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:

Living Dinosaurs, Young Earth Creationism, and quackery abound at Mokele-mbembe

Recently @Kiyoweap: restored a plethora of WP:RS violations and WP:PROFRINGE material I'd removed from Mokele-mbembe. These references include a tremendous amount of unabashedly fringe, including material sourced to Young Earth creationists (William J. Gibbons) and a boatload of cryptozoology quacks, including references to Roy Mackal's notorious A Living Dinosaur?. Prior to the user's restoration of fringe material, I started two threads on the article's talk page. They received no response.

Anyway, article needs some eyes, particularly as this user has a long history of edit-warring in favor pseudoscience on the site (lately, notably where Young Earth creationism and cryptozoology intersect). Pinging editors who frequently work in these corners: @Tronvillain:, @LuckyLouie:, and @Katolophyromai: :bloodofox: (talk) 22:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The edit might have been a little over the top, especially since it eliminated most of the modern cryptozoologist material covered by Prothero and Loxton. I'm sure it was a work in progress, but as it was there was nothing left in the body actually explaining the modern conception of "Mokele-mbembe." --tronvillain (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I was in fact stubifying the article to make way to rewrite the section, and all the references I pulled were in violation of WP:FRIND. However, under no circumstances is it OK to restore material to this guy as a reliable source. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Ye gads. There is no reason why we should be giving cryptozoology so much unwarranted attention here. Thirty-two sections about different expeditions to find the creature? Furthermore, I notice that neither the original version with all the expeditions nor the redacted version give any detailed information about what the actual Congo people say about the creature, presumably because their stories are not supportive of the idea that the mokele-mbembe is a "living dinosaur." Just about all we hear about their stories is in the first sentence, where the mokele-mbebe is described as "a water-dwelling entity, sometimes described as a living creature, sometimes as a spirit" and later in the first section, which quotes Hagenbeck's description of the creature from the Congo natives as "half elephant, half dragon." I assume there surely must be at least some reliable sources that have been written documenting what the Congo people themselves say about the mokele-mbebe. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Knock it off Bloodofox. You removed 32k bytes of material, thus gutting the article.

Tronvillain too thought the purge was excessive ("little over the top").

Now you're trying to paint me as "in favor [of] pseudoscience". If I revert your major purge, it does not translate to my endorsing Gibbons as a source of highest reliablilty. Give me a fricking break.--Kiyoweap (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Have you considered not writing essays in talk page edit descriptions? --tronvillain (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

That would indeed be nice. On top of that, restoring Gibbons is indeed par for the course for Kiyoweap's edits here, which seem to be locked in 'pro-pseudoscience or revert-war, now' mode. Given the support for Gibbons and other quacks in the cryptozoology circle (and then the backtracking when called on it here), I think a deeper look into the user's edit history might be merited. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Arguably a revert does not necessarily imply endorsement of all content contained within that revert. --tronvillain (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Given Kiyoweap's other edits, such as aggressively pushing to employ works by cryptozoologists as reliable sources, I think an assumption of a pro-Gibbons stance fits in just fine with what we've seen so far (for example, today's best known living cryptozoologist, Loren Coleman also employs Gibbons as a reliable source and provides a glowing introduction to his work in Coleman and Jerome Clark's Cryptozoology from A to Z — quite typical of the pseudoscience/subculture). That said, if the user is in fact currently not pushing for more Gibbons and Coleman as a reliable source on Wikipedia but is instead simply not bothering to read what he is reverting, that raises another set of questions entirely (and of course still means he's reinserting pseudoscience into the article). :bloodofox: (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I believe the user has been warned in the past about sanctions. If so, take it to WP:AE. jps (talk) 15:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they have been alerted to discretionary sanctions in the pseuodoscience area, and I've now given them a final warning. I'm surprised at Kiyoweap's statement (and edit summary) above, and also at Tronvillain's apparent agreement with them that "a revert does not necessarily imply endorsement of all content contained within that revert." Sure it does. If an editor wishes to endorse part of the removed material, they should do a partial revert, rather than continuing for several days to edit war to reinsert content that it turns out they don't even mean to endorse. Or else they can do a full revert and then reasonably promptly remove the inappropriate part of the content they restored. Kiyoweap did the opposite; after the original full revert,[1] they added 11 books in the form of a bibliography,[2] which Bloodofox had removed as "fringe sources" in a separate edit.[3] Thus Kiyoweap went on to compound rather than modify their previous restoration of fringe sourcing. (I can't parse their edit summary, but if the intention was to involve User:Sandstein, who had made a minor technical edit, in some responsibility for this version for the fringe bibliography, that would be absurd.) Bishonen | talk 16:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC).

I'm just saying it doesn't necessarily- whether it does or not in this case is another matter. People do knee jerk reversions because they don't like change without even really looking at the content or sources, or people can think the content is good even if the sourcing is currently bad but are too lazy to look at and remove the sources themselves. That in this case they didn't then go to the talk page themselves and edit warred (after my comment I believe) makes this case more problematic. --tronvillain (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

As for prompt action, it has only been 2-3 days, and that is not a whole lot of time for assess 32 kilobytes worth of content-gutting. I think user:Bishonen is being a bit too strict here.

I mean Bloodfox admitted he was stubifying the article to make way to rewrite the section. Why is it okay for a pending edit drag on for the same number of days for other editors? That's called a double-standard.

Right now I can only still sketch out my impending change crudely, but 1) Powell and Mackal expeditions are WP:DUE weight material 2) POV external link to a podcast by Prothero[4] supposedly connected with the MonsterQuest show, which starts with a theme from the Flintstones followed by a mocking narrative. 3) William Gibbons's books, webpages can be replaced. Gibbon's expeditions being given no appreciable coverage is fine. 4) Clark, an non-sci trained author's book from small press is not the ideal source, but some sort of backbone content is desirable.--Kiyoweap (talk) 07:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Strict? I don't think so, Kiyoweap. It didn't have to be done all at once. A never so tiny edit, in the space of 2-3 days, to remove, say, Gibbons and Coleman, would have looked a lot better than what you did: edit-warring with three different editors to restore the material in toto. Also, do you have any explanation for this edit? Or for your aggressive notes to jps, complaining that he, who had reverted twice, to your own three times, was edit warring? You are apparently not aware of jps's formidable presence on this board over the years. That's OK in itself, you don't have to be. But when you don't know somebody's record, you'd be safer not to condescend to them with remarks like "Do not make drive-by visits to WP:FT/N and read a couple of postings on threads and imagine yourself to be able to make a well-considered decision". Furthermore, you have not set foot on the article's talkpage. I have trouble understanding why you didn't answer this, for instance. My advice for the proposed change you outline above would be to finalize it and then post it on talk for discussion. Of course that's not an order; you're free to instead post it as incremental additions directly to the article, giving others time to react before you add more. But IMO the talkpage would be preferable in a case like this, to give a chance for consensus to form while avoiding a lot of back-and-forth on the article itself. Edit summaries are not a discussion forum; that's what the talkpage is for. Bishonen | talk 10:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC).

Bishonen, of course 2 days is sufficient time some tiny gestural edits. But giving tiny concessions and representing this as only a partial revert hardly seems more good faith than doing an outright revert and saying so.

What I meant of course was 2 days was not ample time to make meaningful well-researched change. You're can't really make a time-assessment unless you've actually read the article and done the sourcing and fact-checking to see how tricky it is, viz.:

#1979: Thomas section stated that Rev. Eugene "Gene" Thomas had already heard stories of the 1959 Pygmy hunt and had 2 encounters himself in 1979 (prior to being engaged as the interpretor for the 1980: Mackal-Powell expedition). Which is significant information. The sources in the paragraph was a Gibbons websource and Coleman's Cryptomundo web source which are not desirable sourcing. Although I tried, I could nto find substantiation in Powell's paper and Mackal's book. So the situation where we have significant content I would like to retain, but it can apparently only be sourced using Gibbons book (communiqué to Crytpmundo /thomas-obit/). (Be warned that visiting Cryptomundo launches JSCoinminer Website)

Bishonen, I just botched my first revert using "undo" here because that coupled the old text with the new bibliography, causing harv error messages, so I had to do a double-take. It was just a mistake. To "compound rather than modify" wasn't what was on my mind.

In the retake I opted to version "851951305 by Sandstein" rather than "850193355 by Bloodofox" because there was no difference in the two, and Sandstein's edit was the easier to pick out from the crowded revision history. The suggestion that this was an attempt by me to blame this user for something is bizarre.I don't think you have so far taken me entirely in bad faith, I would like to see things otherwise.--Kiyoweap (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Before madly mashing that revert button at any user who comes by, I might suggest that you get very familiar with WP:FRIND, because any attempts to reintroduce fringe sources without a reliable source putting them into context will be met with resistance. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

"cryptozoology quacks" Bloodofox, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons also applies to talk pages, stop writing accusations about BLPs. Quackery specifically refers to "fraudulent or ignorant medical practices", and this in not the case here. Dimadick (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I believe the standard Wikipedia term for pushers of such fringe "science" is lunatic charlatans. Black Kite (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes I wanted to bring up Dimadick's point. It is undignified to refer to Prof. Mackal in that way, and I'm disappointed admins dont caution him to tone it down. Unfortunately the professor is no longer living, so BLP does not apply. --Kiyoweap (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Like everywhere else, the very Wikipedia article you link to does not restrict the definition of quackery to a narrow medical sense ("a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to skill, knowledge, or qualifications he or she does not possess; a charlatan", which it takes form dictionary.com for whatever reason). In reality, if you're selling snake oil or anti-evolution propaganda under the guise of science, you're a quack, whether inside or outside of a medical field.

And the term quack certainly applies to both Gibbons and Mackal. Yes, Mackal is dead, and Prothero and Loxton write that Mackal "had no training that would qualify him to undertake competent research on exotic animals". They highlight Gibbons's lack of appropriate credentials in a similar manner. A hallmark of the pseudoscience is misrepresentation and false credential mongering, which Prothero and Loxton also highlight commonly occurs in the case of Mackal but also occurs with Young Earth creationist cryptozoologist Gibbons, who "has a degree in religious education from a seminary". While use of terms like "undignified" and "the professor" by Kiyoweap above implies a reverence for the pseudoscience works of Mackal (Prothero, for example, would also be "the professor"), his revert-warring to reinstate references to works by figures like Gibbons implies a broader pro-pseudoscience stance point of view.

Of course, at the end of the day, this is all very typical pseudoscience-on-Wikipedia stuff. I hadn't seen the lunatic charlatans essay before — seems this is indeed a well worn path! :bloodofox: (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

No. Nobody in academia calls his colleagues a "quack" who happens to dabble in a field not quite within his expertise.

This is your own code, and it is not good enough excuse for trying to continue to use it.

And don't obliquely suggest Mackal peddles anti-evolution propaganda either. If you know for sure he has done it, put it on the table or just hold your tongue.

What exactly are the specific examples of what you accuse to be pseudoscience produced by Mackal? If he brings back the malombo fruit that the pygmies say the creature eats, and has it identified by a botanist, is that pseudoscience under your definition? If you can't get specific on these there is no sense in perpetuating the thread on this notice. --Kiyoweap (talk) 02:16, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, please. Mackal's A Living Dinosaur? is notorious (and unintentional hilarious) pseudoscience, and that's just the most obvious and relevant of a laundry list of deep fringe stuff Mackal produced in his free time. Fumbling around in the jungle in an attempt to find an antiquated notion of a dinosaur (while being duped by locals) makes for funny reading, yes, but it's also neocolonial dress pretending to be science.

Mackal's missionary guide, Eugene Thomas, himself baptized Gibbons (in the Congo, of course). Their two "expeditions" are directly connected. Anyway, Mokele-Mbembe makes for a revealing fixation among cryptozoologists, and highlights the strong undercurrents of Young Earth creationism that course through the pseudoscience, increasingly evident today. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I realize Mackal was working with "antiquated notion" of a sauropod regarding its posture or appearnace or habitat, which Prothero points out. Which you are free to add to the article. But Mackal was not specifically 'searching for sauropods' -- that is only a shorthand or caricature description. Mackal only says he was invetigating a remote possibility of "sauropod dinosaur-like animals surviving" (p. 216)", which could be any unknown or unusual reptile or a mammal. Either only the caricature version is so deeply ingrained in Bloodofox that he cannot escape from it, or he is knowingly misleading us.

On the allegation of Mackal "being duped by locals". I presume this is from Prothero's reconstructed scenario that the Powell-Mackal expedition was beset by Congolese making up stories where money was to be had.(p. 279ff) I guess Bloodofox's amusement comes from thinking that Powell and Mackal were seriously recording anecdotes and all the while these greedy locals were scamming them, har har har. Sorry, I think of this rather as a chilling stereotyped accusation of African locals as to their morals and belief-systems rather than a pie-in-the-face-of-Mackal comedy entertainment.--Kiyoweap (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Sauropod-hunting in the jungle = comedy gold. Also pseudoscience. Stick to reliable sources and you won't run into any problems with sourcing, thanks. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

"Mackal only says he was invetigating a remote possibility of "sauropod dinosaur-like animals surviving" (p. 216)", which could be any unknown or unusual reptile or a mammal." This is hardly the case. The typical description for Sauropoda consists of "long necks, long tails, small heads (relative to the rest of their body), and four thick, pillar-like legs. They are notable for the enormous sizes attained by some species, and the group includes the largest animals to have ever lived on land." The description would not fit the average mammal.

And to clarify what "enormous" means here, Sauroposeidon had an estimated height of 18 metres (59 feet). Dimadick (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Dimadick, if you absorb information in soundbites you might get the wrong idea. The expedition did not claim they local reports of such behemoths. Mackal does not claim they were sauropod-like as in outsizing elephants by many-fold, and can be quoted saying "This is certainly the right size for a Mokele-mbembe, but, of course, also for a smallish forest elephant" (p.180, he is referring to footprints here). Don't attribute to him mistakes he did not commit.

Re emela-ntouka "elephant killer", Mackal states rhinoceros is a "viable" theory (p. 238). He is not married to large dinosaur hypothesis, and Bloodofox is attempting to make it seems this is a case with tasteless jokes and zingers. --Kiyoweap (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

This discussion, starting from "The edit might have been a little over the top", is about improving the article Mokele mbembe. That means it is pretty much what Talk:Mokele mbembe is for. This page, on the other hand, is a noticeboard. The first contribution, ending with "They received no response", belongs here. Should we move all the stuff after that to the Talk page? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

It should not be moved, no. Discussion about the article should continue on the article Talk page, but copy/pasting the conversation isn't necessary. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Besides the distortions, the other leg of Bloodofox's charge of "pseudoscience" is bullcrap innuendo: "Loren Coleman also employs Gibbons as a reliable source and provides a glowing introduction" or "Mackal's connection to Young Earth creationist and missionary Eugene Thomas, .. who went on to baptize cryptozoologist Gibbons here. Scientists do not abandon their conviction in evoltionary theory when they come in contact with devout Christians. These are guilt-by-association smear tactics that may belong in mudslinging dirty political ads, not here.

And while Gibbons may be a "creationist", Prothero's insistence that Gibbons set out to prove young earth,[5] is suspect because Gibbon flatly denied this in a communiqué to Coleman (/mokele09/) saying: "Finally, I should mention that any discovery of a living dinosaur will not, in my opinion, .. prove that the earth is 6,000 years old, or disprove evolution".

Therefore Bloodofox needs to stop and revert his sweeping propagandistic editing that tries to forcibly associate these well-known cryptozoolgist's works like Loren Coleman's Cryptozoolgy A-Z from Simon and Schuster or Mackal's book out of Brill Publishers as somehow promoting "young earth creationism". This is not a WP:DUE weight characterization of these group of people. It is blatant WP:NPOV smear. --Kiyoweap (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

"My child is an angel; all others are devils." I understand that people who hold dear a particular fringe proposition (say cryptozoology) may find associations with other fringe positions (say young Earth creationism) to be a smear. But the sources do not indicate that there is a hierarchy of forms with respect to these subjects. While it would be a mistake to equate creationists and cryptozoologists, it would be irresponsible not to let readers know that they do find common cause in their tilting at windmills -- even if they may disagree as to which maverick ideas are supposed to be taken seriously. jps (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Not this again....--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The foregoing concerned Bloodofox's use of guilt-by-association argument, an obvious smear tactic. Opinion on jps's set of arguments I have yet to offer.

Attempt is made again to blur the distinction between hypothesis and claim. Why do you this? Most adults clearly recognize the difference. Mackal tapped experts on sauropods for the stance that their survival was improbable but possible.[6] Such statement of possibility is not pseudoscience. Any more than Prothero's statement that it is "possible that aliens have visited us".[7] And Mackal's pursuit of his improbabity isn't really any more quixotic than Prothero's guru Carl Sagan's improbable search for extraterrestrials.

There is a fundamental difference between young earth theory and a hypothetical living dinosaur. Young earth is a refutation of all geological dating and is incompatible with science. In contrast, a single dinosaur survival would only be an exception to the rule and would not refute the entire dinosaur fossil record.

So even if you are blind to it, your so-called "hierarchy" is there. --Kiyoweap (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Plausible deniability is the name of the game, and it is a rhetorical equivalence even still. Cryptozoologists claim not that it is possible that non-avian dinosaurs are running around but rather that there is evidence that they are running around. When you corner them about this, they fall back on the "all is possible which is not forbidden" defense. But YECs do exactly the same thing. Their game is to say, for example, that they have evidence that the world is young, young, young, but when you corner them about this, they fall back on the "we can never be 100% sure that these dating methods are accurate. It is possible that they are all wrong, you must admit!" jps (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• I don't understand what everyone's problem is. Of course dinosaurs are still around. There is one outside my window tanking up from my dinosaur feeder hummingbird feeder. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I've found that, by and large, dinosaurs taste like chicken. - Nunh-huh 21:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Gay conversion therapy

• National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

FreeKnowledgeCreator believes that NARTH should be included in Category:Psychology organizations based in the United States. However, as the article makes clear, the American Psychological Association does not agree. Gay conversion therapy is a religious, not a medical or scientific, practice. It's slightly difficult to discuss this as his response to an attempt at discussion was [8], i.e. a reply in an edit summary deleting the comment. That's... unhelpful. Anyway, seems to me that religiously motivated psychological abuse is not a legitimate inclusion in this category. Guy (Help!) 10:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the American Psychological Association has never expressed an opinion about whether NARTH should be included in Category:Psychology organizations based in the United States. Nor for that matter has it ever expressed any opinion about Wikipedia and the content of its articles, so far as I know. That part of JzG's comment above is thus incorrect. That "Gay conversion therapy is a religious, not a medical or scientific, practice" is an opinion that JzG or anyone else is free to hold but which should not have any relevance to the content of our articles. I've read any number of sources discussing conversion therapy and they certainly do not state that it is always practiced with religious motives, let alone that it is by definition a religious practice. There are of course numerous methods used in conversion therapy that have exactly nothing to do with religion. Aversion therapy for instance has been practiced by various secular psychotherapists with no religious views. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

"The policy manual of the American Psychological Association states that homosexuality is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation, and is not a mental disorder.[5] The APA's Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation affirms the tension between some religious values and other organizations, as well as the existence of a subset of individuals who are distressed about their same-sex attractions. Nevertheless, it says it has not found adequately rigorous studies that suggest sexual orientation change efforts are successful. The APA Task Force has also found that some individuals reported being harmed by change efforts.[6]" Guy (Help!) 11:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Your point being? How does that quotation show that conversion therapy is by definition a religious practice? It doesn't. There are plenty of sources you could read that show it isn't. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The predominant view among psychologists and psychological organizations in the US seems to be that proponents of conversion therapy are generally mystics or quacks. I think the inclusion of NARTH in that category should depend on the answers to the following questions: what are the inclusion criteria for Category:Psychology organizations based in the United States, and what do the majority of psychology experts think about NARTH. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 11:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

How do you know this? Is there a source that actually uses the term "mystics or quacks" or did you just make that up? I doubt that there is any evidence concerning what "the majority of psychology experts think about NARTH"; it is even questionable whether many of them have even heard of the organization. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 11:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

That's just my impression based on the way how psychological organizations describe conversation therapy, what psychologists say about conversion therapy, and evidence presented in hearings and lawsuits concerning conversion therapy. But putting that aside, the question whether NARTH is considered a psychological organization according to the criteria for that category. And the best way to discover would be to look at what experts in psychology think about NARTH. Do you have any sources pointing one way or another? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 12:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

"The founders held that homosexuality is a treatable mental illness and that a person's sexual orientation can be changed through therapy". Neither of these foundational claims on which the entire edifice is built, is actually true.

APS is absolutely clear: gay conversion therapy is bullshit. Their view on NARTH, which only promotes gay conversion therapy, which is bullshit, does not require much thought, but is irrelevant anyway because the point is that APS does not view gay conversion therapy as psychology, and that's the point at issue. As others have said, this is like characterising the flat earth society as geologists or the Discotute as paleontologists. Guy (Help!) 17:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

This might help [9].Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to address the specific issue of whether NARTH is a psychological organization, just the APA and other organizations' views of conversion therapy and homosexuality in general. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

True, but that seemed to be the way the conversation was headed. It is clear that the APA do not view it as valid therapy.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

[[10]], [[11]].Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm very much a layperson in these matters but doesn't it stand to reason that if all organization X does is to promote something that is not considered psychology by the vast majority of scientists in the field, then organization X cannot be considered a psychology society? Similarly a organization promoting the belief that the Earth is flat would not be a geodesy organization, would it? Regards SoWhy 14:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Well is there a licensing system inn place, as with do doctors?Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

There is a licensing system in place for electricians too... doesn’t mean anyone considers them qualified to work on the plumbing. Blueboar (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Unless it was a licence as a plumber, which was my point. If they are licenced as a physiological practice they are a psychological practice. If no such licencing (or professional accreditation) exists them we are reliant on what other professionals say about them.Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

As per WP:CAT, categorization of articles should be verifiable. Do we have reliable sources independent of the fringe theory describing it as a psychological organization or anything similar? Categorizing this as a psychological association seems a little like putting the British Homeopathic Association in "Medical associations based in the United Kingdom." --tronvillain (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Tronvillian, the burden is on the editor who adds the category to provide a source supporting inclusion in that category. –dlthewave ☎ 18:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh No. Somebody just invoked the Category Police. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 19:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Category police? I'm not familiar... –dlthewave ☎ 19:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, in principle verifiable - they don't get attached references, but if a categorization is disputed it seems worth asking if there's anything to support it. --tronvillain (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

JzG's comment above, "APS does not view gay conversion therapy as psychology", is confused. No informed person claims that conversion therapy is "psychology". Rather, it is a form of psychotherapy. Psychotherapy and psychology are related subjects but they are not the same thing; dictionaries might help here. As I tried to explain at the outset, the fact that conversion therapy has received much criticism does not alter the fact that it is a form of therapy, and it also has no relevance to whether NARTH is a "psychology organization" or not. JzG's comment that NARTH "only promotes gay conversion therapy" is incorrect. The organization does a variety of things. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

By this ridiculous logic, gaslighting, brainwashing, and torture are psychotherapies. jps (talk) 03:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

What "ridiculous logic"? What on Earth are you talking about? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

You are the one and only commentator who is advocating for categorizing gay conversion therapy as a form of psychotherapy. Follow that logic and you get what I outline. jps (talk) 11:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

"Conversion therapy" is "therapy" by definition, hence the inclusion of "therapy" as part of its name. That is only common sense and has nothing to with "gaslighting" or any of the other things you mentioned. I can point to sources that discuss forms of conversion therapy that are clearly psychotherapy. You might want to see Douglas C. Haldeman's article "Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy for Gay Men and Lesbians: A Scientific Examination"; it discusses numerous methods used to try to change people's sexual orientation, such as psychoanalysis and group therapy, and while Haldeman is critical of them, he never states that they are not forms of psychotherapy. Do you have a source that actually states that "conversion therapy" is actually not therapy? It sounds like a ridiculous claim. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to e-mail Douglas Haldeman and see if he's comfortable with you using his article to make this argument. jps (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

No, I will do no such thing. What a ridiculous suggestion. As editors, we have never needed to contact the authors of academic articles in order to use them in discussion here. As I said, the discussion here has become completely tendentious. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

That you balk so hard at this straightforward suggestion at getting expert input implies to me that you're just staking a turf war claim. Not surprising, but not in the best interest of Wikipedia, certainly. jps (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed, Wikipedia is not based on "getting expert input". There is nothing in our policies or guidelines that says we have to consult authors of academic articles before using them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I point to the section Conversion therapy#Australian health organizations and the references therein (disclosure: I wrote it), which include numerous quotations that unambiguously declare conversion therapy as unethical and prohibited by all major medical, psychiatric, and psychological bodies in Australia. I suspect there are plenty of similar statements from reputable bodies in the US to declare that conversion therapy is not a valid or ethical medical or psychological practice. (There certainly are in the UK, I know.) As such, I can't see how NARTH can be categorised as engaging in any legitimate psychological practice. It's also worth remembering that JONAH, a conversion therapy organisation in New York, was successfully prosecuted for offering conversion therapy on the grounds of trade practices law for marketing and selling a product (conversion therapy) that doesn't exist as there is no decent evidence that sexual orientation is changeable. FKC, that makes your assertion that it is actually a form of therapy debatable as a therapy needs to have a demonstrable effect in the direction it claims. The only well-established effects of conversion therapy is the harm done to many (but not all) of those who experience it. At best, conversion therapy is an activity that is unethical if undertaken by anyone with medical or psychological training (and, in some places, illegal) that exists in religious and some extreme groups, conducted by persons untrained in proper psychological practice and doing great harm to many of those who encounter it. EdChem (talk) 00:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

You are assuming that NARTH counts as a "psychology organization" only if it promotes an accepted, proved form of psychotherapy. That's quite baseless. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

That's not baseless, it's just verifiable. Your approach is monstrous and prima facie evidence that you are incompetent to be contributing to this subject material. jps (talk) 11:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I have not participated here recently because the discussion has become boorish and tendentious, as witness the comment above. The only relevant response would be to ask for evidence that "psychology organization" is indeed defined as an organization that promotes a recognized form of psychotherapy, and to remind jps of WP:NPA. You are free to disagree with me, but you don't have to ignore Wikipedia's policy against personal attacks, and the rules of common politeness, in the process. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

psychotherapy sʌɪkəʊˈθɛrəpi/Submit noun the treatment of mental disorder by psychological rather than medical means.

So if it is not psychological it is not psychotherapy.Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Isn't there a 'Fringe/pseudoscience medical' category? It's not psychology (No reputable organisation classes it as such) and it's a religious organisation pushing discredited and outright bollocks "therapy". Self-identification is not enough when the overwhelming evidence suggests otherwise. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• They may not necessarily fit, but from memory we have: Category:Alternative diagnoses, Category:Alternative medical diagnostic methods, List of diagnoses characterized as pseudoscience, List of questionable diagnostic tests —PaleoNeonate – 13:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

  Oh and: Category:Health fraud, Category:Unnecessary health care, Category:Quacks. —PaleoNeonate – 13:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I also removed Category:Sexual orientation and medicine for the same reason. Guy (Help!) 14:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Orb (optics)

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

Should this article include a “paranormal” section? There is one decent source, however IMO, the old one-way-linking rule for pseudoscience should apply here, i.e. a section in ghost hunting about the pseudoscientific belief should link to Orb (optics), but not the other way around. Curious what others think. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

That's exactly what we should do. I have removed the paranormal cruft. jps (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I left in the See Also link to Will o' the wisp, though I'm not sure if there are reliable sources which indicate that will o' the wisps are optical orbs. jps (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Also it may be beneficial to move the article title (keeping a redirect from Orb (optics)) to a more relevant photographic term. “Orb” is not a term used in photography. It is simply a holdover from the circa 2007 ghost hunting fad that made its way into pop culture. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe re-AfD? I see that User:Andy Dingley reverted me on behalf of the claimed results of the previous "merge". jps (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. Two reasons.

1. They're a significant part of paranormal 'evidence'. Paranormal topics are not necessarily scientific, but they can still be encyclopedic. Especially where, as in this case, there is such an obvious and rational explanation for them, it's well within our scope to explain this and to debunk the more fanciful others.
   Outside of the paranormal references to orbs, it's not even clear if this very minor optical artifact would even be notable.
2. There was an AfD on Orb (paranormal) which closed as a merge. Not a delete. Not a "merge for a bit until no-one's looking". If you want to overturn that, then go through an RfC. I did revert on that basis, but you then started edit-warring to repeat the deletion anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

As previously mentioned, “orb” is not a term commonly used in photography or optics to describe this optical phenomena. Backscatter is. It's in seven of the seven references cited in the article, as are the common terms "lens flare", "dust particles" or "floating particles". While paranormal enthusiasts may have called these things "orbs", they are a tiny minority. I'm not sure why we have an article about an optical effect named for the term a small fringe segment of the population uses. it seems WP:UNDUE weight on that view. WP:ONEWAY linking is a good start to fixing this problem, since ghost hunting is the appropriate place for the minority term/explanation/ debunking. Renaming the article backscatter (lens flare) or similar, and perhaps eventually merging it with backscatter article would be a vast improvement. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

But it has nothing to do with lens flare. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

“Flash reflection” then? Certainly the article title should be a recognizable photographic term used by the majority of sources cited in the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

"a recognizable photographic term" - that would be "orbs" (and you don't need flash either). And the majority of discussion of this effect is from the paranormal world, because no-one else really cares much about it. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we should just delete the orb (optics) and redirect orb (paranormal) to a new section of ghost hunting. Much like cold spot (paranormal). jps (talk) 03:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

No, we're a science-based encyclopedia. Our role is to explain, with a rational and sourced explanation. The previous article was doing that, but you want to disconnect the two. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Guy (Help!) 13:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Disconnect the two what? There is only one subject here as far as I can tell: things identified by ghost hunters as "orbs". Apparently, no one but ghost hunters calls these visual artifacts "orbs", so an article on orb (optics) may be completely WP:OR. jps (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll get the ball rolling. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orb (optics). jps (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Orb's sister article Rod has a similar set of problems. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. What to do with this one? :bloodofox: (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The article on Rods does need some better development. Especially considering it's not exactly neutral.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

What do you think needs to be added to/removed from the article? - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The article should be moved and the lead rewritten, since "rod," like "orb," is not really a term in optics or photography. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand this motivation to purge Wikipedia of fringe topics, or merge them into generic articles where nobody will find them. Ignoring woo-woo topics is not how Wikipedia educates the world. If I didn't know better, I'd think this was being driven by woo-woo advocates unhappy that skeptical Wikipedia articles are showing up in Google results. ApLundell (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a long history of unintentionally (or, in the case when fringe advocates fill a missing gap or band together, quite intentionally) promoting fringe topics. As a result, the platform has developed a robust set of guidelines regarding how these topics are treated, including WP:ONEWAY and WP:PROFRINGE. A lot of these pseudoscience articles have long passed themselves off as really real science, and the attention they're getting now is definitely a good thing. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

"Orbs" are "really real science". They're just misrepresented as to cause. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Which is why we’re having this discussion. I see that you’re lobbying hard to keep this article just the way it is for whatever reason, but please don’t misrepresent my comments. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@ApLundell, I wouldn’t worry about people searching for fringe topics and not finding them because they’re buried. We have redirects that function quite nicely, e.g. try searching for “coldspot (paranormal). - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Just rewrite it instead of outright deleting it. Just because it contains "fringe" info doesn't necessarily dictate complete removal.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Rods

After much wringing of hands and really some good collaboration had by all involved, it seems we've come to a redirected conclusion for these orbs.

Now, what should we do with Rod (optics)? I am hoping that it will not need an AfD.

jps (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

They're obviously not called "rods" in photography, or in the optical (or any) sciences. We have WP:FRIND sources that call them a hoax, though: [12], [13], [14], [15]. Perhaps redirect to an entry at List of hoaxes? - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Motion blur is another possible target. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Kristi Funk

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

Lacks proper judgment. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe he does, what do you want us to do?.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I meant that the article lacks it. Also, she's a woman. The surgeon whose idea it was to remove parts of Angelina Jolie. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry maybe I am being dense, what do you mean by proper judgement?Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, it's me, not you. I am not a native speaker. I meant that the sources given by the article all agree that Funk and her methods are great, but none of them uses the proper scientific criteria needed for such a judgment. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

But our article makes no such claims.Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The article quotes one-sided (positive) sources on a fringe medical practitioner. I read Orac's article about Funk and looked her up: it is a hagiography. Then I linked Orac's article on the Talk page.

Last time I checked, calling attention to such cases was one of the purposes of this noticeboard. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Slatersteven that the article says nothing controversial or one-sided. The article could hardly be more milquetoast. It is a drab recitation of events that as far as I can tell are not subject to dispute. She is a breast cancer surgeon. She founded the organization. She was reported by the media for having treated specified celebrities. She posted details on her blog (without the article saying what those details were - this last I think should be removed, not because of bias, but because Wikipedia doesn't make a habit of reporting every time a notable person blogs, based solely on the blog, a self-published non-RS that is not self-imbued with noteworthiness). Yes, the cited sources are fawning, but not the article, and Wikipedia can't control the tone taken by People Magazine. One could certainly question her notability (which has been done, there being a running AfD), but I don't see bias in the article, unless:

Are there sources that we are leaving out? You fault her for inappropriate use of scientific criteria and that she is a fringe medical practitioner. We as Wikipedia editors don't get to draw such conclusions. Particularly with a WP:BLP, we cannot draw any conclusion not found in a cited reliable source. If you have such sources, then go ahead and incorporate them, but your own conclusions have no place in an article, no matter how valid they may be. Perhaps the article is currently citing positive sources because that is all that is there to be cited. Do you know of other sources? Agricolae (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Forget it. I have talked far more about this than it is worth. EOD, as far as I am concerned. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The Father of Nordic Reflexology?

• Karl Axel Lind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Anybody heard of this guy, or is this Not a Notable Person? Alexbrn (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I have difficulty finding sources in English papers or in my books collection (including various RS on pseudoscience). I can't tell about national-level notability however. —PaleoNeonate – 12:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Never heard of him. A Swede, 20:46, 25 August 2018 (UTC).

The founder of bullshit in a specific region? Sounds like a self-serving claim to me. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

• Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Considering that the talk page seems dead since my request yesterday, I welcome your input at Talk:Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth#Promoting conspiracy theories. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 01:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Glima

Starting in 2014 the article Glima, which deals with an Icelandic form of wrestling, has been changed to fit in with a pseudo-historical view on the subject. These views aren't attested to be scholarship but seem rather derived from something called ACADEMY of VIKING MARTIAL ARTS which teaches something they call "Viking wrestling".

I came upon this article earlier this year. It had been marked as problematic since 2014 for the edits I mentioned above. I tried to fix the errors but then, after going through the edit history I saw that it was easiest to simply go back to the 2014 version and build from there. I did that but when I came back there again a few days ago I saw that my changes had been reverted. I had posted my reasons on the talk page but the person who reverted my changes had not answered me. I can't name the user since they don't have an account.

The first changes were made by 84.48.208.98 and the user who undid my revision was 2001:4643:74BE:0:783B:F54B:8DF5:7D03.

I don't really know how to proceed but I do know that the article needs some sort of protection.--Óli Gneisti (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts

• Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is ongoing major editing that will require auditing. I've removed a book promotion url earlier which was reinserted and I won't be able to check it again until tomorrow. There may also be a copyright violation (a huge quote transcripted from a youtube video I think). Likely undue weight to fringe claims as well. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 08:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Well I'm still here: thanks to Bishonen the potential copyright violation was fixed since; I have just removed again the book ad. —PaleoNeonate – 12:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Is this article titled correctly? It's not about scientific foreknowledge itself, but instead it's about the belief in scientific foreknowledge, surely. It's already a mouthful, so I'm not sure how to adjust it. jps (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, like "Claims of scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts", or "Scripture revisionism postdiction". —PaleoNeonate – 13:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmm related may be Vaticinium ex eventu and Hindsight bias —PaleoNeonate – 13:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, per WP-speak, shouldn't that be religious texts? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, on further consideration, I think it probably doesn't belong in our encyclopedia: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts. jps (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I've long wondered why we have (ever since 2007) an article called Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory. Bishonen | talk 17:40, 25 August 2018 (UTC).

Ratings. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 19:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmm maybe that this one could be merged in Religious cosmology, but I've not checked about the notability. We also have acceptance of evolution by religious groups and Level of support for evolution#Support for evolution by religious bodies which are similar but about evolution... Maybe that Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory could become Acceptance of the Big Bang by religious groups? But I'd have to first read it when I can. —PaleoNeonate – 23:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Religious interpretations of Young Sheldon coming soon!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.220.13.71 (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2018‎ (UTC)

I suggest Moral panic about role playing games by religious groups (oh! We have Dungeons & Dragons controversies). —PaleoNeonate – 23:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

That article exists because the relevant section in Big Bang was getting absurdly unwieldy. It is definitely a topic that has both wide interest and a surprising number of sources (including not quite a few that poo poo the entire notion -- Stephen Hawking famously did so). No doubt the article could be improved. jps (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Another article of this type is creationist cosmologies. How I've tried to get that one to go away. :-/ jps (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• The editor who added this, Batreeq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has other odd edits as well. Example: [16]. "Some mystics describe", with citations direct to the Qur'an. Really? I am guessing that 90% plus of cites to holy books are invalid WP:SYN though, it's probably not just him. Guy (Help!) 07:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I am well aware of WP:OR. I did not cite the verses directly, rather, I stated that some people cite (interpret) the verses as such. My secondary source for this was Encyclopedia.com ("Contemporary American Religion COPYRIGHT 1999 The Gale Group Inc."). The excerpt is:

The traditional theology of the Sunni community teaches that Allah is above all one, unique, transcendent, creator, distinct from creation, eternal and permanent, and worthy of worship. Allah has, according to Sunnis, seven essential attributes: life, power, knowledge, will, hearing, sight, and speech. Of these attributes, power means absolute omnipotence, while knowledge, hearing, and sight indicate omniscience. Omnipresence is not stressed to avoid confusing Allah with His creation. Some of the more mystical trends in Islam have emphasized His nearness and presence everywhere (Qur'an 50:16; 57:4), causing others to accuse such mystics of pantheism. The traditional Sunni position explains verses referring to Allah's nearness as meaning He is everywhere near in His knowledge (6:59, etc.), not that He is immanent in His creation.

.

A later editor modified the citation order, which I pointed out to them on the talk page of the article. I hope this clarifies my edits. – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Salem Hypothesis

Regarding the Salem Hypothesis, see Engineers and terrorists and Engineers and terrorists, part 2 and Why do so many terrorists have engineering degrees? for some interesting theories. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Richard Deacon (actor)

Richard Deacon (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Are university presses “fringe” publications? [17] Are they “vanity” presses? Just checking. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

May well depends on who they are, many organisations can call themselves universities.Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2018 (UThere]}C)

Is the University Press of Mississippi associated with a university, if so which one?Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

It's "supported by the eight state universities" (see here). Mangoe (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

It can get complicated depending on the university press. It can be very easy for people associated with universities to get their work published by the Uni press. Regardless of the quality (or subject) of what they are writing. I dont know enough about the presses in question. But I would be wary of declaring someone a 'closeted homosexual' because of anecdotes in books about other people/subjects. If it was a BLP we wouldnt consider it, but because they are dead its okay to anecdotally label them? I would take the individual presses, content, and post at RSN for a better analysis. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Per the above, I've done some copyediting so we attribute statements to sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Myra or someone doesn't like some academic presses resulted in a 48H block. FWiW I'm rather bothered that what comes across as unsourced gossip apparently becomes academic fact in LGBTQ studies, at least if the cited works are any indication. But apparently homo-tagging people is more important than rigor. Mangoe (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Granted, it's from Barricade Books, but unless Hadleigh was outright lying about his interview with Deacon, it doesn't appear to just be a rumour. --tronvillain (talk) 19:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Though looking at the author's page, perhaps that's a possibility? --tronvillain (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Judging from the hits, the interviewee was Paul Lynde, not Deacon. I can't tell what Lynde actually said about Deacon, though. Mangoe (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

There's a whole section with Deacon before the interview with Lynde: "Or vaguely 'straight'? Do you imagine any segment of the public guesses Richard Deacon is gay?" He shook his head. "Not even gays. Most would be surprised. Only because what you see on TV - a serious guy in a suit, unsmiling - isn't how anyone thinks of gay males." Searching "public guesses" should turn it up part of it for you. --23:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Merge proposal at cryptozoology and list of cryptids

An editor has proposed that cryptozoology absorbs list of cryptids (proposal: Talk:Cryptozoology#Merger_proposal). For those you who have followed the notorious latter list know, previous attempts to reign in the WP:PROFRINGE that the list has historically promoted and embraced failed in part due to factors such as off-site lobbying at cryptozoology forums by cryptozoologist and, shall we say, aggressive editing by cryptozoology-sympathetic editors (at times resulting in personal attacks and even threats toward yours truly). Since then, the pseudoscience's connection to topics like Young Earth creationism and other pseudosciences like ufology have become increasingly clear, as the cryptozoology article now reflects. Anyway, there's some serious pseudoscience happening in these corners, and the process definitely needs more eyes. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Really... Again....--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Also this is far from a neutrally worded notice.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

This notice wasn't written to appease Wikipedia's cryptozoology proponents. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

It is still meant to be neutral (see Wikipedia:Canvassing, "Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner.").Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I get that you're very fond of this topic, Slater, but you're going to have a very hard time convincing others that this isn't deep WP:FRINGE territory, and that, indeed, offsite lobbying and threats toward myself haven't occurred. But good luck on your canvasing angle, I guess. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't get too bothered by this. Your presentation was perfectly neutral. Unfortunately, there is a subculture of Wikipedians who mix up the truth with "non-neutral" opinion. jps (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Ouch! That seems a but harsh. Equal coverage of BOTH sides is essential in both encyclopedic content and for this site. It irks me that some people don't seem to understand that we are here to create encyclopedic content. Not taking sides and reporting a single opinion.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:FALSEBALANCE seems relevant here. --tronvillain (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

And WP:FRINGELEVEL —PaleoNeonate – 04:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was talking about.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Undue promotion of 9/11 conspiracy theories

Editors here may want to add September 11 attacks, 9/11 Truth movement and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth to their watchlist. We have an editor who seems to think that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were an inside job by the US government and has been editing (and edit-warring) these articles to give undue weight to these fringe theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Awww, cute... someone who still thinks 9/11 was an inside job? How retro. Has he/she decided whether to be a MIH (“made it happen”) or a LIH (“let it happen”)? Blueboar (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked per WP:NOTHERE. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

IP pushing Joseph Davidovits

See Talk:Hebrews#Unfounded removal and [18] where he insists that an opinion of Davidovits be included although no reliable sources seem to have noticed it. He's also arguing that this material scientist is an expert on Egyptology which of course he isn't and doesn't even claim to be so far as I know. Doug Weller talk 15:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Drmies blocked him and then I realised the IP was a sock of a blocked editor. Blocked for a month. Doug Weller talk 18:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Sock of another IP or a registered user? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I meant to say account, but I won't say who. Doug Weller talk 19:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• Applied PC protection. This is obviously never going away. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Nash-Fortenberry UFO sighting

Nash-Fortenberry UFO sighting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Seems not so well-cited compared to other famous incidents. Is it notable enough?

jps (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The NICAP website, which is used as the principal source for the article, looks fishy to me. They appear to have some sort of editorial team, but they're all unaccredited - a bunch of like-minded people curating a website does not a reliable source make. I'll take it to RSN to see what others make of it as a source. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

NICAP is not ideal, to be sure. My hope is that someone can find some better sources. Sometimes this does happen. jps (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Menzel and Campbell are good WP:FRIND sources. NICAP, not so much. Large footprint in fringe and sensationalist sources indicate this 50s ufo report is beloved within ufology. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

For a really bad UFO article, take a look at Height 611 UFO incident. Sources are a TV show, a UFOlogist, and Pravda. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Etzel Cardeña

This guy Etzel Cardeña is basically a parapsychology crank and his article reads like promotion. He has written a bunch of papers claiming psychokinesis is real, yet there are no third-party reliable sources that have reviewed his work. In 2014 (with Dean Radin and others) he signed a nutty paper (in the notorious Frontiers Media) claiming paranormal research is scientific [19]. As reliable sources are lacking I think his article should be submitted for deletion. 80.189.126.234 (talk) 09:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, 80.189.xx. I've prodded the article. Bishonen | talk 16:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC).

Applying the "What links here" link at Etzel Cardeña and watchlisting some of them, I found this:

American Psychological Association says: "The APA has published hundreds of books.[18] Among these books are: [..] and many scholarly books on specific subjects such as Varieties of Anomalous Experience." I guess somebody can find a better example for "books on specific subjects" than a book by Cardeña and Stanley Krippner. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• My PROD was promptly removed, and the article is now at AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Etzel Cardeña. Bishonen | talk 21:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC).

London Conference on Intelligence

Emil Kirkegaard has been editing this article. Problem is that he attended this controversial conference and was involved heavily involved with it. There appears to be little to no criticism in the article, it is not neutrally written in relation to the sources. Mainstream news sources have described the conferences as far-right, eugenicist and racist [20], [21], [22]. These were not conferences promoting mainstream science. The ideas were very much on the lunatic fringe. Kirkegaard has tried to counter-balance this by adding a source written by the attendees who do not like the word "eugenics". The paper is online [23] - problem with this paper, it was co-written by Richard Lynn (a white supremacist) and a bunch of other racist kooks (Michael A. Woodley of Menie, Edward Dutton (who is associated with the Mankind Quarterly) etc.

Rationalwiki has a large run-down of the speakers at the conferences. Practically every speaker is some sort of kook associated with "race realist" community and controversial views from the far-right, alt-right, white nationalism, racism, eugenics, sexism, homophobia etc. They all seem to hold unorthodox views about "race". Toby Young attended the latest conference and ended up describing the speakers as "right-wing fruitcakes". Any ideas what should be done with this? I suggest that criticism should be added to the article, there is a false balance. Also see the talk-page for a discussion [24] Vihaan Khatri (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Anglo Pyramidologist is referring to User:Deleet who is, as it says on his userpage, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emil Kirkegaard Harassing Deleet is a hobby of AP's, he's had several socks do it. Of course he's right about this. Doug Weller talk 10:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems the conference article has become the target of a lot of sockpuppetry recently; eyes over there are definitely in order. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 22:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

If this sock harassing Deleet prevents Deleet from editing articles related to intelligence or race, then this sock is improving the project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Black Sun (symbol)

I'd like to draw more eyes to Black Sun (symbol). While this symbol has received little attention outside of Germany to date, it is becoming increasingly visible in alt-right and neo-Nazi circles (particularly in the Trump era U.S. political landscape and evidently even in some official context in Ukraine, see Azov Battalion). The article has historically propped the symbol up as "ancient", yet all indications are that the symbol was produced by a Nazi artist during the Third Reich with the intention to glorify the SS in some manner or another (it only occurs during the era on a floor mosaic at Wewelsburg). I'm working on a rewrite of the article, but in the mean time more eyes would be appreciated. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Atlantis nonsense at Richat Structure

First added by User:IMedscaper and after its removal two IPs on 2 different continents. See my edit summary when I removed it and also Talk:Atlantis#Added "other location" Richat Structure in Mauritania, as related in film by George S. Alexander. Doug Weller talk 18:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Oops, and Talk:Richat Structure. Doug Weller talk 18:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)