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

Categories for discussion

• 15 May 2024 – Category:Roswell incident in fiction (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Doniago (t · c); see discussion
• 15 May 2024 – Category:Alien abduction in novels (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Doniago (t · c); see discussion
• 15 May 2024 – Category:Alien abduction films (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Doniago (t · c); see discussion
• 09 May 2024 – Category:Conspiracist media (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Coddlebean (t · c); see discussion

Redirects for discussion

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

Good article nominees

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

Requests for comments

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

Peer reviews

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

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

USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents

USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some work on this would be appreciated.

jps (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Some sources useful for general criticism of various under-criticized or critique-free articles regarding Navy UFO reports, AATIP, To The Stars, etc.: Robert Sheaffer [1], Joe Nickell [2], Flying Magazine [3] and Ben Radford ("Newly Revealed Secret DoD 'UFO' Project Less Than Meets the Eye". Skeptical Inquirer, 2018, Vol. 42, pages 6–7, possibly available via WP:REREQ). - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The article doesn't have a "possible explanations" section yet. Do any reputable skeptical sources exist that have been published more recently? Most of those sources are old (around 2017 except for Robert Sheaffer which seems recent) or blatantly incorrect (Joe Nickell's article based on a grave misunderstanding). This incident has received most of it's coverage more recently so most of those articles don't mention it (only Sheaffer I think). Would be interesting given all the additional evidence that has emerged.--Gtoffoletto (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

1. What makes a WP:FRIND source “blatantly incorrect”?

2. ”Additional evidence” for what exactly?

3. What evidence?

- LuckyLouie (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

1. I am in contact with SI and Joe Nickell regarding a mistake that undermines his whole article. He mistook the pilot report as being made by Cmdr. Fravor while it was, in fact, clearly made by his female wingman. You can clearly see that yourself if you read his article and source with a basic knowledge of the events. I hope he will retract but it's a very old article. And in any case it's about another incident.

2/3. Additional evidence such as congressional hearings, additional witnesses, etc. that UAPs have been sighted multiple times and nobody knows what they are.

I am guessing from your answer we don't have many recent skeptical RS? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

[4] The user is now inserting things into quotes that are not found in the source. jps (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

ජපස, from the article history, you seem to be challenging "shows an object zooming over the ocean waves as pilots question what they are watching.", quoted and attributed to NYT, as "failed verification", but it's verbatim from the third paragraph in the NYT source. I'm confused why you feel it fails verification? Schazjmd (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Dunno which part of the quote is being questioned, maybe jps can clarify details. However, I note the general trend of Gtoffoletto's editorial work in these articles is to quote and highlight material that supports credulous interpretations and ignores mundane explanations. For example, when describing the video, a quote is selected asserting it shows an "object" that pilots are "watching". For some reason this quote alone is attributed to the New York times — as if the Times endorses only that point of view. As I mentioned above, these NAVY UFO sighting articles desperately need critical context added to counter the sensational narrative that "To The Stars" has been pushing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

LuckyLouie, I noticed you added some less credulous quotes to balance it out, that's helpful. Schazjmd (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I was going to clean up a bunch of other sensational text, e.g. "A pilot refers to a fleet of objects, but no imagery of a fleet was released" (OMG! RELEASE THE TAPES!), but jps beat me to it [5]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps an object lesson? If I write:

Person A said, "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet."

And then you edit it to say

Person A said, "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. According to Person A, "consectetur adipiscing elit.""

We obviously have problems.

jps (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

ජපස, if I saw that, I'd fix the missing quotation marks to show: Person A said, "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet." According to Person A, "consectetur adipiscing elit." Schazjmd (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Wait, so you're saying your claim that "user is now inserting things into quotes that are not found in the source" is based on an obvious typo where quotation marks weren't closed properly? That's it? Schazjmd (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

It's, apparently, not an obvious "typo" as the user continued to reinsert it despite being told about it. The user does not understand the issue and there is no reason that I should have to clean up for such incompetence when competence is required. jps (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

There are four quotation marks in the sentence you dispute so your example is incorrect. There are absolutely NO typos. Simply reading it properly would have cleared things up. See the edit you dispute:[6]

I'll report the actual text once again hoping to put this to rest with direct quotes from source highlighted (everything else is NOT a direct quote):

The New York Times said the footage showed "an object tilting like a spinning top moving against the wind". A pilot refers to a fleet of objects, but no imagery of a fleet was released. The second video was taken a few weeks later and according to the New York times "shows an object zooming over the ocean waves as pilots question what they are watching."

Four quotation marks. Two sentences directly attributed since you were challenging their factuality. Seems pretty black and white to me. What has not been highlighted is not attributed verbatim to the NYT as it is not within quotes although a part of it is actually identical to text in that article. Much Ado About Nothing --Gtoffoletto (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

P.s. people are dying all around me and you and here we are fighting over quotation marks of parts of an article that doesn't even exist anymore. Makes me terribly sad. See you all on the edit page. Be safe. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 01:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Just reverted another set of edits as WP:POVPUSH: [7]. Should we ask for a topic ban yet? jps (talk) 11:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

And a second time. It's like two steps forward, one step back here. jps (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what got you into such an irrational an combative mode against me. But I welcome any editor to participate to the discussion with constructive criticism. You are failing miserably to provide a coherent explanation of your multi-edit revert of my work at the moment.--Gtoffoletto (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Unplanned

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

Editors consider that anti-abortion propaganda film Unplanned should have a "plot" section to be consistent with other film articles, but the plot section is seen by others (notably me) as violating NPOV by giving undue weight to anti-abortion propaganda. Guy (help!) 23:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

not a WP:FRINGE issue. fiveby (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

It is a fringe issue where a plot summary is a backdoor allowing fringe/pseudoscientific proponents a "free hit" in article space. Plot summaries are allowable per a MOS that explicitly allows exceptions, and here core policy (which is not negotiable) would apply, notably to prevent giving undue prominence to fringe views. Alexbrn (talk) 05:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks very much like a fringe issue to me. Doug Weller talk 11:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

How does Wikipedia:Fringe theories, which lists "Pseudoscience", "Questionable science", and "Alternative theoretical formulations", apply to this POV dispute? It's a fictional movie (based on controversial memoir). Problems with the "Accuracy of portrayal" section would apply, but that is not what was presented and there does not appear to be any questioning of that section on the talk page. Labeling opinion and belief as fringe and attempting to apply the Fringe theories guideline is not a neutral approach to editing. Bringing a POV dispute that does not deal with pseudoscience to this noticeboard is WP:Canvassing. fiveby (talk) 13:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

You can't omit the plot of a movie just because you don't like its POV. Of course, there's no reason why there can't be a criticism section. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge, you can't include it when it violates WP:NPOV. Guy (help!) 21:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

As a point of comparison, Triumph of the Will describes the movie's plot in extensive detail in the Synopsis, Themes and Hitler's Speeches sections. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

This is not about omitting the plot section, it is about the plot section not containing unchecked WP:PROFRINGE propaganda. Nothing wrong about asking fringe-savvy users to check that it does not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Then we challenge it in the section below about accuracy.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, we follow Wikipedia standard policy and practice and include only that which is verifiable from reliable independent sources. Which fixes the problem, because reliable sources do not uncritically repeat the false narrative that is so problematic in the "I watched the movie and this is what I saw" version of a Plot section. Guy (help!) 18:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

And Wp standard policy on plots is that the source material is an RS for what it contains (we are not saying it is true, we are saying it is what is included in the plot of film).Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

What "standard policy" do you mean? Alexbrn (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:FILMPLOT for one.Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

That not policy, but a style manual. Alexbrn (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Its a guideline, just as much as wp:fringe is (a guideline).Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Plot synopses can be used as WP:SOAPboxes. It is important to make it clear that while the movie may be striving for a cinema verite look, there are choices made in the depictions of abortions and related events that do not coincide with reality. This film is no Triumph of the Will in terms of notice of its individual scenes, for example, so it is not really a fair comparison as the WP:MAINSTREAM critique of Triumph of the Will is readily apparent so there is little danger in violating WP:WEIGHT or WP:SOAP if editors are diligent. In this scenario, there may be some strong arguments to excise certain long descriptions of plot elements if no one independent of the filmmakers has commented upon them. jps (talk) 12:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

There are definitely some problems at that article. E.g., I had to remove the claim that a WP:MAINSTREAM OB-GYN's explanation of the inaccuracies in the film's portrayal was "false" [8]. This is not only a fringe belief regarding fetal pain, it's also an egregious WP:BLP violation. I gave an extremely stern warning to the user who did this [9], but I suggest some scrutiny of this user's edits if to see if more of this is going on. There are a number of discretionary sanctions notices on that user's talkpage, but not particularly recent, so someone might want to do that as well. jps (talk) 11:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Yup, problems with the "Accuracy of portrayal" section apply, as i said above, tho the issue looks pretty minor and already taken care of. That is an objective implementation of the Fringe Theories guideline. All else mentioned: propaganda, soapboxing, pov, undue weight, etc. are subjective and should be discussed on the talk page, not here. Fringe Theories guideline does not apply. fiveby (talk) 16:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

You are simply wrong about this. I'm not sure if you're being willfully wrong about it or are just trying to be disruptive to prove a point. Either way, I suggest you back down. jps (talk) 17:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

This was a perfectly reasonable discussion until your comment, and not disruptive at all. I think maybe the guideline you've linked is probably another you are using improperly. fiveby (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Wrong again. "Minor and already taken care of" is not objective, and soapboxing, POV, undue weight etc. are not subjective. Since there are many fringe ideas about abortion, The Fringe Theories guideline is relevant to the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Look, you are allowed to disagree that something is relevant to this board. You can even state that disagreement. But to repeat this disagreement over and over again when others are trying to discuss the situation and work out solutions is not helpful, it's disruptive to the purpose of this noticeboard. There are plenty of other things you can turn your attention towards at this website. Trying to halt discussion here is not something that you should be doing. jps (talk) 11:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

We gain nothing by not giving the reader a full picture, we do lose credibility. We should giver a full plot synopses and then demolish its arguments.Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Our hands our tied by reliable sources, of course. If there is no notice of certain plot elements, I question whether they deserve inclusion. jps (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, neutrality requires that we omit fringe material where inclusion would risk unduly legitmizing it. If there's no counterpoint in RS, Wikipedia shall remain silent. Alexbrn (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

As I understand it plots can be referenced to the actual work. If these plot elements have not be questioned it is not out job to do that. Maybe it needs to be made more clear this is a fictionalised account, not fact.Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Referencing the plot points is one thing, but the question is how to summarize and which parts to emphasize. There is quite a lot of gore in the film for example and going through the details of it is probably not in the best interest of the reader nor would, for example, providing a complete transcript of the dialogue. The best thing to do is look for which plot points are most notably discussed in the independent literature to guide the means to describe the plot.

The film enthusiasts have written themselves a MOS that permits plot summaries, but I'm afraid that goes in the bin when NPOV is violated. The film does not promote itself as fiction but, on its main site, as "an eye-opening look inside the abortion industry from a woman who was once its most passionate advocate". Wikipedia should not get suckered in buy the "it's fiction!" bait-and-switch. Alexbrn (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

No we should make it clear its fictionalised and sensationalised.Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

It's a little hard to do that as the movie-makers themselves are loath to admit that this was fictionalized and sensationalized. Still, it would be good to find some sources to this end. jps (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

One question, give an example of a fringe theory in the plot that is not questioned in the critical response section?Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

There is the conspiracy theory that Planned Parenthood does not call ambulances during medical emergencies for fear it makes them look bad. jps (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

That did not take long [[10]], so we can point out this is a lie.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Go for it! jps (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not the one arguing for that a plot of a film is not RS for what it says. The lede says "The accuracy of the film's portrayal of abortion and of Planned Parenthood have been severely criticized by doctors and advocates for Planned Parenthood." and that as far as I am concerned is all we need to say.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Really? You think it's not important to identify what was inaccurate? jps (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT PackMecEng (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

We do which part of ""The accuracy of the film's portrayal of abortion and of Planned Parenthood have been severely criticized" does not say that the whole plot is not accurate? I am not against singling out specifics if you wish, but I am not sure we need do more then just say "and the film is bollocks" (but more politely worded).Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the "whole film is bollocks" is what our sources say. There are serious doubts as to the veracity of what is being claimed to be "based on a true story" or whatever, but there are some interesting self-reflective points in the movie as well where they, for example, admit that there are register problems with the way some anti-abortion activists have behaved at clinic protests. The film also condemns the killing of George Tiller in a somewhat hamfisted but still unequivocal fashion. Of course, nuanced critiques are simply not going to be easy to come-by here, and that's kinda my point with wondering how much detail the plot should have. Obviously a full transcript is not needed. jps (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I did not say "the whole film", we already say its factual accuracy is disputed (in the first line). Once our reader knows that he (I would hope) treat the film like any other dram film that is "BASED ON A TRUE STORY!". If you want to add a Battle of the Bulge (1965 film) style "differences from history" style section, fine. The lack of one (not that there is) is not a basis to gut the plot summery.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that it's not clear which aspects of the film are disputed just from reading through the plot summary. I don't know what you mean by "gut the plot summery". I've actually been working on at least making the summary true to what happens in the movie which it wasn't before. But there are a number of plot elements that are glossed over, omitted, or unclear as to whether we should include them. I'll let someone else argue over whether there should be a plot summary at all, but my point is that if there is a plot summary then we have some editorial decisions to make about what to include and exclude from it. I hardly think that's controversial. If you want to help figure that out, feel free to jump over to the page. jps (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Not, that, is not. What maybe is your reason for what you want to exclude. Generally fringe does not apply to fiction, even if dressed up as fact. So to my mind the only question is not should we exclude fringe topics, but how do we make it clear the film is in fact fiction.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, "it's fiction" is not an immunization from WP:FRINGE. I can point to other instances where people tried to claim this, and it's not a good defense. And as a matter of genre, it's not quite fair to call a dramatization "fiction". Anyway, exclusion or inclusion of fringe topics is handled by WP:NFRINGE and it's fine to refer to that if and when it becomes relevant as it may in instances where the filmmaker seems to be attempting to portray certain aspects of abortion that are essentially the purview fringe theories. In any case, there is active work going on over at the article, so feel free to help out. jps (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

It takes an extraordinarily tortured reading of "undue" to use it to remove the "plot" section of a piece of fiction.

It's very far from unusual for fictional works to have have a heavy-handed message, but we don't normally treat them as though they were some devious backdoor into Wikipedia. We accurately describe them, because that's the point of having an article about them. ApLundell (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I think I agree that removing the section is not warranted, but I think there are real questions about what level of detail is appropriate while maintaining an accurate description. jps (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The movie's plot should be included regardless of whether or not it includes WP:FRINGE content. The policy is not intended to ban all mentions of fringe ideas. Instead, per WP:NFRINGE, notable fringe ideas can get coverage in their own article or even in articles on mainstream ideas, insofar as the coverage is in accordance with due weight, neutrality, and notability. And it's hard to argue that the plot of an otherwise notable film is not notable. Indeed, MOS:FILM implies that a plot summary is a standard part of articles on films. Jancarcu (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Again: Nobody wants to remove the plot. Please read what the other side writes before refuting something nobody ever wanted. See Strawman fallacy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is the Guy that started the thread removing the whole plot section, twice.[11][12] PackMecEng (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

And he started the thread by saying "should have a "plot" section to be consistent with other film articles, but". That means his preferences are like this:

1. Plot section without WP:PROFRINGE material
2. No plot section
3. Plot section with WP:PROFRINGE material

Got it now? --Hob Gadling (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Quacks who poison patients with mercury compounds and the Wikipedia editors who think this is OK

• Siddha medicine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mohanabhil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gandydancer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Both of the above users have received recent arbitration discretionary sanctions alerts on the topics of complementary and alternative medicine as well as pseudoscience and fringe science.

Background: Siddha medicine and its twin brother Ayurveda medicine are forms of ancient Indian folk medicine that is said to have been conveyed by Lord Shiva to his wife Parvati, who passed it on to her son Nandi, who gave it to Siddhas. The word Siddha denotes one who has achieved some extraordinary powers (siddhi).[13]

A key part of Siddha medicine is giving patients toxic mercury compounds[14][15], causing heavy metal poisoning.[16][17]

Siddha practitioners have had mixed results getting the Indian government to approve what they are doing, with the Indian Medial Association and the Indian Supreme Court calling Siddha practitioners "Quacks".

Despite the page being fully protected, the proponents keep hammering away on the article talk page, trying to get us to say that Siddha practitioners are not quacks.

I am thinking of taking this to WP:AE. Comments? Pinging User:JzG. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Before you go off all guns blazing, consider that both Mohanabhil and Gandydancer may well have a point. I need some more clarity before I decide either way, but ... Siddha is Pseudoscience and quackery and imho fraud. The Indian Govt have tried to improve their regulatory framework of these practitioners (quacks from our pov) by requiring them to register as practitioners and reqiuiring them to have training of some kind to enable them to register. What we have difficulty with is interpretation of those simple facts. So, the question is, are Mohan and Gandy saying that if these practitioners register under these regulations, then they are not quacks? Something is being misinterpreted? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 08:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, I agree we should reserve judgment at this point - Gandydancer, in particular, is a long-time trusted editor. I am not familiar with Mohanbhil. My first step here would be to discuss with Gandydancer, but there is a definite problem here with India applying "legislative alchemy" to turn bullshit into "medicine". India's culture of religion and tolerance fosters a culture of "different ways of knowing" in which homeopathy, ayurveda and like bollocks are accorded parity with real medicine. Guy (help!) 08:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Yup. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 08:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I keep searching and searching, and I cannot seem to find these mythical Siddha practitioners who have received sufficient training to no longer be quacks. In particular, where is the school that trains them to stop prescribing organic mercury compounds and only prescribe medicines that have been found to be safe and effective in double-blind medical trials? Where is the Siddha practitioner who advertises that they have abandoned mercury? Where is the Siddha practitioner who complains that he tried to get certified but was told he has to stop giving mercury to his patients? Where are the regulations for training that require no mercury?

Instead I see things like Ayurveda GCP Guidelines: Need for freedom from RCT (Randomized Clinical trial) ascendancy in favor of whole system approach and Clinical trials not mandatory for licensing ASU (Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani) drugs, says govt. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the names "Mohanabhil" or "Gandydancer" -- the actual topics you brought up -- anywhere in that mini-rant. Nor do I see any sign that you've notified them about this discussion you've started. --Calton | Talk 09:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Look at the article talk page. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 10:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

There are pages such as ANI where the notification template is required and the instructions at the top of the page specifically says "The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose". Then there are pages like this one where either method is acceptable. I used the ping method. If Calton wishes to make the template required, he should seek consensus for such a rule change rather than criticizing editors for violating nonexistent rules. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: - A reminder: I don't see the names "Mohanabhil" or "Gandydancer" -- the actual topics you brought up -- anywhere in that mini-rant. Perhaps you should actually read what I wrote before attempting to obscure both your lack of relevant commentary -- as well as your your lack of common courtesy and intellectual honesty -- behind rules-lawyering. --Calton | Talk 02:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes I think notification is not needed to post on this noticeboard, but is a courtesy. —PaleoNeonate – 13:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I have to say, when I saw the heading I thought this would be Vaccine hesitancy related. Carry on. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

It is odd that on the one hand we have antivaxxers claiming that mercury is poisoning children long after the tiny amounts of mercury in vaccines was removed, yet on the Siddha talk page we seem to have multiple editors who don't care about the fact that many patients are dying from heavy metal poisoning and who don't care about the complete lack of evidence that the so called "legitimate non quack" Siddha practitioners are required to stop prescribing organic mercury compounds. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC) .

Also been a problem with TCM in places like New York, where of course the crunchies lap it up. Guy (help!) 18:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• It's right that a distinction should be made between a dodgy belief system (like Siddha Medicine) and its practice, which is quackery. The usual "safe" formulation for dealing with this kind of scenario is to say something like "${Woo medicine} is not supported by medical evidence and its practice has been characterized as quackery". Alexbrn (talk) 11:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I have read the charge of "hammering away on the article talk page, trying to get us to say that Siddha practitioners are not quacks." I will give other editors a few days to read the article, the talk page, and the sites offered by Alexbrn and then I will respond to Alexbrn and the comments of others. Gandydancer (talk) 02:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

A couple of points. First, what sites has Alex offered? Second, why make us wait for your response? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 12:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps others have more time to carefully read the circumstances surrounding this complaint which states that I have been "trying to get [WP editors] to say that Siddha practitioners are not quacks" including the article, the talk page, and the related sources posted at the article and TP, and here than I do. After all how else could they make an educated judgement? That said, I do consider my WP reputation important and I certainly do not want my name to be presented at WP:AE for a discussion of my behavior. So I will make a short statement to show that I have not been trying to get WP editors to say that Siddha practitioners are not quacks but rather to respect and use RS correctly.

During my many years as a WP editor I have run into many instances of finding political bias of the WHO and US agencies such as the EPA (who are supposed to protect our health through addressing environmental concerns), the CDC, and the AMA, and as such I would well expect to find the same within the comparable Indian agencies such as the IMA and Indian governmental agencies. That said, following WP policy I do not enter my opinion re their positions and statements as demonstrations of fakery and lies, but rather I use RS to support or dispute what RS has reported. That is what we are supposed to do here; we are not supposed to argue in an article or on the article talk pages whether or not they are correct as has been going on here and on the Siddah talk page.

The article currently states: Identifying fake medical practitioners without qualifications, the Supreme Court of India stated in 2018 that "unqualified, untrained quacks are posing a great risk to the entire society and playing with the lives of people without having the requisite training and education in the science from approved institutions" However a reading of the judgement offered as a reliable source clearly shows otherwise and anyone reading the judgement should be able to easily see that that is the case. The judgement states they are addressing "Paramparya Vaidyas", not qualified practitioners of traditional Indian medicine. Quoting the court judgement:

The 2018 judgement made by the Supreme Court of India states: "Learned senior counsel for the appellants contended before this Court that in the State of Kerala, a large number of �persons are practicing in Sidha/Unani/Ayurveda system of medicines known as ‘Paramparya Vaidyas’, which are in vogue for a long time. They have acquired knowledge and experience from their gurus and parents and by continued practice over a long period of time they have acquired the requisite expertise."

Conclusion: "The government had been vigilant all along to stop such quackery. A number of unqualified, untrained quacks are posing a great risk to the entire society and playing with the lives of people without having the requisite training and education in the science from approved institutions.[...]But in the present case, the appellants herein have failed to show that they possessed requisite recognized qualification for registration entitling them to practice Indian system of medicines or their names have been entered in the appropriate registers after the commencement of this Act." [18]

As I say on the article talk page, this is a poster child of the reason that we should not be using primary sources as the one being used to (incorrectly) provide RS for this statement offered as factual in the lead of this article. There are similar problems in the second primary source used in the lead, an IMA statement, as well. Gandydancer (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• The article at this moment seems to have improved a lot from the time when I looked into it for the first time in last month. I was merely concerned on talk page regarding the representation of the sources and if we are using credible sources. I am not adamant or seek enforcement of my suggestion but a civil discussion without any obstruction is ideally a good idea for improving the article. I agree with Alexbrn that the article must be careful with differentiating the historical Siddha and the present Siddha. Mohanabhil (talk) 08:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

To move on to the next primary source used in the lead. First and most importantly, this IMA source clearly shows why WP annon editors should not be using primary documents to back accusations of wrongdoing, or anything else, in our Wikipedia articles. Never the less, reading the second source which supposedly states that the IMA finds practitioners of Indian traditional medicine to be quacks, this document does not support that statement. It states:

Quacks can be divided amongst three basic categories as under :

• 1. Quacks with no qualification whatsoever.

• 2. Practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb, Unani), Homeopathy, Naturopathy, commonly called Ayush, who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practicing Modern Medicine. (emphasis added)

• 3. Practitioners of so called integrated Medicine, Alternative System of Medicine, electro-homeopathy, indo-allopathy etc. terms which do not exist in any Act.

The third source in the lead, the Guardian, does a good job of presenting the IMA's position, but even there Indian traditional practitioners are not called "quacks" but rather those practitioners who are practicing modern medicine and the IMA's fear that the Indian government will make legal changes to laws that allow them to do so. As time permits I will discuss the charge that I supposedly believe that it is OK to be poisoned with mercury. Gandydancer (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Finally, it is very insulting to have a fellow editor say that it's OK with me if the people of India are poisoned with toxic mercury compounds and that I should be taken to WP:AE. I'd like to defend my WP reputation by saying that I am not some sort of troublemaker or nutcase. I have one India-related article, the 2012 Delhi gang rape article and I have another related article that came up in the talk page discussion, the New England Compounding Center meningitis outbreak. I'd suggest that anyone reading the links that have been offered here keep in mind that any medication that is not properly prepared and prescribed correctly can be deadly, see the meningitis article for example. Another of the links offered here is clearly a discussion with an unlicensed Siddha practitioner of the type that India does not permit to legally practice. From my reading I learned that India has many universities that teach Indian traditional medicine and the government encourages their use for people that desire that form of medicine. IMO it is an insult to India and perhaps even racist for Wikipedia editors to declare that the people of India use medicine that is fake and is provided by quacks. Gandydancer (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Not any more racist (i.e. none at all) than it is to say that (some of, as was the case above) the people of the USA use medicine that is fake and is provided by quacks. And I don't appreciate use of the trope of using "racism" or "other cultures!" as a shield for quacks and fraudsters. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am referring to properly trained and licensed practitioners of Siddha medicine, which is what the particular article is about. Gandydancer (talk) 04:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Government endorsed quackery is still quackery. See: climate change denial. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

As the protecting admin, I vouch for Gandydancer as someone who is competent, edits in good faith, and is insightful. El_C 02:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Afterthought: I absolutely agree with this. It is the reason I posted to this thread in the first place. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 12:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

" properly trained and licensed practitioners of Siddha medicine, which is what the particular article is about" are still Quacks. Nothing in Gandy's posts above supports that IMA didn't call these people quacks. They clearly did. Gandy and Mohan provide nothing to support the differentiation, (read conjecture) that they, not the IMA, are making. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 11:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

There may be a question of labeling versus exposition going on here. The term quack is a somewhat inartful sobriquet that can mean a variety of things. I wonder whether it even means the same thing in the context of Indian medicine as compared to how it is defined in Wikipedia. E.g. The Times of India, which is a source of uneven quality at best, seems to define a "quack" as a doctor practicing without appropriate education rather than promoting dubious treatment regimes which is typically the way it is used in the US and the UK. jps (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

jps, I will give my best guess as to what is going on here. I did a lot of reading and as such I think I do now have some understanding of this matter. What I found out is that India has millions of people that need health care and the Indian health ministry is attempting to do the best they can to help their own people. But they have found themselves between a rock and a hard place when it comes to making mandates with strict rules because a large number of their people would be left without any care at all. Hence they did come out with a ruling that "‘Paramparya Vaidyas", those practitioners that had no formal schooling in medicine (see the link above in which a practitioner explains that the education cannot be taught in schools but only learned from one's guru--and it must be kept secret at that!), would not be sanctioned by the Indian ministry of health. ...And other guidelines which the IMA is not very happy about, which I mention below.

Add to that the problem that a large number of allopaths leave India because they can earn more money elsewhere and of those that stay, most of them do not practice in the rural areas. So one thing that the government is promoting the possibility that practitioners of traditional medicine be given rights to legally prescribe around 70 "modern" drugs after a three-month course. From reading the IMA statement that the allopathic doctors have issued one finds, not surprisingly, that they are vigorously protesting any laws that they see as cutting into their own territory. They argue that the Indian health ministry has been so vague as to allow all sorts of ways go get around their concerns (and I'd well guess that they are quite correct in their charges). So that's where things are at. (Though one can add to that the problem that the allopaths and the Indian traditional practitioners are not being educated in both types of medicine as this pharmacist believes is needed and is explained in this helpful link [19] ) But all that said, India accepts traditional med as a legal form of medicine and does not see it as fake or quackery, and our article should not be claiming that it is. We're required to report RS here, not what we think is true or false. Gandydancer (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand one point, do you think that just because the Indian government "accepts traditional med as a legal form of medicine and does not see it as fake or quackery" our article needs to follow the Indian government's position? I can understand an argument that our article might not be able to say with some clarity what exactly the position of the Indian government is, but it is not Wikipedia's place to argue one way or another on the basis of government proclamation. If we have reliable sources that indicate that Siddha medicine is "fake or quackery", we should report that. The Indian government is not the ultimate arbiter of this, surely. jps (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

jps asks, "I don't understand one point, do you think that just because the Indian government "accepts traditional med as a legal form of medicine and does not see it as fake or quackery" our article needs to follow the Indian government's position?" No, I am not arguing that we should accept the government's position. The problem is that the editors that support the lead as written are using the government's decision as RS to support their position that Siddha traditional medicine is fake quackery. As I have argued, we should not be using primary sources in the first place and what's more, the government source that is being used actually is not addressing Siddha but rather practitioners who do not have university training and are lacking a license to practice medicine. Gandydancer (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Well I assume you are aware that I have all along argued that the claims that the article makes in the lead are not backed up by the references that are offered. If you have RS that would top what their own Ministry of Health through the Supreme Court of India and the IMA have made I'd like to see it used to replace what we now have, though I should think that the opinions of those two would be considered as the leading agencies that we would use for a comparable article. The lead states:

The Indian Medical Association regards Siddha medicine degrees as "fake" and Siddha therapies as quackery, posing a danger to national health due to absence of training in science-based medicine.[5][6] Identifying fake medical practitioners without qualifications, the Supreme Court of India stated in 2018 that "unqualified, untrained quacks are posing a great risk to the entire society and playing with the lives of people without having the requisite training and education in the science from approved institutions".[9]

I would assume that if you have been reading the talk page and the links that have been offered that there is no question about whether or not the Indian health ministry supports traditional Indian medicine. Gandydancer (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

You are evading the question. But it does not matter. The Indian government is not the ultimate arbiter on the question of whether something is quackery, period. Their position does not matter, only the position of the scientific community does. If we report the position of the Indian government, it is just in order to give the reader an idea about the relation between the Indian government's opinion and reality. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I think there is a question about whether or not the Indian health ministry supports traditional medicine. I mean, do you think the sources indicate that they are endorsing the use of the mercury compounds? And if there is a nuanced take to be had here about access, why is the current wording something with which you disagree? It seems to me that you're playing a game of either/or when it need not be that way. jps (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

There are no doubt some parts of the Indian government that support traditional medicine, just as there are parts of the UK and US government that support nonscientific remedies. See Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 for an example of the dietary supplement industry health lobbying the government to vote down laws requiring supplement manufacturers to demonstrate supplements safety before marketing the supplements.

In the above, Gandydancer says

"Add to that the problem that a large number of allopaths leave India because they can earn more money elsewhere and of those that stay, most of them do not practice in the rural areas. So one thing that the government is promoting the possibility that practitioners of traditional medicine be given rights to legally prescribe around 70 'modern' drugs after a three-month course."

If the India government was talking about allowing say, homeopaths, to prescribe those modern drugs after training, they would at least have practitioners who are otherwise prescribing harmless but ineffective remedies. But when that talk about letting Siddha practitioners prescribe those modern drugs after training without requiring them to stop prescribing organic mercury compounds that is another matter.

At Talk:Siddha medicine#Evidence, please. I asked the following question:

"Some here claim that there exist Siddha practitioners who are licensed, trained, and thus not quacks. Please show me any shred of evidence that any such license or training requires Siddha practitioners to stop prescribing organic mercury compounds."

It appears that the same editors who are prepared to argue all day about "properly trained and licensed practitioners of Siddha medicine" not being quacks have fallen strangely silent when faced with the above question. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh right. Does nobody else wonder why anyone would routinely call practitioners of scientific medicine allopaths, as if Hahnemann's ideas had merit, and as if medicine, like homeopathy, had made no progress since Hahnemann's time? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Guy, have you stopped beating your wife? ;) also, whenever I see the word “allopath” I substitute it with “real medic” when reading. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 08:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, that's an India thing. See the top step of the pharmacy here: File:Bangalore pharmacy.jpg. The quacks have infested Indian healthcare rather badly. I put it down tot he culture of religious faith (homeopathy and ayurveda are both quasi-religious practices) - back in the day, reality-based doctors were mroe likely to be Christian and this was seens as a religious equivalence thing as far as aI can tell (despite homeopathy having been plucked out of the arse of an 18th Century German). Guy (help!) 10:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

There’s a particular irony in the use of the term here, given that (unlike modern medicine) Siddha medicine, along with at least 2 of the other therapies under the “AYUSH” umbrella, uses precisely the sort of humour balancing based approach that Hahnemann derided as “allopathy”. Brunton (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon states, "Some here claim that there exist Siddha practitioners who are licensed, trained, and thus not quacks. Please show me any shred of evidence that any such license or training requires Siddha practitioners to stop prescribing organic mercury compounds. It appears that the same editors who are prepared to argue all day about "properly trained and licensed practitioners of Siddha medicine" not being quacks have fallen strangely silent when faced with the above question." It is not our place as Wikipedia editors to place our personal opinions about the practice of traditional Indian medicine in this article. In all of our articles, medical or otherwise, it is just basic WP practice to use reliable sources to back up everything we write here. Since I've been threatened with a trip to WP:AE, which I take very seriously since I know that I would need to spend even more time than I have already to defend my position, I'd appreciate it if some editors here would not use this as an opportunity to use this page as a grandstand to express their dislike of Indian traditional medicine, even to the point of discussing its non-Christian origins and "have you stopped beating your wife" jokes, but rather to look at the TP discussion and note that the only thing that I've "hammered away" on is to note that the article sources are using and interpreting the primary sources incorrectly. As for the practice of using mercury compounds in their medications, I have not argued here nor on the TP as to their benefits or dangers. I have only addressed mercury when accused of ignoring its dangers where I noted that the links offered were either not RS or did not state that properly prepared mercury compounds were dangerous. Gandydancer (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I haven't been following this closely, but I must agree we follow sources rather than users' opinions. Looking at the page just now, I see we cite a Steven Novella (SBM) article which calls Siddha Medicine, in terms, "quackery". Since this is a great source I'm not sure what the issue is. It seems from the sources this "medicine" is obvious bollocks and so its practice obvious quackery - and we have a gold standard source saying so. All else is surely fluff? Alexbrn (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

The issue is the fact that I have refused to agree that the current sources are being used correctly. It is good to see someone present an acceptable ref (only I wish you would have done it sooner and saved me all this work...) By all means, please replace the primary refs with this one and note that it is his opinion. Gandydancer (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with a good "have you stopped beating your wife joke when the object of the comment accuses everybody, including you Gandydancer, of supporting the use of organic mercury in victimspatients. Now, you have not shown anything that supports your contention that we are using primary sources incorrectly. Do so, or drop it. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Ball lightning

Much of the obvious insanity was removed from this article years ago, but recently some questions were asked on the talk page as to whether it's still too credulous.

Is ball lightning a "Unexplained" phenomena? A "supposed" phenomena? Or perhaps just category of potentially related observations?

This thread might be of interest to people here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ball_lightning#Not_science

ApLundell (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Observed but not explained. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC).

Funny how the article lists 12 scientific explanations for something that is "unexplained". - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Why is that funny? Just several competing theories, none yet accepted. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC).

Because "unexplained" means there are 0 explanations, not that there are 12 possible explanations. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Addition: When people say "there is no scientific explanation", most of the time, they mean "there is a scientific explanation, but I don't like it". Or, as in this case, "there are many scientific explanations, but I don't like any of them". --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree, an encyclopedia shouldn't indulge creepypasta fans looking for entertainment [20]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

A theory, even if it may later turn out to be correct, isn't the same as an explanation accepted by the scientific community. ApLundell (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Nobody said it was. Instead, people said other things, and you can actually read what they said, if you want. "Unexplained" ist just the wrong word. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I must add that ”Unexplained” is a poor synonym for “no single hypothesis agreed upon by a majority of experts in the relevant scientific community”. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

It literally means that. That's kind of a basic truth of Fringe. ApLundell (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it is even clear that ball lightning really is a coherent single phenomenon. It is often invoked in discussions of UFOs, but unlike explanations such as Saint Elmo's Fire and Fata Morgana, there is no one agreed upon description of the supposed phenomenon. Is lightning sometimes in different shapes? Can balls of plasma form in our atmosphere? I don't think there are clear binary answers to these questions that cover everything our article is currently discussing. That typically indicates an area that is "unexplained" if perhaps not altogether "mysterious". jps (talk) 13:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Patrick Michaels, fossil fuel industry funding, and climate change "skepticism"

A New York Times article on Youtube's systemic promotion of fringe theories is making the rounds today (Nicas, Jack. 2020. "Can YouTube Quiet Its Conspiracy Theorists?" March 2, 2020. The New York Times.). One of the figures it mentions is Patrick Michaels, a fossil-industry funded climate "skeptic", which Youtube's algorithms promote to users. Michaels's page does not make the fact that he is a fringe proponent explicit, which further serves Google's promotion of his views on YouTube. Michaels's article could use a lot more eyes from users from this board. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Section "Michaels and Balling complaint against Star Tribune upheld" should probably go as undue, only reference a primary source, unless more can be found. Same in Robert Balling. fiveby (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

When someone writes an opinion piece for say The Washington Times, I do not think it is appropriate to quote from in a WP article unless there are other reliable sources which discuss that opinion and include similar quotations. Even if they are clearly the views of the article's subject, it gives their views undue importance. In this case the source of the opinion is a marginal source and considered partisan in WP:RSP and fringe material. Should also go if no other sources than Cato and the original opinion piece cannot be found. fiveby (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• I found three good sources for his fossil industry funding. Guy (help!) 14:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Just to make sure every i is dotted and every t is crossed, did he start off publishing the fringe theory and then get fossil industry funding, or did he get the fossil industry funding and then publish the fringe theory? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

    Guy Macon, I don't know if the sources say. It's pretty clear that he's been receiving oil money since before the last IPCC report, so it's not easy to pick apart whether he's the last of the unconvinced or whether this is a case of Upton Sinclair's famous aphorism. Probably a bit of both.

    Update: I just thought to look in merchants of Doubt. He's been working with Fred Singer since 1991, originally denying the scientific consensus on ozone depletion, then morphing into climate change denial. He called cap and trade "Obamunism" - he's obviously a hard libertarian and he appears, from what I can findm, to be taking the money mainly because he's unemployable in his original job by now due to science denial. Ironic really: climate change denial is vastly more lucrative than what he did before. Guy (help!) 23:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Georges Lakhovsky

• Georges Lakhovsky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Quack bio. No sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

AFD.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Worth looking for reliable sources, he's in The Secret Life of Plants for instance, and healing machine results all over in google. Would be nice to have something debunking but i'm finding nothing so far. Best fr:Georges Lakhovsky has is this with one brief mention. fiveby (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

It seems that around 2010 the article was shorter too and denounced quackery (Special:Permalink/360046071). —PaleoNeonate – 12:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Bioscience Resource Project

• Bioscience Resource Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's some evidence of COI editing at this article on an anti-science science group. The Controversies section seems designed to frame them as valued experts in their chosen fields, and I suspect cherry-picking. Is anyone familiar with this group? Guy (help!) 12:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I just cut that section out. It is indeed clearly meant to promote this group's biology denial and anti-GMO nonsense. Maybe AfD for the article? Crossroads ^-talk- 14:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, I could easily be persuaded. Like so many of these faux-watchdog groups, they appear to be bankrolled by Big Organic. But since I can't find RS for that it may indicate that the entire thing is, as you say, not notable. Guy (help!) 10:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Protect the Harvest

• Protect the Harvest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This appears to be an agribusiness front group, and the article is not great. It could do with some help from anyone who is familiar with its areas of public debate, notably wild horse slaughter. I cut out some stuff that basically looked like both sides lobbing bricks at each other - a neutral description of its actual position would be appreciated. Guy (help!) 13:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Vaccine hesitancy

Is this oddly named article covered by the Fringe and alternative medicine sanctions? I haven't found any anti-vac talk pages with notices. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

would have thought so.Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

This article is not "oddly named"; it is the name used for this phenomenon by the World Health Organization (see, e.g., "Strategies for addressing vaccine hesitancy - A systematic review (October 2014)") and by professionals in the field (see, e.g., "Journal of Vaccine Special Issue on Vaccine Hesitancy". The term addresses that fact that the largest body of non-vaccinating parents are not those who are actively opposed to vaccination, but those who hesitate because they are confused by the competing claims for or against vaccines. BD2412 T 17:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

... and yes, it falls squarely into "fringe" -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Well hesitancy is real, but based on fringe/quack ideas. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I would say that yes it is covered. The title the result of a move from "vaccine controversies" a year ago (by me). That was motivated by the ambiguity between scientific controversy (which basically doesn't exist around vaccines) and a ginned-up manufactroversy motivated by a priori rejection of immunisation.

It's not necessarily the best title, but it has the advantage of being the one the WHO use. Guy (help!) 10:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's covered by those sanctions. Vaccine hesitancy is based on debunked pseudoscientific and anti-science views. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

This reminds me of this thread: Talk:Vaccine hesitancy/Archive 4 § Cause(s) Missing where while there indeed is pseudoscience, conspiracy theories and harmful media influence (so I agree that WP:FRINGE applies and that it's a sensitive article), there also are other interesting reasons some people may fear vaccination. Of course, epidemiology established that vaccines have a positive effect on populations against disease. —PaleoNeonate – 22:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Race and intelligence#Requested move 4 March 2020

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Race and intelligence#Requested move 4 March 2020. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48

Naomi Seibt - RfC on synonyms for climate change denial

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

RfC at Talk:Naomi Seibt proposing to use her self-identification as a "climate change skeptic" or "climate change realist" rather than "climate change denier". Guy (help!) 11:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

This is absolutely unneutral invite. Sources call her climate change skeptic, she identify as climate change realist.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, I did not say anything about what sources say. I noted her self-identification and what the article currently says. And yes, some sources do go with skeptic. Others use denier. Some call her the new face of climate change denial. Another calls her the Heartland Institute's face of its climate change denial programme. Wikipedia has a redirect from climate change skeptic to climate change denial and a pretty robust consensus that we call a spade a spade here, especially when someone is a political activist with no expertise in climate science. Guy (help!) 12:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

JzG, Show me one reliable source that says that she identify as "climate change skeptic" and show me a reliable source that explicitly says she is a "climate change denier".--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, wrong venue, that has already been provided at the talk page, but the discussion belongs in the RfC not here. I will just point out again that climate change skeptic is a euphemism for climate change denier. Guy (help!) 12:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I do believe in climate change and I also believe we should follow rules especially in BLP. All sources call her skeptic. She identify as "climate change realist" so when you say that "climate change skeptic" is self-identitication you are not saying the truth.

Washington Post: [21] Naomi Seibt, a 19-year-old climate change skeptic and self-proclaimed “climate realist,” speaks Friday during a workshop at the Conservative...

Business insider: [22] Naomi Seibt, a 19 year old climate change skeptic and self proclaimed climate realist, speaks during a workshop...

Independent: [23] A 19-year-old German climate change sceptic who has been described by her supporters as “the antidote to Greta Thunberg”

--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, wrong venue. This is an invitation to participants at the relevant noticeboard to join the RfC discussion. Guy (help!) 12:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

JzG unfortunately you made a biased misleading invitation so I had to explain.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I see nothing biased about this notice.Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, JzG said proposing to use her self-identification as a "climate change skeptic"

This is not true and misleading. Reliable sources identify her as "Climate change skeptic" not her. She identifies as "Climate change realist" see what sources are saying [24] "Naomi Seibt, a 19-year-old climate change skeptic and self-proclaimed “climate realist,” speaks Friday during a workshop at the Conservative". JzG invitation is false and misleading.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Inaccuracy and none neutrality are not the same thing. Even this source (we her in fact) acknowledged she is described as a denier.Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, " Even this source (we her in fact) acknowledged she is described as a denier", what does this mean? Are you saying the source in the WaPo describe her as a "denier"? Where?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

No I am saying that in that source she denies she is, you do not deny something no one has accused you of.Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, what? how is this even relevant? All sources describe her as a "climate change skeptic", she doesnt identify as "climate change skeptic" as JzG inaccurately said. Sources identify her as a "climate change skeptic" full stop.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

In a nutshell, the as-yet-unspoken subtext here is that WP:FRINGE trumps reliable sources. See the essays Yes, we are biased and lunatic charlatans. [I say that as a supporter of the climate crisis] Esowteric+Talk 13:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

In fact, in a nutshell, NPOV is central. We do not indulge fringe notions (like climate denial is "skepticism"), because that is the policy. The idea that good editing means we adopt verbatim terminology from sources, is wrong. We summarize sources in our own words in accord with Wikipedia's policies, and NPOV is a core one. Alexbrn (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Points taken thanks. I was just thinking that were this not classed as a fringe issue, the description "denialist" might otherwise be taken as being clearly biased and POV. Esowteric+Talk 15:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Esowteric, the term is indeed biased: towards empirical fact, and against an ideology which finds that fact financially inconvenient. That is exactly in line with Wikipedia policy.

It's worth noting that the documentary evidence also shows that the ideology of climate change denialism was deliberately manufactured by the fossil fuel industry. Unlike creationism, nobody woke up one morning and decided that their religion forbade them from believing in climate change. It was invented from whole cloth by consultants and think-tanks paid by the fossil fuel lobby and then retconned into Christian right dogma. Guy (help!) 19:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Deliberately manufactured by the fossil fuel industry and by market fundamentalist think tanks such as Seibt's employer, whose tenet that free markets are always the best solution is refuted by the existence of man-made global warming. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

This is how I would have phrased the introduction here: In view of differing, contentious opinions, an RfC was opened at Talk:Naomi Seibt proposing to use reliable sources as a "climate change skeptic", rather than her self-proclaimed role as a "climate change realist", or what others see as a "climate change denier". Esowteric+Talk 12:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Argee, this is why I said JzG should have not been pinged. This is why canvassing is bad. We might end up with a BLP violation due to this canvassing.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, The alternative was that you and Esowteric came up with a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that would be speedily overruled as soon as someone from Wikipedia's reality-based community noticed the article. Guy (help!) 16:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. That wording of an RfC would effectively tell editors that they should vote for skeptic. It is the opposite of neutral. NightHeron (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The article also belongs under WP:SKEPTIC (which I tagged now), the RFC would have therefore shown up at the top of this page soon anyway. Posting on a public official noticeboard is not canvassing. Some of the sources did use denial or denialism in their headers. In any case, there are plenty of other sources that would call "climate skepticism" denialism. As was also already said, we don't need to quote sources, we can call things what they are per WP:PSCI, as long as the sources use "climate skeptic" or "climate realist", or that they mention that the person rejects the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change or on global warming... —PaleoNeonate – 14:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Esowteric, but you didn't, so I did it in my own words. Which are neutral, regardless of whether you'd have said it differently. My statement was neutral and 100% factual. Yours uses framing language. Guy (help!) 16:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

None of which is relevant, wp:soap applies to all of us.Slatersteven (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

It's unclear who this message was addressed to or why WP:SOAP applies here. —PaleoNeonate – 23:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

It is a general notice to everyone who might (for example) be discussing user or off wiki corporate actions.Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Including attributed statements as to what she calls herself is fine, but we've resolved the debate about the synonym between climate change skepticism and climate change denial some time ago. Easy to see by clicking on this wikilink: climate change skepticism.

So we cannot, in Wikipedia's voice, assert that she is a "climate change skeptic". Of course, we also are under no obligation to assert in Wikipedia's voice that she is a "climate change denier" (and really should be cognizant of sourcing requirements if that's something editors think should be done). However, we absolutely can make it clear that there is an ideological category into which she falls and we certainly can link to the appropriate articles and categories as source warrant. jps (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Trial of George Zimmerman

• Trial of George Zimmerman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There has been a recent attempt to add some information here about a recent-ish book which seems a bit fringey, using a lot of sources which seem questionable to me. Additional opinions would be welcome as to whether I'm being too harsh, or if this is really no good. Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

This promotes a recent book and film by Joel Gilbert. From that article:

"Joel Gilbert (born April 15, 1964) is an American filmmaker, musician, and conspiracy theorist. Gilbert's political films advance right-wing conspiracy theories. He has been a frequent guest on InfoWars."

Sources include a guy from Judicial Watch and the American Greatness webshite. I am happy to block if he keeps this up. Guy (help!) 16:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

References

It's a self-published book but I see that the editor hasn't mentioned that. If we do mention it, we shouldn't go into any detail or mention any names and certainly shouldn't be using sources such as Judicial Watch. It looks very much like just another of Joel Gilbert's conspiracy theories and if we include it should be presented as such. Doug Weller talk 16:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

New Chronology (Fomenko)‎ - now is mainly a showcase for his theories

SPA Cjbaiget (talk · contribs) is editing New Chronology (Fomenko)‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) mainly adding material sourced to Fomenko. Most of the article now simply promotes Fomenko's fringe theories. See also New Chronology (Fomenko)‎#Lies in this article maintained by 'administrator' Ymblanter. I'll ping the other editors involved: @Carlstak, Lebob, and Ymblanter: you might also wish to take part here. Cjbaiget has also added the 2019 opening of a private museum called "The Multimedia Museum of the New Chronology" which I find mentioned in only two pages, a website on private museums in Russia and our article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 16:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to reflect on the concerns raised:

-"Most of the article now simply promotes Fomenko's fringe theories."

I don't know if that's the case. If this is true, it's not my fault, as anyone can check by reviewing my contributions. Until now, I've just provided correct and verifiable data for *previously existing claims regarding new chronology in the article*, that is *I'm not providing new sections, considerations, or rephrasing of mainstream perception of the theory.*

I beg to the reader: please check this claim by yourself. Actually, and despite all the opposition to my edits, I've improved the article in some data that was erroneously quoted: place of Peloponessian War according Fomenko (article said "Spain" and now "Greece", edited by DougWeller. Please trace the origin of the discussion and also the talk page), precise dates and places of Christ birthday and crucifixion according Fomenko, precise dates of relevant eclipses according Fomenko, and removal of non existent eclipses attributed to Fomenko. *Mention of all this data was not initiated by me, data existed in the article before I edited it*, please check. But was erroneous and I could provide the correct data and was accepted.

-"Cjbaiget has also added the 2019 opening of a private museum called "The Multimedia Museum of the New Chronology"

I beg the reader again: please check article history. I did mention the opening of the museum *in the already existing section of Russian acceptance of the theory*. The opening of the museum is relevant in that context. Creationism articles point to Creationism Museums which also have their own wikipedia articles, and I thought, and still think, that this is relevant information for the reader to evaluate the current state of the affair.

-Regarding "Lies in this article maintained by 'administrator' Ymblanter]]"

I'm not proud of the title of the section I opened in the talk page. However, after I pointed the errors and provide correct data and verifiable sources, erroneus data become lies if reverted with this knowledge in hand. This information was dismissed with sarcasm and not reasons. I'm not calling Ymblanter a liar, I say that erroneous data are now lies, and Ymblanter tolerates them. Sadly, title of the section is both unfortunate and true. Also, I'm not going to open a section with a similar tone by any means in the future.

Following (what I feel as) harassment, I've also publicly DESISTED on correcting certain erroneous data that currently remains in the article, after providing the correct data and the sources to check them enumerated in the talk page waiting for its time to amend and improve the article.

-"mainly adding material sourced to Fomenko"

True, but only when talking about what Fomenko claims, following the recommended advice of Wikipedia of WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD : "Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are *supporting a direct quotation*"

In my humble opinion, and after having actually taken the time to *impartially read* almost all books of New Chronology, I've to say also that in its current form, the article is plagued with erroneous data and literally misrepresents https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/misrepresent "New Chronology (Fomenko)" to great extent, up to the point of describing a clumsy parody of it, and any activity to minimize this situation is perceived as "pushing Pseudoscience and Fringe theories".

@Carlstak, Lebob, Ymblanter, and Doug Weller: Cjbaiget (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I've no time to get into the details right now, just two minor points. I think Cjbaiget will agree that although he initiated the Spain/Greece discussion, which was a good idea, the current edit clarifying the issue was mine. As for the museums, yes, there are Creationist museum articles because there are Creationist museums which have had a lot of publicity for various reasons. I could not find anything similar for the Russian one, only the one website. Doug Weller talk 20:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

No problem, I do have time to get into the details: of course the current edit clarifying the issue was yours, as I was not allowed to do it after my editions being *systematically reverted*. And you did it only after I dared to edit the wrong statement with this challenge: "Thoroughly explained *two* weeks ago on talk page, without debate or refutation. As a wikimedia *contributor* and *supporter*, I think the time has come for the shame of wikipedia insisting on this *lie* to be assigned to the concrete name of the self proclaimed "truth warrior" reverting this *fact*: war was in *Greece* not in *Spain*.)" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Chronology_(Fomenko)&diff=885358405&oldid=883097853

So the current edit is yours, but *that edit did not change the correct place I edited, only the words surrounding them*, that is, *is another edition* (I remember feeling that the excesively wordly revision was only a way to obfuscate the core matter). Moreover, your edit *did not clarify the issue we are talking (Greece vs Spain)*, only the historical context of it, *that I had to explain to you previously on the talk page as you were not aware of this war until then*, even replying me erroneously: "Of course there was no conflict between the Navarrans and Catalans in Greece" (DougWeller, 16:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC) on New Chronology (Fomenko), talk page)

If you or any other reader do not agree on this, please check dates on both the talk page and history of changes, and its corresponding author.

Surprisingly for me, that lengthy clarification became only 'necessary' *only after factual data was forced into the article in place of the erroneous one*, and the proof is that *the previous explanation was considered satisfactory for a long time although it was giving the wrong place*.

It seems to me, that had I not dared to take that step, the article will continue to say the wrong data and the true one would have remained ignored *as all the other correct data I'm providing now on the talk page now*. Anyway, I think this debate is preposterous, I'm not asking for any recognition, and I prefer your current elaborated edit rather than my simple *one word* change *that you extended*. Now all this circumstances are summarized as me 'having a good idea'? Thanks for those proportionate and comforting words.

About the NC Museum, I think that we are losing the opportunity to pioneer the public awareness of this fact. In any case I think that its mention in the article is inevitable in the short/medium term, but this circumstance will have to be brought by another messenger as yours truly has already been shoot.Cjbaiget (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Synchronicity

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

WP:PROFRINGE edit-warring. --Hob Gadling (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Fringe history

I just read http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/new-owner-of-skinwalker-ranch-previously-advocated-for-mormon-pseudohistory] and that led me to [25]. Some of the people associated with this Ancient Historical Research Foundation may seem reliable on their own if one didn't know about their association with this group. Their home page[26] also has some legitimate news articles, which helps them look respectable. Doug Weller talk 20:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Chinese zodiac signs

• Snake (zodiac) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rabbit (zodiac) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dragon (zodiac) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dog (zodiac) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rat (zodiac) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tiger (zodiac) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Horse (zodiac) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ox (zodiac) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Monkey (zodiac) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Goat (zodiac) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pig (zodiac) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rooster (zodiac) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For some reason, somebody added a section "People born in Year of the *" to all of these. And now an IP is adding lots of links to those. I don't think Wikipedia should do this. Any thoughts?

Since all the articles on astrological signs, Chinese, Indian or Western, are edited frequently in a similar fashion, maybe they should be semi-protected indefinitely? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Hardly anybody seems to be interested, but there is a RfC on the subject in Talk:Rat (zodiac). --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Cryptic pregnancy

Cryptic pregnancy could probably use better sources and a check to make sure it's not veering off into non-medical territory. It looks to me like the last version that wasn't based on Dr. Phil and reality television shows was back in November 2019. However, I don't know anything about the topic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Use of "claim" to denote fringe views

Is it permissible preferable or required, in light of WP:CLAIM, to use non-neutral words such as "claim" or "point out" to denote fringe views, such as on Blue Monday (date)? Elizium23 (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Elizium23:, yes. The MOS "words to watch" are stylistic recommendations, nothing more. They are not policies and are not prohibitions. In the case of pseudoscience topics such as that article, the only way to describe the subject is to use terms such as "claim" and "purport". Otherwise, we run the risk of stating the pseudo-scientific (or pseudo-historical, pseudo-archaeological, etc.) proposition in Wikipedia's voice. That would be a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR, both of which are policy. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Eggishorn, no, the choice is not between saying it in Wikipedia's voice and casting doubt on it, the choice is using neutral terms like "so-and-so says" or "so-and-so writes". And I don't see how that is worse than using POV language in an NPOV encyclopedia. Elizium23 (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

And WP:CLAIM is part of a WP:Guideline and more than "stylistic recommendations". Elizium23 (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:CLAIM says: To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence. In the case of fringe views, WP:FRINGE says that we should call their credibility into question, and we should emphasize any potential contradiction or disregard for evidence. NightHeron (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I have revised my question on reflection. I should have asked, is using POV language "preferable or required" when it comes to fringe views? Elizium23 (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Elizium:, wait a second. You had a question, I answered it, and then you told me my answer was wrong. Why ask the question in the first place, then? This isn't the place for "I was just testing you all" quizzes. If you have a dispute, then coming here and asking a seemingly-neutral question to solicit the responses you want is bad faith canvassing. Especially since you are engaged in a slow-moving edit war on the article in question. There has been no attempt by you or GrindtXX to engage in dispute resolution via the article's talk page. An editor as experienced as you should not need to be reminded of WP:BRD or WP:CONSENSUS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, you mischaracterized the situation a bit on your first answer. Elizium23 (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the mischaracterization was a result of reading your original question as it was written, not as it was intended. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Now you realize I am an experienced editor, so why did you lecture me on the rookie mistake of putting POV language in Wikipedia's voice? Elizium23 (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I knew from the beginning you were an experienced answer but you asked a naive, rookie question so I gave you a naive, rookie answer. Please don't play games. Be direct. Take it to the talk page and make your case there. You know the proper dispute resolution policies and procedures. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes people accidentally misphrase questions or statements and don't intend anything by it. They linked to the article where this issue first came up, so they weren't exactly hiding anything. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Just considering which phrasing is more likely to result help, harm, educate, or cause trouble, we should use "claim" to describe false, incorrect, or nonsensical claims; and any guideline suggesting we don't use it would only make sense if the intention was to avoid casting undue doubt on merely contested (but otherwise plausible or at least not-disproven) claims. Blue Monday is a pretty innocuous example but there's still no harm whatsoever in using "claim" to reinforce the existing sourced information calling it nonsensical pseudoscience; while using more "balanced" phrasing could reinforce a superstition for a reader and so should be avoided. That superstition is, again, seemingly innocuous, but we don't need to give anyone any distractions from finding the real causes of their depression. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• "Claim" is a word to watch, but sometimes it is the exact right word, particularly for fringe topics. Alexbrn (talk) 05:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

This. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 05:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Quackery and coronavirus

We are probably going to find the two intersect a great deal going forward. Our project currently says that MMS is claimed to treat coronavirus, and I’m not gonna edit war. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 05:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I just mentioned that at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Promotion of fringe claims. Johnuniq (talk) 06:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Indur M. Goklany

Indur M. Goklany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

May be worth watching. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Past life regression

Past life regression (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

IP infestation and WP:SPA infestation; advertisements and WP:PROFRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Adam's Bridge

A recent flood of messages about the name of the feature seems to have been solicited from somewhere. These aren't requests in any sense of the word but accusations that the article name is Christian propaganda or anti-Hindu discrimination. The article is semi-protected so most of the disruption is on the talk page but extra eyes would still be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

A look through the article’s talk page archives shows that this dispute is a perennial one... going back to at least 2012. Every other thread seems to be a request to move the title, and there have been multiple RMs.

Unfortunately, the only thing we can do is (once again) point editors to the previous move discussions (A full list is pinned at the top of the article’s talk page), and (once again) reject the move request. Blueboar (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Engdahl and Genetic pollution

Genetic_pollution#Controversy has more than I suspect is due weight for some theories by Engdahl, especially as it doesn't seem to be balanced by rebuttals or alternate theories. Fresh eyes appreciated. ϢereSpielChequers 22:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC on race and intelligence

Is the claim that there are genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines a fringe viewpoint? NightHeron (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

This would mean, in particular, that sources by Jensen, Rushton, Lynn, Piffer, and Gottfredson are fringe, and statements expressing some degree of agreement with the claim that certain races are genetically inferior to others in intelligence, even if made by someone whose writings are RS for other matters, must also be treated in accordance with WP:FRINGE.

Discussion

• Yes as OP.

An IP editor who has persistently advocated for lending credence to white supremacist sources recently cited a 2010 discussion on WP:FTN to support their contention that such sources are not fringe. That discussion (see [27]), in which only 5 editors participated, ended with a weak consensus that research into race and intelligence is not fringe. What I'm asking for here is not a statement opposing all research into the topic, but rather a statement characterizing a specific conclusion as contrary to scientific consensus.

Moreover, a lot has changed since 2010. In recent years the internet has been used extensively to disseminate alt-right and extremist views, and there is much more awareness now of the need to resist this. For the most part, fringe views do not infest Wikipedia. An editor who persistently tries to use Wikipedia to promote creationism, Holocaust denialism, climate change denialism, or quack cures for COVID-19 will probably be stopped and blocked. However, some editors have successfully been promoting scientific racism and white supremacist views, notably at Race and intelligence (an article that gets over 1000 pageviews per day) and Talk:Race and intelligence. Attempts to stop this (at AfD, DRV, AE) have usually been unsuccessful.

In 2018, the Southern Poverty Law Center, one of the most respected non-profit organizations in the US that monitors hate groups and extremism, published an article criticizing Wikipedia for allowing the alt-right to advance a white supremacist agenda in certain articles. The SPLC specifically discussed the article Race and intelligence. Although some might think that we should not be influenced by off-wiki opinion, IMHO the SPLC criticism needs to be taken seriously. (It was partly off-wiki criticism that caused Wikipedia to make efforts to address gender imbalance among Wikipedia editors and among BLP articles.)

Sources:

Here are two recent (post-2010) books that discuss the fallacies of racist pseudoscience:

Angela Saini, Superior: The Return of Race Science, Beacon Press, 2019, ISBN 0807076910.

Jay Joseph, The Trouble with Twin Studies: A Reassessment of Twin Research in the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Routledge Publishers, 2015, ISBN 9781138813069.

Here are two classic books that explain the fallacies and in some cases outright fraud in this type of scientific racism:

Stephen Jay Gould, The Mismeasure of Man, Revised and expanded edition, W. W. Norton & Co., 1996, ISBN 0393039722.

Leon J. Kamin, The Science and Politics of I.Q., Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers, 1974, ISBN 0470455748.

From an article in American Psychologist, the journal of the American Psychological Association: The consensus among most scholars in fields such as evolutionary biology, anthropology and other disciplines is that racial distinctions fail on all 3 counts-- that is they are not genetically discrete, are not reliably measured, and are not scientifically meaningful.

From the largest professional organization of anthropologists:

The "American Anthropological Association Statement on `Race' and Intelligence"[28] (adopted December 1994) says: The American Anthropological Association (AAA) is deeply concerned by recent public discussions which imply that intelligence is biologically determined by race. Repeatedly challenged by scientists, nevertheless these ideas continue to be advanced. Such discussions distract public and scholarly attention from and diminish support for the collective challenge to ensure equal opportunities for all people, regardless of ethnicity or phenotypic variation. Earlier AAA resolutions against racism (1961, 1969, 1971, 1972) have spoken to this concern. Then in 1998 the AAA released an official position paper that expanded upon the 1994 statement.[29] They explained the background to this expanded statement as follows: As a result of public confusion about the meaning of "race," claims as to major biological differences among "races" continue to be advanced. Stemming from past AAA actions designed to address public misconceptions on race and intelligence, the need was apparent for a clear AAA statement on the biology and politics of race that would be educational and informational. Rather than wait for each spurious claim to be raised, the AAA Executive Board determined that the Association should prepare a statement for approval by the Association and elicit member input.

A similar statement was unanimously approved on 27 March 2019 by the Executive Committee of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists.[30]

From the textbook Psychology: Themes and Variations by Wayne Weiten: In the first half of the 20th century, a strong current of racial and class prejudice was apparent in the US and Britain. This prejudice supported the idea that IQ tests measured innate ability and that "undesirable" groups scored poorly because of their genetic inferiority... However, heritability explanations for ethnic differences in IQ have a variety of flaws and weaknesses.

From the prestigious journal Nature: A 16 August 2017 editorial (vol. 548) titled "Against discrimination: Science cannot and should not be used to justify prejudice" said in part: Difference between groups may therefore provide sound scientific evidence. But it's also a blunt instrument of pseudoscience, and one used to justify actions and policies that condense claimed group differences into tools of prejudice and discrimination... This is not a new phenomenon. But the recent worldwide rise of populist politics is again empowering disturbing opinions about gender and racial differences that seek to misuse science to reduce the status of both groups and individuals in a systematic way. NightHeron (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

References

• Yes per the above. XOR'easter (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. It's clear that this is at variance with the mainstream scientific consensus. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• No At the risk of somebody inevitably yelling at me as being racist, there is a big difference between the above statements quoted from the American Anthropological Association and American Psychologist and the statement "genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines is a fringe viewpoint". In particular, the statement "deeply concerned by recent public discussions which imply that intelligence is biologically determined by race", claims the opposite connection; people trying to determine intelligence based on race (which obviously isn't true). On an individual level you can't say anything definitive about a person's IQ based on the groups they come from (there is a normal distribution for all groups, which allows for any IQ). However, there are measurable differences in IQ between groups when discussing statistical averages (the bell curves are different shapes, often have different means). Whether these differences are entirely due to environmental conditions, or whether there is a genetic component has not been solved definitively, largely due to the difficulty in genetically distinguishing 'race' anyway (as there is obviously significant overlap in genetics between groups); note that the statement from the American Psychologist says this as well. Sources are in agreement that there is no definitive proof of a genetic component of IQ between races, but that doesn't mean that there isn't legitimate discussion about it and legitimate research into that exact question. It is known that intelligence is heritable, and also it is known that subgroups of any population that are in any way genetically isolated have variation from other subgroups. Its unreasonable to assume that all sub-groups of a population will have identical levels of any inheritable trait. And it is unreasonable to say that is a fringe viewpoint. That all being said, it might be a fringe viewpoint to say "that there is definitive proof of certain races having higher IQ than others". That isn't what the RfC proposes though, so I have to disagree based on its vagueness. As written, the results of this RfC could be applied too broadly to censor discussion and coverage of legitimate research. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 00:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes And pseudoscience. Race (human categorization): Modern scholarship regards race as a social construct, an identity which is assigned based on rules made by society. While partially based on physical similarities within groups, race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  Just about every government in the world uses race in their statistics. While race IS a social construct, social constructs can also have population averages. For example, it is commonly accurately stated that white incomes in the US are higher than black incomes. (Some or all of this difference is surely due to racism.) But the fact that it is possible to say "white incomes in the US are higher than black incomes" shows that socially-constructed categories can still have averages. Another case would be gender; also socially constructed, and yet it would also clearly be true to say that female-gendered people are more likely to be pregnant. MaximumIdeas (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  No, the distinction woman vs man is biologically delineated, not socially constructed. Men don't get pregnant. There is no biological delineation between races, and the meaning of racial terms such as "black" varies in different countries and different historical periods. Some racial terms that are used in the US (such as Hispanic or Latino) are not even used internationally as racial designations. NightHeron (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment you are cutting a wide swath here, as was recently tried twice at WP:RSN. The spectrum of fringe theories might be useful reading ...there is an approximate demarcation between pseudoscience and questionable science, and they merit careful treatment. What exactly do you mean by these authors are fringe and treated in accordance with WP:FRINGE? Have you read the guideline: The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policies, Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. Jointly these say that articles should not contain any novel analysis or synthesis, that material likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, and that all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately. Should any inconsistency arise between this guideline and the content policies, the policies take precedence. By all means, treat your article in accordance with WP:FRINGE, but that guideline does not support what you seem to be trying here. fiveby (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  To clarify, "treated in accordance with WP:FRINGE" means avoiding FALSEBALANCE. As explained in WP:FRINGE: When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific or fringe theories, editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views. NightHeron (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  NightHeron, People will inevitably point to this RfC to say that discussing race in relation to intelligence or IQ is pseudoscience or 'banned'. That simply isn't empirically accurate. I understand what you are trying to do here, and I support it in principle, but the wording used above is far too vague and will be abused. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 02:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  Insertcleverphrasehere: If they just look at my opening statement, they'll read: What I'm asking for here is not a statement opposing all research into the topic, but rather a statement characterizing a specific conclusion as contrary to scientific consensus. Notice that I emphasized not. Avoiding false balance is not the same thing as banning something. NightHeron (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  NightHeron you have a good argument for false balance in that article, but are maybe approaching it the wrong way? The excessive detail and presentation read as if WP is making a case for a viewpoint, rather than describing it. A blanket labeling as pseudoscience would be difficult to support, but it's a no-brainer this is questionable science, which should be handled with care according to the guideline. Tighter summaries and leaving detail to the child articles would probably help, more of an overview of the subject and let the reader follow links if they like. So yeah, treat as questionable science per WP:FRINGE. fiveby (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  Insertcleverphrasehere, I am sorry about the length, which I realize comes close to WP:WALLOFTEXT. But I felt that I had to include many sources in order to show that consensus regards racial supremacist claims as pseudoscience. Those claims are not merely questionable science. They rest on a sequence of assumptions. Perhaps the notion that whatever IQ measures should be labeled by the loaded term intelligence is questionable but not pseudo. However, some of the other assumptions -- that races are biologically delineated, that a gene for intelligence will someday be found, that there's any reason at all to think that when such genes are (hypothetically) found it will turn out that Africans and African Americans have fewer of them -- are definitely pseudoscience. NightHeron (talk) 11:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  Well, there is a good policy-based argument for cleaning up that article, if you want to ignore that and continue with these broad and simplistic assertions you probably won't make any headway. Take the accusations of promoting "scientific racism" and "white supremacy" to WP:AE or WP:ANI, they are not appropriate here and certainly not appropriate for an RFC. If you want to say all these authors are engaged in pseudoscience then provide proof. I assume they have submitted to peer review and are published, have critics and supporters within the scientific community. Not one of your sources above supports the label of pseudoscience, and WP editors are not qualified to make such broad generalizations. You are going down the same path that has made that such a crappy article, engaging in the debate rather than simply describing it. fiveby (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  NightHeron, the statement "a statement characterizing a specific conclusion as contrary to scientific consensus." Is a horrifying precedent. You are specifically trying to shut down sources that have a specific viewpoint, regardless of where they are from, or where they are published. If something is published in a reputable journal, as many of the sources posted by others here have, then there simply isn't fringe. Forget what I said about supporting you in principle. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 19:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry, I don't have to "forget" your "support in principle". I realized from the beginning that I never had it -- as soon as you started your "no" vote rationale by "At the risk of somebody inevitably yelling at me as being racist," which of course nobody did, and then ended it by accusing me of wanting to "censor discussion," which is not what WP:FRINGE does. Such self-dramatization and accusations do not contribute to rational discussion.

No one is advocating censorship, so please stop throwing that word at me. For example, Wikipedia regards climate change denialism as contrary to scientific consensus, that is, as fringe. That does not mean censoring it; it just means referring to it as what it is, in other words, avoiding FALSEBALANCE. Climate change denialism has sometimes appeared in reputable journals, even in recent years. That doesn't mean it's not fringe.

You're reacting to this RfC in an extreme way -- a horrifying precedent (your emphasis) -- and are again accusing me of censorship (trying to shut down sources). That's nonsense.

I won't repeat what I've said elsewhere about the different logical leaps involved in reaching the conclusion that some races are genetically endowed with less intelligence than other races. That POV has been condemned by the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, the American Anthropological Association, an editorial in Nature, and elsewhere.

Rejecting this RfC in practice would mean that we'll continue to see a FALSEBALANCE on scientific racism in certain articles, and it will be difficult if not impossible to change that through routine editing. For Wikipedia to allow its articles, including ones that have over 1000 pageviews/day, to be used to effectively promote fringe views on race -- treating them as if they were mainstream -- is shocking to many people both on and off wiki, not just the Southern Poverty Law Center, which specifically monitors for alt-right disinformation. NightHeron (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

NightHeron, No offence meant, but I don't see a false balance here. The article in question isn't overrun with white nationalist sources or anything. The sources that others have cited in this discussion make it clear that this is still an avenue of legitimate discussion and that the scientific community currently is divided on what factors play a role in the observed differences between populations (environment vs genetic). This is an open question, and a messy one with a lot of conflicting research and data; muddied further by the definition of race vs clade vs population etc.. Trying to call all research that comes to a certain conclusion that you personally don't like 'fringe', even if published in a reputable source, is simply a violation of NPOV. The fact that you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is a separate issue entirely. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 00:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• No. While OP mentions books criticizing scientific racism, which we all agree is bad, there is no evidence presented here that all five authors in particular are WP:FRINGE or that they practice scientific racism. That they have recently been published in RS sources is evidence otherwise. In general, we also must hold a particularly high standard for declaring individual persons -- and especially academics -- WP:FRINGE. Additionally: the definition of scientific racism, per Wikipedia, is using science in order "to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority". We can all perhaps agree that the data is clear that different groups differ on average in certain traits such as height and medical predisposition. But we all know that to say that empirically one group is taller does NOT therefore mean they are superior. We should know, also, that to say one group has a higher IQ does NOT mean they are superior. And clearly, to say some groups are more likely to have "sickle cells" which both help prevent malaria but also increase the risk of other conditions does NOT mean that group is superior or inferior. When a scientist comes to any of the previously-stated empirical conclusions, one reaction may be to assume they came to such conclusions in order to make some races seem inferior/superior (scientific racism); but another possible assumption is that they are stating it because they are RS-published scientists and found this to be the true distribution. Therefore, the kind of evidence that would convince me that any of the 5 above-condemned authors are WP:FRINGE would be statements from them along the ugly lines of what we see from neo-Nazis and racial supremacists in general, who are absolutely fringe. But simply publishing data in RS sources (however heated and uncomfortable the subject) does not make all of a person's work inherently fringe. Further, I'd note that many academics know this, and therefore there is still an ongoing lively discussion about this topic in the academic literature: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C39&as_ylo=2016&q=race+and+iq&btnG= MaximumIdeas (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • A Google Scholar search is going to turn up "lively discussion" in garbage journals and even non-peer-reviewed material. It's not a particularly helpful indicator in circumstances like these. XOR'easter (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I have problem with both sides, some say (for example) blacks are not as good at maths because its "white maths" (this is not being less intelligent, rather the mind works differently (apparently). Yet others say that saying blacks are not as good at maths might be (or is a sign off) racism. Yet both statements are coming from black spokes people. Thus whilst the claim that whites or more intelgent thre may be a case for "different" intelligence.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. The claim that racial lines are genetic is fringe. Full stop. Race is a sociological construct. jps (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. Fringe, but not necessarily "pseudoscience", which is a different, stronger claim. Although some of it is clearly also that. ApLundell (talk) 03:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes per sources listed above by the nom (and some of it is also pseudoscience). Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 06:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes for reasons already stated. I am strongly opposed to no-platforming but even more opposed to pseudo-science. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• No OP is right to want to find and label pseudo-scientific alt right views as Fringe. However, I worry that we might be missing the target by considering genetic differences in intelligence between races as fringe. A fringe theory must significantly depart from mainstream scientific views, yet the possibility of racial differences in intelligence is taken seriously by maisntream scholars. Take Oxford geneticist David Reich for example. In his book Who We Are and How We Got Here, David discusses how genetic variants affecting cognitive and behavioural traits are found to differ in human populations, even aligning to the social construct that is race. He makes a similar argument in a piece for the New York Times, a newspaper not known for its support of fringe extreme right theories. More broadly than anecdotes of respected mainstream scholars, there is empirical evidence that the scientific consensus takes the issue of race and intelligence seriously. In this paper the authors sent a survey to scientists who published at least one paper in journal covering cognitive ability between 2010 and 2013. 85% of responders were psychologists and only 13% were right wing. Despite this only 15% of the experts though that black-white differences in intelligence were entirely caused by environmental factors. Given that so many mainstream scientists believe taking this racial differences seriously, let alone believe it, suggests the topic cannot be considered fringe. Hayeksplosive (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  — Hayeksplosive (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• No to overbroad RfC It's unpopular, but some of these folks are being published by university presses and in well-regarded journals. That means the academic community is still willing to listen, which almost has to mean it's not fringe. That said, a lot of these folks are fringe-NR, certainly. I think we have to argue these on a case-by-case basis. --valereee (talk) 13:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  ETA: ended with a weak consensus that research into race and intelligence is not fringe. What I'm asking for here is not a statement opposing all research into the topic, but rather a statement characterizing a specific conclusion as contrary to scientific consensus. This makes me very uncomfortable because it seems to be saying we'll report on research, but only if it says what we think it should say. If someone's research goes counter to our beliefs, we declare it to be fringe. --valereee (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  Valereee, I'd like to try to change your mind through bludgeoning and guilt-tripping reasoned discussion. What would you need to see to be convinced that "genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines" is fringe? For example, you wrote, "some of these folks are being published ... That means the academic community is still willing to listen, which almost has to mean it's not fringe". What if I showed you that some of these folks...

  1. Were being published but are no longer being published
  2. Were published, but since then responses and critiques have been published, which describe the original published work as pseudoscience, fringe, not accepted by the scientific community, etc.
  3. Were published, but have since been kicked off of the editorial boards of journals, lost academic positions, or otherwise become pariahs in the scientific community, as a result of what they were publishing
  4. Are still being published, but admit in their own published works that their work is not accepted by the scientific community
  5. Are still being published, but only as an example of scholarship that is pseudoscience, fringe, or otherwise not accepted by the scientific community

  I don't want to snow you with examples. Would any of the above change your mind? Please reply "YES" for more or "STOP" to end these messages. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  Levivich, hahaha. It's not that I think that in general this is reasonable stuff. It's ugly shit and I find it repugnant. But, for instance, Gottfredson on intelligence has been published recently. She apparently is not considered a complete loon by other academics. The key here is some of these people, which is why I think we need to address these case-by-case. --valereee (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  @Valereee: I agree with case-by-case, I just think that the particular cases noted in this RFC are backed by sources. For example, although Gottfredson is published, she's not well-cited, and I think there are plenty of sources (which are cited more often) that consider her a loon (or similar). I put some of them at #Gottfredson below. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  Levivich, I totally get it. I feel like if academics are arguing against something rather than simply ignoring it, we should be covering it. --valereee (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• No There are two parts to this. The first is understanding why this RfC was filed. A couple of highly motivated editors over at the Race and Intelligence page have been pursuing various legal strategies to win their case. As I explained to an admin recently (Barkeep49), these so far have included: 1) try to delete the sources to the hereditarian viewpoint one at a time citing seemingly randomly chosen or made up justifications, 2) try to get the entire page deleted, 3) try to get the opposing editors blocked or banned, and 4) try to rename the article in violation of WP:NPOV. Their efforts at moves (1) and (2) both seems to have failed. So far with (3), Peregrine_Fisher was indef topic banned, and Oldstone James have been blocked (I think one year). User NightHeron (sorry, this was false, it was Dlthewave) filed a motion against Jweiss11, but it closed with a warning to both filer and accused. With two active editors removed, and one warned, they can continue their work on (1) and (4) with less resistance. As it happens, (2) succeeded and the page was deleted (this is the 4th time this attempt was tried!), but it was then restored after 3 uninvolved admins took part in a deletion review and overruled the deletion. The attempt to rename the article contrary to WP:NPOV was closed as no consensus. So, this RfC is now the 5th such legalistic attempt. While I cannot say exactly what the motivation is of these editors, they are very opposed to Wikipedia summarizing the academic literature on this topic. They would much prefer if Wikipedia did not mentioned the academic literature and instead provided summaries of journalists such as Angela Saini. I am not saying, of course, one cannot find academics with similar opinions, but such opinions are uncommon among the experts, i.e. intelligence researchers.
  This brings me to the second point. There is a wealth of reliable academic sources about what experts think of this topic. Every mainstream statement and textbook on the topic states that there is no consensus about the cause of these population (race, ethnic) differences in intelligence (IQ scores, achievement, aptitude, skills and so on). These sources have been posted many times on the talk page, see e.g. talk page on this proposal to insert a section they removed recently (no consensus was there for the removal, it was implemented by edit warring). Not only are these many textbooks, there is a recent anonymous survey of researchers in the field. This is similar to those carried out in climate science, which has a similar politically related controversy about expert opinion, which Wikipedia covers here. This survey, published in high ranking Elsevier journal by senior academics (Rindermann et al 2020), found no support for the supposed consensus that NightHeron and friends speak about, and which sources like Saini claim there is. Thus, just as the authors say, and has been noted for decades, there is a strong media in who voices their opinion publicly, such that public opinion in newspapers and the like is often saying there is a consensus against genetic causation, but the actual academic literature shows no such consensus. For instance, just a month ago or so, three professors published a new review about the genetic hypothesis in another Elsevier journal (Winegard et al 2020). Wikipedia must follow what high quality sources say. No amount of arguing about whether something is racist or not on page talks can overrule what reliable sources say. This should be clear when recently admin Barkeep49 made a rule that this page now only allows extra high quality sources, academic, not journalistic ones. I welcome such increased strictness as it will make it easier to avoid these useless debates, and focus on what matters: building an encyclopedia, not waging some political war of information. With that said, I hope editors here will see what the situation is so we can return to good work. This article is a bit out of date, there are many newer sources that can be used. ^_^ AndewNguyen (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  AndewNguyen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [Added by Levivich]

  I object to this kind of attempt at undermining the opinions of others by falsely claiming they have made few other edits. I looked up my edit history now, and it turns out I have edited almost 200 pages! Almost all of them are related to my home country of Norway, improving various stubs. I suggest Levivich focus on the case at hand instead of personal attacks. Very rude! --AndewNguyen (talk) 05:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

  There's one detail that AndewNguyen is leaving out here. When presented with sources such as the two linked above, the argument that NightHeron and others have repeatedly made is that none of these sources are reliable. In this discussion and this one, it was (unsuccessfully) argued that all sources presenting the the hereditarian viewpoint are inherently unreliable, even when they are published by respectable academic publishers such as Cambridge University Press or journals published by the American Psychological Association.

  NightHeron has continued to make this argument even after the RS noticeboard had reached a consensus opposing him. One of the sources discussed at RSN was a college-level textbook by Earl B. Hunt from Cambridge University Press, and NightHeron argued that when this source gives credence to the hereditarian view, "his textbook is not RS for this statement, although it is for other things."

  Now, in this discussion, the argument being made is that the hereditarian viewpoint should be categorized as "fringe" because the majority of reliable sources are opposed to it. Well, you can certainly make it appear that way if you declare (as NightHeron has done) that all sources presenting the viewpoint are by definition unreliable. But if I wanted to, I could try to categorize almost any viewpoint as "fringe" by using this type of circular logic. I doubt this trick would work in most other topics at Wikipedia, but some people seem to get especially emotional about this particular topic, so we'll see whether it works in this case. 2600:1004:B161:9F7C:8C8F:421E:CE7:4052 (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  — 2600:1004:B161:9F7C:8C8F:421E:CE7:4052 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• With the arrival here of two of the most persistent defenders of white supremacist sources on Race and intelligence, I see that we are entering the WP:WALLOFTEXT phase of the discussion. But I will try to be brief, answering only the false accusations against me. First, I did not propose that Wikipedia stop covering white supremacist claims. I do not support censorship; I am opposed to it. Following WP:FRINGE does not mean censoring or banning anything. It means calling it what it is. Second, AndewNguyen falsely states that I filed a motion against Jweiss11. I did not file a motion at WP:AE or anywhere else against Jweiss11 or any of the other editors of that page. As someone who's been editing for less than 2 years, I leave it up to experienced editors to deal with misconduct by the alt-right or anyone else. NightHeron (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, minor mix up with you and Dlthewave, a similar user on the same page. I also mistakenly linked to the wrong archive. It is this one. This error has not much to do with the content in the comment. AndewNguyen (talk) 06:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. It is well known that racial categories don't have genetic basis. To claim otherwise is fringe. To then attempt to build more theories on top of that flawed assumption is also fringe. - MrOllie (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  Were you aware that Wikipedia has an entire article, Race and genetics, about the correlation between racial categories and genetic variation? 2600:1004:B161:9F7C:8C8F:421E:CE7:4052 (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  I'm aware that Wikipedia has a number of fringe articles, yes. But the existence of other crappy articles does not mean that we can't fix the crappy article at hand. - MrOllie (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  Have you looked at the sources for that article? One of the major sources to cover this correlation is a special issue of the journal Nature Genetics devoted to the topic, including no less an authority than Francis Collins, the director of the Human Genome Project. Here is how Collins summarized the special issue's conclusions:

Well-intentioned statements over the past few years, some coming from geneticists, might lead one to believe there is no connection whatsoever between self-identified race or ethnicity and the frequency of particular genetic variants. Increasing scientific evidence, however, indicates that genetic variation can be used to make a reasonably accurate prediction of geographic origins of an individual, at least if that individual's grandparents all came from the same part of the world. As those ancestral origins in many cases have a correlation, albeit often imprecise, with self-identified race or ethnicity, it is not strictly true that race or ethnicity has no biological connection. It must be emphasized, however, that the connection is generally quite blurry because of multiple other nongenetic connotations of race, the lack of defined boundaries between populations and the fact that many individuals have ancestors from multiple regions of the world.

With respect to human genetics, Francis Collins is about as non-fringe as it's possible to get. Your comments are a perfect example of the problem with determining the answer to a project-wide NPOV question in a RFC. Unlike the earlier discussion in 2010, in which all of the participants had some level of familiarity with the topic, it's clear that the decision in this case is generally being made by people who haven't looked at the source literature, except perhaps for those sources cherry-picked by NightHeron to support his position in his opening statement. How can a random selection of users who haven't read any of this literature be an accurate judge of what is or isn't fringe or NPOV? 2600:1004:B14B:E50A:B880:292B:8DEF:3B45 (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

It's quite amazing that you can take that extremely qualified quote, which goes to great pains to explain that any connection is 'blurry' and 'imprecise', as in any way supporting the contention that race and intelligence might have something to do with each other. Your assertion that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant is noted, but unpersuasive. - MrOllie (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

In your previous comment, you claimed that Wikipedia's race and genetics article is a "fringe article". I brought up the Nature genetics special issue for the purpose of pointing out what a bizarre statement from you that was, not because the Nature genetics special issue has anything to do with intelligence. (It doesn't, it's only about race and genetics.) Would you like me to list some sources about race and intelligence specifically? 2600:1004:B14B:E50A:B880:292B:8DEF:3B45 (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• No There is widespread agreement among psychologists who do intelligence research that there are average differences between groups in intelligence. Sometimes they use "race," sometimes "cline," sometimes "population." These are different names for the same thing: groups tend to genetically cluster in interesting ways reflecting their evolutionary lineage. Are the IQ gaps genetic? There is disagreement about this. Disagreement drives science forward. But to label one side of a scientific disagreement "fringe" is a way of attempting to discredit it. As David Reich and Jim Flynn have argued, it is an empirical question whether the distribution of genes that influence intelligence is evenly distributed across all human populations. Only scientific investigation can settle that issue, not Wikipedians deeming one point of view offensive or "fringe." DoctorOfBiology (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  — DoctorOfBiology (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• No A recent anonymous survey of experts on intelligence (members of the International Society for Intelligence Research and authors of papers in journals like Intelligence and Cognitive Psychology) found that only 14% think genes play no role in the Black-White IQ gap in the US (Rindermann et al., "Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence," Intelligence, 2020, vol. 78, Figure 3). Even if the environmentalists are right, it's clear that this is an open debate among mainstream scientists. Pangolin2019 (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  — Pangolin2019 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Yes per OP. Editors have repeatedly cited a certain RSN discussion as proof that hereditarian works by Hunt and Rindermann are reliable sources because they are published by a reliable publisher, however that same discussion concluded that they are also fringe: "... The discussion indicated that there is a lack of sources supporting or opposing the notion that the views in these books are fringe, though when a viewpoint does not have wide support, we do treat it as fringe, and do not give it undue weight. That is, we can give the views of Rindermann and Hunt, sourced to their books published by the Cambridge University Press, but take care not to promote their views as widely accepted unless/until sources can be found which indicate their views are widely accepted." –dlthewave ☎ 15:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• No There is no convincing argument for describing the hypothesis that genes contribute to racial differences in intelligence as a "fringe viewpoint". This hypothesis has been discussed in many mainstream sources, including both scholarly books and scientific journals. A viewpoint should not be labelled "fringe" just because it is politically controversial. Mr Butterbur (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  — Mr Butterbur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Yes. The idea that race (whatever that is supposed to mean) is determinant of intelligence (however that might be defined or measured) is fringe. This is not about whether intelligence has a genetic component, but whether the genetic component correlates with so-called "race". Guy (help!) 18:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. The scientific literature is clear on this - the idea that race and intelligence are genetically linked is a fringe theory. Yes, there are scholars who support this idea, but they are a tiny minority outside the mainstream of scientific thought - hence, fringe. I am concerned that at least two of the No votes in this RfC are by users who seem to have created accounts just to comment on this RfC - specifically, Hayeksplosive (who has 2 total edits, 1 here) and Pangolin2019 (who has 1 total edit, 1 here). It is possible that both of these users are IP users who have been avidly following the discussions on this topic and decided to create accounts just to comment here, but it seems more likely that they have joined us here as a result of off-wiki canvassing or even sockpuppetry. If it is the former, I apologize. But if it is the latter, it is concerning, especially when the RfC is on a topic of such high importance to Wikipedia's credibility and neutrality on scientific issues. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Ganesha811 - I am an academic and have published on this topic in mainstream journals. This is the first time I've contributed to Wikipedia. Frankly, it's disappointing to see how politicized the process is. A substantial number--if not the majority--of the relevant experts are to some degree hereditarians about race differences in intelligence. Wikipedia should cover this controversy neutrally. Pangolin2019 (talk) 09:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• • Agreed about these SPA accounts. I have opened an SPI[31] as I think this is sock puppetry. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
    • To note, the SPI closing admin found the accounts were unrelated. Hence, this is in line with the continued Wikilawyering behavior to remove opposing editors (recall, 2 blocked already). I am not familiar with User:Sprayitchyo, seems like 50% of accounts suspected to be his over time were other people according to closing admins. --AndewNguyen (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
      • SPI exists so that potential sockpuppets can be investigated; it's an aspersion to call it "Wikilawyering behavior to remove opposing editors". --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Depends on what you mean - If you mean that certain races are inherently intellectually superior or inferior then yes. If you mean that there may be measurable differences in average intelligence, especially as it is influenced by environmental factors that are themselves correlated with race, then probably no. If you mean that different races achieve disparate scores on standardized IQ testing, then uncontroversially no. That has been probably the single biggest historical criticism of the validity of the tests. GMG^talk 19:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  +1 How can we talk about the tests if we can't talk about the research? --valereee (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  We can talk about it, it's just that we should tell our reader that it's fringe (or at least that it's a minority viewpoint considered fringe by many and even pseudoscience in certain extreme cases). Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  GreenMeansGo, at least some of the controversy stems from the fact that the tests are measuring the effects of teaching as much as native intelligence, and there is a mountain of research showing racial bias in educaiton. Guy (help!) 22:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  @JzG: The problem is...complicated. The most accessible introduction I've found is this series by Radiolab, which also happens to be very well researched and very well produced. If you're looking for something to listen to in the gym, I recommend it.

The tests themselves are often normalized using biased samples. The tests...you know what...there's a lot that's wrong with the tests that can't be condensed into a noticeboard comment. The core problem is reification, and confusing whether we're talking about intelligence in the abstract, or some particular measure of it. The measures are bad, the concept in the abstract is fuzzy at best. But it's too complicated to stamp a "pseudoscience™" on it if our mission is to actually educate our readers with any semblance of nuance. GMG^talk 23:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo, yes, I agree with all that. But it doesn't have to be pseudoscience to be fringe. Actually I view this more as tooth fairy science than actual pseudoscience, except where practised by provable racists. Guy (help!) 07:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: By the by, The Mismeasure of Man is stand-out as far as long form works on the subject, for anyone who's building a coronavirus reading list. At any rate, some of the topic is fringe, some of it is not, and some of it is just historical, in a way that was taken academically seriously at the time but is now just an interesting relic, in the same way as geocentrism.

For people working to combat the effects of racial disparity, these measures can be tremendously important. Most folks don't get all excited about that stuff, because it doesn't really lead to alternative histories about Hitler, but more to things like the impacts of exposure to industrial toxins in early childhood, access to proper nutrition, and all the accouterments of intergenerational poverty.

Having said that, just like your morbidly obese coworker who shoves the fifth candy bar in their face while telling you about that one study that found chocolate can actually help you lose weight, there is a whole cadre of people who are delighted to tout bad science and misinterpret good science to bolster whatever dark alleys their intuition has already led them into. But I am also keenly aware that Wikipedia is wont to adopt an equally oversimplified reactionary stance: bad bad bad, pseudoscience, nonsense, and now we're ready for our GA review. But then I've rarely found any subject where "moar nuance" is not my preferred option, so I guess you can take my own opinion for whatever it's worth. GMG^talk 11:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo, thanks much! Guy (help!) 14:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem with "more nuance" on this matter is that if Wikipedia allows positive non-fringe coverage of scientific racism --- just as if WP were to allow positive coverage of quack cures --- that does concrete harm, because so many people rely on Wikipedia for information. This is not the case for all fringe viewpoints -- there'd probably be little damage done if there were an article with over 1000 pageviews/day that gave credence to claims of extraterrestrial abductions. Note that the editorial in Nature condemning scientific racism was in response to the violent Unite the Right rally that had occurred 4 days earlier in Charlottesville in the US.

I tried to word this RfC in a precise way, focusing only on the specific claim that some races are genetically inferior to others in intelligence, which is a fringe view. I'm not asking for anything more sweeping than that, and I don't see how that can be characterized as "oversimplified" or "reactionary." NightHeron (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• No as per AndrewNguyen, but would like to add that this topic has been willingly engaged by a number of obviously non-controversial scientists and academics, most of whom strongly disagree with the hereditarian hypothesis but are willing to engage in what they obviously see as a worthwhile debate. See James Flynn as an example (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235217300958). Mainstream research is constantly being conducted on population genetics, the heritability of IQ, and so on, but the findings from these fields are not even remotely fringe. See:

• Lee, J. J. et al. (2018). Gene discovery and polygenic prediction from a genome-wide association study of educational attainment in 1.1 million individuals. Nature genetics, 50(8), 1112-1121. - A study that identified genetic variants accounting for about 10% of the variation in cognitive ability.

• Huang, T., Shu, Y., & Cai, Y. D. (2015). Genetic differences among ethnic groups. BMC genomics, 16(1), 1093. - A study that identified genetic variants that differ between Caucasian, African, Asian, and Native American populations.

• Guo, J. et al. (2018). Global genetic differentiation of complex traits shaped by natural selection in humans. Nature communications, 9(1), 1-9. Identified genetic differentiation between human populations in several complex traits.

It's one thing to dispute the hereditarian hypotheses, but quite another to claim it's fringe. It's necessary for Wikipedia to actually engage with the research that's ongoing in all these areas, instead of making blanket statements about what ideas can or can't be presented. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

None of those three is about race and intelligence. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the third source (Guo et al.) does relate to this topic. One of the traits looked at in that study is educational attainment, which is the number of years of education a person has completed. The study found that human ethnic groups differ in the frequency of genetic variants associated with completing more years of education. While education attainment isn't quite the same thing as intelligence, the two traits are very strongly related to each other.

This study is a good indication of where the mainstream view in human genetics currently is. It hasn't yet gotten to the point of directly endorsing the hereditarian view about race and intelligence, but it is edging in that direction. 2600:1004:B117:F3CA:3174:A036:DA02:381C (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Guo et al. is not at all about race and intelligence. It's about genetics and "complex traits", and "intelligence" is not one of the "complex traits". One of the complex traits was "educational attainment years", which Guo et al. describe as a "behavioral trait". This RfC is asking "Is the claim that there are genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines a fringe viewpoint?" Guo et al. do not claim or examine whether there are genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines, and thus this RFC would have zero impact on Guo et al. (or the other two studies cited above). The words "race," "intelligence", and "IQ", appear nowhere in Guo et al. Nobody is suggesting that the entire field of genetics is fringe; that's a straw man argument. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

In genetic terminology, a complex trait is one with many causes, also known as multifactorial or polygenic. Intelligence is a typical polygenic trait, as found in many studies. The fact that these traits have polygenic causation is so common that it has been labeled the 4th law of behavioral genetics by Chabris et al 2015. There's many papers like Guo that look for general signs of selection for polygenic traits and find some. Guo et al themselves find evidence of selection for educational attainment, a surrogate trait used for intelligence that correlates genetically 0.80 with it or so (read e.g. Lee et al 2018 GWAS). --AndewNguyen (talk) 05:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

While education attainment isn't quite the same thing as intelligence right, and ethnicity is not quite the same as race, and sloppy categorisation and slippery slopes bedevil this issue. Wikipedia should not be quoting sources on one subject and applying their conclusions to a potentially related subject. That is Synthesis. I know this is a meta discussion and not the article discussion but the same concerns apply. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy: A large portion of the people voting that this is a "fringe" idea are basing the conclusion on arguments such as "The claim that racial lines are genetic is fringe. Full stop", or "It is well known that racial categories don't have genetic basis". When the "fringe" argument is based on statements like that, studies such as Huang et al. are relevant even though they don't directly discuss intelligence, because they show that blanket statements like these aren't accurate. The people making this argument are severely oversimplifying the issue.

Here is another way of saying this: if I were trying to prove that the hereditarian hypothesis is correct, the burden of proof would be on me, and I agree these studies would be insufficient to satisfy that burden. But when someone is trying to prove that it's a "fringe theory", the burden of proof is on them, and I think these sources demonstrate that the arguments being used to support that assertion aren't adequate to support it. Does that make sense? 2600:1004:B109:5FCD:F4DF:1F44:B1B4:C302 (talk) 09:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

No, it doesn't.

Of course, it is known that there are groups of people with common ancestry who share a higher vulnerability to certain ailments. Sometimes the group shares a socially constructed racial category, although far from all people in that category share the vulnerability. That has nothing to do with the truly extraordinary claim that (1) there are genes for intelligence, (2) those are unequally distributed to different races, with certain racial categories being inherently less intelligent than others, (3) IQ testing shows that blacks are the ones who are less intelligent. The burden of proof is not on those who say there is no scientific evidence for (1), (2), or (3) (let alone all three). The burden of proof is to find mainstream high-quality secondary sources that establish these three claims. We do not have to show that scientists have disproved (1), (2), and (3).

Here's an analogy. Consider the statement: Extraterrestrial aliens have kidnapped some humans and performed sexual experiments on them.

Can scientists disprove that statement? No.

Are there many people who believe that statement? Yes.

Is it nevertheless a fringe belief? Yes.

How about the statement that while there is no direct evidence of this kidnapping, we should prepare ourselves for the possibility that future investigations will provide direct evidence that extraterrestrial aliens have been kidnapping humans? Is that also fringe? Yes. NightHeron (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yes an No The WP:FRINGE guideline should apply and would be useful in helping decide on content for that article. As JzG points out "it doesn't have to be pseudoscience to be fringe". There is no doubt there is much questionable science per the guideline, qualified critics have questioned not only conclusions but method and premises. There is also pseudoscience from some quarters: the quote from the editors of Nature: Difference between groups may therefore provide sound scientific evidence. But it's also a blunt instrument of pseudoscience... should give pause and highlight that care is needed. The vague nature of the proposal, and specifically the part about "statements expressing some degree of agreement" are confusing and do not really give any guidance on how editing of the article should change. Also, many of the sources and arguments presented in support and are making value judgements that are inappropriate for the question. I would point to this article written for a general audience by Eric Turkheimer, Paige Harden, and Richard E. Nisbett:

  We believe there is a fairly wide consensus among behavioral scientists in favor of our views, but there is undeniably a range of opinions in the scientific community. Some well-informed scientists hold views closer to Murray’s than to ours. And there are others who challenge views that we accept about the utility of the general concepts of intelligence and heritability...

  This is probably not a good source for the article, and somewhat off target as directed toward Murray and Harris, but I think all would agree these are qualified critics. The reason for including the quote is to highlight that WP should go no farther than those critics qualified to speak on the subject. Dlthewave has pointed to SilkTork's measured close at RSN. It is necessary for editors to evaluate works such as Mankind Quarterly, but when published in a respectable place, WP editors are not qualified to substitute their judgment for that of the editors of those works as to the scientific merit of any research, criticism, or support. fiveby(zero) 14:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• No. I waited until now to vote because I wanted to see what sources other people were going to cite, so that I don't end up duplicating them. Still, it's useful to review them here. Here are some examples that others have given of sources that either argue in favor of the hereditarian hypothesis about race and intelligence, or argue that this hypotheses deserves to be taken seriously:

• Who We Are and How We Got Here (2018) by David Reich, along with the accompanying New York Times article
• Academic freedom and race: You ought not to believe what you think may be true (2018) by James Flynn
• Dodging Darwin: Race, evolution, and the hereditarian hypothesis (2020) By Winegard et al.
• Survey of expert opinion on intelligence: Intelligence research, experts' background, controversial issues, and the media (2020) by Rindermann et al.

The last source (Rindermann et al's survey) deserves special attention, because it relates directly to the question of what ideas in this area are or are not widely accepted. This was a survey conducted of researchers who had published papers in the journals Intelligence, Cognitive Psychology, Contemporary Educational Psychology, New Ideas in Psychology, and Learning and Individual Differences, and the survey includes a question about these researchers' views on the cause of racial IQ gaps. Here is how the paper summarized expert opinion on this matter:

There was no clear position among experts regarding environmental and genetic factors in the US Black-White difference in intelligence. However, experts attributed nearly half of the Black-White difference to genetic factors, with 51% attributing the difference to environmental factors and 49% to genetic factors. As shown in Fig. 3, 40% of the experts favored a more environmental perspective, 43% favored a more genetic perspective, and 17% of the experts assumed an equal influence of genes and environment (i.e., 50–50). Nevertheless, the mean preference among experts was slightly in favor of the environmental perspective (51% of the differences can be explained by environmental factors vs. 49% by genetic). This propensity can be attributed to 16% of experts favoring a 100% environmental explanation and 6% of experts favoring a 100% genetic explanation. Thus, the extreme “environmental” position was observed more frequently than the extreme “genetic” position.

Four other sources from the past decade that either argue for the hereditarian perspective, or argue that it deserves to be taken seriously, are Human Intelligence by Earl B. Hunt (Cambridge University Press, 2011), The Neuroscience of Intelligence by Richard Haier (Cambridge University Press, 2016), Cognitive Capitalism by Heiner Rindermann (Cambridge University Press, 2018), and Research on group differences in intelligence: A defense of free inquiry by Nathan Cofnas (published in the journal Philosophical Psychology, 2019). Hunt's book in particular is a standard textbook that has been positively reviewed in every academic journal that's reviewed it. Reviews and/or commentaries about this book can be found here, here, and here.

Many of the researchers who have argued for this and similar views, including Reich, Flynn, Haier, and Hunt, are highly prominent, uncontroversial figures within the fields of psychology and human genetics, and their views have been published by university presses and in prominent journals. Whether or not these views should be included in articles would ordinarily be a straightforward application of WP:RS and WP:NPOV, and this RFC should not be allowed to supersede those policies. 2600:1004:B162:4EE:51BB:C75C:498:D8A2 (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Instead of responding to a wall of text with another wall of text, I'll just make two points. (1) Rindermann is described in his BLP as a frequent contributor to the white supremacist journal Mankind Quarterly. (The first sentence of the article Mankind Quarterly, supported by 3 sources, says: Mankind Quarterly is a peer-reviewed academic journal that has been described as a "cornerstone of the scientific racism establishment", a "white supremacist journal", an "infamous racist journal", and "scientific racism's keepers of the flame".) (2) This IP-editor's paraphrasing of sources has been problematic on this talk page. What does the paraphrase "argue that this hypothesis deserves to be taken seriously" mean? The book I cited Superior: The Return of Race Science by Angela Saini argues that scientific racism deserves to be taken very, very seriously, because of its long history of being used to strengthen white supremacist violence and oppression. NightHeron (talk) 02:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Unless you can find a reliable source arguing that Rindermann himself is discredited, the fact that he's written papers for a low-quality journal isn't relevant to the reliability of his writings in respectable publications. The argument that this discredits everything else he's written, regardless of where it's published, is one of the arguments that was rejected by community consensus at the RS noticeboard. I know that you're aware of this. The argument is especially irrelevant in this case, because the paper I'm quoting isn't even Rindermann's own opinion; he and his two co-authors are simply reporting the views of other researchers who've published papers in cognitive psychology journals. Or are you suggesting that Rindermann and his co-authors might have actually falsified the results of the survey?

When I say that authors such as Reich, Haier and Flynn say that the hereditarian hypothesis deserves to be taken seriously, what I mean is that they think it has a non-negligible chance of eventually turning out to be true, and that researchers should take that possibility into account and investigate the hypothesis. The Flynn paper is online here, so you can read it for yourself. 2600:1004:B162:4EE:51BB:C75C:498:D8A2 (talk) 03:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The fact that Rindemann has published extensively in the white supremacist journal Mankind Quarterly does mean that his writings on race and intelligence are discredited. It's well known that a biased investigator can hugely skew opinion surveys by biased sampling, biased phrasing of questions, biased interpretation of answers, etc.

This RfC does not ask for research on this topic to be declared fringe, as I pointed out at the beginning, but only asks that the specific POV that there are genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines be treated as fringe. It's irrelevant that some people think that research might be worthwhile and make speculations about what you term a "non-negligible" possibility that a certain fringe viewpoint may eventually be supported by evidence. Some people might speculate that we'll eventually uncover evidence that extraterrestrial travelers have visited the Earth. But the belief that such evidence exists is fringe. NightHeron (talk) 03:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you understand that at the RS noticeboard, the broader community has rejected this argument that all of Rindermann's writings on the topic are "discredited" due to him having published some papers in Mankind Quarterly? I can't tell whether you honestly don't understand this, or whether you're being deliberately disingenuous.

You're also misrepresenting the perspective that Flynn argues for in the paper I linked to. I'm not going to paraphrase the whole paper for you; you can click the link and read it yourself. 2600:1004:B162:4EE:51BB:C75C:498:D8A2 (talk) 04:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Your accusation that I'm "disingenuous" is a personal attack. Let's try to be rational. There were two RSN discussions, the second one initiated because of the low participation in the first. But the second one also did not have much participation, especially considering the importance of the topic. And the conclusion of the closing admin was long and ambiguous, for example: That is, we can give the views of Rindermann and Hunt, sourced to their books published by the Cambridge University Press, but take care not to promote their views as widely accepted unless/until sources can be found which indicate their views are widely accepted. That closing does not establish some sort of firm precedent, as you seem to believe, and it specifically did not take a position on whether or not Rindermann's and Hunt's views of race and intelligence are fringe.

You, not I, are misrepresenting the Flynn article. His abstract makes it crystal clear what the message of his article is. It's that research or speech on this subject should not be banned. Nothing in this RfC is about censorship. I specifically worded the RfC so that it would not say anything about whether or not it's a good idea for people to do research on race and intelligence, which is not something for Wikipedia editors to judge. NightHeron (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

NightHeron, I'm gonna have to side with IP on this one... Guilt by association is a tenuous argument. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 19:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yes: not in line with the mainstream scientific consensus & creates the appearance of false balance. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• No - it's a minority position, and does not reflect the consensus of the field, but certainly isn't in principle fringe or pseudoscience. Flynn (yes, that Flynn) has a pretty good essay on the topic. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• No: The implication of this RfC, whether unintended or not, is that, if it were to pass, it would result in editors cherry picking sources and synthesising a scientific conclusion that does not exist. It is original research to assert that all reliable sources that are neutral or support a possible or likely genetic contribution are fringe. The truth is because so many genes, in likely literally many many thousands of different combinations (that are a long way from being understood by geneticists), contribute to human intelligence that research in this area is a long way from any meaningful conclusion, never mind determining any racial differences. There is most certainly no scientific consensus in this topic area. To assert a scientific consensus by editors picking and choosing which academic conclusion is the WP:TRUTH is classic pseudoscience and POV pushing and violates our core policy of WP:NOR, more specifically it would violate WP:SYN.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the RfC. It does not say that neutral sources are fringe, and it does not say that sources are fringe if they say that genetics can't answer questions about racial differences in intelligence. It says that the claim that there is evidence of genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines is fringe. Please respond to the actual RfC statement and not to a straw man. NightHeron (talk) 13:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I did answer it. I just did not want to type up arguments that others above had already made nor write a monologue trying to address every possible argument. But to address the specific criticism you have raised: until such time genetic contribution to differences in racial intelligence is proven or disproven by geneticists academics who lean towards or away from a genetic contribution cannot be labelled as fringe. To be clear: if you are going to say academic opinion in RS that supports a genetic contribution as likely is fringe then to be neutral, per WP:NPOV, you should say that academic opinion in RS that there is no genetic contribution to racial differences is also fringe. The RfC is clearly trying to enforce one POV to be the truth over another, which is an abuse of sources and WP:SYN.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

No, there is scientific consensus that races are not genetically delineated. That scientific knowledge supports the view that it is highly unlikely that one race is genetically inferior to another in intelligence. That viewpoint is not fringe. But the viewpoint that there is evidence that one race is genetically inferior to another is fringe because what scientific knowledge exists on the subject of race does not support it. NightHeron (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

There is academic debate and sources are given by other editors above re. intelligence and race. There is also academic debate and in some areas consensus of racial differences in other areas of the brain, for example scientists have found white Caucasians to have higher levels of certain personality disorders and other mental illnesses such as major depression and some medical conditions, partly due to breeding with Neanderthals thousands of years ago and the FBI interpret evidence that whites are more likely to be serial killers (a form of sociopathic/psychopathic personality disorder), so scientific research in other areas is biased against whites. We just need to summarise sources for what they say and stop trying to make science say what we want it to say, otherwise you violate another core policy of Wikipedia, WP:NPOV. Really, this RfC requires a rewriting of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV for it to pass. The RfC is clearly trying to enforce one POV to be the truth over another, which is an abuse of sources and WP:SYN. I think some editors are confusing scientific consensus with a social consensus (that it is unacceptable social behaviour to describe differences between racial groups that could be seen to be offensive) and some editors appear to be motivated by WP:IDONTLIKEIT when it comes to one set of reliable sources.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Literaturegeek, several of your arguments contradict our WP:FRINGE guideline. We label a theory as fringe based on its level of acceptance or the degree to which it departs from the prevailing/mainstream view in its field, not whether it has been "proven" or "disproven". We don't simply summarize the sources for each viewpoint; WP:FRINGELEVEL requires us to also document their level of acceptance within the academic community. Non-mainstream viewpoints are not excluded from coverage but they do need to be clearly labelled. –dlthewave ☎ 15:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree there is some useful guidance from WP:FRINGE here, but must also take care not to be so imprecise as to call something 'fringe' within the article, as opposed to 'fringe' meaning the guideline has some application. There is also the question of acceptance of a theory vs. valid scientific inquiry or methodology, and those busybody anthropologists probably have a say, not just geneticists and behavioral psychologists. fiveby(zero) 17:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Dlthewave Like I said to NightHeron, I did not want to type a monologue which refuted every possible argument. To be clear, I am an established editor and I thought it went without saying that editors should follow WP:DUEWEIGHT and I never implied every viewpoint must be applied or given the same weight. I do not believe a convincing case has been made that there is a scientific consensus amongst reliable sources for this topic area. There may well be a case that one academic viewpoint is stronger than another and that is resolved by WP:WEIGHT and consensus being established amongst editors. There are too many academics who have published in reliable sources suggesting there is some evidence of a genetic contribution to racial differences in intelligence for their viewpoint to be labelled fringe.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• No. The research have been published by mainstream WP:RS, therefore denoting that this is a valid field of scientific inquiry. Were this to pass as a yes, it would smear the sources, the authors, and their field of inquiry as fringe. Not good. XavierItzm (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• No. I'm uncertain that the sources cited by OP are representative of the field of differential psychology which should be the primary source for addressing this sort of work. As a biological anthropologist myself, I'm unsure if a statement by anthropologists made 25 years ago in response to The Bell Curve is a qualified statement on this "fringe" research, as it has advanced. Perhaps it was fringe back then. If such a determination that this is "fringe" in its current iteration were to be met specifically by differential psychologists currently working in intelligence, I might be more inclined to agree. The implications for this kind of research for dual inheritance theory (https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg2734), clinical work, and general theories of education are rather important. OP's statement that racial differences in intelligence are fringe is likewise empirically incorrect; or at least can't be counted as correct per the sources s/he provided. If we are to estimate, per OP's more specific criterion, its status, we should use only specifically use sources from this field. My own research shows that Richard Flynn, the world's foremost living researcher on racial differences in intelligence, will tell you that we don't know the answer(https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8611/1/1/3) and that such questions should be accepted(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235217300958). For that reason, and because this study reports nearly 50% of psychologists viewing the influence of genes on heritability as genetic(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289619301886), I'm uncertain that calling this research WP:FRINGE is appropriate.--Babylon717 (talk) 01:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The first source by Flynn that you cite is basically a strong refutation of Rushton, and the second source says that work in this area shouldn't be censored or banned. This RfC has nothing to do with censoring or banning anything. It says that the claim that evidence exists that some races are genetically inferior to others in intelligence is fringe. Saying "we don't know" does not explain a "no" vote on the RfC. My last 3 sources supporting a "yes" vote (the AAPA statement, the Weiten textbook, the Nature editorial) are not old sources. As far as the survey goes, the lead author Rindermann has written extensively for the white supremacist journal Mankind Quarterly. According to the well-sourced page on Mankind Quarterly, Mankind Quarterly is a peer-reviewed academic journal that has been described as a "cornerstone of the scientific racism establishment", a "white supremacist journal", an "infamous racist journal", and "scientific racism's keepers of the flame". It's well known that opinion surveys by a biased investigator can be skewed in many ways -- by biased sampling, biased wording of questions, biased interpretation of answers, selective reporting of results, etc. NightHeron (talk) 02:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I think you're probably correct with regards to how I've interpreted the first Flynn paper, but I'm not certain about your interpretation of the second as calling these ideas "fringe." My critique regarding the AAPA's statement or Weiten's textbook (take as counterexamples Plomin and Haiers' textbooks) still stands- AAPA is not an appropriate place for behavioral critiques. If you check AAPAs' most recent statement on race and racism (https://physanth.org/about/position-statements/aapa-statement-race-and-racism-2019/), there is absolutely no discussion on even the socially constructed concepts of race and its relation to intelligence. These topics should best be left to sources in differential psychology. I apologize, but this remains my position. The only grounding argument in AAPA's statement is that race is socially and clinally constructed, not geographically so. I agree with this at the core, but this is not the claim being disputed in the OP: there is nothing about genes, groups, and behavior. With regards to Rindermann's paper, I trust Elsevier's editorial purview moreso than MQ's.Babylon717 (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Babylon717, To clarify, I did not mean to suggest that Flynn in the second source says that the claim of genetic racial differences in intelligence is fringe. I'd be surprised if he said that; calling someone else's papers "fringe" is an uncollegial thing to do, and most scholars and scientists don't use such terms when they critique other people's work. The AAPA and AAA position statements are based in part on the consensus that race is a socially constructed concept rather than a biological one, and that already makes it logically problematic to claim a genetic difference in intelligence. The other logically problematic steps that would have to all be valid in order for there to be any truth in this claim are that (i) intelligence is a well-defined one-dimensional concept that can be compared over different cultures using IQ tests, (ii) it is possible to control for the vast differences in historical and environmental circumstances between different populations, and (iii) there is reason to assume that if one were to control for those vast differences and if (i) were also true, then the genetic advantage in intelligence would be what Jensen, Lynn, Rushton, Piffer, Rindermann, and Gottfredson claim it to be, namely, that black people on average are genetically endowed with less intelligence than white people. When one has an inflammatory conclusion that's based not on science but rather on 4 problematic logical steps, and if the consensus of scholars in related fields is against this fallacious reasoning, that qualifies as fringe. NightHeron (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - Both 'race' and 'intelligence' are concepts that are subject to manipulation to an extent that the hypothesis of a correlation between them is often subject to manipulation. Any hypothesis of a linkage is colored by the coloring of the categories, so that any discussion is fringe and requires 'special handling'. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: A fallacious argument that's been repeatedly advanced by no-voters on this RfC is that, because Jensen/Ruston/Lynn/Gottfredson/etc sometimes get published by reputable publishers and in reputable journals, that means that those publications are RS and the POV expressed there -- that black people are genetically inferior to white people in intelligence -- is not a fringe viewpoint. On the contrary, WP:RS says: "When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised...Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable" (my emphasis). Also: "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals." (Elsevier publishes at least two such journals, Intelligence and Personality and Individual Differences.) And: "Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields."

Saini's book (referenced at the beginning of the RfC) discusses several examples of scientific racism that appeared in reputable journals or in books published by reputable publishers. A particularly striking example is a 2005 study -- later debunked -- by Bruce Lahn et al published in Science that claimed genetic evidence that the advances in recent millennia that occurred in Europe and Asia and not in Africa can be explained by genetic inferiority of the brains of people in Africa. NightHeron (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• I also am surprised to read multiple editors saying that if a paper is published in a journal, therefore it's not fringe. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

NightHeron, "that black people are genetically inferior to white people in intelligence". That statement isn't just what this RfC proposes to label fringe. This RfC is much more broad than that, which is why I opposed. The RfC as proposed would indicate that the matter is a settled question with a scientific consensus, when in fact the opposite is true. The community is not only divided, but the consensus is that it is still an open question that is difficult to answer due to difficulty in defining race and intelligence accurately. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 19:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere: You're right that the statement of the RfC is broader. In my comments I've focused on the claim that blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites because that is the most common form of scientific racism in the US, where most (not all) of the white supremacist theorists have worked. But in accordance with WP:GLOBAL it would be wrong to limit the RfC to that case. As it's worded, a yes-vote on the RfC also means that the fringe designation would apply if a Chinese source claimed that the Uyghur people were genetically less intelligent than the Chinese people, or if an Australian source claimed that the Aboriginal people were genetically less intelligent than white Australians.

The sources I gave show that there's a consensus that there is no scientific basis for making statements about one race being genetically superior or inferior to another in intelligence, in part for the reason you mention, namely, that race and intelligence are both nebulous and subjective terms. NightHeron (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

A fallacious argument that's been repeatedly advanced by no-voters on this RfC is that, because Jensen/Ruston/Lynn/Gottfredson/etc sometimes get published by reputable publishers and in reputable journals, that means that those publications are RS and the POV expressed there -- that black people are genetically inferior to white people in intelligence -- is not a fringe viewpoint.

You're mischaracterizing the argument that I and others have presented here. The argument I've made is that the only way we can judge whether or not an idea is "fringe" is based on how it is presented in sources that pass WP:RS. That includes various high-quality journals, standard textbooks such as Hunt's book, and surveys such as Rindermann et al. or the older similar survey by Snyderman and Rothman which found a similar result. Aside from how an idea is presented in reliable sources, what other criterion for judging whether or not it's fringe could possibly exist?

The argument that you have been making throughout this RFC is that we have some other way of knowing what is fringe and what isn't, that supersedes what would otherwise be a straightforward application of WP:RS and WP:NPOV. This argument appears to be mostly original research on your part (and if you were to look closely at the source material you're characterizing as "fringe", you would be aware that research in this area is using a much more specific and narrow definition of the term "intelligence" than the term's colloquial meaning.) As I said before, it would be possible to characterize almost any topic as fringe by substituting my own judgement for an impartial evaluation of the viewpoints that exist in reliable sources, the way that you've been doing. 2600:1004:B140:1416:68A3:F469:4750:75AF (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

To support the fringe designation I'm using official statements of the American Anthropological Association and the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, Weiten's textbook, and an editorial in Nature, among other sources. To refute this, your main source is the "survey" by Rindermann. You're unperturbed by the fact that the survey is totally unreliable because Rindermann is a diehard white supremacist, a frequent contributor to Mankind Quarterly, which is one of the oldest and most important journals of scientific racism. NightHeron (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Gottfredson

In response to Valeree's comment above about Gottfredson:

• Though Google Scholar cites are imperfect, they are one measure of scholarly impact. Linda Gottfredson has been published recently, but her recent intelligence work has few GS cites
• Other published works (with more GS cites than Gottfredson's recent work) classify her work as "scientific racism" or similar:

Sources and quotes

2001 Leonard Lieberman, "How 'Caucasoids' Got Such Big Crania and Why They Shrank", Current Anthropology (PDF) (91 GS cites): As the 20th century reached its end, a paradox emerged in which, while most anthropologists had come to reject concepts of biological races and racism (Lieberman and Kirk n.d., Lieberman, Stevenson, and Reynolds 1989), a number of psychologists persisted in the 'race' idea and the 'scientific' racism that had prevailed in the 19th and much of the 20th century (Herrnstein and Murray 1994; Lynn 1977a, b; Rushton 1988b). Mentions Gottfredson among other hereditarians in a section called New hierarchy, old racism: Late in the 20th century, surprisingly, some psychologists began to report that 'Mongoloids' outranked 'Caucasoids.' ... These psychologists whose work has seemed to some readers to validate the “racial” hierarchy (R. Travis Osborne, Clyde E. Noble, Arthur R. Jensen, Audrey M. Shuey, Richard Lynn, Linda Gottfredson, and Richard J. Herrnstein) have relied primarily on IQ tests ... 2014 Robert Wald Sussman, The Myth of Race, Harvard University Press (172 GS cites): (bold added) Gottfredson believes that socioeconomic inequality between races is the expected outcome of the lower intelligence of African Americans and that much current liberal social policy is based on the fraudulent claims of scientists who refuse to acknowledge that intellectual inferiority ... It is too bad that, like many of her colleagues, Gottfredson does not understand that there is no simple, unitary measure of intelligence; that measure of intelligence are greatly influenced by education and culture; and that almost all competent biologists, anthropologists, and geneticists now agree that biological races do not exist among humans. 2016 David Gillborn, "Softly, softly: genetics, intelligence and the hidden racism of the new geneism", Journal of Education Policy (Google cache) (58 GS cites): Why write a paper about racism and genetics in the second decade of the Twenty-First century? Surely arguments about race, intelligence and genetics are dead and buried? ... Until recently many in the field of behavioural genetics have been far less reticent about airing their views. The Bell Curve (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994) is the most famous, but by no means the only, example of such work (see Eysenck, 1971; Gottfredson, 1986; Jensen, 1969;Lynn, 1991 & 2001; Rushton, 1997). This paper shows how, in recent years, a softly softly approach (that avoids explicit reference to race) has become more common. I argue that this inexplicitness should not be mistaken for an absence of racialized thinking and does not signal that the current work is free from possible racist consequences. Indeed, if anything, the new softly softly version of hereditarianism may be even more dangerous than the outspoken version of earlier periods. The rules of racial standing, combined with the absence of explicit racial language in the new geneism, render any antiracist critique as automatically suspect and unscientific. In this way the space for serious race-critical debate is closed down. This tactic is frequently deployed by authors who wish to stress a powerful genetic basis for race inequalities in education and the economy. Linda S. Gottfredson (Professor of Educational Psychology at the University of Delaware), for example, has devoted an entire paper to defending the work and character of J. Philippe Rushton – one of the most outspoken and controversial of the race/IQ hereditarian authors. The fate of the Nobel prize-winner James Watson is especially important here. In 2007 Watson said in simple and clear terms what writers like Eysenck, Jensen, Lynn, Rushton, and Gottfredson have suggested many times. Watson’s subsequent fall from grace was swift, comprehensive and decisive ... The hereditarians have not changed their mind about race and intelligence – they just don’t broadcast it anymore. Neither Robert Plomin nor Linda Gottfredson have repudiated their earlier statements of support for The Bell Curve and its view of race inequity as reflective of the deeper genetic patterning of intelligence (so proudly set out as ‘mainstream science’ in the Wall Street Journal in 1994). Their more recently produced reader-friendly accounts of intelligence and genetic heritability (Asbury & Plomin, 2013; Gottfredson, 2011) adopt a discourse of racial inexplicitness that hints at past controversies but never addresses race directly and portrays their critics as driven by ideology and/or emotion. The racist patterning of differential educational opportunity and achievement, that is encoded in their views, lies buried in the small-print, hidden from the view of the general reader. The new geneism is no less racially conceived, and no less racist in its likely consequences, than the more familiar explicit scientific racism of The Bell Curve; but the colorblind façade repackages centuries old stereotypes in shiny new DNA-patterned bundles. Critical educators must quickly adapt to, and interrupt, this version or else we may find that scientific racism has reshaped our education systems without even mentioning race.

• Southern Poverty Law Center (listed at WP:RSP as green but a biased and opinionated source) lists her as an "extremist": Following a long tradition of scientific racism, Gottfredson argues that racial inequality, especially in employment, is the direct result of genetic racial differences in intelligence. (Note: SPLC wrote an article in 2018 about this WP article [32]).
• Media Matters (listed at WP:RSP as yellow and a biased and opinionated source) goes further: Gottfredson is a well-known white nationalist who has received funding from the Pioneer Fund.
• In 2018 she had a keynote cancelled following letters of complaint. [33] Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • The David Gillborn paper you've quoted in the hidden section above is quite interesting. It is a paper written by a professor of Critical Race Theory, criticizing the fact that some extremely prominent individuals in the field of psychology and human genetics, including Hans Eysenck, Robert Plomin, and James Watson, have directly or indirectly advocated the hereditarian perspective about race and intelligence. Most of the researchers criticized in Gillborn's paper are far more qualified to make judgments in this area than Gillborn is. Are you sure this paper supports the argument that you are trying to make about what is "fringe" here, and what isn't? 2600:1004:B117:F3CA:3174:A036:DA02:381C (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
    • For my part, yes, I'm sure that critical race theory has mainstream acceptance, whereas hereditarian race theories do not. For example, see last year's AAPA Statement on Race & Racism: The concept of race has developed hand-in-hand with racist ideologies over the last five centuries, and biological anthropology has played an important role in the creation and perpetuation of both the race concept and racist ideologies. Racist political doctrines should not receive support from scientific endeavors, but in practice racism has been co-constructed with inaccurate depictions of human variation provided by scientists. Over our history, the AAPA, and many of its members, have been complicit in producing and reifying racist ideologies via the misuse, falsification, or biased production of scientific information ... We acknowledge that outdated and inaccurate ideas about race, and racism, still inform scientific research today, and are sometimes embedded in what otherwise appears to be “modern,” technologically-advanced science. We stand against such practices ... We offer this statement as a baseline for what we know about race and racism in order to help us do better science and better convey what we know about human biological variation to broader audiences ... Racial categories do not provide an accurate picture of human biological variation. Variation exists within and among populations across the planet, and groups of individuals can be differentiated by patterns of similarity and difference, but these patterns do not align with socially-defined racial groups (such as whites and blacks) or continentally-defined geographic clusters (such as Africans, Asians, and Europeans) ... genetic variability within and among human groups does not follow racial lines ... Like human genetic variation, phenotypic variation in our species does not follow racial lines. Race constitutes an arbitrary and artificial division of continuous variation, and thus does not provide an accurate representation of human phenotypic variation or population similarities and differences ... The belief in “races” as natural aspects of human biology, and the structures of inequality (racism) that emerge from such beliefs, are among the most damaging elements in the human experience both today and in the past. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

International Biographical Centre

The International Biographical Centre puts out vanity imitations of Who's Who. The notion that what it does is of value (other than to the self-esteem of those who are profiled, or their chances of success with particularly gullible readers of CVs) is I think "fringe". But recent edits to the article claim that the IBC is valued in Belarus. So far, they do so discreetly enough, but it could be worth keeping eyes on this article. -- Hoary (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

And interesting spam here... —PaleoNeonate – 22:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

I'm still expanding coverage and tweaking logic, but what's there already works very well (e.g. picking up links to Stack Exchange in List of unsolved problems in fair division). Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Cow urine

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

IP(s) edit warring to remove cited material that questions cow urine's claimed medical benefits [34]. I'm not that familiar with WP:MEDRS, but I'm assuming the claim that drinking cow piss cures disease is WP:FRINGE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks like there's a reason for this. See BJP man feeds cow urine to Home Guard staffer to prevent Covid–19, arrested and this twitter threads from one of the people behind the outing and persecution of one of our editors.[35] I'll protect the article. Doug Weller talk 19:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Population Research Institute

• Population Research Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is being edited to remove critical content and add self-sourced and primary sourced promotional content. Guy (help!) 23:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Their purpose of existence expressed in a mission statement presents basic information, and isn't it time to face the requirement that also critical content must be authentic? –Joppa Chong (talk) 04:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Avoid mission statements, Joppa Chong. And before you say "That's just an essay" (I'm a little psychic, and I think you will), see also WP:NOTADVERTISING. Bishonen | tålk 11:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC).

PRI's mission statement is something very special implying a few remarkable intentions which are insightful. Wikipedia:Avoid mission statements#When should mission statements be included? Here it makes sense. I did not mean, users like you should not be trusted.−Joppa Chong (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how a user's opinion that a mission statement is "very special", "remarkable" or "insightful" is a reason to include it. The rule you linked does not say it is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Bates method sources

I'm concerned that some valid sources may have been removed here, especially an AAO report. This whole thing started with the use of "ineffective", but that is a secondary issue at this point. Belteshazzar (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

A primary source from 1993 is not WP:MEDRS and neither is it WP:RS for being pressed into service as "support" for bollocks like the Bates Method. Alexbrn (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The AAO report is from 2013, although there was apparently an earlier version from 2004. And the report does not support the Bates method, but does suggest reasons why it might seem to work. Belteshazzar (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Some document from "AAO Complementary Therapy Task Force" is not reliable either, especially as "support" for bollocks like the Bates Method. We would need WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:MEDRS sources for that. Why the method might offer sporadic instants of apparently clear vision is covered elsewhere in the article. Alexbrn (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

"Anecdotal support" probably wasn't a good subtitle, and I see you have changed it. But you do realize that AAO stands for American Academy of Ophthalmology? Belteshazzar (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I can read thanks (with the aid of glasses). Alexbrn (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I read the following “No evidence was found that visual training 1) has any effect on the progression of myopia; 2) improves visual function for patients with hyperopia or astigmatism; or 3) improves vision lost through disease processes, such as age-related macular degeneration, glaucoma, or diabetic retinopathy.” Take home message “ineffective.” Am I missing something? Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 01:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Quite: the (prior) use of this source as "support" for the Bates' method was - problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps ineffective as far as those conditions are concerned. But if you read what is just above that, it's clear that some people do get improvement of a kind. So "ineffective" should at least be qualified. Belteshazzar (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

You think staring at the sun (etc.) is in some way effective for myopia? It's time to produce your source saying so as this is beginning to look like a waste of time. Alexbrn (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The AAO report says this: "There is Level I evidence that visual training for control of accommodation has no effect on myopia. In other studies (Level II/III evidence), an improvement in subjective VA for patients with myopia that have undertaken visual training has been shown, but no corresponding physiological cause for the improvement has been demonstrated. It is postulated that the improvements in myopic patients noted in these studies were due to improvements in interpreting blurred images, changes in mood or motivation, creation of an artificial contact lens by tear film changes, or a pinhole effect from miosis of the pupil." Belteshazzar (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Ineffective in other words (apart from wishful thinking or unrelated phenomena). But in any case this source is about VT (another form of quackery) and does not even mention the Bates' Method. Alexbrn (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

It does mention Bates. See the first footnote under "References". Also, see Elwin Marg's report, which clearly makes a connection between the methods practiced and fleeting improvements. I was hesitant to mention that one because of the date, but that shouldn't really matter here, as this essentially expands on what recent sources have said. Belteshazzar (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

That Marg page is not a WP:RS for your claim. Please stop. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 14:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Also .. that ref you mention in the “References” is 108 years old. Gosh. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 14:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, you need to learn the difference between evidence and anecdote. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 14:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The AAO report and Elwin Marg (and some other sources which were recently removed on questionable grounds) show that people have gotten at least fleeting improvements in eyesight. Marg is more explicit in connecting this to the Bates method. Not that these sources support the Bates method; far from it. But this is an important aspect of the subject. Belteshazzar (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense on stilts. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 20:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this discussion got quite muddled. I said at the top that "ineffective" is a secondary issue at this point. Belteshazzar (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Belteshazzar, the primary issue is your tendentious editing at the Bates Method article. I am minded to topic-ban or partial block here. What do others think? Guy (help!) 22:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Possible change to NPOV wrt fringe content

There have been recent edits to core policy (WP:NPOV) and discussion which bears explicitly on fringe content, which may be of interest. The discussion is at WT:NPOV#Impartial. Please comment there, not here. Alexbrn (talk) 08:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

National Endowment for Democracy and Chinese government claims

There is an ongoing RFC at Talk:National Endowment for Democracy#RfC: FAIR and other challenged content regarding whether the article should include certain additional content regarding the Chinese government's accusation that the National Endowment for Democracy secretly fomented the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests.

The article already notes the accusation briefly. The present dispute centers on due weight: whether more text should be added about the claim, and whether the article should note that the claim is not supported by evidence. (A New York Times article indicates that this claim is fringe and has no real basis, stating that there is "no concrete evidence" of foreign interference and that the Chinese government's claims variously "amount to little more than crude disinformation" or are "grounded in just enough fact to spin a conspiracy theory of covert American nefariousness.").

More outside input would be appreciated. Neutrality^talk 19:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin

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

[36] Anonymous scientist says on the Skepchick blog that those two should not be recommended for coronavirus disease 2019 because the data do not justify it. The reasons she gives sound good to me but I do not know enough about it to have an opinion. I guess others on this board do. Does this relate to Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Biopsychosocial model

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

This article is full of primary and dodgy sources and largely edited by people with no other area of interest. I am deeply suspicious of this topic. Guy (help!) 18:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the people who edit the page or how balanced it is, but the model was published in Science and has about 5000 citations.Engel, G. L. (1977-04-08). "The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine". Science. 196 (4286): 129–136. doi:10.1126/science.847460.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelirojopajaro (talk • contribs) 19:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Yep, not fringe, this is a major concept in medicine and psychology and is covered in pretty much any introductory textbook in the health professions. [37] [38] The article needs considerable work though. I suspect a lot of the low quality SPA edits are from students - it's the sort of subject that professors would have their classes work on. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)