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

Brian Martin (social scientist)

• Brian Martin (social scientist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Someone wants more opinions about moving stuff to the Criticism section. Also, discussion about whether Martin's "support" for pseudoscience and conspiracy theories needs more sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks fine, that content looks well sourced, well placed and accurate to me. CatCafe (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

We definitely need to make mention of his primary notability in the lede. I added a sentence. jps (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Martin's alleged support for pseudoscience and conspiracy theories needs reliable sources sourced to Martin himself. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC).

No. Why? Do you need him to say "I support pseudoscience and conspiracy theories"? In that case, we cannot say it about anybody.

We have reliable sources saying he does. That is enough. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

The argument is invalid. If it is asserted that Martin supports antivax or anything else then sources in which Martin says actually that must be quoted. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC).

Says who, except you? It is common usage to actually link the rules one postulates, so people can look them up. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the current sources, they ideally should be independent (WP:RS) and the criticism that I see even appears to be attributed... It would be original research to use his primary quotes, if available, and interpret them for the article (but it can be done with uncontroversial basic information they want public). The article even currently includes his refutation, which is generous but acceptable, I think (i. e. "I have never defended this idea"). —PaleoNeonate – 11:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Still being moved away from NPOV by fringe sympathetic eds. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Xxanthippe is just wrong, here and at the article talk page. We've got reliable sources and are not making the criticism in Wikipedia's voice. Doug Weller talk 14:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Could you clarify what it is that I am wrong about? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC).

We give less and not more weight to an individual's self-description than to the description of them in reliable secondary sources. GMG^talk 13:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Homeopathy for GA

Homeopathy used to be one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it was removed from the list in 2012. I believe that the issues that led to delistment had since been corrected, and I renominated the article back to GA. Is someone willing to review this nomination? It's a highly visible article, so it should be up to the highest standards. Heptor (talk) 11:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Heptor, good luck persuading quackery shills. Guy (help!) 23:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Thaanks :D Heptor (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I also think it's a difficult candidate for GA, I remember once recommending to an editor to try another article (I don't remember if it was Heptor at the time [nope, not me --H]). When honest reviewers have the impression that to meet NPOV the article should describe it as a scientific theory and detail its tenets, or that it should have a rebutal for every criticism resulting in false equivalence, that the article's history and talk page have active seemingly endless debates (not really an article in a stable state)... If it fails, we must also consider that GA has goals that do not always result in the best outcome for all articles, depending on topic, so it's not necessarily a defeat. —PaleoNeonate – 12:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

If the criteria for GA lead to some articles being made worse, then the criteria should be changed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Couldn't we try? I haven't recently seen any of the established users argue for what you mentioned about describing the subject matter as a scientific theory. Maybe the orange boxes on top of the talk page are doing their job? The article has been stable for the last couple of months. The last significant edit war was about the use of the picture of Hahnemann to illustrate the article. Before that, as it happens, mr Guy used to revert me quite a lot. Heptor (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Farrell Till

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

It's already on the alerts list above, but since I'm not sure it's enough I'm also posting the notice here. About a skeptic, but with suboptimal sources and apparent COI history. Currently at AfD here. —PaleoNeonate – 20:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Vlachs in the history of Croatia

Needs a look over, a sizable chunk of the article seems to be sources to a couple of student papers by someone called Marko Šarić.Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that this calling a person with a Master’s degree “student” is a BLP violation. This "student" from 1992 until 1998 studied History and Polish language at the Faculty of Philosophy (University of Zagreb). Graduated in 1998 with the topic "Social Relations and Conflicts in the Lika-Krka sanjak in the 16th Century and the Beginning of the 17th Century.” In October 2005 he achieved MA degree with the thesis ‘Dinaric Vlachs between the Ottoman Empire and Venice: History of Legal Institutions in the Military Border Society (15th-17th Centuries)’.[2] Some years later (2007 or 2009) he published an article 'Premodern ethnic groups in Lika and Krbava according to census from 1712./14'. [3]. What is suspicious? All these questions were already asked to Slatersteven [4], but they remained unanswered. It looks like pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

In 2010 he defended his doctoral dissertation: Vlachs on the Triplex Confinium: coexistence in clashes in borders societies and cultures of the Morlakia (16th-17th century)) [5].--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The paper is from 2007 and was probably in preparation for a year or two. That paper is about ethnicities in Lika area and as I noticed information from that paper cover whole article or a good part. Title of the article is "Vlachs in the history of Croatia" and Vlachs exist and in other parts of Croatia(Slavonia, Dalmatia, Kordun, Banovina, Gorski Kotar, northwestern Croatia, Žumberak, Croatian Littoral however his paper deals with the Lika census(1712) and ethnicities ie only from Lika area. I noticed that in paper are mentioned Serbian Orthodox Vlachs although Austrian historian Karl Kaser in book (Lika census(1712) mentions Vlachs Schismatics which he considers to be members of the Greek Orthodox population. That term "Serbian Orthodox Vlachs" I did not notice that is used by Croatian historians. This is what i noticed at first. Mikola22 (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

to be members of the Greek Orthodox population -- Here was extended explanation: Talk:Vlachs_in_the_history_of_Croatia#Serbian_Orthodox, but Mikola22 WP:NOTLISTENING, as usual.--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

It is Austro-Hungaria, in those years Serbian Orthodox Church was just entering in that area and these inhabitants are from a time when that church is not yet in existence. It is not Turkish but Austro-Hungarian territory. The Austrian historian did not say that without some facts from that time and area. Sources mentione Vlachs Schismatics not Vlachs Serbian Orthodox. "In 1766, when the autocephalous Serbian Patriarchate of Peć was abolished, Eparchy of Dabar-Bosnia and all other Serbian eparchies under Ottoman rule came under the jurisdiction of Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople" I finish answering.Mikola22 (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

when that church is not yet in existence. -- Funny news, see Serbian Patriarchate of Peć#Early Modern Period (1557-1766). Also, "In 1766 ... came under" means that previously they were not there. --Nicoljaus (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Can we please let third parties look at this?Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I only see one from Šarić used, published in conference proceedings, while "faculty" and not republished that I can find. I only see one on target citation in scholar and that is also in proceedings. As the author admits “Vlaško pitanje” je zasigurno jedno od najvećih izvora ne-slaganja i opterećenja u hrvatskoj i srpskoj historiografiji. Does not seem appropriate, especially highlighted with in text attribution. Was there another paper by Šarić used?—eric 17:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I only see one from Šarić used --What do you mean with this "used"? Citations are easily searched at Scholar, and there are more than one. I also did not understand what was criminal in the above quote.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I meant that i only saw one article by Šarić used within the Wikipedia article, while Slatersteven mentioned two papers. Scholar will not find all citations, but of those results only one cited the correct paper and had a similar usage to that of the article. The is nothing "criminal" in the quotation, just a straightforward acknowledgment by Šarić that his is disagreeing with earlier works on a contentious topic.—eric 22:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh, thank you, I did not understand that we are talking about using it on Wikipedia. The is nothing "criminal" in the quotation, just a straightforward acknowledgment by Šarić that his is disagreeing with earlier works on a contentious topic. - Well, I do not see "the acknowledgment of disagreeing with earlier works" here. I would translate this passage as "The 'Vlach Question' is certainly one of the biggest sources of disagreement and burden in Croatian and Serbian historiography". It's not about his disagreement, this is just a statement of fact - the topic is controversial (and, as I see it, it's hard to disagree with this statement).--Nicoljaus (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

See the dispute over dating of the paper, it may well be used only once, which makes even more of an issue. Huge chunks of the article sourced to one student paper. What are his qualifications for being used so prominently?Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

This is not a "student paper" and you are well aware of this. Could you stop... doing this thing, please.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Anyone can use Google search to check the publishing date of 2009: Identitet Like: korijeni i razvitak (See for example: [6], [7] [8] )--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Book IDENTITET LIKE: KORIJENI I RAZVITAK "Author's contributions written on the basis of a statement submitted at the scientific conference of the same name held in Gospić from 26 to 29 September 2007"Mikola22 (talk) 11:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A slightly deeper googling allowed us to solve the sinister riddle:

GOSPIĆ (IKA ) 17.12.2009. / 13:25 -- On December 16th, the collected book "Identity of Like - Roots and Development" was presented in the hall of the Cultural Information Center in Gospic, published by the Ivo Pilar Institute, Gospic Regional Center. Bishop Mile Bogovic also spoke at the presentation of the proceedings, who praised the work of the Ivo Pilar Institute and emphasized the importance of publishing this collection for Lika and Lika people. The two books summarize the papers presented at the Scientific Symposium on September 2007 in Lika. 54 scientific papers from 62 authors on more than 1300 pages have been published. The editor of the proceedings is the head of the regional center Ivo Pilar in Gospić, Dr. Željko Holjevac. Apart from the editors, the reviewers also spoke about the reviewers Dr. Dragutin Pavlicevic and Dr. Ivan Rogic.

[9]--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Official information of his professor or mentor, "University of Zagreb, Faculty of Philosophy..Subject: Annual Report on the Work of Junior Researcher Marko Šarić (May 2007 - May 2008)..2005 earned an academic degree of Master(Magister) of Science(Croatian: akademski stupanj magistra znanosti) . He presented the synopsis of the doctoral dissertation Vlachs on Tromeda: Conflicting coexistence in border societies and cultures in Morlakia (16th and 17th centuries)...He submitted a synopsis of the Vlach doctoral dissertation on Tromeđa: Conflict coexistence in border societies and cultures in Morlakia (16th and 17th centuries) whose defense could follow in the coming year(2009)..He participated in the scientific conference Identity Like: Roots and Development, which took place in Gospic from September 26 to 29, 2007 with a statement of the Pre-Modern Ethnic in Lika and Krbava according to the 1712 census...This actually means that Marko Saric is still in the school system by 2009.Mikola22 (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

This actually means that Marko Saric is still in the school system by 2009. -- Another brilliant statement. In 2009, when the book under discussion was published, Marco already submitted a synopsis of his doctoral dissertation. Here is such a "student", lol.--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

"The postgraduate study for obtaining a doctorate of science ends with the preparation and defense of the doctoral thesis (dissertation). The dissertation is done during the second and third year of study" I mean that school system.Mikola22 (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Saric is no RS as he is not a respectable scholar nor notable or well-known in any way (zero hits on Google Scholar!). The only notable M. Saric is a MD. Please stop going in circles. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 01:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Šarić is respectable enough to get a Doctorate. And I see his works at the Google Scholar. Try to search: vlachs author:"Marko Šarić"--Nicoljaus (talk) 02:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

References

New Leaf Publishing Group (publisher)

I started this RSN thread, assessment/confirmation and help to remove them welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 12:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Burt Rutan

Budding edit war: Someone tries to force a paragraph into the article that essentially says that Rutan has friends who think the same as he does. The editor in question tried, in Talk:Judith Curry, to sell en engineer as an expert for something (which is not engineering), well, because he is an engineer and engineers are smart. The whole mixture tastes like PROFRINGE tendentious editing in favor of climate change denial. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh right: Pinging User:Yae4. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

With this edit [10] and nothing more than an edit comment, User:Hob_Gadling removed a quote that has existed in the article for over a decade, since August 2009.[11]

With this edit [12] and comment, "that paragraph adds nothing. He knows others who agree with him. So what?" User:Hob_Gadling removed sourced facts like there is a group of "respected scientists, engineers, and/or climate experts who disagree with some or most of the current Global Warming religion."

Obviously it adds something, or you would not want it removed. What are you afraid of, and whose editing is "tendentious?" -- Yae4 (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

It adds fringe propaganda. See WP:FRINGE. Of course I meant it adds nothing encyclopedic.

I have a surprise for you: deleting old text is neither forbidden nor per se unreasonable. If there is good reason to delete it, such as WP:FRINGE, it should be deleted. See also argumentum ad antiquitatem: since the end of scholasticism in the seventeenth century, age has not been a generally accepted criterion for truth. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

For the first diff: Rutan's views are his own, and fringe or not should be given with due weight as reported by reliable sources. There's valid arguments for the quote being overlong, WP:UNDUE, and maybe WP:FRINGE of the interviewer, which might over-emphasize particular quotes (i don't even see a ref for it, so WP:V). The second just looks like WP:SYNTH to make a WP:FRINGE point.—eric

If Rutan espouses fringe theories, then it is perfectly right for his WP page to state that he does. Whether we agree with him or whether they are fringe isn't important. We should inform the reader about Rutan, not about climate science. If his opinions are demonstrably fringe however, then we can add a statement to that effect. That should ease concerns that this page contributes to fringe propaganda. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

That grantcountybeat column doesn't seem to be a reliable source, not only about climate science, but especially for use in the biography of a living person and not attributed as Burrow's opinion... As for such associations list I don't personally find it useful. —PaleoNeonate – 20:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

If it can be properly sourced I don't see a problem with that quote. If he's a climate denier we don't have to sugarcoat it. Make sure to include the part where he admits he's not a climatologist so readers can tell exactly the kind of "I'm not a scientist, but..." quote they're getting. ApLundell (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

[A side note] I haven't heard of Burt for many many years, probably fifty, and wanted to build one of his planes when I grew up. Now he builds space ships and is a climate change denier. Gah. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

State that he does, yes. Repeat his wrong and refuted reasoning, no. That would give the impression that what he states as fact is a fact.

"the closer you look at the data and alarmists’ presentations, the more fraud you find" - there has never been any fraud. That is a fraudulent rumor spread by denialists. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Hmm yes the last edit including quotes, now reverted by another editor, read like a WP:SOAPBOX... —PaleoNeonate – 17:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, well, he's kind of right, in that the more you look into it the more you realise that the entire climate change denial machine is fraudulent. Guy (help!) 10:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Did anyone find a good source for the quote that is still in the article? All i see is this a powerpoint from someone else's site with multiple "versions" since Oshkosh 2009. Is the quote in the WUWT.TV interview? Probably should go per WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE until it's covered by a reliable source, or am i missing something?—eric 18:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

There's not much written about Rutan's climate change denial except for some notice that he was one of the signatories to that embarrassing Wall Street Journal Op-Ed. The soapboxing and blockquotes from him are... not relevant to his biography. jps (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Rm'd the links to the powerpoints, they should be treated like other self published material. I didn't see the fringe argument at first, would have thought something said at Oshkosh would have been well covered.—eric 19:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• I note that there are quite a few instances of "$DENIER wrote $DENIALISTCLAPTRAP for the Global Warming Policy Foundation(source: link to $DENIALISTCLASPTRAP at thegwpf.org)". That's probably not a good idea. Guy (help!) 10:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • A backdoor WP:EL to what $DENIER can't get published. Above i would have left the links to those powerpoints if a reliable source would have mentioned them, but that's probably not right either. Reading WP:SELFPUB and WP:PRIMARY, $DENIALISTCLAPTRAP shouldn't be linked in the body.—eric 15:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@ජපස and EricR: If you don't look for something, then you won't find it, especially if it is several years or more old, or paywalled. The following contains the quotes previously included in the article, and more. It seems encyclopedic for a biography: "And yet, if you didn't know his views, you'd think Rutan was an arch environmentalist. In 1989 his house featured in Popular Science magazine, billed as the ultimate energy-efficient dwelling, and for years he drove an electric car. "People thought I was a liberal and a tree-hugger, but I'm not. It's not because I have any concern about saving the planet, or peak oil. It's about neat technology." Also he "has a penchant for swimming against the tide," and "appetite for mystery and controversy" that "served him well in his aerospace work." Etc. [13]

@JzG and EricR: Writing about people as though they can be lumped into a disrespected category and treated like a variable looks like Dehumanization, a battlefield tactic, and seems improper at Wikipedia.

@EricR: Your hypothesis regarding WPFringe of the interviewer seems to me invalidated by the source, if actually you read it.

FYI, I'm going to BLPN with this. --Yae4 (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Yae4, Writing about people as if they are climate change denialists when RS identify them as climate change denialists is fine. Guy (help!) 22:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

JzG Name calling is childish. -- Yae4 (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The point is accuracy (see WP:PSCI and WP:BLPFRINGE). Alternatives would be censoring any compromising information even when presented by reliable sources, to avoid the subject alltogether, or giving the false impression of a scientific debate where it's settled, etc... —PaleoNeonate – 12:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Yae4, sure, but that's not what's going on in this case. The sources identify him as a climate change denialist. That's not more "name-calling" than identifying someone as a creationist or a flat-earther when they are publicly espousing those ideas. Guy (help!) 19:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Which sources call Rutan that? (PS. Hob Gadling could explain to you why your reference to creationists or flat-earthers is flawed logic.) -- Yae4 (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Yae4, if one makes a speech saying the earth is flat, it is not necessary for a RS to say you are a flat earther. Flat eartherism is what we call that thing, just as climate change denialism is what we call Rutan's position here. You didn't chalenge "Anthropogenic climate change skepticism" - and that is a euphemism. Wikipedia does not use euphemisms. Guy (help!) 17:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Yae4, the quotes and edits mentioned where: [14] and [15]. Quotes in those edits do not appear in the New Scientist article, your assertion that it contains the quotes previously included in the article is incorrect. Please do not misrepresent sources.—eric 16:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@EricR: aka eric, Please do not misrepresent what I wrote above. I specifically listed quotes from the article that were in the newscientist source. The "I put myself in the (Those who fear expansion of Government control) group..." quote you question is not in my list above.

If you try, you can find that quote in writing at least a couple places, including [16] and (not exactly the identical excerpts, but very similar) [17] which links to the former (see Resource #2). I haven't yet tried to find it in the 6-part Youtube recordings of the 2009 presentation, but it's probably heard there too.[18]

Because of the source used[19] when Jmbnf originally added the quote to the article in August 2009[20], it seems clear version 11 of the presentation powerpoint with speaker notes[21] was the source back then. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Gorsky's latest

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/is-defending-science-based-medicine-worth-it/

Pertinant to those who read this noticeboard. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

This was a a good read and also partly related to Riko Muranaka mentioned here earlier. —PaleoNeonate – 21:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Race & Intelligence RFC

Race and intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Danger, Will Robinson!

But also, check out a WP:Local consensus abrewing on the talkpage about adding "F*A*C*T*S" to the lede about how IQs differ among the races.

Sockpuppets may be around.

Yuck.

jps (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• I am surprised there is not a WP:BLUELOCK on that article. Alexbrn (talk) 09:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
• "I know, let's add text to the lead that says there are racial differences in intelligence, even though the rest of the article says this is facile, meaningless and probably wrong". Guy (help!) 10:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
• There definitely are differences (if you look like me at left)... —PaleoNeonate – 01:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• In the hope of getting more editors involved and getting a non-local consensus, I started an RfC about the first paragraph of the lede at Talk:Race and intelligence#RfC about lede of Race and intelligence. More eyes welcome. NightHeron (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

IT CONTINUES: [22]

More and new voices would definitely be appreciated, even if just to offer a small point as some users seem to be interested in simply counting the number of users who agree with (a) or (b). jps (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Which would be ridiculous, allowing forum shopping and canvassing to generate a fake consensus (I'm not contesting that it's a possibility)... —PaleoNeonate – 22:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Please feel free to explain that on the talkpage. Maybe people will listen to you. jps (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Theoretically, if an uninvolved experienced admin closes the RFC, they should be able to take into consideration aspects like SPAs (or resurected inactive accounts indicating offline canvassing if any), sources, if the arguments of participants are policy-based etc... Rather than considering it a ballot (WP:VOTE). But we already know this is the ideal, I wonder if posting a message at WP:AN when it nears completion would be a good idea to call for such uninvolved admin closure and hopefully avoid the mess of contested closures... —PaleoNeonate – 19:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Seems to me that WP:AE might work too. I am thinking about proposing a topic ban for a few accounts active there. Haven't decided yet. jps (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

It's been one of my fears that it could go up to a lengthy arbcom case like WP:ARBPS... Although that case did ultimately clarify the scope of Wikipedia in relation to pseudoscience. —PaleoNeonate – 00:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• I just noticed the discussion about it being a WP:POVFORK and it may very well be true (I'll try to check and comment). I'd also like to point at a very related article, history of the race and intelligence controversy which has been on my personal TODO and watchlist for a while. When I read it months ago, I found it a good read and interesting; notes that I kept to eventually revise it (and anyone is welcome to): portrayal of left-right debates (was it this simple in every case?), part(s) in relation to heteditarian Jensenism (from notes I took, claims: left-wing harassment, censorship, accusations of Marxism)... Then there was an important part about pseudoscience used to justify racism, complaints of chilling effect and attacks against unpopular racist scientists. Then a Jewish conspiracy theory, followed by more Jensen apologetics... —PaleoNeonate – 00:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  Adding for context: it's also historical with views that may have been valid inquiry at some point but be considered protoscience today (early psychology and psychiatry not being without controversies, this reminds me of Freud, influential enough to deserve coverage), so the context is also relevant... —PaleoNeonate – 00:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

There are many articles which have these problems. As one example, Nations and intelligence grossly over-represents the same group of fringe academics, based on flimsy sources. As I said on that article's talk page months ago, the article says "nations" but means "race", and it ain't subtle about it. As an example, the article uses a single primary source to suggest a selective pressure that reduces g based on genetic markers. Grudging, minimal lip-service is paid to the mainstream view, but the article treats Jensen, Rushton, etc. as credible for this, which wasn't even accurate when they were alive. My take is that this content only sticks around because of filibustering on the talk page. Grayfell (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a hot mess all around, we certainly should't be framing any of this as an ongoing "debate" or "controversy" in wiki voice. The whole thing relies heavily on journal articles that are essentially a big basket of opinions but don't tell us what the consensus actually is. –dlthewave ☎ 03:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Related: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Race and intelligence/Current consensus. jps (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• I wonder if it would make sense to propose adding to WP:FRINGE#Examples the example of Scientific racism, and include a statement there such as "Beliefs in inherent differences in intelligence between groups based on race, ethnicity, or gender contradict scientific consensus and must be treated as fringe." The purpose of adding that would be to have a reference to policy guidelines that would make it easier for editors to revert attempts to use Wikipedia articles to give credence to white supremacist or male supremacist views on intelligence, without having to seek consensus each time on the fringe nature of white supremacy and male supremacy. NightHeron (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The examples part of the guideline was meant to clarify how fringe theories can be covered on Wikipedia. I think we haven't decided yet how this particular subject should be discussed on Wikipedia (as AfDs may still be in the offing). One option might be to write something like a meta-page. We did something similar at Talk:White pride and while it did not discourage the rabble from rousing, it did put an end to certain endless discussions. jps (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The actual scientific consensus is that (1) there are inherent brain differences between men and women, but their effects on intelligence or IQ are not clear at the moment; and (2) inherent intelligence differences between other groups is a hypothesis that is neither proved nor disproved. There is no consensus whatsoever that the weight of present evidence is strongly against the idea of inherent differents, or that the genetic evidence as it develops will necessarily point one way or the other. It is an open question but the evidence to date is mostly statistical rather than detailed understanding of the brain, genetics, and cognition. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The actual scientific consensus is that race is a social construct with some limited, but inconsistent, ties to biology. The definitions of these "groups" you are talking about are poor and frequently challenged by biologists, anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists, etc. Somehow these experts are not accepted as experts in the field of "racial psychometrics" or whatever the latest euphemism is, so they get ignored. This is classic pseudoscience. These racial categories are constructed based on convenience. The scientific method is applied to unscientific premises, and the results are misrepresented as meaningful. Afterwords, anyone who points out these errors can be dismissed as ignoring the "evidence". Grayfell (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The scientific consensus is that race is often a social construct, but not necessarily only a social construct. It is debated whether "race" should be used as a term for the biological constructs or structure observed between human groups or populations. The correlations between race-based social constructs and actual human biological sub-populations is only in some cases 'limited', and can often be quite significant, although you are correct that the amount of correlation is inconsistent. 2605:8D80:648:1B4D:5360:2F1D:EF2F:174C (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

This "partial social construct" nonsense wasn't accurate when you said it at Talk:Racialism#David Reich article, and it's not accurate anywhere else, either. This comment is, however, a good example of the quantity of sock puppets and disruptive editors these topics attract. Grayfell (talk) 05:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me? I don't know what or who you are speaking on or about. Biological constructs or structure in humans is real, and 'race' has been a term to be used for that. This is fact from the foremost experts, and is accurate. You mention one there. Race takes on social identity and colloquially is imprecise, but the biological constructs which they often have correlations with are real. No one says that real, occurring human biological populations are 'social constructs'. The group differences you see are biological constructs, not social. The Fst between a Native American and an East Asian is far lower than between a Native American and a black African. That is a real biological construct, not a social one. 2605:8D80:648:1B4D:5360:2F1D:EF2F:174C (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Academic consensus is clear that "race" is not a term that is used to distinguish biological constructs/structures in humans. It is either the mark of an inveterate racist or an ignorant person who claims otherwise. I would consider it a disqualifying position for working at this website at all per WP:CIR. Or my personal favorite policy of ban all nazis. You choose. jps (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

There is no consensus on that, and the term is used in many studies. There is ongoing academic discussion on the use of 'race as population' or 'race as subspecies'. I can point you to such experts and publications if you wish. Knowledge of this should be a qualifying position according to your 'CIR' policy. The rest of your comments are distasteful insults. Is that permitted? 2605:8D80:648:1B4D:5360:2F1D:EF2F:174C (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

race as subspecies is a talking point straight out of the Third Reich. (Personal attack removed) jps (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

AfD discussion of Race and intelligence

A discussion is taking place of whether to delete the article Race and intelligence, see [23]. NightHeron (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

New watchlist section

• WP:WikiProject Skepticism/Skeptic watchlists#Race, sex and intelligence
• Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skeptic watchlists

No BLPs yet there, but various articles were added in a new subsection of the skeptic's watchlist. Help welcome to add important ones I missed. —PaleoNeonate – 18:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Glenn Beck

There's a RFC on the Glenn Beck page about whether the lead should note his proclivity towards conspiracy theorizing during Obama's presidency.[24] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Category rename discussion

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_January_20#Category:Climate_change_skepticism_and_denial.

Cogent analysis welcome.

jps (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Orang Pendek

I've been removing fringe sources Orang Pendek but there's more work to do. Does anyone have access to the offline sources? –dlthewave ☎ 04:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

(Yikes, looking this over, this article ain't pretty... :bloodofox: (talk) 06:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC) )

email if you'd like Nevada State Journal, but it's mostly just a primary source (Van Herwanden's account) and shouldn't be used the way it is. Archive has Cathay and the way thither. I don't see Hunting the Gugu digitized. There are much better sources Images of the Wildman in Southeast Asia has a whole chapter, unfortunately the bibliography isn't part of the google preview.—eric 21:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I just received newspapers.com access, here's a publicly-available clipping of the Arizona State Journal piece: [25]

There does seem to be good sourcing to cover the local mythological perspective, which is much more relevant then reported sightings by westerners. –dlthewave ☎ 17:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Foreign language "wild man", "forest people", etc. give me a headache. Wild man covers Europe, looks like a bunch from all over Asia redirect to Almas (cryptozoology). Maybe there should be just one article?—eric 00:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Seems like a single article would make sense if these are essentially the same legend with small regional variations. –dlthewave ☎ 13:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Nikah mut'ah

• Nikah mut'ah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some editors experienced with fringe theories, especially in the service of religion (Sunni Islam in this case), are requested to weigh in here: [26] An especially sketchy quote reads, This concurs with what many Muslim scholars say, that shiaism is merely syncretism between Islam and pre-Islamic paganism and zorostarian [sic] beliefs and practices. which is sourced to this and this site. There appear to be some other unreliable sources in the rest of the article too, so feel free to look at that and cut as needed as well.

An IP originally was trying to remove the section, but a couple of good faith editors reverted it, evidently not looking closely at the content. I tried pinging them, but they never responded. Anyway, more details are on the talk page which I linked to. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

At least half of the sources used to support the conclusion were not adequate so I too removed the section for now then left a message on the talk page (although it's not the only part of the article with suboptimal sources), —PaleoNeonate – 11:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Update: I had to issue an edit warring warning. Also pinging Qurtuva who may not have been aware of this noticeboard discussion. —PaleoNeonate – 15:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Joseph Campbell

Although routinely promoted and presented as an expert on the topic of myth, Joseph Campbell's theories are considered fringe in folklore studies, and Campbell, although he made a career out of discussing Jungian ideas of myth, is essentially considered a fringe figure by folklorists.

For example, in 2016 [2005, 2008] Alan Dundes writes "Folklorists have had some success in publicising the results of our efforts in the past two centuries such that members of other disciplines have, after a minimum of reading, believe they are qualified to speak authoritively of folkloristic matters. It seems that the world is full of self-proclaimed experts in folklore, and a few, such as Campbell, have been accepted as such by the general public (and public television, in the case of Campbell)".

However, you'd never know this from reading the article we have on Campbell, which echoes his representation throughout media sources. I've been digging up sources outlining how folklorists have received his theories to add to the article, but the article could generally use more eyes. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

in 2016 Alan Dundes writes...

Since Alan Dundes died in 2005, that's quite a trick. --Calton | Talk 14:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

its a reprint of something originally published in 2005. But no Dundes did not write this in 2016, its why we must take care with how we source things.Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Calton, Maybe he was friendly with Theresa Caputo? Guy (help!) 14:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd feel sorry for Theresa Caputo, then, Man, he loved to hear himself talk. --Calton | Talk 02:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

True, the paper was in fact published first in 2008 and then subsequently reprinted in 2016, but obviously he didn't write it either of those years. ;) :bloodofox: (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

No, 2005, try rereading the source you are using.Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? The book's preface flatly states "This book is an expanded edition of a Journal of Folklore Research special issue in 2008". Dundes presented some version of the paper it includes in 2004, the year before his death, but the paper was first published in the collection in 2008 after an initial publication in the Journal of American Folklore in 2005. Please quit wasting my time with attempts at inconsequential bickering irrelevant to my initial post: maybe go get a coffee instead. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

its not irrelevant to point out you did not seem to have been aware of when this was actually published, and implies therefore you had not fully read it. You said something that simply put was not true, and then still made a comment that could not be true (claiming the paper (the paper not the book by someone else) was published three years after his death. This for me raises doubts as to the veracity of what you claim the source says. For example you claim the source supports a claim "[Joseph Campbell]]'s theories are considered fringe in folklore studies" but the source only is Dundes's opinion, and says nothing about wider folklorists.Slatersteven (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Dundes is a very well known folklorist, but you can find similiar criticisms of Campbell in the works of numerous other foklorists, such as Barre Toelken. Mostly the field ignores him, as is the case with fringe figures and other fields, but as you're generally an unpleasant user to work with, I'll let you dig further on your own. Enjoy! :bloodofox: (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

read wp:v a source must say what you claim it says. If you do not have a source that explicitly says "[Joseph Campbell]]'s theories are considered fringe in folklore studies" and "is not considered a fringe figure by folklorists." (which also seems to contradict the first part. It also does not matter if Campbell is criticized by numerous folklorists (or is not considered fringe as your suggested edit also says), as some (or even many) is not a majority (which is what your text implies).Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, in an article space, sure. In discussion, we can discuss fringe figures all day while hunting for sources or commenting on their absence. And I think you know a typo when you see it (re: "not"), which I hadn't noticed, so thanks for that at least. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

500-600 mentions in article space, many like Watership Down look mostly appropriate, but Crone, Goddess, Holy Grail, Joy, Damsel in distress etc.?—eric 17:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen Campbell's theories injected across the site at various points, which is clearly a matter of WP:UNDUE. I'll take a look at those. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

What should be done with In Search of Aliens?

I'm not saying it's aliens ... but it's aliens –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)

Redirect? Doug Weller talk 17:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Why? Is it not a TV show that has garnered some press?Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I was curious, so I took a quick look. WP:NTV would seem to indicate that something like this tends to get the benefit of the doubt. However, I couldn't find anything beyond ads for watching/buying and an occasional blog post. Maybe someone with some better google-fu could find some more, but otherwise, redirecting seems reasonable. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

This seems to have a mention [[27]].Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Gets better [[28]], maybe notable for all the wrong reasons.Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

And there's always Jason Colavito [29] - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I added an External links section to the article with its IMDb entry per per WP:IMDb and WP:ELPEREN. Seems like a legitimate stand-alone article in my opinion; otherwise, it might be confused by researchers with other In Search of... titles, episode titles, and topics. Looks like it had video releases with foreign titles in Brazil, Germany, and Spain according to IMDb. I've never seen the show, didn't generate enough ratings to get renewed obviously. 5Q5|^✉ 13:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, if nothing else, I think we should make it clearer that this Ancient astronauts stuff is squarely a pseudosience. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree and noticed that you already did, thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 21:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

While retargetting links considering the recent ancient astronauts move, I found the following articles that seemed to lack any criticism or pseudoscience mention (and I'm unsure if it's warranted for the BLP, the link was in "See also", but I also then noticed the work Le Dieu de la Bible vient des étoiles : de la traduction littérale des codex hébraïques initiaux (my translation: "The god of the Bible comes from the stars: literal translation of original Hebrew codex")): Mauro Biglino, UFOs: Past, Present, and Future, not active or important enough for a separate thread I think, but in case anyone wants to look, —PaleoNeonate – 22:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

There fortunately was a Colavito review of the film available, —PaleoNeonate – 13:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Hidden cameras capture misinformation, fundraising tactics used by anti-vaxx movement

• https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/marketplace-anti-vaccination-hidden-camera-washington-1.5429805
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4WMve_nYf0

--Guy Macon (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Shroud of Turin

Although forgery isn't pareidolia, this was too cute to resist

Some interesting recent discussions at:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard#Request for comments on the Turin Shroud
• Talk:Shroud of Turin

—PaleoNeonate – 17:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I've seen the sample that was tested in 1988, or at least a teeny tiny bit of it. Aint that cool! -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 14:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

And no miracle happened? —PaleoNeonate – 15:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Of course not. It was just a bit of medieval cotton.linen actually. see addendum below -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 18:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

For your information, the Turin Shroud is made of pure linen! Brilliant own goal. Frezase (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, no. Not only the test results, but I can personally confirm that that bit of the shroud was cotton. I'm an expert. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 22:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Acvtually, scratch that, I misremembered, it was last century after all. I apologise to Frezase. It was linen. medieval, of course. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 22:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Agnotology

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

I reverted a somewhat recent addition to its lead (addition / my removal) and noticed that it seems like a sensitive article in relation to conspiracy theories (and interesting claim here by the same editor, who seems to have been involved at fluor and radiation related articles, possibly validating my concern)... So welcoming interested editors to this article in case there's more to fix in general, it's somewhat messy in its current state too, —PaleoNeonate – 17:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

COI Noticeboard

Discussion regarding GSOW that may interest readers here. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I started this wanting to discuss the general issue without naming the specific group. I guess that was never going to be possible. - Bilby (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

If they were doing something against policy you might have a point, but this is just a continuation of your pro-fringe crusade. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Scale relativity

• Scale relativity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Laurent Nottale (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The article Scale relativity is pretty amazingly bad. It is entirely an advertisement for a fringe theory that barely anyone has even paid attention to as such. The explanations of actual science are terrible, most of the references are to the inventor himself, the claims of what it explains are impossibly wide-ranging and grandiose, and the few criticisms aren't even reported properly. I'd suggest burning it to the ground, but it survived AfD in 2008 after what strikes me as a very superficial discussion. XOR'easter (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

It seems that in that AfD, other than a keep by a SPA and another by a banned user (who complained about orthodoxy), John Z's keep was persuasive with various other regulars also voting keep yet without explaining in detail. I also noticed that Nottale is cited at fractal cosmology. Is International Journal of Modern Physics peer reviewed (I've seen conflicting information on its publisher, World Scientific)? Fractal Space-time and Microphysics is probably in-universe... I couldn't find the source for it, but his article says that he is/was director of French National Centre for Scientific Research. Likely notable if so (and especially so if professor, but I'm not sure for scale relativity yet). —PaleoNeonate – 17:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

... And fractal cosmology is yet another article that needs work... —PaleoNeonate – 17:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, IJMP is peer-reviewed, but I haven't been able to find any indication of serious follow-up on Nottale's paper by anyone else. And throwing together the words "fractal" and "cosmology" could mean any one of many different things, with varying levels of respectability. XOR'easter (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Interestingly, a major 2015 rewrite was also published as an essay on academia.edu with "thanks to Laurent Nottale for many corrections and clarifications." –dlthewave ☎ 21:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

So many statements in that betray a lack of actual familiarity with science or mathematics. Searching for the most important paths relevant for quantum particles, Feynman noticed that such paths were very irregular on small scales, i.e. infinite and non-differentiable. No, the path integral isn't about finding the "most important paths", and the idea that typical paths are non-differentiable goes back to Brownian motion. This means that in between two points, a particle can have not one path, but an infinity of potential paths. This is trivially true for any two points in a plane. The principle of relativity says that physical laws should be valid in all coordinate systems. No, it doesn't. This principle has been applied to states of position (the origin and orientation of axes), as well as to the states of movement of coordinate systems (speed, acceleration). Acceleration is not inertial motion. And so on.

Then come the "applications" to biology, geography, the technological singularity... XOR'easter (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Nottale was a director at CNRS, but "director" (as opposed to "director general") means the leader of a research unit, of which there are about a thousand. It's comparable to "principal investigator" in significance.

Because I hate myself, I read the paper where he claims to derive the Schrödinger equation. It was about what anyone familiar with fringe physics would expect: unclear writing covering up unclear thinking (deliberately or not). The closest approach to a substantial point was that, if you throw imaginary numbers into a diffusion equation, you'll get something that looks like the Schrödinger equation. This is well-known, and others have done a better and more careful job of the analogy. (To pick an example that springs to mind, Risken's textbook on the Fokker–Planck equation does a good job adapting techniques from quantum physics to solve diffusion problems.) It's almost too vacuous to criticize. XOR'easter (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I mean, I tried to clean the thing up all those years ago. The rabble just wouldn't let me. Maybe the time is now to try again. jps (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Definitely fringe and very self-congratulatory (some of the promotion has been removed since this discussion started, thanks for that)... —PaleoNeonate – 01:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

My first impression is that the AfD got it right, and this is a notable subject (that is in need of a complete rewrite). Methinks stubbify and start over? VQuakr (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I honestly don't see a very good case for wiki-notability. I mean, the physics literature contains over 2.4 million papers, so it does take a little work to stand out. All we've got here is self-promotion, some fannish interest, occasional brushes with nominal respectability in marginal journals, a negative book review, and a withering post on Physics Overflow. It's the sort of thing that there's almost no critique of, because there's virtually nothing substantial to critique, so only a very few even take the time to bother. XOR'easter (talk) 04:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Per VQuakr, I stubbified the page. XOR'easter (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Petrozavodsk phenomenon

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

Article can’t seem to decide between fringe ufology views, Russian propaganda sources, and a couple of skeptics. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be a few decent English sources, I can't speak for the many Russian ones... It may indeed be too long and give space to too much theories. —PaleoNeonate – 17:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Alien abduction

• Alien abduction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• John E. Mack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Textbook examples of false balance. Reading them you'd get the impression that Alien abduction is a serious possibility. --RaiderAspect (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I always felt like the proper tone for articles on alien abduction was sympathy for people who are obviously very, very troubled. The fact that they cannot explain their trauma doesn't make the trauma less real. The problem is that these accounts are not reliable sources for claims about life forms from beyond Earth and, unfortunately, that is the part of the claim that generates the most prurient interest by those kinds of people who used to buy Weekly World News. jps (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The Alien abduction article seems to have weight issues and also fails to specify that Mack didn't attribute those experiences to actual physical aliens (it may even subtly suggest otherwise). I too sympathize with the "phenomenon" as the experience may occur as a result of sleep paralysis that can happen spontaneously to anyone, independently of psychiatric issues (like Mare (folklore), being awaken in the morning by a being who then vanishes, and other similar experiences depending on one's culture). Fringe interpretations of such are of course another matter... The Mack article has various sourcing problems. —PaleoNeonate – 00:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Adding: the "Paranormal" section uses "abilities" twice which strikes me as odd in Wikipedia's voice considering that there exists no reliable indication of any such actual abilities. I can't access that source though and also question its reliability for unattributed use. It's unclear if the original text was about belief in abilities, people prone to more personal experiences or if it really claimed that. —PaleoNeonate – 02:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Some other very related articles: Alien abduction entities, Alien abduction claimants, Narrative of the abduction phenomenon, Perspectives on the abduction phenomenon... —PaleoNeonate – 02:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Another interesting thing to look at would be if notable sociologists noted evidence of promoting fringe UFO/abduction media on television for political purposes (i.e. interesting pagan takeover conspiracy theory discussed by Colavito in his review of UFOs: Past, Present, and Future). While abduction claimants are often considered to be sane or to plausibly have experienced something unusual, the experiences and interpretations are obviously influenced by cultural narratives... —PaleoNeonate – 19:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if my edits helped with the weight issues, but they address most of my above concerns (except the one about media promotion). While I didn't touch the lead, I just re-read it now and think that it's already decent... —PaleoNeonate – 09:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Reichian body-oriented psychotherapy

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reichian body-oriented psychotherapy

jps (talk) 11:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Carnivore diet

• Carnivore diet (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

As popularized by Jordan Peterson, etc. has seen a lot of editing recently including over whether it is a "fad". Could use eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I think people active on that page are confusing diets that consist primarily of meat and/or animal products with the "carnivore diet" fad. These should be two separate articles. Per WP:ONEWAY, the carnivore diet could link to diets of the various groups they want to mention, but right now it does not appear that Wikipedia has a good article on the diets of indigenous people. Keeping that information on a fad diet page is WP:SYNTH and WP:BIAS. jps (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree we don't want to mix this bonkers fad with indigenous diets, probably a hat note should say something to that effect. We have a pukka article on Inuit cuisine. Alexbrn (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• I also noticed this new userspace draft: User:Amencher/sandbox —PaleoNeonate – 19:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Division by zero

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

---

Bringing this issue up from my watchlist before I head into a logistically challenging afternoon:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Division_by_zero_is_possible

Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Amusing at least, but this makes me wonder if Vixra should be blacklisted. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I've notified the user. Their message on my talk page is worth noting, at a certain level. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

check the number of downloads on Vixra ... it means people are interested in this Division by zero is possible (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

please either check the content on Vixra on your own ... or put it back Division by zero is possible (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

check the link here to understand what it is all about -> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zowTCHhW8gVpkejvZTW2xB4f-zxVi2xP/view?usp=sharing Division by zero is possible (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd be happy with blacklisting viXra. It's basically a guarantee that the "reference" is worthless. In the rare cases where we would have grounds to mention something that was posted there, we'd have secondary sources establishing that, and we'd be pointing to them instead. XOR'easter (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Check what Faulty generalization fallacy is, please. Don't you think that value of the text should be assessed based on the content mainly, but probably not because of your personal opinion about the site. Division by zero is possible (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

It's article does say that anyone can publish there and doesn't mention any type of peer review. Considering that, I'd also support blacklisting it. There are only 5 current uses in mainspace... —PaleoNeonate – 22:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

viXra is definitely not a RS. Even arXiv is not a RS except in special circumstances. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC).

I'm new here... So, let me understand something... You are ok with publishing BS because it is located on "reputable" source... and you are not allowing to refer some great texts... because the source is not of the best reputation ??? Is this correct ?? You should really learn a bit about logic, and logical fallacies. :) Division by zero is possible (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

You can find the relevant policy at WP:V. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

You should learn how to think before you will learn how to read ... Because later its too late. :) Division by zero is possible (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Division by zero is possible, these policies exist for good reason. We have all kinds of cranks here, including cold fusionists and homeopaths, all insisting that we should accept their preferred source because Truth. The entire point of Wikipedia's model is that the editor community are not experts, so we defer to those outside sources who are.

Which is a long winded way of saying: come back when it's published in a decent peer-reviewed journal. Guy (help!) 22:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

This is really great policy. It means that unless you are close to IQ 100 (then you have definitely the great pear reviews, because of the number of colleagues) you are not welcome here ! The more distant you are from this point (no matter in which direction!) the less probably you will be accepted here :) Thank you for the clarification. Good to know. Division by zero is possible (talk) 22:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/contemporary-scientists-high-iq-persons-low-people-krzysztof-zawisza/?trackingId=IC9QNiZumUV%2BmnpPXi4COA%3D%3D Division by zero is possible (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

You are ok with publishing BS because it is located on "reputable" source... and you are not allowing to refer some great texts... because the source is not of the best reputation ? Yes, we are perfectly comfortable with that. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. I think we're done here, unless you have more pear reviews for us. GMG^talk 22:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

BTW both mentioned "cold fusionists and homeopaths" are correct! How many hours, days, weeks you spend to learn and check personally this ? :) 2 minutes ? "Normal" people are usually trying "to save own energy" and instead of rethink, recheck, verify, search, watch and doubt ... they are just blindly accepting what is on Wiki :) Yes we've done here :) Division by zero is possible (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

And no doubt time is cubic. Guy (help!) 22:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Draft:Anti-estrogenic diet

• Draft:Anti-estrogenic diet

Came across this during AfC reviewing, and I'm nervous to move forward, especially given the Carnivore diet issues above. I worry that this is an attempt at that whole soy boy fringe theory, but perhaps I'm looking too much into it. Bkissin (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The draft contains health claims sourced to sites like Livestrong and "pinklotus.com", which fail WP:MEDRS. A lot of primary and outdated medical research in there as well. Also, only a few of the sources actually mention the anti-estrogenic diet (most are about the general effects of phytoestrogens on health). Needs a trim, at least. As an aside, the article actually suggests eating soy, so I don't think this has anything to do with the "soy boy" meme... SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Yep, lots of WP:MEDRS violation, including a claim that studies have shown that high levels of estrogen increases the risk for both males and females for heart disease and cancer sourced to a health-inspector investigation of a factory where the workers complained that power-tool vibrations were giving them numb fingers. It might not be "soy boy" nonsense (perhaps it's just another diet fad mentality at work), but sorting the wheat from the chaff would be harder than writing from scratch. XOR'easter (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, if you trimmed out all of the WP:SYNTH and WP:MEDRS violating stuff you'd probably be left with, at best, a couple of sentences that could be merged to a list somewhere. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)