Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

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

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

Article alerts

Did you know

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

Categories for discussion

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

Redirects for discussion

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

Good article nominees

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

Requests for comments

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

Peer reviews

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

Requested moves

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

Articles to be merged

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

Articles to be split

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

WP Cryptozoology: The Forbidden Topic...

So I've noticed for a while now that there has been a massive purge of articles from WikiProject Cryptozoology and everything related to it. Now I know that it seems around here that simply ADDING an article to the project or categories related to it seems to be a soft point for some people around here. I am not trying to start an argument but why is it that this needs to happen. Why can they not be a part of BOTH Folklore and Cryptozoology (in most cases this is correct). Adding it to the crypto category is not an avocation that the subject is real or not, it only acknowledges that it has been classified as a cryptid by some Cryptozoologists or has reports of something similar in real life. Cryptozoology is the study of animals that have yet to be verified of their existence, it may not be a legitimate science but completely ignoring reports/info on this seems very much like POV Pushing although I may be wrong. Now I'm not here to advocate for certain sides here, but it seems to me that people have forgotten/misread the guidelines of Wikipiedia around this subject. It NEVER says to ignore fringe theories all together or not show them (after all we are just an encyclopedia-type site), so completely ignoring or purging such topics seems s bit extreme an action. True, the source needs to be legitimate and I'm all for that (been an advocate for reliable sources since day 1), there should be no references from blogs on unlegitimate sites since THAT is in violation of Wikipiedia's policy. Books on the subject are very helpful and it would be a shame not to take advantage of the information they yield. I just want to know what people here think of that idea.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The problem is, and always has been, quality of sources. The vast majority of cryptid sources are basically fanfic. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

So? We have plenty of articles on made up crap.Slatersteven (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. An article based on sources that think chupacabras are real is not going to be very credible, is it? Guy (Help!) 22:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

OSE, and sometimes we have clear policy and enforcement in place to prevent more made up crap. --Ronz (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I think JzG's comment illustrates the the problem, at least, so far as there is one. People sometimes have a tendency to evaluate sources as though "reliable source" is some absolute universal quality, but of course it's not. A source written by someone who thinks chupacabra are real is very unlikely to be a reliable source for scientific facts, but may well be a very reliable source for details of the chupacabra legend and the people who believe it.

Sometimes people remove sources because they're fringe sources, which makes a lot of sense if they're being used to establish whether a cryptid is real or not, but is the wrong thing to do if they're being used to define a fringe belief or establish its notability. ApLundell (talk) 02:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Academics who discuss the subculture/pseudoscience of cryptozoology frequently comment on how common misrepresentation and deception is in the subculture. It's a hallmark of the subculture today, particularly as it grows increasingly close to, say, Young Earth creationism. Cryptozoologists are not reliable sources, even for their own claims, which require context and often involve some level of deception. There's a long history of certain users on this site aggressively pushing to inject cryptozoology sources in the project. Fortunately, this stuff is finally receiving a lot of scrutiny, and we've got guidelines like WP:PROFRINGE to keep them at bay. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I think your response may be more indicative of the problem. It is not remotely controversial to say that a source written from the perspective that sasquatch, chupacabras or Nessie is real, is not a reliable source. Guy (Help!) 08:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• I have the impression that something worthwhile for the WikiProject would be collecting a list of sources that are considered reliable about the topic (if that doesn't already exist, of course). —PaleoNeonate – 06:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
• "We have plenty of articles on made up crap." I agree. See for example most articles on category Category:Christian theology of the Bible. They are more fringe in subject matter than anything fokllorists can come up with. Dimadick (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear from policies like WP:FRIND and WP:FRINGE that coverage of a fringe theory should be based in independent sources. Books by people who believe in Sasquatch are not independent of cryptozoology, and so generally they should be used carefully, if at all. In this encyclopedia there are some quite a few articles about "made up crap", but the good ones rely on independent sources to give an overview of the topic, and less independent sources for details or specific points of view. There's only a problem when article about made up crap are sourced mostly or entirely to people who believe in that made up crap. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

There are actually adherents who do not merely make up things but adopt methods to investigate whether a source is erroneous or inaccurate. When I searched for this subject, for instance, I came across the work of Thomas Williams, who in 1985 investigated the marine cryptid Ri and found that it was a dugong (his work: Identification of the Ri through further fieldwork in New Ireland, Papua New Guinea). - Darwin Naz (talk) 23:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• It would help if you could give some examples of articles you say have been "purged" or suppressed and which editorial policies have been violated. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Give me a moment to finish my coffee and I'll get back to you.--Paleface Jack (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Just a forewarning, I might be a little bit grumpy in this message due to constantly having to deal with this issue, along with a particular user who has a habit of badmouthing edits that people do in relation to cryptozooology, regardless of whether or not the edits are legitimate. This (possibly) doesn't reflect anyone but I'll try to be as emotionless as possible. Looking at some of the comments here, it seems like some people didn't read my original post which clearly stated that I don't agree with putting "fanfic" sources into articles as they are not reliable. Secondly I NEVER stated that we should be working information to sound like something that has yet to be proven to exist to make it sound that they do. Equally bad is the rewording information on something that has no basis into biology or any pseudoscience (namely purported sightings and such that have not been proven to be misidentification, or a hoax). I can think of several such articles that were previously classified under the crypto banner that had no reason for being there. I was thinking about the "independent" sources that we are suppose to use and realized something. The amount of "independent" is minuscule at best and are not exactly done by those with a neutral standpoint (neutral standpoints are everything in science as one with preconceived notions tend to base everything on that notion, whether they advocate or detract from their opinion). I do think that if we don't at least acknowledge both arguments in the articles we are not being a true encyclopedia as this site was meant to be. If we can work together in finding neutral, independent sources that don't favor one side of the argument then we'd be in much better shape. Finally, I never saw any answer to my question on why the WikiProject Cryptozoology has been mass removed from articles. I did get BloodofFox's adamant opinion that it constituted as FRINGE but I'm not exactly sure that's the case. Not to mention that there was one reason that stated that since the sources didn't use the word cryptid (some used purported), it didn't fit with the project. I will have to take some time gathering up a few examples of this so bear with me.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Again, if you can find academic sources on the topic, we can use them. Stuff like genesispark.com or whatever Loren Coleman source you dig up isn't going to fly as a reliable source for anything on this site. Additionally, WikiProject Cryptozoology has clearly been employed by editors over the years primarily as a means of promoting fringe theories (it appears to have operated in a shamelessly WP:PROFRINGE mode since its inception). This went essentially unchecked for at least several years.

If the WikiProject is going to stick around in some form, it needs to dedicate itself to improving articles on the subculture of cryptozoology using reliable sources, not as a venue for promoting pseudoscience and fringe theories on the site. That said, the WikiProject Cryptozoology appears to be quite dead, so this discussion is evidently pointless. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Wording things a bit nicer when talking to people will go a long way BloodofFox. Although I do agree (partially) on your point. There has been kind of a tenancy to add every single source one finds, which is not helpful in establishing the legitimacy of the WikiProject. I tend to find that the "academic" sources really don't have an extensive research on the subject since they usually don't feel it's in line with what they feel is a real science (technically its not) and any info to come from it they discount. I'm still wondering if Dr. Greg Meldrum (an anthropologist) would be a good enough source for Sasquatch info...--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Of course, as academics highlight, anti-academic sentiment also happens to be a major element of the subculture. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

And everywhere else...--Paleface Jack (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I suspect that the issue may be that the pro-fringe types search for biologists, botanists, etc. to support the notability of cryptids and find nothing. And they never think to look at folklorists or anthropologists or mythographers. Whereas, the denizens of this grumpy corner of Wikipedia are disinclined to find folklorists who write about the myth of the Jersey Devil because they'd rather less of that nonsense on the encyclopedia anyway. As this is a voluntary project, whether you think it's neighbourly or not, that's entirely their right.Simonm223 (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't want this to turn into a big long argument with people insulting differences in opinions. I've had enough of that dealing with with BoF. I just want to clarify the parameters of sources since it's been severely limited by the Fringe and Profringe people. All of that aside, I find that it IS an issue finding only academic sources for Cryptozoology articles since there are so few and some that are get classified as Fringe (something that happens quite a bit). It just makes the expansion of such articles extremely frustrating when you have such a limited amount of what the Fringe and Profringe people accept as good enough sources.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

This is comedy gold. _Roxy, the dog. wooF 19:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps consider a Wikia option? This reminds me a little of Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_145#Should_the_"In_wrestling"_section_be_removed_from_professional_wrestling_articles? as in there seems to be a non-WP scope here. Of course, I don't think I have ever edited in this area. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm only trying to reach an agreement since I was told by someone experienced with these kind of antics that it was more POV pushing than anything else. Can't say I din't try though (sighs).--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

"Perhaps consider a Wikia option?" Another one? Wikia already includes Cryptid Wiki, CryptoWiki, and New Cryptozoology Tarmola Wiki. Dimadick (talk) 09:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Those alternates have a tendency to not cite sources and are poorly structured. I just feel that, by saying ONLY academic sources are allowed, it severely restricts the amount of expansion we can give to those articles since there is just not a lot of academic sources out there on the individuals. There's more on cryptozoology as a whole, mostly detractors, but that's pretty much it. Not at all ideal when one wants to expand those articles to their fullest extent. I still haven't received any satisfactory explanation for the mass removal of the crypto wikiproject banner and categories from articles. All I've gotten is that, since sources doesn't mention the specific word "Cryptid" it doesn't count. Looking at these sources, some say "purported" or "mysterious", and since cryptozoology is the study of the purported and mysterious I think it fits. All I ask is why does it have to be that specific in terms of wording?--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Fringe should not be used as a bludgeon to disallow anything that is not "accepted knowledge".Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven What is Wikipedia for if it is not a repository of "accepted knowledge". Surely that's our raison d'etre - don't we strive to get rid of anything that isn't accepted knowledge? I'm genuinely not meaning to be snarky/rhetorical/sarcastic, I'd be interested to hear your views on this. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Indeed it is the absolute essence of this encylopedic project per WP:NOTEVERYTHING - not just that we have "accepted knowledge" but that we summarize it. Alexbrn (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

You will note I wrote "accepted knowledge" not accepted knowledge, the idea that only knowledge that certain eds consider real knowledge can be accepted konwledge. There is nothing that says that something that is a Fringe (but widely held or written about) subject can only have an article (or entry in an article) if academic writers have written about it. Fringe does not say we cannot have articles (or content on other articles) that a Fringe. Only that we cannot give an impression that such views are mainstream. Articles on Crypto subejcts must be written with care to ensure it is clear that they are not scientifically accurate or academically accepted. That does not mean that if we cannot find academic sources that discus them we should exclude them (for example).Slatersteven (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:VALID is policy. The bit about omitting stuff is pertintent when it isn't (or cannot be contextualized by) accepted academic scholarship. Otherwise we'd risk become an uncritical compendium of UFO abductions, quack cancer cures, conspiracy theories and so forth. Wikipedia is not a compendium of arcana but a summary of accepted knowledge, as every WP:CLUEful editor knows. Alexbrn (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

And as I said as long as we do not claim it is real or equally valid we are obeying this. This is about writing about it to make it clear it is pseudoscience, not legitimization of it by giving it spurious mock academic credibility. This is not an issue of inclusion, but of style.Slatersteven (talk) 08:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I do agree. The scarce academic sources on individual cryptids in general is VERY few, and those that exist almost seem evasive or discounting. As an encyclopedia we must strive to create the very best articles on those subject that his humanly possible. If not enough academic sources are available we should not discount other possible sources. With that in mind I've seen it all too often that pieces of information that come from a good source that gives both pieces of information on both sides (often analysis, but also purported sightings from news outlets). A very good example of this being the research by primatologist Dr. Jeff Meldrum on Bigfoot using his background on Primates and hence an academic source. Now I'm not pushing for outright legitimization as some people claim that I am, nor am I wanting to make it as one person termed "a compendium of arcana", I am merely pointing out that in order to be an encyclopedia we must establish that animals such as the Giant Panda, Komodo Dragon, and Mountain Gorilla were once classified as Cryptids, as is any animal that is claimed to exist but so far hasn't been proven. We should outright say "oh, this is real" but state that it's purported to exist, that way we are keeping to Wikipiedia's guidelines and standards by not legitimizing the pseudoscience. I would like to see the academic theories on the various cryptids as well as the disagreements on those theories if they are from legitimate sources but that might be pushing it. Although I'm not entirely sure considering we have FA class articles on the theories behind the mysterious deaths of well known people. that seems to be more like a conspiracy theory to me. As for Extraterrestials/UFOs, I've never been a believer in that stuff and there are even fewer academic sources on THAT than there are on Cryptozoology. I would consider those topics THEORIES and little else.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Using sources like https://www.genesispark.com/ ain't happening. Wikipedia's standards on fringe topics and pseudoscience are there for good reason. If you want policy and guidelines changed, I recommend lobbying at the relevant talk pages. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The giant panda, the komodo dragon, and the mountain gorilla weren't "classified as Cryptids", their discoveries were retroactively appropriated by cryptozoologists. --tronvillain (talk) 22:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Never heard that source existed so I wouldn't have used it anyways. The giant panda, the komodo dragon, and the mountain gorilla weren't specifically called "cryptid" but that doesn't mean that the word needs to be explicitly stated. Seems to me that's a common error some make.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

If we want to call them cryptids in a WP page, then yes, it needs to be explicitly stated in a source. You will find that the rules page WP:SYNTH makes the "common error" of saying so. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

That's all I need to know.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleface Jack (talk • contribs) 00:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Although I don't appreciate the sas though...--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Just realized something. Since Wikipiedia is a Reference/Encyclopedia site, shouldn't we be including both sides of the "Cryptid debate"? I was just wondering because, even though it's classified under "Fringe Theories" this site is more reference-based rather than conspiracy theory based. What I'm meaning by this is that, in terms of literary sources to include as references for this topic, we should consider adding as much literary sources a possible (with some regulation on that of course). Just a thought but I thought that it would be worth mentioning here. In terms of websites, I'm very hesitant with using non-acedemic/news references for this topic since they are not verifiably truthful.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by the "cryptid debate"? I don't think we have any evidence that there are equally valid sides with regards to the discussion of cryptids. jps (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Ferkijel (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC) I believe the blanket answer to this question is that these arguments (including this so called "cryptid debate") all fall under logical fallacies/arguments from ignorance. The very first sentence in this talk says that "Cryptozoology is the study of animals that have yet to be verified of their existence", and that by itself characterises the topic as a fringe theory. As per Wikipedia principles (in particular the principle of neutral point of view), the community shouldn't give fringe theories undue weight.

References

Parapsychology yet again

Apparently a psychologist somewhere said that Psi is totally as real as other psychological phenomena; what Replication Crisis pretty much in hand as it stands but it's always good to make sure people are aware. Simonm223 (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Yep. It’s October, and so pop culture ‘news of the weird’ gets a bump during Halloween season and typically results in increased activity at fringe topic articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

That "psychologist somewhere" is Etzel Cardeña, whose article has been noticeboarded here recently. He seems to be in season too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the replication crisis is far more likely to end with most pro-psi research getting thrown out than the other way around. There are a few fringe subjects that might get some vindication out of it, but those are inevitably the more respectable ones. Parapsychology is not one of those. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The parapsychological meta-analyses seem mostly like a case of garbage in garbage out than anything else TBH. Simonm223 (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

See also the discussion at NPOVN... GirthSummit _(blether) 16:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Problems are spreadying to Paranormal. [1] jps (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

The disruption at parapsychology has moved from a content dispute to a behavioral issue. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, who wants to take this to WP:Arb/E? Simonm223 (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk page antics are now pure WP:SOUP, but the article is currently locked. If edit warring persists after unlocking, I would say AN/I is probably best. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Related: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal --Guy Macon (talk) 04:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

A while back I moved parapsychology from "Basic psychology" to "See also" on Outline of psychology (next to neurolinguistic programming). It was just moved to "other areas by topic", which might be justified, but I'm not entirely convinced parapsychology is really a part of psychology these days - might be worth a look. --tronvillain (talk) 12:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The Mountain Astrologer

Is this notable? It seems to have won an award that I don't think we'd usually mention. Doug Weller talk 18:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The only Spica award I can find seems like it wouldn't apply to an astrology mag. Simonm223 (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I just deleted three unsourced claims (including about the awards) and then did a double take and PRODded it as quickly as I could. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Apparently, someone things that astrology books are RSes, so... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mountain Astrologer ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Reincarnation and Template:Paranormal

Hello, all. Recently I've been taking a look at our reincarnation article (summary: it's a mess) and noticed that the paranormal template (template:paranormal) appears in the lead. After removing it, my edit was reverted by Pfhorrest (talk · contribs) ("this article is linked within that paranormal navbox, so it belongs"—with that logic, one can imagine the response to removing it from the navbox).

So, currently we've got reincarnation, a major aspect of religions both historically and contemporaneously, listed next to a bunch of western pseudosciences (like ghost hunting, cryptozoology, and parapsychology) under the guise of "paranormal". Meanwhile, heaven, hell, and all related articles receive no such treatment. What gives? I've started a thread about this topic here. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Following up on this, I've now started a discussion at Template:Paranormal (see Template_talk:Paranormal#"Main_articles"). Evidently this template was produced during a Wikipedia era where every little topic that editors at WikiProject Paranormal deemed 'weird' (anything from angels to UFOs to ghosts) could be lumped into this category. As it stands, it looks like to me this template serves no purpose and should either be refactored or deleted. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I see your point, but I think the reason that template is slapped on there is that while the existence of heaven, hell, and so forth does not have documented active pseudoscientific research into them, reincarnation does. But perhaps instead of "paranormal", a better connector would be "parapsychology". jps (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I think you're right. However, the "paranormal" association appears as a sizable template at the beginning of the article rather than in a small section or in a sentence or two. That's definitely too much emphasis on a small western subculture.

I also recommend that supernatural gets more eyes. As it stands now, it's a total mess that needs a total rewrite. See my comments at Talk:Supernatural#Article_Needs_a_Total_Rewrite. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The current location of the template looks more appropriate to me. I spent a lot of work trying to pound what used to be a WP:POVFORK reincarnation research into a form that was appropriate, so some of this may perhaps be part of the headaches associated with that. I apologize if it's in any way my fault. jps (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I did some edits to the reincarnation research section that still survives. I'm actually pretty pleased with the way this subject is dealt with now. Would love to get others' feedback. jps (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

No worries, I appreciate how difficult it is to cut through the pseudoscience and vested tomfoolery that has over the years grown so thick on so many of these articles. I'm glad that we have editors like yourself active on the project and a board like this where we can discuss these issues. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Looking at it again, I hadn't realized just how far down the article it was - seems like a reasonable location. --tronvillain (talk) 22:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Supernatural

Following up on the discussion above, we've got an editor removing fringe and rewrite tags over at supernatural (@GliderMaven:), and restoring large sections focused on Christian mythology ([2]). This editor also added reincarnation and karma to this article earlier today ([3]). I think adherents to belief systems featuring both concepts would be surprised to find the description of such systems as "supernatural"—a Western concept dating form the medieval period—to apply to their belief systems, but that's just where we're at on this article, I suppose. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it's not focussed on Christian mythology, I don't even know why Bloodfox is claiming that, it covers all of the Abrahamic religions as well as Zoroastrianism and potentially most of the others, as well as other belief systems including the Occult, and he deleted virtually all of the article without consensus for reasons that don't seem to make any sense. Bloodfox seems to be POV pushing that religions aren't supernatural, which would be in and of itself a Fringe theory. GliderMaven (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Glider, prior to your inexplicable additions of reincarnation and karma to supernatural, the article featured a large section exclusively dedicated to entities from Christian mythology ([4]). :bloodofox: (talk) 00:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Deleting my responses under the guise of them being personal attacks and making UNDUE statements about me is NOT the way to go. I am a filmmaker, NOT a cryptozoologist. After repeated attempts to state that Wikipiedia is a reference cite and encyclopedia site has gone on deaf ears. You pretty much destroyed any chance of ANY crypto and paranormal related articles have at being expanded to their full capacity, which I have also stated that doesn't me I advocate for or against those topics. Merely that they should have a full balance on the info given from both sides since ignoring all the information that is from legitimate news sites and books is just plain silly. I don't appreciate it that some users here decide to launch personal attacks on others when they make edits that don't fit with their agendas. MY agenda is to have ALL articles expanded to their fullest extent and all that it entails and the misinterpretations of the rules and regs here have gotten in the way of that for far too long. Again that doesn't em that we add every single source that is out there, only the previously mentioned ones that have verifiable notability.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Even prior to those additions, I am unable to match up your claims that it exclusively talks about Christian mythology with the contents of the article. This seems to be largely in your head. It talks about Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Vedism deitism and much more. I do not agree with you deleting almost the entire article, nor do I agree with the claims you made to do this. GliderMaven (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

A quick glance at the subsections you keep adding makes the focus on Christian mythology abundantly clear. As for your additions of reincarnation and karma to the article and insistence that these topics somehow fall under the category of "supernatural" (and repeated edit-warring to restore sections and, always a bad sign, to remove rewrite and fringe tags), I'm not entirely sure what you're hoping to do here. Common features of religions are simply that; they're not "supernatural", so to speak.

Given your propensity to edit-war and remove tags from articles rather than discuss them or find a solution and my refusal to engage, it seems that we'll need to wait for other parties to enter this discussion. In the mean time, I'll continue working on a rewrite and I invite you to better familiarize yourself with this topic. As usual with this sort of thing on the site, I get that certain users would rather these articles remain fixated on their pet topics, and that said users often seem to think that button-mashing will get them what they want, but I think you'll find that aggressive reverting will get you nowhere fast on the platform, whereas thoughtful discussion can go a long way. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'm onto you now, you are clearly POV-pushing; deliberately slanting the article by removing pertinent material. And given your propensity to remove most of the article, it would be essential for you to read Religion which states: "Religion may be defined as a cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements.". The material you removed refers to gods in general, not simply the Christian god, and is 100% on point. GliderMaven (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

My POV, which I've stated, is that the article needs to be rewritten with reliable sources that discuss the topic of the supernatural (and the historical development of the concept) and that the massive amount of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH on the article needs to go, including the cherry-picked discussion about angels, demons, and spirits. Our religion article is irrelevant here, we're talking about this article. Our Nature article more relevant to this discussion, but we're discussing the state of this article. Let's stick to the topic at hand. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Most people do not seem to agree with you. This is a WP:BROADCONCEPT article, like most major topics, and certainly is not limited to a small set of references that refer to the history of the word 'supernatural' from the middle ages or whatever. Religions of all types are very definitely on-topic here. Wikipedia is a reference work. Among many other things, you deleted section on angels and demons- which are specifically defined everywhere as being supernatural beings, as are gods. To be perfectly honest, I don't think you have the slightest clue what an Encyclopedia or for that matter the supernatural even is and your edits and comments above only serve to exemplify this. GliderMaven (talk) 02:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Ignoring your personal attacks, I invite you to check the discussion that has to date occurred here and on related articles. While you seem keen to turn the article into a list of random stuff (including broad concepts like reincarnation and karma) you've decided to be "supernatural" (no references needed), this article cannot remain the pile of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR that it is now. Additionally, the emphasis on Christian mythology appears to betray a fringe approach that we've been dealing with on related articles for some time now. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I repeat the accusation that you do NOT know what is or is not supernatural. As such you have clearly disqualified yourself from editing the article. PLEASE GET CONSENSUS ON THE RELEVANT TALK PAGE BEFORE MAKING ANY OF YOUR BONKERS EDITS. GliderMaven (talk) 03:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that we've discovered perhaps why the article is problematic. In any case, bloodofox has stubbified the article into a version that I think serves us much better than the morass that came before. I encourage people who watch this board to join the conversation and help build out this relying on the best academic sources on the subject. jps (talk) 10:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

In regards to BoF's posting of that particular link, I will say this: That post was meant for those that actually new the rules and regs on Wikipedia in terms of notable/reliable sources for the topic. Little did I realize that some of those users would unwittingly use unreliable sources, and for that I appologize (I left a reply that clarified that whole issue so thanks for the heads up BOF). In regards to the intention of your post, I have seen this tactic with you before BloodofFox, using what I say out of context as a sort of "drop the mic" as one user described it as. It seems more like bullying and slandering to me and I have seen you do it with multiple users you argue with. It needs to stop. I have tried to calmly explain why transparency and complete covering of subjects are needed, as information (if notable) is worth being mentioned. I have also previously said that, even though BoF would LOVE to point out that I lean towards "cryptozoology", the ONLY reason I am here is because I am a strong advocate for the complete covering of an article's subject. POV's don't matter to me because that is not the point that I am trying to make. The REAL point is that we are transparent, and with that transparency we must use all the reliable sources that we can muster to show all sides in a neutral way. This would not be like a big argument/conspiracy theory thing where people decide which side is right and/or wrong. Merely a reasonable paragraph that both acknowledges the argument in a neutral way and shows that there is an argument. Not acknowledging that there is a big debate about some of these subjects is sloppy in terms of coverage as it is still notable to state that there IS an argument. That would be the most "neutral" way of doing it without crossing the line in terms of this site's rules and regs.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

This is an off-topic comment that doesn't deal with the needs of the article on supernatural. If you would like to explain what sources we should use for supernatural, feel free to do so. jps (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

No, I would like you to explain what the real reason for vandalising the article is, because you haven't actually given one. The topic is largely one related to Christianity, because it was defined by Saint Thomas Aquinas specifically in relation to miracles and prophesies and so forth. And yet you f'ing morons have just deleted all that. Please explain what kind of brain damage you have suffered from??? What is wrong with you morons? GliderMaven (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Yelling abuse at people isn't going to help you at all. Stop it. Black Kite (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

It's clear to me that these are bad-faith actors, none of their explanations make any sense at all. This article just went from solid mid C-class down to stub. When was the last time you saw an article do that? GliderMaven (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

This happens a lot. See WP:TNT. Fortunately, we have some excellent editors who are willing to work on this article with you to try to build it up to a better piece than what was there before. jps (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

If you finished exchanging insults, does anyone want to discuss the article's sources?

• The article now includes an extensive quotation from an 1686 book by Robert Boyle (1627–1691). Not the kmost up to date source we could include.
• Citation 6 references a book, but neither its writers, nor its editor.
• Two of the sources date to the 1970s, and one to the 1980s. One of them is a publication from Academia Sinica (in Taiwan). Another is a quotation from Benson Sale, who is currently listed as a faculty member in Brandeis University, and one is by Michael Winkelman, but I am not cettain if it was written from the Winkelman who served in the faculty of the Arizona State University. The Arizona Winkwlman is an exper in neurotheology. Are these reasonably up-to-date and reliable, or not? Dimadick (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

One the issues I'm having with the article is that the term has been used a long time, but it has changed dramatically in its implications over the years. I am almost to the point where I think it would make more sense to write a disambiguation page so that those interested in the original coinage could go much about in Christian theology, those interested in the philosophical meanderings could be redirected to naturalism or somesuch, and those who are more fascinated by the back-and-forth between skeptics and believers be redirected to paranormal, perhaps. jps (talk) 11:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Good points. A lot of people searching for supernatural could easily be looking for something more like paranormal. --tronvillain (talk) 13:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but I bet the vast majority are actually looking for Supernatural (U.S. TV series). Sigh. jps (talk) 13:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Probably true. I tweaked the hatnote. --tronvillain (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Rudraksha

The article Rudraksha, particularly the "Uses of Rudraksha" section, appears to be full of pseudoscientific content regarding "electromagnetic power" and healing properties of these seeds. Can someone take a look? Deli nk (talk) 12:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that entire section was clearly fringe without any credible support. The entire article has problems. --tronvillain (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

William G. Roll

Parapsychologist with crank ideas about psychokinesis being real. Several skeptic sources were removed from the article. Have restored last good old version with the skeptic sources included and without the publication promotion (citing loads of Roll's paranormal papers is not needed on the article) but have been reverted. 82.132.231.71 (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Journal of Ginseng Research

While researching something unrelated (methods for quantifying collagen production in vitro) I came across a useful-looking article published in Elsevier's Journal of Ginseng Research, which sounds sketchy, so I wanted to look into its reliability. Surprisingly, it's not only given an impact factor by JCR (the usual up-or-down criterion for notability per WP:NJOURNAL 1c), but is included in NCBI's PMC database. A recent review of biomedical ginseng research in Molecules found, perhaps unsurprisingly, that the JGR had published more articles on ginseng research than any other journal.

Is that good enough for me to write an article for it, or is the fact that it's organized around research on a traditional medicinal enough that people here would presume it falls under FRINGE? FourViolas (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

An open access journal with an impact factor of 4.054 in 2017 with 1,364 total cites, eh? I don't think that it publishes research on something associated with traditional medicine makes it obviously fringe, though results in that area often seem questionable. And meeting notability for an article and being in PMC doesn't necessarily establish it as reliable, but that's more of an issue for the reliable sources noticeboard. --tronvillain (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Should have clarified, I meant that I'm considering digging deeper for evidence on its reliability to put together an article, but don't want to waste my time if it's presumptively unsuitable for WP. FourViolas (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I mean, Homeopathy (journal) exists, so fringe isn't necessarily an obstacle. This is at least about molecules that actually exist and might have some effect. --tronvillain (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

If Elsevier can make a buck by publishing a journal, they will publish that journal. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• You forgot to facepalm and laugh at the fact that this journal even exists. Those are absolutely necessary first steps, here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Theosophy

Some may remember User creating articles on countless Theosophy books and Theosophy_and_science. The user's articles (essays) could probably still use some more eyes - I've put a couple up for deletion and have one up now, but there are probably more that should be nominated or significantly altered. --14:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tronvillain (talk • contribs)

Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You called my propaganda film a propaganda film. Prepare to be talked to death.

Could someone here please take a look at Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed?

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a propaganda film that portrays the scientific theory of evolution as a contributor to communism, fascism, atheism, eugenics and, in particular, Nazi atrocities in the Holocaust. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I've never seen Princess Bride, but I've seen Big Bang Theory. Thanks for the chuckle! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I highly recommend it. Best film André the Giant ever made.

Westley: Give us the gate key.

Yellin: I have no gate key.

Inigo Montoya: Fezzik, tear his arms off.

Yellin: Oh, you mean THIS gate key.

-Guy Macon (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Miracle Max: I'll call the brute squad.

Fezzik: I'm on the brute squad.

Miracle Max: You are the brute squad.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

OMG I just want that interminable thread to go away forever. Simonm223 (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm so tempted to archive those threads with the edit summary "aaaaasss yoooouuuuuu wiiiiiiissssshhhh...." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeed - I can hear the sound of ultimate suffering coming from that talk page. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

"His page of ten years is called propaganda by another tonight, so who else has the cause for ultimate suffering?" --tronvillain (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Anyone with Talk:Parapsychology on their watchlist, unfortunately... GirthSummit _(blether) 16:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Or Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Ouch - missed that one. At least EEng's there the lighten the mood - or maybe that makes the suffering all the more acute? GirthSummit _(blether) 16:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes I look at my watchlist and wonder how I constantly end up going against a Sicilian when death is on the line. Simonm223 (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

A built-up immunity to iocane powder, that's how. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Inconceivable --Ronz (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes. We are biased.

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once said:

"Wikipedia’s policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately."

"What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t.[5][6]"

So yes, we are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience.
We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.
We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.
We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.
We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.
We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.
We are biased towards laundry soap, and biased against laundry balls.
We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.
We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.
We are biased towards evolution, and biased against creationism.
We are biased towards medical treatments that have been shown to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible.
We are biased towards NASA astronauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.
We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
We are biased towards Mendelian inheritance, and biased against Lysenkoism.
--Guy Macon (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

If this isn't an essay already, you could make it one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I always thought we ought to have a page WP:REQUIREDBIAS or somesuch. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Good idea. I will write the essay. Does anyone else have any good "biased towards X], biased against Y" topics I can add? Any of the above that I should nuke? --Guy Macon (talk) 11:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Vax/anti-vax? Global warming/denial? GirthSummit _(blether) 11:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Another idea would be to redirect REQUIREDBIAS to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

NASA are not the only astronauts, we might need to pick our words a tad more carefully to avoid giving the wrong impression.Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Taikonauts and cosmonauts arguably are the only people who went to space who weren't NASA astronauts. jps (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I would add Holocaust studies/Holocaust denial. Catrìona (talk) 14:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

CSI/psi. -LuckyLouie (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Any essay explaining this has to note that we should not simply ignore the things we are biased against. We do (and should) discuss such topics. It’s just that we must present them appropriately... as being opinion and not as being fact. Blueboar (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:MAINSTREAM was the last time I tried to write something like that. An update might be a good idea. jps (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Good comments so far. Lots of stuff that will ghelp with the essay I am writing. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The only big question the "bias" is what it entails in terms of article coverage, references, and the like. There must be some parameters that sort of give us editors some leeway in terms of how much we can expand said articles. For example: We should at least mention the alternate sciences and their views (pseudo-science, religious science, and other alternate "sciences"). Not as an argument, but as a brief acknowledgement of the alternate viewpoint. We have a whole bunch of science articles that include theories proven and unproven as well as non science articles with theories as well. What I'm trying to say, and what I have been trying to say all along is this, does a brief mentioning of the "biased" works/theories fit within Wikipiedia's guideline parameters? It feels like we should at the very least mention in a brief paragraph (with criticism by scientists) the alternate works/theories.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Not sure I understand what you are suggesting. We don't just mention Astrology, we have a whole article on it. Are you saying that our Astronomy article should talk about astrology? Note that we already have an Astrology and astronomy article. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• I think it should end by stating that we are biased towards reality (or possibly "demonstrable truth" or an equivalent term), and against anyone or anything that rejects reality. As a conclusion, because all of the above really boils down to that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

No, not reality. We are biased towards current scientific (for example) consensus (maybe, best knowledge), but scientific consensus has been wrong in the past. In some areas we can say "reality" but not in all.Slatersteven (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, reality. The scientific consensus is reality. If you disagree, then please show me the difference in a way I can put stock in. You know, a methodological, reproducible, empirical way. Good luck. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:34, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean methodological, reproducible, empirical way? I seem to recall that every so often "science" has to refine how it views the universe based upon new evidence, that is certainly empirical, but you cannot reproduce (unless of course you mean repeat it (such as what about piltdown man?))m As to methodological, well I suppose I could always list (does that count as reproduce) all the times science has had to refine "reality"? \this is why we need to be carefull "ohh well you call it reality, so was it reality when...after all reality cannot change?). Using terms like reality plays into the hands of pseudoscience advocates.10:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)

There is also the the problem of begging the question. Tell an antivax proponent that we are biased towards reality and he will reply "of course! and I can show you that the reality is that vaccines cause autism!" Tell the same antivax proponent that we are biased towards the current scientific consensus and he will reply "of course! and I can show you that the current scientific consensus is that vaccines cause autism!" For the purposes of my essay, it would be better to just say "We are biased towards vaccination, and biased against antivax" (with the links). It is the seeing your pet hobbyhorse listed among all the other things that you don't believe that is so effective. anything that requires to reader to not be completely wrong about what the sources say just dilutes the message. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't really buy the whole 'the scientific consensus has been wrong in the past' thing, which is a favorite amongst the lunatic charlatan brigade. It's kind of true up to a point, but it's used far too often to add an element of doubt to whatever glaringly obvious fact someone is try to call 'just another theory'. The scientific consensus is not going to change about the world being round, about vaccines saving lives, about life forms evolving gradually over time - actually, about anything on Guy's list.GirthSummit _(blether) 20:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The problem becomes when we expand the list. Sure when we are talking about flat earth or round earth we are talking about a well established and clear irrefutable fact. But is it true to say that Ancient astronauts are clearly and irrefutable not real (after all Shklovski and Sagan both stated it was a possibility all but a slim one (and one by the way I happen to disagree with, physics and reality et all making it impossible). We need to ensure that the kind of "but science if sometimes wrong" argument cannot be used by a choice of language that does not elevate science to "infallibility", leave that to religion.Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Great idea for an essay. However, we are no more biased against Cargo Cults than we are against Christians. Other than that, good list. Mathglot (talk) 02:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I have been very happy with my user page for all this time, but the meat of the "towards and against" may well appear there before too long. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 11:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

ADDENDUM : Laundry balls facilitate better washing when used with a commercial detergent. They also promote fluffier results when used in tumble dryers. Regards, an Expert. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 11:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

AfD of possible interest

The article Frederick Klenner is currently at AfD and may be of interest to editors who monitor or participate on this noticeboard. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

That article could definitely use some more eyes. The number of references to Bitter Blood is impressive, and it has statements like "Having cured polio in 1948 via megadoses of vitamin C and large doses of vitamin B1..." --tronvillain (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Ivanhorod Einsatzgruppen photograph

Requesting some help on the talk page regarding claims that the photograph is not genuine. There's dispute in how to interpret one of the sources and whether to give it weight in the lead. Catrìona (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Pyramid power

Does anybody know what to do about this?

[7]

Seems legit - if one looks at the site only. But the content???

Of course "This is no longer true" is impossible in an article. Still I did not touch it yet. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the solution was easy, but I would say that. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 10:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeeees, maybe I should have done that myself. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

From the abstract of the article it seems like pyramids are better resistors than power plants "scatters EM waves into the substrate" sounds like a fancy way of saying "acts as a ground line". Simonm223 (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The text of the paper isn't hard to find on google. Though I won't link here because the only copies I've found are of dubious copyright status.

"Two of the main objectives of our study are partial removing of unreasonable speculations about electromagnetic properties of the Great Pyramid and the demonstration of flexibility of the multipole decomposition method for research at both nano- and macro-scales."

The paper is over my head, but I'm pretty sure this is just a math exercise with predictable results.

"Hey look, this math we use for nano-scale structures in a lab also works for huge structures in the dessert."

ApLundell (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

In addition: What did they find? Pyramids scatter some wavelengths more than others. That is expected for a structure of a fixed size. --mfb (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC) ^Dessert?

It's enough to put you off your pudding !! -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 00:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Non-Darwinian evolution

See Category talk:Non-Darwinian evolution. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Jack Sarfatti

I started removing some fluff, but why should have all the fun changing this nightmare to an acceptable article?

There were actual copy-paste abstracts of his publications in there. He will probably add pictures of his daily meals next. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Note that Jack Sarfatti -- and it's obvious the editor inflating this article is Jack, sockpuppeting -- was blocked by Jimbo Wales hisownself near 13 years ago, so perhaps it's easiest if someone just blocks him and puts the article under semiprotection. --Calton | Talk 21:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Stupid question: What exactly makes him notable? David Kaiser talking about him? Anything else? --mfb (talk) 00:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, he knows a lot of famous people, and he believed Uri Geller was real, and a lot of other irrelevant reasons...

He wrote books?

Martin Gardner made fun of him? --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Self-published books according to the article. --mfb (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Nicolae Densușianu

We have a dispute about [8] (forget the part with the Romanian Academy, that's not being disputed).

Namely going by JSTOR and EBSCO (Academic Search Alumni Edition and Business Source Alumni Edition) his Magnum Opus (Prehistoric Dacia) is not even considered for rejection, let alone approval. Therefore WP:PARITY applies and the rub is about some sources, one of which says that ND's book is "mystical delirium". Example: ND has stated that Orăștie is the place where lies buried Orestes. How does he know? Well, they sound similarly (which is a symptom of delirium, Alexe's claim is not rocket science). Other examples: "Atlas=Alutus=Olt=Muntii Oltului; Pharanx=Paring; Colchis=Colti (Buzau); Phasis=Buzau; Terrigenae=Tirighina; Ardalos=Ardeal; Zalmoxis=Zeul Mos; Latona=Letea; Selene=Sulina; Saturn-Noe-Novac etc. etc." (Mircea Babeș, [9]).

Alexe's book has been published by the prestigious Romanian publishing house Humanitas and it is corroborated by a source published by the reputable scholarly publisher Brill. Other luminaries of Romanian historiography consider ND's book as fantasy genre, fantasy ruling out delirium (but not because it would be reality-based). The statements are properly attributed to their authors. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

That's not what the dispute is about. You keep misunderstanding, which is why I asked for a third-opinion. Good luck though.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Iovaniorgovan: Who wrote this: You again misunderstand or purposely misstate the nature of this debate. The argument is not over whether Densusianu is fringe, but rather if we should allow REDUNDANT AND NON FACTUAL comments (see Wiki guidelines above) from a blogger/filmmaker into an article that already violates WP:PARITY ("Inclusion and exclusion of content related to fringe theories and criticism of fringe theories may be done by means of a rough parity of sources.)? And this: You may want to read my last comment again. My main contention is that Alexe's "comments" are REDUNDANT AND NON FACTUAL (as per Wiki guidelines). My secondary contention is that his comments are redundant and non factual in an article that already violates WP:PARITY. Since I've gotten to a point where I have to repeat my statements, I think it's time for 3O (feel free to list for 3O, since you started this, or your edit will be removed).? Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

My reply to these statements was that local consensus cannot trump a content guideline. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

That's why I mentioned the Wiki content guidelines.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, let's see, on my side ("ND's book is bunk") are: Alexandru Dimitrie Xenopol, Vasile Pârvan, Nicolae Iorga, Zigu Ornea, Dan Alexe, Lucian Boia, Andrei Oișteanu, Eugen Ciurtin, Florin Țurcanu, Mircea Babeș, Tchavdar Marinov and I could add a few notable Romanian historians to this list. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Why is it so critical that Alexe get such a prominent mention in the lede?

The "Legacy" section suggests that multiple scholars think Densușianu was crazy, so if it's going to cause an edit war, why not replace that Alexe statement with a summary like "Mainstream scholars regarded his work as fanciful and unscientific"?

ApLundell (talk) 07:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, done. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@ApLundell; thanks, my point exactly!Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Sci-Hub

There is some querulousness over at talk:Sci-Hub where a couple of editors are absolutely adamant that Sci-Hub's use of credentials to which it has no legal right, to access copyright material and give it to users in violation of copyright, may not be described as computer fraud. Basically it's the guerilla open access viewpoint, which is WP:FRINGE in terms of the real-world position on copyright via the Berne convention, WTO rules and related national laws including laws relating to computer fraud and misuse. Guy (Help!) 12:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Is the phrase "No legal right" actually used in a source describing Sci-Hub? Or is that WP:SYNTH based on your own interpretation of rules regarding sharing passwords? ApLundell (talk) 05:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

(Please excuse me if I missed something in that giant, repetitive thread on the talk page. ApLundell (talk) 06:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC))

I am not convinced that they have a WP:FRINGE position on copyright. If they claim that they are not breaking copyright laws, that would be fringe. If they agree that they are breaking copyright laws and say that this is a legitimate act of civil disobedience over unjust laws, then there is no fringe theory involved, just someone purposely breaking the law and admitting it. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Mutual UFO Network

We've got a UFO editor there deleting sourced material. Doug Weller talk 09:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Waverly Hills Sanatorium

Waverly Hills Sanatorium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Student assigned to improve article doesn't appear to accept that fringe sources aren't reliable. See Talk:Waverly_Hills_Sanatorium#More_Research_Found/_Basic_Editing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Fringe theory of the month: Oumuamua

What the scientists actually said:

• "We discuss the possible origins of such an object including the possibility that it might be a lightsail of artificial origin."[10][11]

What The Usual Sources changed it to:

• "Leading astronomer claims Oumuamua is alien probe with broken engines"
• "Is Oumuamua an alien spaceship? Does NASA know the TRUTH behind cigar-shaped asteroid?"
• "Harvard Researchers Suggest 'Oumuamua Was Alien ‘Reconnaissance Mission' "
• "Strange 'cigar-shaped' asteroid could be 'hostile' ALIEN RACE that 'risks our existence' "
• "Astronomers are listening for alien signals from a weird object that's flying through the solar system"

What the scientists said next:

• "Sometimes a cigar-shaped 'comet' is just a comet."[12][13]

The reaction of The Usual Sources:

(...silence...)

--Guy Macon (talk) 02:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

TBF, I don't think that ʻOumuamua is usually considered to be a comet either. Thankfully, the article does not give the UFO view too much weight. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Ken Ham Is Furious That Newspapers Accurately Report Ark Encounter’s Attendance

[14][15][16] -Guy Macon (talk) 01:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm still topic banned from editing the Ark Encounter article by @JzG: However, I see that there is some work left to be done on that page. Could I get a topic ban lift, JzG? jps (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

On an entirely unrelated note, does anyone else mentally image a big talking ham? No? Just me then... Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

My image had qualities like frothing and quaking and fists held with the thumbs somehow towards me ... why? -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 21:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I dream of the day that the Ark Encounter's losses are so large they stop interrupting my television programs with ads that encourage parents to miseducate their children. - Nunh-huh 21:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

"does anyone else mentally image a big talking ham" Isn't there one already occupying the office of President of the United States? Dimadick (talk) 23:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• If I may quote BSM Williams: oh dear, how sad, never mind. Guy (Help!) 23:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Does this mean that the topic ban is lifted? jps (talk) 12:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)