup fad, apparently. Wild stuff -- well documented by third-party sources. There are discussions of Mormon eschatology that sprung up around Mitt Romeny's presidency as well which provide a glorious way of describing how Mormons match and diverge from classic low church beliefs in the same. Oh, there is plenty of excellent article fodder to be had about these topics for Wikipedia. I think our fundamental principles let us know that this is a good approach to these subjects and, indeed, most subjects about religion. jps (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I have no doubt that it is entirely possible to write excellent articles on Mormon beliefs using many Mormon sources (yes, even scriptural or devotional ones!) with an appropriate framing provided by secondary and tertiary contextual commentary to establish WP:PROMINENCE, notability, and the like. This approach seems to have been lost at many of our articles on Mormonism in favor of a weird "Professor So-and-so at BYU says that this verse in the book of Mormon is about Jesus." Agreed with this. What we need is to ensure that these topics can be contextualized by non-adherent perspectives, both to comply with NPOV and FRINGE and to demonstrate notability through attention from independent sources. For the same reasons we can't write an article on an ayurveda or Scientology topic sourced only to reliably-published works by practitioners/adherents, we shouldn't be relying only on LDS authors for appraisal of LDS content or its broad notability. JoelleJay (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

So where would that leave transubstantiation? There are barely any sources which aren't religious, and the rest are histories of religious movements. It's importance is because of its importance in Catholicism and its general rejection in the rest of Christendom. It doesn't matter whether it's a subject of interest to anyone else.

Conversely, I think we can look at (for example) these obscure figures from the BoM and determine that, even within Mormon circles, they are unimportant. My notability test can be summed up as "why should I care?" and the article ideally should give such a reason. When someone writes an article on one of these figures and can't give more than a summary of the textual narrative, the "so what?" light starts blinking and I suspect that the passage has no import in actual Mormon religion. But I don't need non-Mormon sources for that; indeed, it would be Mormon sources that would sway my verdict, or at least sources citing Mormon sources. Mangoe (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mangoe: You wrote: My notability test can be summed up as "why should I care?" and the article ideally should give such a reason. Based on this statement, I believe you have provided a very good notability test that can be applied generally. In the future, if I come across a Wikipedia article and find that the "so what?" light starts blinking, then it's time to start critically assessing sources in that article. Regards, Steve Quinn (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

What's wrong with sourcing to histories of religious movements? And again I think it's fine to source to Catholic scholars (even the actual church orgs can be used to the extent that any primary sources are allowed), there just has to be some broader, independent interest in the topic that treats it dispassionately. The concept of transubstantiation has been a central part of major historical events in human history and is well-documented and discussed by modern non-religious historians, as are the interpretations of and writings on it by Catholics hundreds of years ago. Those are both elements that provide additional distance between modern scholarship and straight exegesis of scripture, something that is much more lacking in new religious movements like LDS. JoelleJay (talk) 05:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with JoelleJay. New religious movements like LDS just don't have the scholarship that surrounds Catholicism (for example). Obviously, this due to the very short existence of LDS. I think sourcing to LDS's history as a religious movement make sense. Off-handedly, I think using non-LDS and non-adherent sources for this history are best. As an aside, I didn't know that transubstantiation has historical importance, nor did I know that it is discussed in modern scholarship. When I have come across transubstantiation I have thought of it as simple symbolic act and nothing more than that. I guess it is more interesting and somehow has more impact than a simple symbolic act. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

One problem to note, re: Mormonism, is that there are a lot of articles on characters from the Book of Mormon, many of which are of very questionable notability. It's one thing to have an article on Nephi, son of Lehi, who I gather is a key figure in the book and who seems to have attracted a fair bit of analysis—a lot of the sources in that article are Mormon-affiliated, but not all. It's another to have an article on Nephi, son of Helaman, whose article is nothing but a summary of the Book of Mormon narrative. A. Parrot (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I actually tagged Nephi, son of Helaman for notability a while back... It was removed by this questionable edit[24] (the added source which allegedly supports notability is not independent so doesn't actually count towards notability... Just more bad scholarship from inside the walled garden). Thats a classic pattern in fringe topic area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• There seems to be a lot of strawmanning in these discussions, with new religionists invoking a non-existent version of Wikipedia where Jesus is 'allowed' to have been resurrected, or Muhamed is 'allowed' to have flown on a horse. In fact, Wikipedia's (settled) religious article tend to split beliefs from scholarship; for example we even split Authorship of the Bible and Biblical inspiration as distinct articles. In other words, we say what adherents believe as one thing, and what scholars/historians say as another thing. The problem with the current Mormonism discussion is that some proponents seem to want to set intermingle, rather than separate, such aspects of the topic. So, for example they want Wikipedia to say that maybe Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, but maybe it was written by God. This is not good as encyclopedic, or any sort, or writing.
  As far as WP:FRINGE goes, when "what adherents believe" spills over into explicit claims made about the real world, Wikipedia will call out nonsense. It happens all the time with (for example) young earth creationism or faith healing. Bon courage (talk) 07:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  If religious material is presented with in text attribution (ie “adherents believe that…” or something similar) then a source written by a note-worthy adherent can be very reliable - as a primary source for that belief. What we need to look out for are authors who hold fringe beliefs within the religion. Blueboar (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, there's that too. A lot of problems can be swerved by avoiding primary texts and relying on the WP:BESTSOURCES (surprise surprise!). Bon courage (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  Sure... but also almost certainly undue unless it gets mentioned by a secondary source, after all by definition their opinion isn't noteworthy unless a reliable independent secondary source find it worthy of note. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not a source that establishes truth on these matters. Notability is established by there being a number of reliable sources on the matter. In general NPOV policy helps guide through these kinds of claims. In general, attribution helps so that the claims rest on the sources, not wikipedia's voice. For these things, secondary sources, introductions from textbooks or even tertiary sources like handbooks help separate the views of the laity and scholars, which sometimes overlap and other times diverge. Scholarship fluctuates and is not static, and religious traditions also vary through time. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is a source that only reports in Wikipedia's voice the truth of these matters. If it is not correct, it should not be in Wikipedia's voice, should be attributed to the person who is making the claim, and explained that it is not true. jps (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Mount Judi

I’ve been busy removing Creationist sources from the article[25] most if not all added by User:Leo1pard. This included 8 external links, 3 to other languages, not sure why, and 5 Creationist sites. Leo1pard has added an EL and removed some text with the edit summary “ topic of Noah and his ark, which this mountain is connected to, isn't acceptable to atheists anyway. “ That of course isn’t true, what is true is that atheists and many Christians don’t believe it ever happened. Also it still discusses the Ark. Anyway, if others could take a look, maybe see if it could be improved, that would be great. Doug Weller talk 18:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

DougWeller Which Christians don't believe in the story of Noah and his ark? Now you're promoting a fringe theory, because all Abrahamic religions (including Islam and Christianity) affirm the story of Noah and his ark, and not just that, other religions like Hinduism have similar beliefs about a great flood! The only people whom I've seen denying the idea of a great flood are atheists or irreligious people, which basically means that the idea of a great flood itself isn't fringe, if not that those who deny it outright are themselves a fringe group! Leo1pard (talk) 04:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC); edited 05:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

American Christians don't believe in the story of Noah and his ark, by and large. Biblical inerrancy is a minority view among Christians in the US (25%) according to Gallup, Inc. polling [26], even among Evangelicals (40%). Levivich (talk) 05:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

So, a fringe group among Christians don't believe in the story of Noah and his ark! This is the first time in which I have heard of this, after all the literature (Christian, Islamic or otherwise) which I have come across regarding Noah and his ark! Leo1pard (talk) 05:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC); edited 05:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The views of the country with the most Christians might be shared in other Christian countries. Levivich (talk) 05:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Might be, but still, Christians who don't believe in the story of Noah and his ark are a fringe group, so this discussion is hypocritical! Leo1pard (talk) 05:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

 *hysterical Levivich (talk) 05:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Christians who don't believe in the story of Noah and his ark are a fringe group According to you. You will certainly need some reliable sources to support that novel claim, along with your desired content at Mount Judi. Really, click HERE and read the material therein, as it is a Wikipedia guideline that you need to understand and follow. And by the way, including an exclamation point at the end of every sentence you write does not strengthen your argument. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 09:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Per the links above, Christians who don't believe the bible is literally true make up a majority of those in the US; it can't be called fringe even among them. Of course, what we consider fringe depends on high-quality WP:RSes, which are even more critical, not on polling of the faithful, or on religious authorities or advocacy groups; but it can't reasonably be called a fringe view even among the Christian public. Catholic Answers, for instance, describes both a literal and non-literal interpretation of the event in question as acceptable even under Catholic teachings. It is possible that your perception otherwise may be affected by a no true Scotsman approach to Christianity; if you only consider those who believe in biblical inerrancy to be "true" Christians then naturally you could characterize any opposition as fringe within the faith. --Aquillion (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Whether a belief is fringe or not isn't determined by the number of people who believe in it, but by how it is assessed by reliable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 10:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Heyukaji and Iskandar323: For the first time in my life, after all the literature which I have read about Noah and his ark (Christian, Islamic or otherwise), somebody tells me that "many Christians" don't believe in the story of Noah and his ark, but the statistics given here (like that 25% of American Christians believe in Biblical inerrancy) demonstrate that this a fringe group! Leo1pard (talk) 07:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC); edited 07:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Someone who don't believe in Biblical inerrancy can still believe in Noa's Ark, right? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

And our guidance on fringe says ": To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. Additionally, in an article about the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be made clear." Doug Weller talk 09:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I think what @Gråbergs Gråa Sång is saying is that belief in Biblical inerrancy isn’t a neat proxy for belief in specific stories or parts of the Bible. But of course that doesn’t give us enough to go the other direction, as well. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång Exactly. JoJo Anthrax So you're saying that I need WP:RS to prove that Christians who don't believe in this topic, which is mainstream in Christianity and other Abrahamic religions, are not a fringe group. Well then, let me ask you, which RS do you have about Christians not believing in the story of Noah and his ark, which is mentioned in Christian and Abrahamic scriptures (namely the New Testament Bible, the Old Testament Bible, and the Quran), and has thus been covered extensively in Christian and Abrahamic literature (which at least means that any Christian denying this topic is not in the majority)? Leo1pard (talk) 12:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

It's the belief that is fringe, not the group. For instance, I wouldn't call the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints] fringe, but their beliefs obviously are fringe. Doug Weller talk 12:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Noah's flood is a myth. It did not happen. It contradicts lots of facts from geology. Therefore, even if every non-geologist in the world believed in it, it would be fringe. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field.

Mormon beliefs: LDS Church theology includes the belief in a Godhead composed of God the Father, his son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost as three separate persons who share a unity of purpose or will; however, they are viewed as three distinct beings. This is in contrast with the predominant Christian view, which holds that God is a Trinity of three distinct persons in one essence.

So Mormon beliefs, like regarding the nature of God, are WP:FRINGE among Christians, because they depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream views of Christians, but which WP:RS says that belief in Noah and his ark is fringe among Christians (who are the world's largest and most widespread religious community, with roughly 2.4 billion followers, comprising around 31.2% of the world population), not to mention that many other people also believe in the story of Noah and the Great Flood? Leo1pard (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC); edited 12:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Leo1pard Did I miss where our article on the main LDS church calls the church fringe? Again, it is ideas that are fringe. You can't be a fringe person but you can hold fringe beliefs. Doug Weller talk 13:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Unless people do answer to the point, which is: the Wiki definition for "fringe theories", the discussion lacks any relevance. Opinions and examples are not proper arguments if they diverge from the topic. Doug Weller has summed up what the Wiki definition is: unless you think he misquoted, or that scholars (anthropologists and geneticians, geologists, climatologists, geographers) believe in the biblical flood and Noah & sons as the sole survivors, this thread must be ended. It's an unwarranted nuisance for those who have this topic on their watchlist to be constantly notified, and find - nothing, really. The private talk can always be continued on user talk pages or project pages. Personally, I am interested in what people think, so putting those links back elsewhere under, say, "supporters of biblical inerrancy", would be of specific interest. But not here. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I landed here via Wikilink and thought I'm on the Mount Judi talk page. The idea remains the same, but part of what I wrote only belongs there, sorry. Arminden (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Belief in Noah's ark is fringe in the sense of being limited solely to individuals with few critical thinking skills. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Some details are disputed (like whether or not the flood was global), but a basic search through the internet (like 25,900,000 results on Google) shows that the very idea of Noah and his ark and the flood is quite the opposite of WP:FRINGE! Leo1pard (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Your Google search is irrelevant on Wikipedia. Quoting from WP:V "The University of California, Berkeley, library states: "Most pages found in general search engines for the web are self-published or published by businesses small and large with motives to get you to buy something or believe a point of view. Even within university and library web sites, there can be many pages that the institution does not try to oversee. Doug Weller talk 17:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

It's the view of there being a worldwide flood that's fringe. Other details (like that there was a flood at all), not really. Leo1pard (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

You need to start bringing sources. This should probably be hatted if you don't per WP:FORUM/ Doug Weller talk 17:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Here's a curious thing. Civilisations that arise on floodplains often have flood myths. Nobody has ever given an adequate explanation as to why. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I don’t have sources to hand… however, I am positive that an overwhelming majority of Christians DON’T believe that the biblical story of Noah’s Ark is factual. I suspect that the majority of Christians believe that it is a myth - At most a cultural memory of a much smaller (but locally devastating) flood that (possibly) occurred in the Tigris/Euphrates River system… and of an ancestor who survived by putting his family and farm animals on a raft. Most understand that the value of the biblical story isn’t its factual accuracy, but the allegorical lesson it teaches (God will stay true to you, as long as you stay true to God - even in adversity). Blueboar (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump, Doug Weller, and Blueboar: Here's an interesting article by the National Geographic on the subject:

Noah’s Ark is among the best known and most captivating of all Old Testament stories: After creating humans, God became so displeased with them that he struck Earth with an all-encompassing flood to wipe them out—with one noteworthy (and seaworthy) exception: the biblical patriarch and his family, accompanied by pairs of each of the planet’s animals, who rode out the deluge in an enormous wooden vessel. ... Stories of destructive floods and those who survive them predate the Hebrew Bible, the oldest parts of which are thought to have been written in the 8th century B.C. ... Could these flood myths be based in fact? “There does seem to be geological evidence that there was a major flood in the Black Sea region about 7,500 years ago,” says National Geographic Explorer Eric Cline, an archaeologist at George Washington University. But scientists disagree on the extent of that event, just as historians of the era differ on whether writings about a deluge were inspired by real life. It seems likelier that floods were simply experienced in different places and at different times—and that those events naturally made their way into the world’s oral and written lore.

So basically, what is particularly controversial (hence WP:FRINGE) is the idea that there was a global flood which wiped out every creature, except for Noah, his family and the animals on board his ark. That a major flood happened at all, inspiring the story of Noah, Manu, Utnapishtim, Ziusudra, Atra-Hasis or Deucalion, cannot be scientifically disproved, because massive or catastrophic floods do happen. Leo1pard (talk) 04:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC); edited 04:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

What do you call a "come to Jesus moment" but when it's a scientific realization? "Come to Darwin"? Levivich (talk) 04:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Some people believe that there was a global flood which wiped out most creatures, that's the WP:FRINGE which doesn't have scientific evidence, not the basic idea of a man (like Noah, Manu, Utnapishtim, Ziusudra, Atra-Hasis or Deucalion) building a vessel to save himself from a natural disaster like a flood. Leo1pard (talk) 05:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Every time there's a flood anywhere, some bloke will get on a raft or floating object - that's not really a specific story. We have the page flood myth for the recurring theme. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

You keep talking about "a flood" when it is actually lots of floods, in places where floods are expeced to happen. Can you please stop using this page as a forum to argue the "you cannot prove I am wrong" canard? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

My friend, you just changed your argument. Earlier, you denied it, and now, you're talking of it as being one of many floods. Let's just agree here that the WP:FRINGE is not in the mere idea of a flood, or that a man built a vessel to protect himself from it, but the idea that there was a global flood which killed most creatures! Leo1pard (talk) 07:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Earlier, you denied it is true. I, along with all of science, deny there was such a thing as a world-wide flood survived by a guy named Noah.

now, you're talking of it as being one of many floods is untrue.

This is not Learn-how-to-be-a-lawyer, this is an encyclopedia. Stop the unconstructive disruption. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

This editor has been adding Creationist nonsense to articles for years.. Doug Weller talk 08:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Also getting into pretty clear WP:BATTLEGROUND territory at this point, I think perhaps we need to not humour this as much. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEON also. Doug Weller talk 10:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

It's hard not to humor this when it's so entertaining. For example, earlier Leo referred to "whether or not the flood was global" as "some details" 😅 pretty sure whether or not the flood was global is the detail in that story.

But sadly you're right, this is all bludgeon, forum, and CIR, and Wikipedia is not here for my amusement.

("Some detail" though 🤣) Levivich (talk) 13:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm still hankeren for more details. Isaiah 11:12 'from the four corners of the earth’ presupposes a flat earth. How did them thair fludwhoretars stop from fallen offa the earth?Nishidani (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nishidani: You just explained how the flood ended and you think it is evidence against the story? Zero^talk 01:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Umm, eh, well, what about this? Nishidani (talk) 10:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Where can I meet some of them fludwhoretars? I'll set 'em straight. Carlstak (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Well it all makes sense. It's easier to flood the earth if it's flat, you just pour the water on top. For a round earth, you have to do it twice to get both sides. Levivich (talk) 06:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Brant Gardner

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brant Gardner. Please comment. jps (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Black Legend

• Black legend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Black Legend of the Spanish Inquisition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Black Legend (Spain) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please, can someone make sense of this? I'm pretty sure the Spanish Inquisition happened and was horrible. Compare Holocaust denial, I guess.

jps (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Not really a good comparison. Here's an encyclopedia definition:

The Black Legend (“La Leyenda Negra”) portrays the Spanish people as more cruel, greedy, and ignorant than other Europeans. A Spanish journalist, Julián Juderías, coined the term in 1912, but the literature on which it is based dates to the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. Spain was at that time Europe's greatest power. The Revolt of the Netherlands, Spain's war with England, and the Thirty Years' War provoked a flood of anti-Spanish propaganda, while Spain's commitment to the Counter-Reformation terrified European Protestants. For more than a century, Dutch, English, and French writers produced scores of books and pamphlets that tried to arouse popular sentiment against Spain and its people. Some of these works were pure fiction, but most drew their inspiration from reports of Spanish atrocities in the Netherlands or, above all, in the conquest of America.

— "Black Legend". The Oxford Companion to World Exploration.

But also here is Henry Kamen's opinion in The Spanish Inquisition :

The anti-Spanish attitudes are sometimes referred to as a “Black Legend,” but no such notion existed in the sixteenth century or even later. The term was invented in 1914 by a Castilian nationalist writer, Julián Juderías, who felt that Protestant foreigners and progressive Spaniards had systematically been defaming his country; in defense, he sought a label to pin on their attitudes. Persistent employment of the label for ideological ends in order to rebut any criticism of Spain’s imperial record has made it both unsuitable to use and inaccurate.

You've probably dug up quite a bit of work there in checking sources to make sure WP is not slipping into that mode of employment. A further problem tho is that the article should have never been split off to Black Legend (Spain). Black Legend as some kind of general "historiographical phenomenon" is from Elvira Roca Barea's Imperiofobia y Leyenda Negra. I haven't looked for any reviews, but this is almost certainly a minority definition in what is pretty extensive La Leyenda Negra literature. fiveby(zero) 01:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

After looking more at the articles, maybe the split is an opportunity to make some lemonade? Ignore the useless trash at Black Legend (Spain) and Black Legend of the Spanish Inquisition, confine Roca Barea's damn Imperiofobia to her own biography, then write a best sources article at Black legend. Think that would fly? fiveby(zero) 04:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

What are we going to do about this? AfD?

This is a lot thicker than most fringe problems I've encountered.

jps (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Given that @Boynamedsue: has spent a lot of time trying to clean up the Black Legend (Spain) article, I think asking them for their input on what to do with these articles is advisable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for tagging me Hemiauchenia. Black Legend (Spain) is the one I have had most contact with. It is really unwieldy and the sections on the "origin theories" are just crap, but it does need to exist. I personally share the view that the Spanish Black Legend is largely not a real thing, but the theory has been written about a lot by respectable historians of Latin America. I would argue for Roca Barea's inclusion in that article, due to her current prominence in Spain and the comparative quality of her critics. The fact that she damns herself with her arrant nonsense is actually quite useful for putting the whole thing in perspective.

Strangely enough, I had never seen Black Legend of the Spanish Inquisition. It's quite bad, seemingly taking the existence of the legend for granted.

I would tend to agree that splitting the articles was a mistake, I could even see the value of merging all three articles. Contrary to what I said about Black Legend (Spain), I think Roca Barea's theories are given far too much prominence in Black Legend. She is a published writer on history, but not an academic historian. Her theories are generally discussed by serious historians only with regard to Spain, and only critically. I have actually added quite a lot of criticism to the Spain page, but more has been published since then. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that one article at Black Legend should exist, but also thinking there are maybe three major intertwined ways the term has been employed. Might call these 'Old World', 'New World' and 'Theory'. William S. Maltby provides the description for The Oxford Companion to World Exploration and i think this is an 'Old World' look, his The Black Legend in England, 1558-1660 was 1971. This is some support for Juderías' argument, all this polemical Reformation literature and Spanish stereotypes. The 'New World' look, in Latin American studies, dealing primarily with the record of conquest and with Las Casas as the focus. Hotly debated more than fifty years ago, with apologies, hagiographies, nationalist writings, revisionism, and 'White Legend'. This is important content tho it may look dated to us. Can you imagine an historian using 'legend' or a title containing "...Spanish Struggle for Justice in the Conquest of America" today in the context of colonialism?

The 'Theory', is seemingly that there is ...no consensus on whether the phenomenon persists in the present day. This looks to be the way the two split-off articles have been structured, making an argument and just using selected quotes in support. Did we expect to see a "consensus" among serious historians and those expounding the 'Theory'? I'm satisfied that there is not. fiveby(zero) 16:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Made a merge proposal, see Talk:Black_legend#Proposal_to_merge_Black_Legend_(Spain)_into_this_article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Massacre of the innocents

Massacre of the Innocents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

[27] I'm pretty sure we shouldn't be including biblical literalist commentary in any page on biblical scholarship. Please, someone explain why a Young Earth Creationist deserves to have his views detailed in long paragraph style as though they are "counterpoint". jps (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The murder of the innocents, so far I am aware, is a folklore trope. That our Wikipedia article has it as specific to solely one of its recyclings, and dallies with the idea that this one might be the Truth is classic WP:PROFRINGE, and editors rushing to defend wikivoiced sentences like this really make you wonder ...

However, while the author seemed to model the wording of the narrative on the story of Moses, this does not explain whether the Mosaic model was the origin of the episode, or a comment on a historical event.

Bon courage (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

In any case, I have a WP:WRONGVERSION version. [28] I thin it is far better than the one the editors are reverting back to while sticking their fingers in their ears about literalism. Would love any input on the matter on the talkpage or in the article history. Maybe you can crush it down better? jps (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Are they a noted expert, wait its not an SPS, maybe this needs to be at RSN, and not here. Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

They are a noted apologist. They are not a noted expert on the evidence for what parts of the bible are historical. They have an agenda as a biblical literalist to prove the entire bible is true. jps (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

They are an academic who was a professor of ancient history. That seems to me to be a pass, so take it to RSN. Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

You can have fringe professors (especially when they move outside their field). You can have fringe nobelists (as we know)! So this would seem to be a fringe question. Everybody is "reliable" for their pronouncements, but is it fringe/due? Bon courage (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Right, that's not at all rare. Carlo Rotella explained this well in "Pulp History". I wrote a brief synopsis for Wikipedia at WP:PULP. Someone's work in apologetics does not become reliable because of their work in a different field, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry what? It only needs to go to RSN if the talk page discussion has been exhausted without reaching a consensus, this one literally just began. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Don't mind, Slatersteven. He approaches things in an idiosyncratic legalistic way that can often safely be ignored. He's much better at Wikipedia-ing than when he started years ago, but sometimes the old officiousness breaks through. :) We'll stay talking about it here, no problem. It's definitely a fringe matter. jps (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Slow-mo edit war continues: [29] Seems some people really want there to be a "yeahbut" about whether or not this thing happened. jps (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Linguistics and the Book of Mormon

This looks like a collection of fringe linguistics. I suspect it needs heavy TNT Big Money Threepwood (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

There is some good stuff there, though some of it isn't "linguistics" but instead "word choice". I put a cleanup tag up and started the exhausting process of trying to see what to do about this. jps (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Denis Rancourt

• Denis Rancourt (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Deleting bad sources is "ideologically motivated" now. More eyes would be useful. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

This article reads like a list of bad actions, rather than a biography of the individual. Maybe it needs a change of scope, such as Denis Rancourt legal disputes. Otherwise, I think this needs WP:TNT and rebuilt from scratch. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this basically reads as a recount of his legal troubles rather than as a biography. Any fix won't be easy though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

But if he hasn’t done anything else notable, what else is there to say about him? Dronebogus (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

That's the problem. If the only notability is the controversies, then the article should be focused around the controversies. Not billed as a WP:BLP about the subject himself. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Problematic WP:FALSEBALANCE user does not want to listen to me. Seems to think that the low quality of sources is my WP:IDONTLIKEIT problem. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

He's edit warring too. 208.87.236.202 (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

And PG has shown up to spew his usual crap towards climate science. 208.87.236.202 (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Max Lugavere

Max Lugavere is a social media diet influencer similar to Steven Gundry who is known to promote pseudoscientific claims about supplements. An IP is repeatedly trying to remove this source from the article [30] Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

This is false, supplements are not core to Max Lugavere's message. Psychologist Guy appears to be biased (he edits vegan/vegetarian articles) and Max Lugavere routinely warns about the potential risks of veganism. Max is a regular guest on many mainstream TV outlets, has published books and scientific reviews, is generally credible as a health and science journalist, and does not sell supplements of his own unlike Steven Gundry. The editor is attempting to make this a top-line critic of Max's, which is inappropriate. The editor also removed edits that were pertinent to Max's biographical information for no apparent reason. 76.50.244.14 (talk) 04:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

While the CoI of promotion and selling supplements is a problem, it doesn't particularly matter in the end. Anyone claiming supplements do stuff for which there is insufficient evidence is likely to be criticised. A famous example of this is probably Linus Pauling. AFAIK, he never got particularly involved in selling supplements, but his promotion of them is quite rightfully called out extensively in our article as it's a commonly touched on a great deal in sources on Pauling. And Pauling also did a lot of other good and significant work which doesn't seem to be the case for Lugavere. Incidentally, I find it incredibly unlikely Lugavere has actually published any scientific reviews, at least in any credibly peer reviewed journal. Nil Einne (talk) 11:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Max Lugavere is not published in peer-review, so the claim that he has published "scientific reviews" is false. He has no medical or nutritional training. He is not a neurologist but makes many false claims about neurology and nutrition. If you check his YouTube channel he promotes the carnivore diet. For example only yesterday Shawn Baker was on his podcast [31]. Here is Mark Hyman on Max Lugavere's podcast [32] "How To REVERSE AGING, Prevent Disease & Live to 120+! YEARS OLD". Say no more. This is the sort of pseudoscience this guy promotes. The claim that he is a "credible" health science journalist is obviously not true. If you check other fad diet "influencers" he promotes on his podcast, it's is like a Who's Who of the low-carb pseudoscience world - Steven Gundry, Dave Asprey, William Davis, Mark Hyman, Jason Fung, Mark Sisson, David Perlmutter are all regular speakers [33] on his podcast which he hosts. Here is Max Lugavere promoting functional medicine [34], a well known pseudoscience. Let's not pretend this guy is promoting nutritional science, practically everything he says about nutrition is inaccurate or wrong. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a highly biased take. Max having different voices on his podcast is not a damnation of his own recommendations, and his work has been evidence-based. He promotes omnivory, not a "high" meat diet, and does not sell supplements. Further, the claim that he has not published a scientific review is false, as you can see here: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-93497-6_14. Psychologist Guy is clearly emotionally triggered by Max, which simply should negate his ability to edit Max's Wikipedia page, if this is a site meant to share objective facts and truth. Max has also had many credible, evidence-based guests on his podcast - Alan Aragon (multiple times), Layne Norton, to name a few - and has contributed lots of good work into the field, including his scientific review, advocacy on TV and beyond. Further, a podcast is an entertainment platform, and should not ultimately lead to "guilt by association" for Max's apparent desire to have interesting conversations. 76.50.244.14 (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you need to take most of this to the talk page and the IP user, who appears to be a single purpose account, needs to disclose any COIs if any exist and knock off the personal attacks. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

76.50.244.14 all misinformation. Max Lugavere is not "evidence-based". Here he is on Paul Saladino's podcast [35] promoting all kinds of nonsense. A book chapter is not a medical review. This IP should be blocked per WP:3RR per their own edit history [36], as they are still making the same reverts. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Please quote specific claims that Max makes that are not evidence based. The mere appearance on a fringe podcast is not sufficient to deem Max Lugavere is "not evidence based". Further, many of your links are multiple years old. The supplement claim link is 6 years old. The functional medicine link is 7 years old. Let's remain neutral and objective here. 76.50.244.14 (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Only yesterday Shawn Baker appeared on his podcast promoting the carnivore diet and Max agreed with it [37]. If he is evidence-based why is he enabling and promoting the carnivore diet? Pretty much everything he says is against the clinical and health guidelines of medical organizations. He often tells people there is no link between red meat and any negative effect [38]. For example, he claimed on Twitter "The evidence linking red meat to poor health is exceedingly weak" and often tells people to eat a steak everyday and organic meats [39]. Max also promotes the consumption of beef testicles [40]. The link between cancer and red meat is not weak, we have decades of research on this. All the leading cancer organizations world-wide tell people to limit red meat, not increase it.

We have an article on red meat. There is good evidence that high red meat intake increases bowel cancer risk. Here is the World Cancer Research Fund International, "There is strong evidence that consumption of either red or processed meat are both causes of colorectal cancer" [41] and the American Cancer Society, "evidence that red and processed meats increase cancer risk has existed for decades, and many health organizations recommend limiting or avoiding these foods" [42]. The World Health Organization have said the same.

Max Lugavere like other low-carb advocates also claims incorrectly that vegetable oils and seeds themselves are toxic for health [43], Joe Rogan & Max Lugavere discuss that SEEDS ARE A MAJOR PROBLEM [44]. This is typical misinformation found in the carnivore diet community. Neither seeds or vegetable oils are toxic or a "major problem". All health guidelines around the world recommend vegetable oils and seeds. There is no evidence they are bad for health. Here he claims rapeseed oil is a poison [45]. Rapeseed oil is far from poison, it's recommended by the American Heart Association. This guy is the opposite of evidence-based. He promotes all kinds of conspiracy theories about food. He believes he is correct and the entire medical community is wrong. He doesn't have one sensible suggestion. I have studied fad diet promoters for 20 years. I can tell you this guy ticks all the boxes. Let's not waste time discussing this anymore. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Max Lugavere now complaining on his talk-page [46] and on Twitter [47] Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Paracas Candelabra

The geoglyph itself isn't fringe, but recent additions are[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paracas_Candelabra&action=history]

Suddenly this Peruvian geoglyph is being edited to claim it was made by "Lord Indra". 3 IPs add this, then a brand new editor adding copyvio, then another IP followed by an editor who's been here since 2009 but this is only their 65th edit. So I'm wandering into content edit-warring country myself trying to deal with this fringe as except for User:Discospinster I'm the only one reverting. Doug Weller talk 09:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

That article has some pretty noticeable issues even without the weirdness from the IPs and copyvios. Looking now, the history section cites not a single source for any of its statements. 50.234.188.27 (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Atlas Network

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

A sentence summarizing a number of RS articles on fossil fuel and tobacco causes promoted by the Atlas Network has been removed from the second paragraph of the article. Atlas Network has been mentioned in passing previously on this noticeboard. Cited RS describe Atlas as important in the climate denial movement. I began a talk page discussion here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llll5032 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Stephen Sinatra

This guy was an alternative medicine, low-carb influencer and cholesterol/statin denialist who wrote a bunch of pseudoscientific books. Article needs to be cleared up and fixed, any help appreciated. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Liverpolitan identity

I have created a new page called Liverpolitan identity. I would prefer to call it Liverpolitan but the page is currently the subject of an AFD as a candidate for deletion and I am not able to change the title. Could anyone please help if this is the right place to flag this article? Can it be flagged whilst it is under an AFD? I would like someone to determine whether this article is strictly a fringe subject. A few editors have suggested it might be. If that is the case, what is the best way to deal with its content. The article explains the history of the word 'Liverpolitan' and concludes with the modern interpretation that this words represents an identity within a wider Liverpool area. This has caused a few editors to suggest that this goes against the prevailing view and is not noteworthy enough for its own article. Happy to explain more for those not familiar. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's a fringe issue here, it's more that it's just an uncommon synonym for "Liverpudlian". There doesn't seem to be a real distinction. It should probably redirect to Liverpool, as for "Liverpudlian" and "Scouser", if it's needed at all. Brunton (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

It has caused a bit of a stir amongst a handful of editors. Unfortunately one editor has flagged it for deletion. I just need to know what to do and if there is an 'authority' on Wiki that can say definitively either way. Do you think the article is fair, well sourced and notable enough in its presentation? Are you suggesting a redirect and keep the page title as it is? Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 08:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no 'authority' of that sort, decisions are taken by consensus and with reference to Wikipedia's policies etc. Many of the sources just seem to be about Liverpool generally, so it has issues with WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. If an article on the Liverpool cultural identity is to exist at all, it should be at Liverpudlian or Scouse identity, as these are the synonyms more often used. Brunton (talk) 09:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks, the reason I introduced this article is because as much as Scouser is more well known - Scouse is an accent and a dialect - which has its own separate page. The term Liverpolitan is much older and predates the Scouse identity by many decades according the sources. I didn't think it was fair to unfairly portray the Liverpolitan term as a synonym for Scouser since the term predates it. I think this is what has caused some confusion amongst editors. The article also explains how the term differs to 'Liverpudlian'. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 09:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

From the sources (and indeed the article) there doesn't seem to be any real distinction between "Liverpolitan" and "Liverpudlian", other than the former having apparently been used to refer to 'posher' Liverpudlians at some point in the past. If no such distinction can be made by reference to WP:RS then there shouldn't be a separate article.

As I said, I don't think there's a fringe issue here, but if there is then, per WP:FRINGE, the encyclopaedia should reflect the mainstream position, which is clearly that the commonly used terms are Liverpudlian and Scouser. Brunton (talk) 10:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

This aligns with my thinking Brunton (previously put on the deletion page). "Liverpolitan" on its own is a DICDEF. "Liverpolitan identity" as a subject lacks sufficient sourcing to give the name Liverpolitan primacy over more common terms of Liverpudlian or Scouser. Its only novelty is very recent attempts to use it as Demonym for the populace of the Liverpool City Region - but there's a dearth of sources actually supporting it, instead most articles being a rejection of it, or discussion of its historical origin. Koncorde (talk) 11:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The article does portray the main demonym and makes that clear. I would like other people to contribute to it so it reaches consensus, not just a sole contribute. There are also differences between Scouser, Liverpudlian and Liverpolitan. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 12:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a noticeboard. It is a board for posting notices. Sometimes discussions happen here too, but if there is no connection whatsoever between the discussion and the subject of the noticeboard, as in this case, the discussion does not belong here. Can you please continue somewhere else, preferably on the article Talk page? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

This is clear forum shopping. as this matter was addressed recently at AN/I I would suggest that Liverpolitan1980 should drop the WP:STICK. Simonm223 (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Joseph Davidovits

There's an IP at the talk page complaining about lack of sources. It looks as though it needs more and may be slightly tilted towards his views. Doug Weller talk 17:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems that his assertions about how the pyramids were built might be discussed by other sources in the article. I think the question is, does the mention or discussion in the sources amount to significant coverage? I started a discussion on the talk page if anyone is interested in helping to analyze the sources. Also, is there evidence that Davidovits received the Ordre national du Mérite? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

essays on Alternative Egyptology

ALTERNATIVE EGYPTOLOGY Critical essays on the relation between academic and alternative interpretations of ancient Egypt Edited by B.J.L. van den Bercken | 2024 free to read online at [48] Doug Weller talk 17:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Journal of Controversial Ideas

I've started seeing citations to the Journal of Controversial Ideas popping up on articles about social science and the humanities and they're being used to support some pretty fringey statements such as the assertion that bias between political ideologies is a greater problem in the United States than racism. I reviewed a few of their more philosophical articles and found the scholarship lacking at best to be blunt. The journal is also associated with the fringe Effective Altruism movement. I wanted to make sure the board was on notice that, despite this journal being "peer reviewed" it is, in fact, quite fringe and should be approached with apprehension as a source. Simonm223 (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. It's a very poor journal. They published a paper claiming bestiality is "morally defensible". They have also published a paper written by an anonymous pedophile. A dodgy and very unreliable journal. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Take it to RSN? Doug Weller talk 22:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a fringe journal. I notified the fringe board to be alert for it. That's all.Simonm223 (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I think Doug was recommending that maybe RSN discussions could identify it for inclusion in WP:RSPS as a no-go source (which is probably a good thing to do for anything but WP:ABOUTSELF type stuff). jps (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it is a fringe journal. It does publish controversial ideas - hence the name - but controversial ideas are not necessarily fringe topics. Peter Singer and Jeff McMahan are both respected figures in philosophy (controversial figures, but nevertheless respected). There is a question as to reliability, as the authors can choose to publish under a psuedonym, but it is peer-reviewed and is not predatory, so I think the reliability will be situational, as the main use I can see for it is to reference ideas of authors when those authors are not using psuedonyms. - Bilby (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The journal is fairly well-panned by the relevant academic communities. It's basically a journal for papers that were rejected by others. Not great. jps (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Interesting journal! The contents are not unusually fringe for a philosophy journal. Philosophers love to make controversial arguments, as making arguments is what it is all about. Some fringe opinions are expressed, but also some fringe opinions are demolished (see the article by Alan Sokol for example). I don't think this journal warrants special general treatment but, as for every journal, each citation is subject to its own consideration. Zero^talk 08:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that I'm well-read in philosophy. And as someone who is quite well-read in the subject I would assert that, despite its popularity among foolish silicon valley types, Effective Altruism is a fringe philosophical position. It's the association of the journal with EA combined with its regular publication of explicitly racist / "race realist" and authors who try to de-center racism from discourses on bias in anglosphere politics, which makes me call it a fringe journal. Simonm223 (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

And as for Alan Sokal, most of his attack on post-structuralism simply belied the shallowness of his reading on the subject. Although I do know that, among people who aren't familiar with the subject, he has a certain cachet. Simonm223 (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm curious. How do you see effetcive altruism as inherently connected with the journal? A search of the journal for the term didn't result in any hits. The best I could find was an article about Self-Sacrificing Altruism. - Bilby (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Its founders are also among the founders of the EA movement and one of the key purposes of the journal are to try and launder some of EA's weird post-utilitarian ideas and eugenicism into an academia that is increasingly hostile to EA. Simonm223 (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok. So it is mostly conjecture, then? I'm not seeing that as a major concern. - Bilby (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

"Zoophilia Is Morally Permissible" written by a pseudonym [49]. No academic journal would publish offensive garbage like this. This is as fringe as it gets. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if I found out that the person behind that pseudonym was James Lindsay or one of his pals trying to perpetuate their Sokal Square hoax again. But, yeah, the journal's tendency to publish articles pseudonymously is certainly one mark against their credibility. Simonm223 (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually I don't need to keep in mind what you are well-read in, just as you are free to not care about my qualifications. "Effective altruism" is mentioned in only one article that doesn't rely on it, so I don't see that as an argument. (Now I see "eugenicism"; I think that's simply ridiculous.) This journal deliberately aims for "controversial" analyses. Actually, very few philosophers would disagree that critically analysing social norms is one of the duties of their profession. I think that that's a good thing; opinions that challenge our own should be welcomed not suppressed. Zero^talk 13:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a difference between "suppressing" ideas and "rejecting" them from publication. "Do better at scholarship" is not censorship. jps (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, unless it was an academic journal dedicated to the exploration of controversial ideas, I guess. Such a journal probably would explore extremes of morality.

I know the author of that article. It was not Lindsay. It is extreme, but so was A Modest Proposal and many others that tried to get people to think about logical consequences of arguments. Proposing controversial ideas in a journal specifically dedicated to exploring controversial ideas doesn't seem fringe in itself. - Bilby (talk) 13:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, its attempt at satire was as obvious as it was tedious. But, again, publishing satire as if it were scholarship is a good example of fringe behaviour. Simonm223 (talk) 13:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we have a clear difference of opinion as to what constitutes fringe. - Bilby (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if you know about the history of this journal. Basically it all started when a far-right academic Noah Carl lost his job. Peter Singer and Jeff McMahon [50], [51] rushed to defend Carl in so called defence of academic freedom. Shortly after this, the journal was founded. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Since the journal was announced before Noah Carl was appointed, there is a chronological problem with your claim. Zero^talk 13:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no chronological issue. Noah Carl's university had already received 2 months of complaints before that Guardian piece had been written. This isn't in public record, but the first group of researchers to complain about Noah Carl were from an animal ethics journal, I know this because I know the researchers. Basically Carl is an anti-vegan who opposes animal ethics, a group of researchers did some research into him and discovered he has strong alt-right connections. This is old news so it doesn't really matter now but back in 2018 I was contacted to complain about Carl but I declined. I am in contact with a lot of the people who publish on animal ethics, so I am aware about what goes on. Some of the academics involved in animal ethics are usually criticized on social media platforms and they had enough of this. Noah Carl is currently a writer for a white nationalist magazine so he has never changed his views.

Francesca Minerva the other co-founder of Journal of Controversial Ideas also defended Carl [52]. If there was no drama involving Noah Carl, the journal would have never been founded. If you look at early reports of the journal, the Noah Carl drama was always mentioned [53], [54] but has never been officially connected to the journal. BTW one of Carl's racist supporters is a banned Wikipedia troll Jonathan Kane. He was one of the first people to publish a paper in the Journal of Controversial Ideas. A lot of the people involved with the journal hold far-right views. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Another red flag for me is that Nigel Biggar is on editorial board [55]. He has spoken on white nationalists podcasts [56]. Noah Carl was a speaker at an event hosted by Biggar [57] back in 2019. The most disturbing thing about this journal is that they have published a paper by an anonymous pedophile [58]. They have not added any criticisms of the paper. The Wikipedia article is currently highly biased in favour of the journal. As an IP noted on the talk-page. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to improve the article itself as was proposed but very few outlets are willing to discuss or touch the Journal with a ten-foot pole unless they've got some words of glowing praise to offer, as did a writer for City Journal last year: [59] Appreciate if there's anything you find that can help balance out the viewpoint. Reconrabbit 19:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

City Journal is a Manhattan Institute mouthpiece generally unreliable for anything but serving as rightwing agitprop. jps (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not overly impressed by arguments based on by guilt-by-association, and it seems that this gets down to not agreeing with the controversial ideas that have been published (which seems unsurprising given that they are controversial ideas) and not liking some of the people who are not directly involved with the journal. Anyway, I still can't see how this makes it fringe, although it is clear that the journal has published fringe ideas. The real question is what to do with it. I'm not seeing any inherent reliability issues, given that the only use of it for referencing seems to me to be to reference that either ideas exist or that people have expressed certain ideas, and given that it is a peer-reviewed academic journal it seems as reliable for those claims as any other. Is it being used for statements of fact beyond those? - Bilby (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

When the general assessment of independent academics say it's not a good source, we should believe them. So far, I have seen those who are affiliated with the journal praise it. I have not seen anyone independent of it have much more than harsh criticism. jps (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

RSN discussion on reliability of CNN for transgender medical topics

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_CNN_for_transgender_topics This discussion may be of interest. Partofthemachine (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

What is the fringe claim here? Candied Taters (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

This feels wildly inappropriate to post here, to be perfectly honest. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Huberman

• Andrew Huberman (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

is a very hot topic[60] at the moment, especially with recent published material referring to his podcast as containing pseudoscience/ More wise eyes could help. Bon courage (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I doubt the usefulness of including David Berson's input on this guy's podcast in the end there. Reconrabbit 18:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)