Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

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

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

Article alerts

Did you know

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

Categories for discussion

• 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

Requested moves

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

Articles to be merged

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

Articles to be split

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

Gareth Knight and Fraternity of the Inner Light

Fringe articles that could use some work. Doug Weller talk 14:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Would probably be the weekend at earliest before I get to it (if I can), but J. Gordon Melton's Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology (probably the tertiary source we should be using to outline these articles) have entries on both (although the Fraternity entry points to the entry on the Society of Inner Light). Peter B. Clarke's Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements and James R. Lewis (scholar)'s (terribly titled) Satanism Today have relevant entries on the Inner Light group as well. Between that and King's Modern Ritual Magic, there's definitely enough on the Inner Light group to have a proper article. Aside from the Melton reference, the only references I'm seeing for Knight are works by associates, passing mentions, or the occasional citation in a fringe work (even the Melton entry is more of a secondary source, since it's pretty much "this guy was involved in these groups and has a website"). The Knight article doesn't even really contain any particular assertions of notability, just inherited notability. Looks like the related Servants of the Light could use a little work, too; though thankfully not as much because it's going to be hell wading through all the crappy fantasy and "inspirational" books. I'm seeing a passing mention of both groups in Nevill Drury's Stealing Fire from Heaven, though short enough that I don't expect it to be much more than the other sources. John Michael Greer's New Encyclopedia of the Occult has entries on both groups but I remember that work being a bit more emic than I'm comfortable using as a source on here (and I say that after bringing up Drury!). At any rate, I must get ready to spend several hours teaching Japanese toddlers the word "NO". Ian.thomson (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Skeptics versus deniers

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

Oh gee. Guess where I've seen this argument before?

[1]

Can someone else clarify whether skeptics and deniers are the same thing when it comes to climate change?

jps (talk) 12:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned no A sceptic is a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions. A denier is a person who denies something, especially someone who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence. The difference is that a sceptic does not ignore evidence, a denier does.Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

It's a matter of sources. I won't bother you with the voluminous discussions we've had on this matter but you can see where climate change skepticism redirects to. jps (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion on that redirect target was interesting with the closer noting I also find consensus in this discussion to redirect, while noting that skepticism ≠ denial per the opposing comments.[2] PackMecEng (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

That skepticism ≠ denial is one thing. That climate change skepticism = climate change denial is quite another. jps (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

That closing statement was talking about climate change skepticism ≠ climate change denial. That is why it was the closing statement on climate change skepticism redirecting to climate change denial. PackMecEng (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

That you are misinterpreting this and using the word "cereal" [3] makes me understand that you should be topic banned from climate change articles writ large. Begone denier. jps (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Ha! Kids these days. Grow up. PackMecEng (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you upset that your cover was blown? Or do you just revel in your pseudoscientific ignorance? WP:CIR, after all. jps (talk) 01:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

List take me to ANI or quit whining. I could not care less which way you go but this is the last reply for me to you on this subject. PackMecEng (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, climate change deniers brand themselves as "skeptics". This is pseudoskepticism. We do not use euphemisms. Guy (help!) 22:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

You asked "whether skeptics and deniers are the same thing when it comes to climate change" I provided a definition of the two based upon what the words mean (an then an interpretation). To answer your question more directly then. It is not true that skeptics and deniers are the same thing when it comes to climate change (after all the source appears to be something of a sceptic), however (to complicate matters) many who are deniers (that is they deny the truth of climate science) use the sceptic label as it makes them sound more reasonable and neutral. So we have to answer this question on a case by case basis.Slatersteven (talk) 08:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I think that may have been true ten years ago but is no longer true now. There is virtually no informed dissent from the consensus view that the climate is changeing due to global warming caused by human activity. There is some debate over the exact degree of warming, precise projections etc., but the last literature review I saw found no actively publishing climate scientists finding anything else (though to be fair this only looked at the professional literature so would have excluded the professional climate deniers funded by right-wing think tanks, as they have acute difficulty getting published). Guy (help!) 08:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

And that is where the problem comes in, and why we must be careful. There is (as you say) "some debate over the exact degree of warming, precise projections etc", so a "sceptic" will be part of that debate, they may not agree with the exact figures but agree with the overall trend. Whereas a denier will question the general trend, the problem comes in when the deniers use the language of genuine scepticism as a cover for what is in realty denialism. Thus we have to exercise caution and operate on a case by case basis.Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

People who are part of the conversation in climate science are generally not referred to as "skeptics" anymore because of how these labels have been politicized. In discussion, I suppose we can refer to some legit climate scientist who disagree with some colleague or another as "skeptics" if we like, but we basically cannot use the term in Wikipedia's climate change article-space without causing confusion. jps (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, pretty much everyone who calls themselves a "skeptic" is pushing predictions outside the 95%CI of aggregates of other models. One tell is that they critique "alarmists". Another is that they publish outside the climate literature. And a third is that they are funded by dark money. Guy (help!) 16:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

This might be a little off topic, but don't you call yourself a skeptic? PackMecEng (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The specific question was to distinguish between on the one hand

Curry is known both for her emphasis on scientific outreach in general and for her willingness to communicate with climate change deniers in particular.

References

and

Curry is known both for her emphasis on scientific outreach in general and for her willingness to communicate with climate change skeptics in particular.

References

with me preferring the follow the source more closely and jps arguing to change the wording from that in the source. But this has now apparently been resolved by using different words and sources so the question seems moot. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I think this is about the wider issue of how we generally deal with this issue.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

My own view is that it's not possible to give a hard and fast rule on this question (note also the comment by PackMecEng above) which is why I prefer to follow the sources in each case. Of course there's another argument about which sources should be used, but when a single source is under discussion then we should just do what it does or not use that source at all. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The fact that all the styled "climate change skeptics" are climate change deniers is not really up for debate. jps (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

But that is not the case, so yes, it is up for debate. Are we being cereal right now? PackMecEng (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

You do not decide whether that is the case or not. Reliable sources decide that. Read our article Climate change denial to find out what they say.

Climate change skeptics have died out decades ago; only deniers are left. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I tend to go by sources, heck one is listed above. To say there are no skeptics left only deniers is flat out ridiculous. PackMecEng (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, no, it's true. But journalistic sources are more deferential to the both sides" bullshit. Guy (help!) 22:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah so sources recognize skeptic is not the same as denial but we know the Truth™. Got it! PackMecEng (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, not as such, no. Our article titles reflect the scientific consensus. Journalists... not so much. Guy (help!) 22:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Jonathan A Jones, deniers is the more accurate here. You'll note that climate change skepticism is a redirect. Guy (help!) 22:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

A reasonable approach for the example at the top of this section would be to go with what the AP style guide says to do: "To describe those who don’t accept climate science or dispute the world is warming from man-made forces, use climate change doubters or those who reject mainstream climate science. Avoid use of skeptics or deniers." source Obviously still pipe the link to Climate change denial.

Before	After
Curry is known both for her emphasis on scientific outreach in general and for her willingness to communicate with climate change deniers in particular.	Curry is known both for her general emphasis on scientific outreach and for her willingness to communicate with people who reject climate science.

~Awilley (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC) Note: edited to remove the word "mainstream" from "mainstream climate science" for brevity ~Awilley (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not part of Associated Press, Wikipedia is not part of the press in general, and we do not use journalist false balance here.

Instead, we go to scientific sources when scientific sources are available. See WP:SOURCE.

In this case, scientific sources are available, and therefore we use those. The scientific sources say it is "denial", and the journalistic sources can go fuck themselves. End of story. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Awilley: Charming right? PackMecEng (talk) 04:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: Sorry, you lost me at "false balance". Are you saying that people who reject climate science ≠ climate change deniers? Would the phrase people who reject the scientific consensus on climate change resolve your concerns? We have our own Manual of Style and it favors clear direct descriptions over contentious labels. Labeling someone a "denier" might feel satisfying, but it might be more helpful to readers to use straightforward language that describes what the deniers are actually doing (i.e. rejecting science). ~Awilley (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Not "≠". But it is too long and not the common term used in science. There is a reason you had to write [[climate change denial|who reject mainstream climate science]]: the article is called that because the phenomenon is called that.

People who reject Second World War history, people who reject biological science and people who reject orthodox geography, we call Holocaust deniers, Creationists and Flat Earthers. Those are the common terms. Actually, you will find users in the archives of Talk:Holocaust denial who have exactly the same problem with the term "Holocaust denial" as you people have with "climate change denial" - they think it is a contentious label. But we use the common term.

And you do not need to convince just me, but practically everybody who is familiar with the subject. And that includes the people who write the reliable sources our articles are based on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

If length is an issue it can be shortened, for instance, by removing the word "mainstream". I'd note that the article is titled "Climate change denial" (which is undoubtedly the correct title) not "Climate change deniers" (a label for people who engage in the denial). And with the other examples you gave, when you're writing about actual people it is also more encyclopedic to write straightforward prose rather than slap a label on someone.

Label	Description
"So-and-so is a Flat Earther"	"So-and-so promotes flat earth conspiracy theories"
"So-and-so was put on administrative leave because he was a Holocaust denier	So-and-so was put on administrative leave for teaching Holocaust denial.

~Awilley (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

In general, this is how we handle a lot of the text in Wikipedia articles including the one that started this ludicrous discussion. The problem is we have users who absolutely refuse to let the term climate change denial in any declension show up in articles. Almost as if they take personal offense. jps (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Nothing is as black and white as you describe. Deniers are always skeptics but skeptics are not always deniers. PackMecEng (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@PackMecEng:, I don't think that is true. A lot of deniers are well aware that the science contradicts their position. If you look at the documentation from some industry archives, you will find people who have been entirely cynical in promoting denialism purely to protect profits. Some deniers are also pseudoskeptics, pretending to be skeptical but in fact merely promoting a precocnived view - rather like vaccine "skeptics". Guy (help!) 08:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I can see where you are coming from that it is more nuanced. Going more into the reasons and motivations more than a yes or no aspect. In broad strokes I do not think it is far off though. The question seems to be what kind of denier or skeptic and why they hold that position. I moved your comment up to get the indents back in order, I hope you do not mind PackMecEng (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Go tell that to Naomi Oreskes and her colleagues. They will doubtless be impressed with your reasoning, and they will immediately change their writings accordingly. Wikipedia will soon follow because WP:SOURCE. Until then, bye. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I take that to mean you have no actual argument? Fair enough. Toodles! PackMecEng (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I used that actual argument several times now. You just did not listen. The argument is WP:SOURCE. Wikipedia follows the sources.

But if you want an outside-of-Wikipedia reason: here goes.

Climate change deniers are market fundamentalists: they believe that the free market will always do the right thing. This ideology is conclusively refuted by the fact of anthropogenic climate change: the market failed to do the right thing in a really bad way. Since they are fundamentalists, they cannot accept the demise of their dogma, so they have to deny the fact. And indeed: follow the denialist reasoning to its source, and it will always be a free-market think tank such as Competitive Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute, or another inhabitant of Category:Libertarian think tanks. Add the Koch brothers, the fossil fuel industry, and other similar money sources for whom deceiving the public is a profitable investment, add Fox and a few bloggers and other mouthpieces, add the GOP and other henchmen, add Trump and other conspiracy theorists, add all those homo oeconomicus wannabes who are interested in their own short-term-profits and not in future generations, add a few market fundamentalists who happen to have science degrees, to lend the whole thing an academic facade, if not much actual understanding, and you get the denial industry. They have the motive, they have the opportunity, and they left their fingerprints everywhere.

Science does not come into it, science is their enemy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The image and personal commentary aren't helpful here. ~Awilley (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Do go on about the giant conspiracy. PackMecEng (talk) 19:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC) PackMecEng says, "tu quoque". User:ජපස (talkcontribs - 14:05, April 6, 2020 ]] This is not a conspiracy theory. First, it is not a conspiracy between all these people, they just all suffer from the same ignorance-selfconfidence-ideology combination and spread the same false rumors they copy from each other (echo chamber). Second, there is actual evidence for who spreads which lies, which you would know if you were familiar with the subject. Read Merchants of Doubt before mouthing off about subjects you do not understand. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC) before mouthing off about subjects you do not understand Says the ranting conspiracy theorist. I cannot tell if you are serious or trolling. Either way I think we are done here with your nonsense. PackMecEng (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC) Stuck comment. PackMecEng (talk) 02:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC) Hob Gadling has been very clear in his explanation of the WP:MAINSTREAM understanding of this subject. That you disagree with him and call him a conspiracy theorist looks like classic projection to me. jps (talk) 14:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC) Yes, that is how it is, obviously. Obviously, to every single one of the regulars here, the deniers are the tinfoil hat wearers, not the scientists. See, for example, Global warming conspiracy theory. The connection between market fundamentalism and climate change denial is a well established fact, not a conspiracy theory. But the problem is that anti-science users like PackMecEng have a far higher opinion of their own opinion than of reliable sources, and this one, like many other pro-lunacy editors, has consistently ignored every single link to articles where he could have learned something. This is the Fringe theories noticeboard, and pretty much everybody here knows more about loons and their tricks, about conspiracy theories, and about denialism than you, profringe editor, ever will. You are not fooling anyone, profringe editor. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: You said above, "Deniers are always skeptics but skeptics are not always deniers." I think that lacks nuance. Deniers are not always skeptics in the context of scientific skepticism. I think the quote from the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry sums it up better. "Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics." ~Awilley (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I see so instead of Deniers are always skeptics but skeptics are not always deniers you would go with Deniers are not always skeptics and skeptics are not always deniers? PackMecEng (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

That's technically true but not very helpful here. I think the quote in my previous comment is more relevant. So given the binary choice in this section header of "denier" vs. "skeptic", "denier" is probably the better word because it's less misleading. But the point I'm trying to make above is that it doesn't need to be binary. ~Awilley (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, it is never an always X kind of thing which I was trying to illustrate. PackMecEng (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Your philosophizing is worthless and meaningless. Again: We use reliable sources. You are just two random guys on the internet, and you can publish your opinions wherever you want. But! Not! On! Wikipedia! Because! Wikipedia! Uses! Reliable! Sources!

Why don't you understand that simple concept? Is it because, as I said above, "Since they are fundamentalists, they cannot accept the demise of their dogma"? --Hob Gadling (talk)

Hob Gadling, maybe take it down a notch. You make it sound like anyone who disagrees with you is stupid or evil. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Levivich I think by only identifying one person here you are missing the problematic WP:POVPUSH that PackMecEng is encouraging. Does that not bother you at all? jps (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I already took it down two notches from my original wording idea, and the result is "profringe editor". I am being very generous here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Another thing: Read WP:PROFRINGE. The vast majority of profringe editors is neither stupid nor evil, and WP:PROFRINGE does not say they are. They are just people who hold positions contradicted by science, and they think that their opinion is better supported by facts than the scientists, which just takes stubbornness and ignorance. I never thought that "profringe editor" was an insult, just a description of specific behaviour.

Climate change denial is a subject which has been thoroughly promoted by the denial industry, and as a result, it is very popular in the general public - but not in the climatology community because they recognize bad reasoning within their own expertise. Therefore, climate change denial is one of those cases for which WP:SOURCE was made: a case where journalistic sources have, in average, much lower quality than scientific sources, because the people who wrote the former are part of a population that has been misinformed, and the people who wrote the latter are part of a population that has not. So, those users who claim that the existence of climate change, human-made climate change or a scientific consensus about both, is an open question and that people can stand on any of the sides in that "controversy" and still be reasonable and knowledgeable, and want that opinion in Wikipedia articles are profringe editors, although they do not know it. Astrologers and flat-earthers know that science is not on their side, but thanks to the denialist echo chamber, those people do not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• Skeptic = heretic, denier = infidel. Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• I see what you did there, you heathen! PackMecEng (talk) 19:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not care about HIM!, SHE! or THEY! If you do take it their talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

convenience break

PackMecEng, Think of the bell curve. Virtually all current scientists with relevant expertise lie within the 95% confidence interval. Reviews of recently published papers have found, essentially, nothing currently being publsihed in the professional literature that falls outside a pretty tight range of agreement. Those predicting the lowest values withint hat group are nto skeptics and do not describe themselves as such; those who predict near the top are not alarmists, Those who describe themselves as skeptics are - with, as far as I can tell, no well-known exceptions - (a) not professionals in the field; (b) not publishing in the professional literature, or (c) funded by the fossil fuel lobby (or in some cases more than one of these).

I have yet to see a case of anyone who has gone into the science with an open mind and decided the predictions are wrong (which is what skepticism means). Virtually all of them have philosophical or financial reasons for not wanting the science to be true, and have worked from there. Guy (help!) 17:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

See I think that is where we differ. To me a denier is someone who says nope its not happening in the face of all reason and evidence. That it is a hoax and whatnot. A skeptic is more a long the lines of someone that, within the bell curve as you put it, can disagree with what actions to take, what the effects will be, and what will happen as a result. (You still have no said if you call yourself a skeptic) PackMecEng (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure this really is what skepticism actually means. In my view, skeptics hold that the case has not yet been proven to be true, whereas deniers hold that the case has been proven to not be true. Skeptics are still open to possible future data tilting the balance either way, but deniers are adamant that the case is closed. I don't know who Curry is willing to engage with, but probably she is engaging with some of each? Possibly her objective is to engage with everyone, irrespective of where they fall based on the above definitions? Open-mindedness is a big part of science, so where should the cut-off line be drawn?

Curry is a decorated scientist, and the article already states that she does not herself deny anthropogenic global warming, but is opposed to the "tribal nature" of the current debate. We seem to be seeing some of that tribalism here too. Perhaps Wikipedia should be extra careful about neutral tone here, and maybe change the sentence to read: "although 95% of recently published scientific papers hold that climate change is both man-made and a looming crisis, Curry is willing to engage with climate change skeptics." My $0.02. Wdford (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Wdford, no, she's willing to pander to deniers. She's not engaging in the scientific debate, she's publishing outside of scientific discourse, and in doing so, giving aid and succour tothe last gasp of fossil fuel funded dneialism. Guy (help!) 20:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

"Pandering" is a very loaded word. Furthermore, Curry does not seem to be denying global warming per se, but she is seemingly contesting the projections etc. Projections can never be certain, so this is hardly pseudoskepticism. The distinction between skepticism and pseudoskepticism is one of intention, which can be difficult for external parties to identify objectively. Wdford (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

So she believes in microevolution but not macroevolution. Because of gaps in the fossil record. You can never be certain that species evolve from other species. Etc. Etc. jps (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this has to do with climate change? Please lets also remember WP:BLP. Wdford (talk) 11:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The analogy seems clear to me. Pseudoscience is as pseudoscience does. Anyone else confused? jps (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, denialism is a form of motivated reasoning, and that is exactly what is going on here. Skepticism is the default in the scientific method: the burden of proof lies with the person making a claim. But every competent professional has, by now, acknowledged that this burden has been met. All that's left is pseudoskepticism. Guy (help!) 20:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

That does not really address what I was saying. There is no firm agreement on the examples I brought up, just that it is happening and something needs to be done. To what extent and what should be done are still under discussion. PackMecEng (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, sure, but climate change "skeptics" are not saying that, or at least are not within the realm of the consensus position (in that "nothing" is clearly not an acceptable answer to what should be done), and the evidence strongly suggests that few, if any, are arguing in good faith. Guy (help!) 17:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

If that can be proven that moves them to denier. Though that is hard to prove. PackMecEng (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, actually it's very easy. If they have taken money from any conservative think tank or made money appearing in the conservative media bubble, they are a denier. If they restrict their activities to the professional literature, they are a skeptic. Guy (help!) 20:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng I'm sorry, by what standard are you making these demarcations? A citation would be nice. jps (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Skepticism and denial are two different English words, with different accepted definitions. If scientists have started using them to mean the same thing, then you will need to provide reliable sources to that effect please. Wdford (talk) 11:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The sources are clear. Climate change skepticism, you will see, redirects to climate change denial. They are synonyms. jps (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

That argument is debunked above. The discussion that lead to that redirect specifically denied that it meant skepticism = denial.[4] PackMecEng (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Awilley can you come get your climate change denier here? jps (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Wdford: See what happens when you call them on repeatedly misrepresenting the facts? Like I said this has been discussed by many people many times and all found the same result. PackMecEng (talk) 14:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

You had JzG explain to you the problem and yet you don't seem to have learned the lesson. I encourage you to take several seats. jps (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Again misrepresenting what happened. Me and Guy were talking about the concepts. What you were falsely presenting as facts is past community concensus. There is of course a difference. Also really, have a seat? What does that even mean? PackMecEng (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

ජපස, no need to rope me into this, I think, PackMecEng and I are converging on common ground. Guy (help!) 20:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad you think so, but it does not appear that way from the discussions below. The problem is that at the rhetorical level there is a difference between "denial" and "skepticism" as concepts/words, but when we talk about the subjects of climate change skepticism and climate change denial, as they are seen in our world, there does not appear to be a single "climate change skeptic" who is not a denier. The best you can do is point to people like Richard Lindzen who steadfastly maintain that they are not "skeptics" and that instead they explicitly deny that the scientific consensus on climate change is correct. So there are are deniers who reject the skeptic label. I have asked for an example of one person who embraces the "climate change skeptic" label who is not part of this denial machine. No one has been able to point to such a person. jps (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

That you continue to double down on your propagandistic WP:ADVOCACY is appalling. We have showed you sources. We have pointed out the specific problems with your rhetoric. And still you seem to think that there is some sort of demarcation between climate change skeptics and climate change deniers based on, what exactly? I assume it is your own fantasies at this point. jps (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Please accept community concensus. PackMecEng (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

What?! The community consensus is clear. Climate change skepticism redirects to climate change denial. It's as simple as that. jps (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

This is getting to ididnthearthat territory. Read the closing statement for that discussion that created that redirect. I even quoted it to you above. PackMecEng (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I already explained to you that in spite of two words being different, you cannot use Awilley's off-handed comment about two words being different to declare that climate change skepticism is different from climate change denial when we have the preponderance of sources saying they are the same thing. It's as clear as that and there is nothing more to be said. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT indeed! jps (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Listen, if you want to have a discussion on the overall meaning of the two and all that, fine. If you want to say the result of this discussion means community consensus is skepticism = denial even though the closing statement says the opposite then you are wrong. PackMecEng (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

You've already been shown to be wrong, so we're done here. If you continue to push this view in article space, I will ask for a topic ban at WP:AE. jps (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Venn diagram. Left: People who identify as "climate change skeptics" Right: People engaging in climate change denial

@PackMecEng: The community consensus that matters here is a clear community consensus that the term climate change denial is preferred over climate change skepticism. There is evidence of that consensus both here and in the redirect discussion for climate change skepticism → climate change denial. Of course the words denial and skepticism don't mean the same thing. They're different words. And although the full terms also technically have different meanings, the term skeptic is usually misapplied as many have pointed out. A majority of the people who call themselves "climate change skeptics" are misusing the word because climate change skepticism implies scientific skepticism and that is not what is going on. The Venn diagram to the right allows for a sliver of people who are genuinely skeptical but who aren't engaging in denial. Or maybe it's not a sliver...maybe the true "climate change skeptics" are the "climate change scientists" because a good scientist is always skeptical. That this reversal works further illustrates why the term climate change skepticism should be avoided. I can sympathize with your distaste for what might feel like a rabid push to brand anybody who has ever expressed any doubt about any aspect of climate change as a "denier", but I don't think continuing this discussion the way you are is helpful.

@ජපස: In fairness I should point out that it is a flawed argument that the existence of the climate change skepticism → climate change denial redirect proves that the terms mean the same thing. There are a plethora of counterexamples for that...Arsenic mining is clearly not the same thing as Arsenic the element, yet the redirect Arsenic mining → Arsenic exists. ~Awilley (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just pointing out it was a wrong argument not based on facts that a redirect means anything, especially given the discussion that was had at the time. So we agree it sounds like. I appreciate your personal drawing though, its cute. PackMecEng (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Citation needed, Awilley. Is this original research? All the sources I've seen indicate that there really aren't any self-styled "climate change skeptics" who are not in the "denial" category (in other words, I cannot think of a single person in the blue sliver on your diagram). What sources do you have which indicate that your Venn diagram is correct? jps (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@ජපස: The Venn diagram reflects this quote from Climate_change_denial#Terminology In December 2014, an open letter from the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry called on the media to stop using the term "skepticism" when referring to climate change denial. They contrasted scientific skepticism—which is "foundational to the scientific method"—with denial—"the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration"—and the behavior of those involved in political attempts to undermine climate science. They said "Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics. The bolded part directly supports the Venn diagram. (Although admittedly the diagram would be more accurate if the circles were closer to the same size to reflect the "virtually all" bit.) ~Awilley (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I've read that six-year-old piece. If I knew of one person to whom that description applied, I would be happy to entertain this as an option. As far as I know, there is none who do, to the point that reliable sources that lovingly detail so-called "climate skepticism" only discuss denialist talking points. We have had this discussion a lot: there is no one in that little blue sliver. jps (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Awilley At this point I think this discussion has reached its useful end. Shall we close this now? PackMecEng (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Either admit the blue sliver is a null set or identify a single person who occupies that space. Then we can close. jps (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd offer up Judith Curry, but I already know what the response will be - in classic No True Scotsman fashion she will promptly be labeled a "denier" by you, as will any other name that I or Awilley or PackMecEng will propose. There no arguing with a True Beleiver. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Or, you know, we might look at what reliable sources say about Curry's denial? The fact is that these two ideas have been synonymous for sometime or, at the very least, the "self-styled skeptics" are all part of the denial-sphere. Curry denies basic facts about climate change up to the point that she no longer even engages in peer review. She fell down the rabbit hole, and we have the sources that show it. What do you have, speaking of "true believers"? jps (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

You didn't actually read that article, did you? Let me highlight for you the parts you missed: "Curry (2014), a professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology, does not dispute climate change " But like I said, No True Scotsman etc... JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

And you didn't read climate change denial, did you? Not all deniers deny that the climate is changing. They just deny aspects of the scientific consensus on climate change. Try to keep up. jps (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Circular reasoning - climate change denial was written by you and people like you, to reflect the above view point. But let's try to put the shoe the other foot, shall we? I think we can agree that at a purely logical theoretical level, since skepticism is not the same as denial , there could be some people in the silver-blue area. What, according to you, would be the defining characteristics of someone in that sector? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Lol! By claiming that Wikipedia's article is wrong, you have completely umasked yourself as an WP:ACTIVIST. The issue we have here is that climate change skepticism has simply been co-opted by ideologues as a term. They are part of the denialist machine. Wikipedia has recognized this status quo for years now. jps (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not an activist, and don't need to be unmasked, and if we're descending to that level , the same can be said of you. But I asked you a question, and would like an answer: What, according to you, would be the defining characteristics of someone in that blue-silver set? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Your edit history speaks for itself. I honestly do not think there is anyone in that blue sliver. What would their defining characteristic be? Well, they would call themselves "skeptics" but not deny the fundamental points that are included in scientific consensus on climate change. I don't know anyone who fits that definition. If we were having this discussion years ago, Richard Muller might have fit that description, but no longer. He doesn't meaningfully object to any of the consensus points. jps (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

As does your edit history speak for itself with regard to your status as an WP:ACTIVIST who is unmasked - I suggest you drop the name calling and labeling, as stick to arguments. So you don't think there could be anyone in the blue silver set (not is, could be)? What aspect of current consensus could one legitimately question or challenge without being a denier, in your view? It seems to me that your view is that the moment you challenge anything which is in current consensus, regardless of the merits of your challenge, you are automatically a a "denier". JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not interested in hypotheticals. If someone can point to one example of someone who is in that sliver, I would be fine with this. In spite of the the claims of the right wing, there are plenty of skeptical disagreements within the climate change literature. The arguments happen all the time. They are not outside the bounds of our article on scientific consensus on climate change, crucially, and because of the politicization of the term, not a one of those scientists would call themselves "climate change skeptics". Like it or lump it, the denial machine has simply engulfed this term and co-opted it to the point that it is a poison pill. You can wail and gnash teeth as much as you want about this, but that's the situation. We aren't here to right great wrongs. Go to Conservapedia if that's what you want to do. jps (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, tobacco industry playbook. Deny there's a problem, then, when the problem becomes undeniable, deny the scale and consequences. Guy (help!) 20:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

If you have no substantial reply, kindly stay out of this. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, so are you denying that the oil industry uses the tobacco playbook? Before you go there, check out the history of professional denialists like Fred Singer. Guy (help!) 14:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that regardless of what oil industry is doing, that comment is unresponsive to my question, a Red Herring intended to divert and hijack the discussion. Either answer my question, or stay out of it. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• The Conversation (website), which is listed green at WP:RSP, published "Climate sceptic or climate denier? It’s not that simple and here’s why" in 2019 (links in the original):

  Several papers with reliable methodology unchallenged in the literature show an enormous majority of climate scientists agree that the planet is warming and humans are largely responsible.

  But contrary positions are not unknown. Some questions regarding the credibility of some aspects of climate models, for example, exist for some working academics.

  While these scientists do not necessarily doubt all aspects of climate science, issues of reliability of methodology and validity of conclusions in some areas remain, for them, alive.

  Whether they are correct or not (and many have been responded to in the literature), they are at least working within the broad norms of academia. We might call these people “climate sceptics”.

  * * *

  In summary, three categories of climate science disbelief are: sceptic, agnostic and denier. Three subdivisions of deniers are: naive, conspiracists and opportunists.

  Granted that's just one source, but it's reliable. – Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  The Conversation is only as reliable as the author. This author is not a scientist and it shows. The so-called "skeptic" that he refers to in this dubious article is Nicola Scafetta. Scafetta is consistently and without shame a member of the denialist machine: [5] jps (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  Levivich, As noted above, Scafetta is a perfect example of a denialist. He is publishing outside his sphere of expertise (which is engineering), and doing so for money. Guy (help!) 20:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  The Conversation article I linked/quote isn't written by Scafetta, it's written by Peter Ellerton, who is not publishing outside his area of expertise (critical thinking)

  Richard A. Muller: I draw a distinction between sceptics and deniers. The sceptics are people I respect – they have raised legitimate issues and, from my experience, are open minded. The deniers are people who start with a conclusion and only pay attention to the data that support it. I do think that our results could change the minds of some sceptics about the reality of global warming. [6].

  David Brin: Not every person who expresses doubt or criticism toward some part of this complex issue is openly wedded to the shrill anti-intellectualism of Fox News ... What traits distinguish a rational, pro-science "skeptic" — who has honest questions about the AGW consensus — from members of a Denier Movement that portrays all members of a scientific community as either fools or conspirators? After extensive discussions with many AGW doubters, I believe I have found a set of distinct characteristics that separate the two groups. [7]

  The point is: there are non-woo academics who believe the blue sliver in that venn diagram exists. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  Ellerton is publishing outside his expertise. He is citing Scafetta as an example of a skeptic who isn't a denier. That's ludicrous. I am aware of Muller's distinctions, and largely think the world has moved way past this. As for Brin's distinctions, I have no idea who he is talking about. Do you know who he is talking about? He kinda claims that he is a climate change skeptic, but as far as I can tell that means that while he admits all the science is on the side that humans are causing global warming, he still doesn't think humans are causing global warming(?) which strikes me as straight-up denial. Am I missing something at the end of that piece? jps (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  Levivich, What jps just said. A genuine skeptic is one who is publishing in the professional literature, and is not funded by the fossil fuel industry. Curry is publishing outside the professional literature and boosting those who are both publishing outside the literature and on the payroll of big oil. Guy (help!) 14:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

  She's published more than 100 peer-reviewed papers in relevant academic outlets, and is not on the payroll of the fossil fuel industry. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

  She admits to getting money from the fossil fuel industry: [8]. jps (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

  What that source says :

  '“I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry. My company…does [short-term] hurricane forecasting…for an oil company, since 2007. During this period I have been both a strong advocate for the IPCC, and more recently a critic of the IPCC, there is no correlation of this funding with my public statements.”"

  .

  Care to answer my question now, which I have asked 3 times now - What aspect of current consensus could one legitimately question or challenge without being a denier, in your view? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Let me try to be as clear as possible: It does not matter what I think is legitimate or illegitimate. The problem is that there aren't people who question the scientific consensus on climate change who reliable sources don't put in the category of global warming denial. Crucially, in spite of what it may feel like when we state the simple fact about the world as it is, I am not making any value judgement about the situation by stating this. The fact that, to a person, those who object to the consensus are all part of the climate change denial apparatus is just what we've got. jps (talk) 02:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

A few final observations:

• Using phrases like "climate change denial apparatus" sounds like you are ranting about an apocalyptic conspiracy. I'm sure Wikipedia can find better wording.

• We aren't in article space here. Sorry that this upsets you so much. jps (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• DeSmogBlog is run by a PR company, and they openly brag about their POV, so they are hardly a reliable source.

• Did you find any mistakes in their list? jps (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Do you have actual citations for the claim that everyone who does not adhere to the consensus is branded by every reliable source as a denier rather than a skeptic?

• Already provided. jps (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• I'm sure that WP:BLP is relevant here too.

• And WP:CRYBLP. jps (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Wdford (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, no. WP:BLP is policy, that applies everywhere (talk pages included). WP:CRYBLP is someone's personal musings. It does not apply here, or anywhere except the author's page. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

It applies here, puppet. jps (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't, young grasshopper, but thanks for playing. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 03:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The fact that climate change deniers in the past have used BLP as a cover to claim that we couldn't identify deniers like Curry in discussion is well-trodden ground. We can and will identify deniers like Curry in discussion. What we do in articlespace (and how) is another matter. This is why WP:CRYBLP exists. jps (talk) 11:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Remember that WP:CRYBLP is an WP:ESSAY. By constrast the need to avoid WP:SYN is a WP:POLICY. Please do not make statements about named individuals which are not backed up by explicit sourcing which does not require synthesis to reach the conclusions you are trying to support. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Pretending that we haven't provided sources that explicitly label Curry as part of the denialist machine is either WP:IDHT or it is WP:POVPUSH. Either way, not becoming. jps (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Our own article on Judith Curry shows it and we have plenty of sources which identify climate denial machine. I think we're fine here. jps (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

That article contains some very carefully chosen phrases, which were chosen explicitly to be well referenced and avoid WP:SYN. She isn't called a "denier" there, despite the wishes of some of the more enthusiastic and less thoughtful editors, precisely because there weren't reliable sources supporting that specific characterisation. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

No, she's not "called" a "denier" there because it's not necessary for the text. The text makes it clear that she's a denier. If you don't think it does, I think it's just your own comprehension issues. jps (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• The usual wording is "climate change denial industry". You should really read the literature, starting with "Merchants of Doubt", before taking sides here. And yes: accepting denialists as "skeptics" is taking their side, because that is all they want: making the facts seem less factual by pretending there are still disagreements within science about the basic questions of "is climate change happening" and "is is caused by us".
• "Their POV" is identical with the scientific consensus. It is like "bragging about" having the POV that the Shroud of Turin is fake - the situation is pretty much the same: The facts are clear, it's just that some people will not accept them. You, Wdford, know that the Shroud is fake and that all objections can easily be proved wrong because you have looked at the data. Other people here know the same about climate change because they have looked at those data.
• This is not about "every reliable source". It is about scientific reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion is continuing at [9]

Scale relativity again

A promoter of this non-notable fringe theory restored 93K of bad content against consensus. I am afraid I will not have time to deal with an interminable argument this week. XOR'easter (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Why do people think this is worth keeping around? I really don't get it. jps (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I doubt that it rises to the level of being a fringe theory worth writing about. It's like having an article on El Naschie's "E-infinity theory" — there's so little of substance that it fails to attract substantive criticism. And unlike the cases of El Naschie or the Bogdanov brothers, there hasn't been a scandal to write about, either. XOR'easter (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Can it be taken to AfD with a good chance of having it deleted? Since it is fringe without a lot of coverage or criticism, maybe AfD the best way to go. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Or WP:MERGE to Laurent Nottale might be simpler. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd support either of those courses of action. XOR'easter (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

OK. I think merge as proposed is an acceptable option. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• Talk:Laurent Nottale § Merge Scale relativity in Laurent Nottale —PaleoNeonate – 21:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Scale relativity has been merged to Laurent Nottale per a snowing consensus. An IP editor has recently shown up complaining about the thought police. I've put in a semiprotection request for the redirect in the hopes of minimizing drama and time-waste. XOR'easter (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Ahasuerus

Ahasuerus has been filled with fringe WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Please chime in. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@AnthonyvanDuyn: Many of your sources are WP:FRINGE (SDA theology, not mainstream history) or dated (written before 1960). So, yeah, in Wikipedia language this means you are a fringe POV-pusher. It's not an insult, it's a fact. You even had the balls to quote Ellen G. White as if she were a historian. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

He stated: Get the biased Jesuit/Masonic controlled Harvard and Yale's to write your official position and drop the pretense that this is a grass roots platform, by the common men and helping the common men. His POV is now manifest. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: The talk page and recent history of Esther and Vashti are now involved in related disputes over the presentation of the purported historicity of the Book of Esther. GPinkerton (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Baba Vanga

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

Uses The Sun as a source for predictions having come true. Probably more nonsense. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• This is indeed pro-fringe, with statements like Bulgarian Bulgarian sources say that the people who were close to her claim that she never prophesied about Kursk or other subjects circulating the Internet, and that many of the myths about Vanga are simply not true, which ultimately hurts and crudely misrepresents [Vanga] and her work. But I can certainly find some evidence of notability: [10]. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Fringe interpretation of the Holocaust in Bulgaria: attention required for a Request Move: "'Rescue' of the Bulgarian Jews". Talk:Rescue_of_the_Bulgarian_Jews#Requested_move_17_April_2020

The present article's title is non-neutral and misleading, promoting fringe beliefs. The phrase is a creation of the People's Republic of Bulgaria as an exercise in self-promotion and an abnegation of Bulgarian responsibility for the Holocaust. The pro-Nazi Bulgarian state and Axis member organized and paid for the systematic massacre of 20% of the Jewish population within the borders of the Kingdom of Bulgaria as it existed in 1941. A similar proportion of France's Jews were killed in the Holocaust, in a country directly under German occupation and with collaborationist government; no German soldiers ever occupied Bulgaria. Unlike the Rescue of the Danish Jews, in which nearly all Denmark's Jews escaped imprisonment and death and German occupation, and which the post-war communist Bulgarian state sought to rival with its own "rescue" claim, Bulgaria's Jews had their property confiscated, were expelled from major cities and confined to ghettos, and were subjected to forced labour until the Red Army crossed the Danube and Bulgaria finally changed sides. Moreover, the Bulgarian state organized and executed the arrest, transport, imprisonment of more than 11,000 Jews inside Bulgaria in concentration camps at Skopje, Dupnitsa, and Blagoevgrad, and final expulsion onto boats on the Danube at Lom bound for Vienna and a railway journey to Treblinka. For the cost of that part of their journey that was through German-occupied territory, the Bulgarian state paid the Nazis 250 reichsmarks per head. The Bulgarian government also signed an agreement that it would under no circumstances request their repatriation. In occupied France and elsewhere the Bulgarian government declined to intervene to help any Bulgarian Jews arrested in round-ups in France and Italy, and many went to their deaths with the express approval of the Bulgarian state many months after the supposed "rescue of the Bulgarian Jews".

Pages 1-44 of the 2018 United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, vol. 3: Camps and Ghettos under European Regimes Aligned with Nazi Germany deal with Bulgaria, as does the [Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence] (required reading), which are the most full and comprehensive recent tertiary sources, as well as the Encyclopedia of the Holocausts chapter on Bulgaria. An excellent historiographical treatment, vital for the understanding of recent historical revisionism and the role of the issue in Bulgarian nationalism pre- and post- the fall of communism, is also found at: https://doi.org/10.1080/23256249.2017.1346743 (2017) (required reading).

Kingdom of Bulgaria - 20% of Jews here killed in 1943

There is, furthermore, a fringe belief in Bulgaria, propagated by revisionist non-historians and the Bulgarian far-right at a January 2020 "round-table" and accompanying document produced by the "Bulgarian Academy of Sciences", politicians of the former United Patriots ultra-nationalist coalition, among others, that the forced labour by which Jewish families were separated and immiserated (together with the Bulgarian Turkish and Muslim minorities and the Roma/gypsys, euphemistically termed "unemployed") was in some way an elaborate ploy to "rescue" the Jews. This is denounced as antisemitic distortion by Bulgaria's main Jewish organization, Shalom, and the World Jewish Congress, as well as Bulgarian Holocaust survivors:

https://sofiaglobe.com/2020/01/17/controversy-over-round-table-on-second-world-war-labour-camps-for-bulgarian-jewish-men/

https://sofiaglobe.com/2020/01/27/international-holocaust-remembrance-day-bulgarian-survivors-tell-their-stories/

https://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/wjc-and-bulgarian-jewish-community-concerned-by-national-round-table-on-wwii-labor-camps-1-5-2020

The present title is used as cover by editors to absolve Bulgarian responsibility for the Holocaust and propagate falsehoods denying the relevance of incorporating material on ghettoization, forced labour, and internal deportation in the article, on the grounds that it is not "rescue". This circular argument can be short-circuited by changing this page to a neutral title like: "The Holocaust in Bulgaria", along the lines of other Axis and occupied countries' own Holocaust articles, e.g. The Holocaust in Slovakia, The Holocaust in France, The Holocaust in Italy, and so on. Much of the present Talk page dispute hinges on whether confiscation of real estate and forcible evacuation of Bulgaria's Jews from its cities to regional camps, labour camps, and ghettos with hand-luggage only constitutes "confiscation" and "deportation" and whether the fringe beliefs on "forced labour as rescue" has any place on a mainstream encyclopaedia. The page deserves a more neutral title and less fringe pro-Bulgarian theory. GPinkerton (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

see here at DRN -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 18:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: The above DRN is now closed. See the RM, now with strident fringe casuistical opposition from involved Bulgarian Wikipedians: Talk:Rescue_of_the_Bulgarian_Jews#Requested_move_17_April_2020. GPinkerton (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The disputes over this are now part also of ANI report by a third party, here. GPinkerton (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Joey Carbstrong

A vegan activist who is notable. The Problem is a few extensive quotes citing Carbstrong's own words that have been added to the article that run into the issue of WP:UNDUE. Psychologist Guy (talk) 04:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Also I am not sure if The Northern Echo is a reliable source. It looks worse than the Daily Mail and the website takes ages to load up and is filled with adverts. Psychologist Guy (talk) 04:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The Northern Echo is fine in comparison to the Fail. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 06:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The article is amazingly favourable to the subject considering how negative all he headlines of the sources are.GPinkerton (talk) 04:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Unofficial Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappearance theories

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

---

Unofficial Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappearance theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Isn't "unofficial" loony-code for "loony"? At the moment, I cannot think of a good replacement for the word, but it should be replaced with something. But not "conspiracy theories", since it does not fit all of the ideas in the article. How about "speculation"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Rumours? Alexbrn (talk) 07:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 conspiracy theories is the appropriate title, because each individual "unofficial (i.e. fringe) theory" carries with it an unspoken assumption that the mainstream is suppressing/ignoring it in favor of the official explanation. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Good point. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I second LuckyLouie's suggestion. Do we need a RM on this? It should be an uncontroversial move, I think. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Yep works for me.Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Opened a section on Talk to inform passer-by. - 15:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Russian Academy of Natural Sciences is Wikipedia's current article for improvement

whatever that is. Anyway, it's fringe so might be a good idea to watch it. Doug Weller talk 14:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Zamzam Well

User:‎Touhid3.1416 has added "However, an article published in the journal chemosphere on December 2011 cites that the arsenic present in the water may have positive effect on human body as proper use of Arsenic works against cancer(like in the medicine Arsenic Trioxide)." The first link doesn't mention the well. The second is about the well but I'm not at all sure appropriately summarised. I disagree with the addition of "claim" in their edits also - there are times when the word is appropriate, I'm not sure this is one of them.[11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 15:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The edits are surely pushing in one direction, connecting two wholly unconnected mentions of arsenic to prove arsenic is good for you (!) when drunk from a spring said to be teeming with bacteria ten years ago. The editor could have used this respectable-looking thing as a basis for all sorts of absurd claims. How is religion in medical(?!) journals like that dealt with? GPinkerton (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I removed that source and reverted one of the wording edits. [12] It's clearly a misuse of a primary source, contrary to WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE, in order to suggest that the holy water really does have healing properties. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I removed the extra paragraph about the debunking of the therapeutic claims - since we no longer have therapeutic claims, we no longer need to debunk them. This para was not talking about whether the water was "safe to drink". Wdford (talk) 10:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

It's fine to include a statement that claims of dsafety or therapeutioc properties have been found to be bogus. That's better than not nmentioning it at all. Guy (help!) 11:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, I have restored and enlarged the statement. Is this in the right section though? Wdford (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Curry again

You really got my hopes up with the section title –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)

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

The article is becoming fringier and fringier. Now it reads as if all climatologists except Curry are incompetent. They do not know what they are doing, they are caught in groupthink, they do not know the very basics (handling uncertainty is one of the things you have to learn when you are a student), all their "models are wrong". As opposed to the "skeptics", who "bring up valid points" which are not named, and who are called "skeptics" in Wikipedia's voice. And her position has been "much criticised by some scientists", with a little of a lot of much some weaseling, plus a bland "neo-somethingism" label, but without any details.

Also, the discussion has a "poisonous nature", and therefore Curry thinks that scientist should "be more accommodating of" those who poisoned it with their lies and misrepresentations. Law of similars anyone? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Hob, this article is about Curry, not global warming, or climate change, or climate denialism. Those topics have their own articles already, where the science is thrashed out. People will come to this article (if they come at all) to learn about Curry, so this article must therefore describe Curry's views and positions, right or wrong. It is important to mention that most scientists disagree with her on some specifics, but this article is not an additional opportunity to bang the general anti-denialist drum, or to smear the individual - especially considering WP:BLP. In the article on the Shroud of Turin, we state the science as per the evidence. However if we had an article on e.g. Ray Rogers or Walter McCrone etc, we should focus on describing their work and their views - with only a mention of the conflicting consensus, and links and citations where readers can go to obtain the full picture on that larger issue if that is what they are actually interested in. Wdford (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

It's core policy that if a fringe view is aired it needs to be clearly identified as such and the contextualizing mainstream view needs to be prominently included. Alexbrn (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Which policy are you referring to? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:NPOV, specifically WP:PSCI, the basis of WP:FRINGE. Alexbrn (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

You are misreading that policy, or at best, stretching it. WP:PSCI requires that when discussing the topic of climate change, we present the scientific mainstream view as such, with contrarian views presented as minority (if at all). But that policy does not mean that when we are discussing a person and their views, we need to say (in Wikipedia's voice) that these views are fringe. At most, if there are notable critics of that specific person's views , we can include them, and attribute those criticisms to them. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The policy is clear. WP:PSCI makes no mention of climate change specifically, but applies to all fringe subjects. This is further explained in WP:GEVAL:

Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.

I know nothing of Curry's views in detail, but if they are fringe it is essential that they are contextualized by a clear & prominent statement of the mainstream position. Alexbrn (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

It applies to all subjects, but not to describing people's views on those subject, in their BLPs. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Where does it say that? Ideas are ideas, and people are people. While some WP:PROFRINGE editors have in the past tried to WP:CRYBLP and extend biographical protection to the ideas people espouse, it hasn't worked because the policy is clear as is: we must "include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world". This is core policy, and this is area under discretionary sanctions so editors ignoring it can expect to get sanctioned. Alexbrn (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Describing "these ideas in their proper context" is exactly what I wrote above- when discussing the idea - in its article - the proper context is to present mainstream views vs. fringe views. In the context of a BLP, we don't have license to add editorial comment, in Wikipedia's voice, that evaluate the views, unless reliable sources do so - for that person, specifically. For example, David Icke's article contains a very lengthy section about his "Reptilian" theories, but we don't add a paragraph there that says "this theory is of course nonsense" in Wikipedia's voice.JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk)

David Icke's article does not describe policy. I have quoted policy, and it is clear. For an example of an article that has been raised here before where fringe ideas have needed to be qualified, see G. Edward Griffin. Bottom line, fringe ideas must never get an unqualified airing on Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

David Icke's article is an example of how Wikipedia policy is applied, which is contrary to your interpretation of policy. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Icke is a bad example because almost everybody can see that what he says is absurd, but still: We do not describe his ideas as if they were a reasonable position within science, without adding any substantial contradiction from mainstream scientists, beyond the milquetoast "has been criticized" and "other scientists disagree", as we currently do in the Curry article. We say he has "conspiracy theories about public figures being reptilian humanoids and paedophiles". We do not say "Icke calls for better understanding of the danger the reptilians pose".

A better example is Kary Mullis#Personal views, where we just say what he believes. We do not give lengthy quotes of him justifying why he believes that HIV does not cause AIDS, because Wikipedia is not a propaganda platform for fringe views. Instead, we quote what mainstream scientists say about his opinions. In Linus Pauling#Medical research and vitamin C advocacy, we do not give quotes by Pauling arguing for his hypervitamin ideas. In Brian Josephson#Parapsychology we do not quote Josephson reasoning for psi.

Those three are Nobelists, and, as scientists, obviously better models for the Curry article than Icke. This is how it is done. The current Curry article is how it is not done. If someone wants to read justifications for climate change denial, Wikipedia should not be a source for that. When I read "Curry believes natural forces also play a large role", and that "climate models [..] don't do a very good job of [testing sensitivity to CO2]" I want to know what they responded to that. Did they? If not, why do we quote claims that have not received any reception? --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

"Icke is a bad example because almost everybody can see that what he says is absurd" - that illustrates perfectly why we can't do what you are proposing - in Curry's case, it is not the case that "everybody can see that what [s]he says is absurd" (because it's not), and you are trying to substitute your personal opinion to force people to see it the way you want. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

This is bullshit. I am not trying to substitut "my personal oponion", I am trying to follow the rules by balancing fringe positions with quotes that show how mainstream scientists respond to Curry's reasoning. What Curry says is an extreme minority position in climate science. So, if we leave it in the article, uncommented, we mislead those who are looking for information on the subject by pretending it is just one normal scientific opinion among several, subject to disagreements but still legitimate science, probably based of actual studies - which is not true; it is just her personal opinion. In the Icke article, that danger does not exist. According to WP:FRINGE,

"Fringe views of those better known for other achievements or incidents should not be given undue prominence"

If we allow Curry's fringe opinions without also including the response from the mainstream, we give them undue prominence. And in the cases where there is no response from the mainstream to specific claims she made, these claims are not notable and should be deleted.

If, as you say, "we can't do what [I am] proposing", that would mean that the three Nobelist articles need to be changed. We have to include quotes by those three people where they defend their positions, as well as delete the responses from the mainstream. And we must also delete the few weasely sentences in the Curry article about "other scientists" and "some scientists" who think differently.

If your position is generally applied, Wikipedia will turn into a hotbed of woo where every crazy idea gets explained without any chance of contradiction. But I do not think that will happen because we have done it the way applied in the Nobelist articles, the way I am trying to explain to you, for many years now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

((od)) For those who don't know Curry's views in detail, after 2009 she became a "contrarian [scientist] who is frequently invited by Republicans to testify before US Congress",[13] "as she will reliably state that the uncertainties in climate science are much larger than her fellow scientists will acknowledge, although she doesn't identify any sources of uncertainty that aren't already factored in."[14] . . . dave souza, talk 10:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@ Wdford and JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, you must also comply with WP:WEIGHT policy:
In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained.
Curry's views need that context, yet even sources used in the article are misrepresented to exclude critical majority views, and tucked away at the foot of a section in contravention of WP:STRUCTURE policy. . . dave souza, talk 21:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

"In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint" - yes. But this is not such an article, this is a biography. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Obviously every article must comply with the WP:WEIGHT policy. What specific extra sentences would you like to add - please suggest the wording here or on the talk page? Wdford (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

For every instance where we include Curry's reasoning or opinion about a specific item, if that opinion is a minority opinion, it either must be balanced by mainstream responses to Curry, or deleted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• It's a pity to see this matter resurfacing after an apparently stable solution had been reached. Can I just remind all editors that whatever conclusion is eventually reached, this does not grant any license to indulge in WP:SYN. As stated there

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.

Whatever we end up saying must be explicitly sourced without improperly combining multiple sources. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

"Stability" is not the foremost goal of Wikipedia articles. If you just want stability, you can simply block all articles. That "apparently stable solution" violates WP:FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

An apparently stable version was reached with this version which resolved long contention over how to describe her controversial views post 2009, by well sourced description of her own views as contrarian and her blog as part of the climate change denial blogosphere. On the talk page at 04:38 on 22 April this comment made the false claim that Curry's name wasn't mentioned in one of the sources, and disparaged the sources. Following a day of discussion, a proposed revert to an earlier version was carried out at 00:32 on 23 April 2020 with the edit comment "see the talkpage discussion, and start an RfC if you want to include this contested material. This is a BLP." Which looks chilling and WP:BATTLEGROUNDy, the editor concerned had already been notified re discretionary sanctions. This edit reintroduced the contested term climate skeptic, which is a redirect to climate change denial that avoids misleading ambiguity and so is used by those clarifying the mainstream view, including the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, the National Center for Science Education and historian Spencer R. Weart. It has of course met opposition, as shown by those opposing its use in WP biographies. . . dave souza, talk 10:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

That was indeed the "stable" version I was referring to, thanks. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Dave souza, yes. This is a case of WP:CRYBLP being used to obscure the fact that Curry is a key figure in the denialist movement. The revision as of 2020-04-10T18:19:35 is solid. I am not wholly convinced that the arguments for change are always being made in good faith: some Wikipedia editors involved here have climate change denialist talking points on their user pages. Guy (help!) 12:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

While it's correct that articles about someone can include information about their notable views (subject to WP:WEIGHT), BLP articles should not be used to promote those ideas. They should primarily be covered using independent sources (WP:FRIND), with self-published and author primary sources mostly usable for non-controversial information (WP:SPS, WP:ABOUTSELF, WP:PRIMARY) and third party unreliable sources avoided. —PaleoNeonate – 06:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, indeed. And while we're about it, the fact that one or more editors don't like the fact that climate change skeptic is a synonym for climate change denier, that doesn't make it any less a fact, and when a source says she engages with climate change "skeptics" we can indeed say deniers because that's how we refer to climate change deniers. It's also extremely easy to identify the "skeptics" she's been engaging with, and as other sources in the article note, they are indeed deniers. Guy (help!) 18:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Fringe content being added to Bruce Lipton

This article has been edited with unreliable content added that promotes Lipton from an uncritical angle. Lipton is a fringe figure into quantum woo like Deepak.

If you check the history of the article interestingly two accounts edited this article on article at a similar time Hasan.2526272829 and Bigbaby23 and their edits match. I looked deeper and it appears these users are likely the same person. For example compare their edit summaries and editing interests [15] compared to [16]. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not convinced they're the same editor, but have tried to clean up a bit the article. To really improve it, one should ideally start looking for sources from scratch (I've not dealt with sources at all yet). —PaleoNeonate – 08:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Bible code

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

A user brought this up off-wiki (at WP:DISCORD, and caught behind a rangeblock, for full disclosure) so I thought I'd shoot a quick post here about it. It feels like the article is a bit too credulous about fringe viewpoints, especially in the lead. Moreover, it almost looks like material has been cut out. For example, right after the lead in the Overview section, reference is made to "two schools of thought", but only one is actually described. Anyway, I just figured folks here might be interested and have better experience evaluating this sort of situation. Thanks in advance. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Fractal cosmology

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

I found a roughly 4-month-old complaint at this article's talk page about the alleged fringe bias of this article, noting that the article has a history of removing fringe content. I had removed some content about 4 months prior, and XOR'easter (correctly) removed even more content a month after. The purpose is to determine if there is any remaining fringe content, or if too much has been removed from the article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

This entry needs a better focus

Happy New Year! This page badly needs an update. I see it is flagged as fringe and I think the main reason why is that it fails to incorporate or specify the connection to microcausal structure and early universe stuff. As the original author; I know there was originally more content in the lead about fractals in the microcosmos and early universe that was deleted by other Wikipedia editors as not germane. And yet when I attended GR21 in NYC in 2016; I heard prominent researchers in both the plenary and quantum gravity breakout sessions use the word fractal in their lectures. I got to chat with professors Loll and Ambjorn, two of the people who developed CDT which is the subject of the Scientific American article referenced in this Wiki entry, but many gravity researchers are familiar with and comfortable with fractals in a theoretical or cosmological setting. What is less accepted is the appearance of fractals in the Large Scale Structure that is currently the main subject of this article. And yet; the purported counter-evidence has been disproved with the discovery of an even larger void that was missed until recently. So the jury is out once again, on whether the evidence supports the notion of a fractal distribution of cosmic matter. As it turns out, however; there could be a connection back to the micro-physical fractals discussed above, because a recent paper including the CDT authors above suggests microscale fractality and the ongoing evolution of cosmic dimensionality may influence large scale structure. I have yet to digest that work though. So yeah; this entry has broken from the mainstream view in Astrophysics and in some part Cosmology, but does so mainly by failing to properly highlight the breadth or depth of the arena where they show up in theoretical Physics and especially Quantum gravity. That's all for now folks, Jonathan JonathanD (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC) And I should add right away... What seems most difficult to accept as mainstream for Wiki editors is the notion that spacetime itself is fractal in the microscale, but this is a very common thing to see in theoretical Physics today, because it is connected with dimensional reduction - the root cause of holography in Physics. I have had a few brief discussions with Gerard 't Hooft, who discovered the holographic principle. Steven Carlip, whom I met at GR21, showed how dimensional reduction and fractality are not only common features of many quantum gravity theories; they may be a defining feature that helps us to discover or select the correct theory of quantum gravity. In her plenary talk at GR21; Beverly Berger implored the people working in Quantum gravity to work together, and to seek common threads to explore from the work of people down the hall or at another institution, that could help the common effort. Lee Smolin stood up during the Quantum gravity talks to echo what Beverly had said, saying that the common needs and common language of their endeavor should give people working in loops or CDT to compare notes with string theory people and so on. I would suggest that a similar ethic be exercised here at Wikipedia, where every attempt at equanimity is made and the focus is kept on the common ground. So I think this Wiki article needs to include a discussion of microscale or spacetime fractality as well as large scale structure, in order to be coherent with the current state of mainstream Physics. But I admit that the basic premise of emergent spacetime is kind of radical. It was amazing how the attendance swelled to overflowing when Juan Maldacena presented his theory of emergent spacetime via entangled black holes, and went back to a smaller number thereafter, but people who were there for the entire session got to hear more proposals along similar lines. Those people also got to hear the word fractal a few more times. I stopped counting after a while. Regards, Jonathan JonathanD (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The page is currently not terrible, and I'm not sure it still needs to be tagged. The problem is that it's very easy to push the words "fractal" and "cosmology" together, and so that label covers a wide variety of notions and proposals with a correspondingly wide variety of respectability levels. XOR'easter (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Spam and whitewashing on Joel Fuhrman

User is removing reliable sourced content and adding countless links to amazon.com Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Patrick Michaels

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

Now the Judith Curry whitewashing discussion has moved to the next denier. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes yes, everyone that disagrees with you is obviously whitewashing. Yawn. PackMecEng (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Not me. The scientists who research the phenomenon of denialism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

Not sure whether this properly belongs to this noticeboard. For years, there was one user promoting Russian conspiracy theories (which are different in Nature but the essence is that Ukraine shot down the plane), but there was enough reasonable users there to keep this confined. Now another user joined (and they presumably joined because they have been indefblocked on ru.wp and have a lot of time, but this is not the point), and one can see that the article, which was stable for several years, started to change, with these conspiracies being given more weight. More eyes there (or even straight administrative invasion) would probably help.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• See also WP:ANI#Disruptive editing by Pincrete in a MH17 article (Second request). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

New ArbCom case concerning Race and intelligence

An ArbCom case has been opened at [17] by an opponent of the above RfC determination that claims of racial genetic inferiority/superiority in intelligence are fringe (see [18] and [19]). NightHeron (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Scale relativity and (not so) subtle vandalism

Hi all,

The scale relativity article has been gradually deleted by anonymous, obviously non-academic, non-expert wikipedia editors. The situation changed from a full-fledged article, containing 130 references, that was gradually improved during 5 years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scale_relativity&oldid=949596454

to a redirect to one of the main actors of the theory (Laurent Nottale).

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scale_relativity&oldid=953159300

I have tried to engage in a civil and rational discussion, refuting the initial decision to "stubbify" the article (see the initial discussion here and there for the refutation). The editors leaning towards stubbification did not engage in the discussion (or only very superficially). What's more, one of them (XOR'easter) reverted himself the improvements that ensued from the discussion (from here to there). This clearly shows bad faith.

I know some editors can use, abuse and hide behind many Wikipedia Policies, so please do look at the big picture. The situation is now clear to me: what happened is pure and simple vandalism WP:VANDAL.

I propose to re-establish the full-fledged article, punish the vandals, and improve from there. Clementvidal (talk) 10:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, how many of those sources were actually about Scale relativity, as there looks like a degree over wp:overcite going on.Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The degree of overciting and "referenciness" in the advocates' version of the scale relativity article was significant. Many are basic references on quantum mechanics or other background material, like Mandelbrot's book on fractals and even a translation of Galileo, which do not establish the notability of the topic. Then there's a heap of primary sources, which would not be suitable to build an article upon (and they are generally published in marginal or outright junk journals). XOR'easter (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Does overciting justify deleting a whole page? Of course not! This is a superficial problem that can be easily fixed. Clementvidal (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

That was my impression, very poorley cited.Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

If anything, having a short discussion in the article Laurent Nottale is kinder to scale relativity, since the long list of "predictions" in totally different fields, from the electron mass and the strong nuclear force to the distribution of space debris, the radii of planetary orbits, human embryo development and the technological singularity, reads to any working physicist like the "Theory of Everything!!!" spam email we get whenever we publish something with "quantum" in the title. XOR'easter (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Scale relativity is definitely not a theory of everything. You may see it as a generalized theory of measure, which explains that it can have a wide range of applications and make predictions (real validated ones, not in quotes) on measurable science. But really, it has nothing to do with spam emails, if you take the trouble to study it a tiny bit. Clementvidal (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I took the trouble. I read Nottale's 2011 book (as I recall, I did so not long after it came out). All of my statements reflect my position after having done so. XOR'easter (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The 2011 book is definitively a hard read. I'd recommend starting with the 1994 book, or better with the popular book The Relativity of All Things: Beyond Spacetime that has now been translated into English. I now understand why you may have been discouraged and quickly concluded that it would be all non-sense. Clementvidal (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The scale relativity article has been gradually deleted by anonymous, obviously non-academic, non-expert wikipedia editors. I presume you mainly mean me. I'm a professional physicist. The "improvements that ensued from the discussion" were trivial cosmetic changes (which, moreover, had no consensus in their favor). The "big picture" is that "scale relativity" is a content-free heap of words and equations, ignored by everyone except its adherents. Wikipedia is not the place to promote such things. And phrasing like punish the vandals is difficult to interpret as offering good faith (much like the accusations that Wikipedia editors are the "polizei" or the "thought-police", made by another scale relativity advocate recently). XOR'easter (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm a professional physicist. That's what you claim but a proof is needed. The "improvements that ensued from the discussion" were trivial cosmetic changes (which, moreover, had no consensus in their favor). We even disagree on this. These were actually useful. Since you made these comments towards these changes, I presume it's a consensus of two persons. The "big picture" is that "scale relativity" is a content-free heap of words and equations, ignored by everyone except its adherents. Wikipedia is not the place to promote such things. That's your regular rhetoric, unfortunately empty of any scientific argument or rationale. Again, as I argued in the talk page, it's not ignored as it counts thousands of citations. And phrasing like punish the vandals is difficult to interpret as offering good faith I tried to engage in a conversation about your concerns (and other's), but you not only did almost not reply, and when I addressed your concerns and made changes to meet them, you reverted them. I call this a non-constructive attitude to say the least. And I do maintain that deleting a full-fledged article with zero rational, zero scientific argument is against the whole spirit of building an encyclopedia. Clementvidal (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

"proof is needed" - Wrong. When you make a personal attack containing a false claim, the user you attacked does not need to prove that the claim is false. Instead, you need to stop making personal attacks and focus on content. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack. Anybody behind a pseudonym can claim to be anyone. There is no true or false claim involved here. Under anonymity, we just don't know. I just express my legitimate doubts here. Clementvidal (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

"obviously non-academic, non-expert" is very obviously a personal attack. As I said, you should focus on content instead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not trying to argue from personal authority (just because I have "professor" in my title doesn't make me right about everything), just pointing out that an assumption was incorrect. I tried to make arguments focused on scientific content; the changes made in response to them were trivial and left my points unaddressed, so I concluded that further attempts would be in vain. XOR'easter (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I tried to make arguments focused on scientific content; the changes made in response to them were trivial and left my points unaddressed, so I concluded that further attempts would be in vain This is wrong. I did debunk or did address systematically your points here. You did not further engage with them, which seems to mean that you ran out of scientific arguments. And you did revert the changes where your contributions were correct (albeit now you consider them trivial or cosmetic). Clementvidal (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

This is moot given the subsequent consensus to merge here. Also, WP:VANDNOT. VQuakr (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I guess what I'm asking for is WP:IAR to re-examine the so-called "consensus" of 1) deleting the content of the page 2) merge it with another page. Note that a previous discussion (AfD in 2008) of a deleting request had led to a "keep" consensus, which contradicts the course of action taken recently. Possible issues of overcitation, or lack of secondary sources are issues of form (not content) and can obviously be fixed without deleting a whole article that had evolved during 5 years. This resulting slow deletion is clearly WP:RECKLESS if not more... I grant you that the decisions leading to the deleting and merging may have followed strictly wikipedia policies, but they were not based on any scientific or rational argument, and led by anonymous non-expert users, so their value is limited if not nil. Thank you for your consideration. Clementvidal (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

That is a valid argument, if the result of an AFD was keep we would need another AFD to overturn that.Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

This however this is not the version that was kept, this is [[20]].Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

And as long as we're invoking WP:IAR, I'd suggest that we should not regard an AfD for a drastically different version of a page, held twelve years ago, as very binding upon our actions now. XOR'easter (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

But it may be an argument for restoring that version (well no may about it). Nor did I invoke IAR, so its irrelevant to my point. Thus I suggest restoring to the consensus version.Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for being unclear; I was referring to the invocation of WP:IAR a few comments above yours. The version kept at the 2008 AfD is NPOV, virtually unsourced, and scientifically incorrect (Newton's constant G does not appear in the Schrödinger equation, for example). Restoring to it would not, IMO, constitute progress. XOR'easter (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe not, but consensus can change, but until it does its consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

If restored, that version would have to be edited (severely) to be an acceptable encyclopedia article. That would not be the worst thing, although it would leave us in pretty much the same position we were in before the merge. XOR'easter (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Then that is what should have been done. Passing AFD does not mean it cannot be improved.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: can you clarify why you think an article that was kept at AfD 12 years ago can be stubbified or merged now only after another AfD? VQuakr (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

There were as many !votes to merge in the merge discussion as there were !votes to keep in the 2008 AfD. Isn't that a sign of the consensus changing? I'm asking seriously, not to be snarky — I don't know of many examples of articles revisited after decade-old AfD's, and so I don't really have a sense of what precedent there might be. XOR'easter (talk) 15:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The merge discussion took place over only 3 days. The AFD took twice that long.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

True, the AfD was longer than average, though the merge discussion was open for a full week. The comments trailed off, as they often do (but were unanimous until then). Without splitting hairs or trying to be overly precise about what is, after all, not supposed to be a majority vote, it does seem like the wind that had blown towards "keep" had shifted to "merge" instead. I don't want to claim that the outcome of the merge discussion must be taken as definitive, but I also feel that it's poor form to override a strong consensus. (Pinging PaleoNeonate, who opened the merge discussion, and Jonathan A Jones, who suggested it.) XOR'easter (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I suggested the merge originally because my !vote in any AFD would have been merge, and it seemed likely that that would have been the final outcome. The broad consensus that emerged in the pre-discussion seems to confirm that instinct, as does the merge discussion itself. One small advantage of the merge over deletion is that Scale relativity survives as a redirect with all its past history and can be easily resurrected if consensus changes, although I think that unlikely in this case. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree that consensus has now shifted to "merge." After more than a decade consensus appears to have changed. I don't see any need to resurrect the article as a stand-alone. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

See my comment below, the merge process was biased, and the 2008 "keep" decision means that the topic is considered notable -whatever the actual content of the article that inevitably evolved through time. Clementvidal (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Removing fringe content is not vandalism, and old AfDs do not trump recent consensus to merge. User conduct concerns should be raised at WP:ANI or possibly WP:AE, not FTN, but be aware they'll likely be dismissed there for the same reason they're being dismissed here. –dlthewave ☎ 02:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I want to add that the merge decision was completely biased from the start, because it was based on the almost completely deleted version of the article (again, deleted without any scientific argument), instead of the elaborated version that was standing as a consensus since five year. So of course, if you first delete an article almost entirely and write a bad and hollow one instead, it looks like a good idea to further merge it as a subsection! This two steps course of action that led to the deletion of the article without scientific argument is both against the 2008 decision to keep the article, and obviously against the rational, constructive, collective wikipedia spirit. Please do carefully consider this! Clementvidal (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

As has been pointed out most of those sources were not about the topic, and many more were a violation of wp:primary, in fact I have to say (given the state it was in in 2008 I am amazed it passed AFD.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that the AfD basically ignored the state of the article itself and said "hey look sources exist!" without bothering to evaluate their quality. The WP:TNT essay didn't exist at the time, but it sure would have been applicable. The only version that makes the subject look halfway respectable is the one that got merged. XOR'easter (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Which I why I would rather it has not been merged, rather than a second AFD.Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

To what benefit? WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. VQuakr (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Entheogenic drugs and the archaeological record

Would people familiar with medical sources have a quick look at the above article, which is not well cited. Thanks if you can. A lot of claims are made about archaeological evidence for drug use, when because such evidence is intrinsically unlikely to be preserved, we are really in the territory of speculation and assumption. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Someone who is familiar with mainstream archeological studies and who is aware of fringe in this area should take a look. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

McKenzie method

Recently a new SPA has started editing the McKenzie method article. Changes such as removing references to having at most, limited benefit for helping alleviate acute back pain to "system encompassing assessment (evaluation), diagnosis, treatment, and prevention for the spine and the extremities." I think moving back to this version would be helpful and then start going through the references that have been added since then. My background is not in the medical field so eyes on the article that are more familiar with this content would be helpful. --VViking_TalkEdits 13:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Estimate of the Situation

Estimate of the Situation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estimate of the Situation

I am... amazed that this article exists.

jps (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Coffee enemas

• Coffee enema (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Flare up of activity here recently. Two accounts are already blocked for socking, but more fringe-savvy eyes might be useful. Alexbrn (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Not really on-topic, but are there people who use kopi luwak for enemas? Or coffee with milk and sugar? SCNR... --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Well judging by the taste of the products of certain high-street coffee shop chains, I assumed this was the method by which their cappuccinos were made. Alexbrn (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

See also Panda tea. "Protects from radiation" no less! GPinkerton (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I nuked that section. [21] Crossroads ^-talk- 05:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Alexbrn, we were citing Ralph W. Moss? Wow. Special. Guy (help!) 17:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

We were, but I have removed that (and a load else beside).[22] Alexbrn (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Can a stronger word than "questionable" be applied to Paltrow's branded duck farm of designer quackery? GPinkerton (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, Category:Fatuous bullshit Guy (help!) 22:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Much too respectful. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 11:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Frank J. Tipler

Frank J. Tipler (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Criticism is being removed from the article, with the usual justifications or giving no justification. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Loren Coleman's Twitter, synthesis, and fringe views

Over at Mapinguari user @Dan Harkless: is stitching together biology texts with fringe sources like Loren Coleman's Twitter. This could use more eyes. See [23] and [24] for examples. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, this entire topic is fringe. A plausible real-world explanation for the reported sightings of this supposed creature (especially as compared to the possible but totally implausible suggestion that they are relict giant ground sloths) should be considered some of the least fringe information in the article. Loren Coleman is certainly acknowledged as one of the leading authors in the pseudoscientific field of cryptozoology, so this isn't fringe from within that perspective either.

And again, I don't believe I was synthesizing anything; the refs for the capabilities of the giant anteaters' claws and their self-defense behavior are independent from the refs establishing the "some believe" possible identification part. The references for anteaters being capable of killing people and other predators are just there to back up the claims in the Yahoo! News story Coleman links to in the tweet. --Dan Harkless (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Fringe topics demand reliable sources—fringe advocates are never reliable sources, not even for their own beliefs (as academic analyses of these topics, such as those by Prothero, make very clear). You're stitching together a fringe advocate's tweet with a bunch of other random stuff you've found that don't mention the fringe claim at all. This is WP:SYNTH and very much in violation of WP:FRINGE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. If you want to include this material, you'll need to find a reliable secondary source discussing it in full, not some fringe advocate's twitter account stapled to some stuff you've found about how an animal can harm people. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

This is the first time I've seen it said that you can't cite people for their own beliefs, but okay. I mean, I get that an RS on a psuedoscience is going to organize the information better, and present the different possibilities more broadly than a true believer on the topic, but ultimately, they're having to source this info they're organizing and analyzing to the true believers. This (nonsense) topic isn't important enough for me to scour for a "a reliable secondary source discussing it in full", so I'll just have to agree to be muzzled on that. However, your characterization of me "stapling random stuff together" remains inaccurate. --Dan Harkless (talk) 03:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Pseudoscience and fringe proponents are not reliable for a variety of reasons. They'll often switch positions or misrepresent themselves to, for example, the media. They don't provide context. Sometimes they'll hide who is funding their 'research', etc. One would never know this until turning to the experts who have performed analyses on these topics. On the topic of cryptozoology, Loxton and Prothero's Abominable Science! (Columbia University Press) makes for a good read and presents both context and many examples. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is written from a mainstream point of view and fringe topics are no exception. A theory's adherents, regardless of how prominent they may be, are not reliable sources and even their attributed opinions do not meet WP:DUE WEIGHT unless they've been covered by secondary sources.

The content of the tweet "Giant Anteaters Kill Two Hunters in Brazil ~ An anteater "stood on its hind legs"? #Mapinguari? ~ @CryptoLoren [25]" is so superficial as to be practically useless even if it came from a reliable source. I'm not even sure what it means — is Coleman trying to say that this sort of attack spawned the Mapinguari legend, or is he implying that this was actually an honest-to-goodness Mapinguari attack and not the work of anteaters? This is not the level of scientific discourse that Wikipedia is built on, and the linked article provides zero support for the statement as it makes no mention of Mapinguari. –dlthewave ☎ 02:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, that's the first pretty good point I've seen; it honestly hadn't occurred to me that Coleman might be considering this to be "the man" covering up bona fide "mapinguari" attacks. I'd read the meaning of the tweet as obvious, and you're right, even though, as Coleman's page states, he's considered one of the more reputable cryptozoologists, even by skeptics, there's too high a chance that's not what he means. --Dan Harkless (talk) 03:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Well we have this [[26]], [[27]], [[28]], [[29]]. So it seems the attack is getting coverage.Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Ufology

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

An edit war over the lede regarding the question as to whether ufology is the investigation of UFOs without qualification or whether it's only the investigation of UFOs by people who... shall we say... take the idea that they could possibly be alien aircraft seriously. jps (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

OED (1986) unhelpfully has " The study of UFOs." for ufology, but the citations (going back to 1959) are without exception rather derisive and to believers, even 'contactees'. " The articles, reports, and bureaucratic studies which have been written about this perplexing visitant constitute ‘ufology’." Times Literary Supplement, 1959 & "another addition to the burgeoning literature of Ufology" Nature, 1973 while ufological has "The ufological definition of a flap is a concentration of sightings in a small area within a short period." The New Yorker, 1966 & " George Adamski ... wrote, in collaboration with Desmond Leslie, ... the first ufological best-seller, Flying Saucers Have Landed. The Spectator, 1984. Ufologist is "one who makes such a study" and quotes "Long before the frustrated ufologist has realised that even the finest binoculars do not help in finding ufos, he will have discovered that there are other sports and pastimes than ufology" New Scientist, 1963 & "Cley Hill is the Loch Ness of the Ufologist. Flying saucers, it is claimed, cannot keep away from its flat top." The Guardian, 1981. I think the reference to Loch Ness clinches the believers-only argument. GPinkerton (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents

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

Another edit war about whether or not the last line from an article written in Space.com should be attributed to Space.com. I question whether it should be in the lede at all.

jps (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems there have been efforts to give undue weight to credulous views and hype the idea that these UFO sightings are officially “unexplainable”. This is part of an ongoing pattern of dedicated and persistent WP:ADVOCACY across many UFO-related articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that there are two ways to value-laden "unexplainable" or "mysterious". One is that there are no explanations so wild speculation needs to be entertained. The other is that there are no explanations so it should be carefully considered whether the evidence is well-posed. The latter point gets extremely short-shrift in the UFO community and, unfortunately, the members of that advocacy group carry on so loudly and at such lengths that they seem to get the ear of some of the less-than-extremely-meticulous journalists. jps (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on sources. Not personal opinions and WP:OR. Provide WP:RS supporting the statements you wish to include in the articles and I will gladly insert them for you. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The sources have already been provided. That you don't care for them or understand them is the problem. jps (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I became mostly involved. When Gtoffoletto put sources on the ufology page, they said somebody's edit, did not match with the source so I checked and they were right. For Bob Lazars pageLive Science is used and they also use the same article, that is written by space.com. we never quoted the credentials of that person who's saying Bob Lazar is lying? I know he is a conspiracy theorist and never went to the school he said he did. https://www.livescience.com/ufos-videos-declassified-navy-release.html https://www.livescience.com/23514-area-51.htmlDriverofknowledge (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Driverofknowledge: Thank you for verifying the edits and the sources. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

You have made this claim a number of times, but I don't know to what it refers. It would be good if you would be explicit about which source does not match which edit rather than being vague. jps (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Using a random story on Live Science (which is where Space.com recycled it from) as the punchline of the lede gives it undue weight, I think. The claim is taken almost verbatim from the last sentence of the story, There is as yet no explanation or identification — official or not — for the mysterious aircraft that the pilots recorded. First of all, the line in the current version of our article (there is currently no explanation or identification for the incidents, official or not) is a copyvio, and that's bad. Second, Live Science is of dubious reliability, and even if they are generally OK, we have no grounds to treat them as definitive here. Third, the claim is factually wrong. Perhaps nobody "official" has offered an explanation, but plenty of subject-matter experts have proposed them. There are mundane explanations — IR overexposure, etc. — though in the absence of more data, there's only so much one can say. XOR'easter (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I would agree its undue for the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Unsensationalized non-credulous explanations like this from Tom Avril, and this from Mick West do exist, and could be used per WP:PARITY and WP:FRINGE. Sadly, the trend in these articles recently has been to emphasize the sensational stuff and enhance the credibility of UFOlogy spokesmen and organizations, often one in particular. There has even been lobbying at MDPI, which I can only assume is to pave the way for use of fringe papers as a citation to justify of "otherworldly UFO" interpretations. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. That paper seems to be part of a set of conference proceedings, which in physics often means a lower standard of review. Basically, conferences are where preliminary work gets reported, and so papers in conference proceedings are often about partial results or early stages of research — even when they're legit, they're on a bit of a lower tier. And so, the people in charge set a lower standard, and junk gets through, even with better publishers than MDPI. Nor would I really expect peer review by physicists or computer scientists to be all that helpful here. As Carl Sagan once wrote, "The magician Uri Geller is happy to warp keys and cutlery in the vicinity of scientists—who, in their confrontations with nature, are used to an adversary who fights fair; but is greatly affronted at the idea of performances before an audience of skeptical magicians—who, understanding human limitations, are themselves able to perform similar effects by sleight of hand." I doubt a conference on statistical inference and machine learning has the right kind of reviewers on call. XOR'easter (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Those are two interesting sources. The first one seems ready to be included in the article as is. Regarding Mick West's analysis has it been picked up by any reputable source that we may cite? Or can we link to https://www.metabunk.org/ directly? Seems a bit borderline to call it a WP:RS though... -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The MDPI source is by no means ready to include as is. It hasn't gained any more notice outside of it's fringe bubble since the first time you lobbied to include it, so WP:EXTRAORDINARY still applies. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

mmm I'm talking about [30] and Mick West's videos... you like fighting don't you? -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

p.s. regarding Mick West's analysis and just for the fun of it. F/A-18E's are equipped with state of the art beyond-visual-range radars: the AN/APG-79. Are we saying they wouldn't pick up an airliner that is close enough to be detected by I/R? That's nuts right? This would be a colossal radar detection failure. The FLIR video clearly shows there is no radar lock as range is not estimated. Chad Underwood, who filmed this, also made the following statement: [31]"The radar was in a standard search mode (RWS/ 80NM/ 4bar/ intr) and the FLIR was in L+S slave (the FLIR would point in direction of a radar L+S track). There was no radio or communication interference and they had entry into the Link-16 network, Initial awareness of an object came via the radar. According to the radar display, the initial tracks were at approximately 30-40 nm to the south of the aircraft. Lt._________was controlling the radar and FLIR and attempted multiple times to transition the radar to Single Target Track (STT) mode on the object. The radar could not take a lock, the b-sweep would raster around the hit, build an initial aspect vector (which never stabilized) and then would drop and continue normal RWS b-sweep. When asked, LT.__________ stated that there were no jamming cues (strobe, champagne bubbles, “any normal EA indications”). It “just appeared as if the radar couldn’t hack it.” The radar couldn’t receive enough information to create a single target track file. The FLIR, in L+S slave, pointed in direction of the initial track flies as the radar attempted lock. The FLIR showed an object at 0 ATA and approximately -5deg elevation (Figure 2). According to LT.__________ “the target was best guess co- altitude or a few thousand feet below,” estimating the object to be between 15-20 thousand feet. The object, according to the FLIR, appeared stationary (Figure 3). There was no discernable movement from the object with the only closure being a result of the aircraft’s movement. As LT.__________ watched the object it began to move out of FLIR field of view to the left. LT.__________ made no attempt to slew the FUR and subsequently lost situational awareness to the object. The Flight continued with training mission with no further contact with object."

So the options appear to be:

• the NAVY's radars don't work (possible as I think they were brand new at the time)
• Mick West's explanation doesn't explain it
• The NAVY/witnesses is/are lying

-- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 00:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

This is also interesting speculation: [32] Maybe Fravor saw a blimp that terminated it's flight and deflated away quickly? Was this a submarine doing a covert mission/test and getting "caught"? Obviously the Navy has the best info to investigate this. But they say it is unexplained... In any case none of this has been picked up by any WP:RS as far as I can tell. We have the two recent MDPI papers but they have been disputed as sources despite the peer review. Let's hope that, with the recent publicity of those events, someone will publish some reply of some sort. Maybe Mick himself? Metabunk seems the best source for informed speculation on this. Everything else I've read is woefully ignorant of the facts. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 00:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Since there's debate on the sources and the wording drawn from them, I recommend the BBC's treatment of the subject, |"Pentagon releases UFO videos for the record", which I don't see cited in the article yet. GPinkerton (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The Page not available it did not come up.Driverofknowledge (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Driverofknowledge: Cover-up! It should work now, but on second thoughts I think I've mixed up the aircraft carriers and this is about Nimitz. GPinkerton (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: Thanks I will look this over.Driverofknowledge (talk) 00:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Interesting observation the bbc has we could use itDriverofknowledge (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Anne Wilson Schaef

• Anne Wilson Schaef (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A lot of puffery and promotion of new-agey stuff in this bio, e.g. Living in Process works with recovery from the addictive process of individuals, families and societies and moves beyond to wholeness of body, mind and spirit. Could use some trimming from someone with a critical eye. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikiproject proposal

Not my proposal, I hasten to add.

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Mysticism

Some regulars here might have a view. Guy (help!) 19:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Luis Elizondo

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

Another edit war over whether we should mention, triumphantly, that the Navy declassified the videos that Luis leaked to the press. jps (talk) 11:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

You don't seem to be aware of WP:CANVAS. This is the second time I contest this to you. Please edit the notification above accordingly. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Then report it, but do not de-rail this.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean de-rail? Just following: Wikipedia:Canvassing#How_to_respond_to_canvassing -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

"on their talk page.", this is not that.Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I've done that too. Thanks. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

FTN exists for the purpose of notifying users who are interested in fringe topics of a conflict in an article on a fringe topic. That is exactly what ජපස did. If that violated a WP guideline, then this whole board would be illegal, and its existence would not have been tolerated for all those years. It would have been deleted after a few weeks.

So, go on, Don Quixote. Go and complain. Fight those four-armed giants. Do not believe those who tell you they are just windmills. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Better yet, I think that this may not be viable for a standalone article. Perhaps a merge with To the Stars (company)? Not sure:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luis Elizondo

It's good to have this discussion.

jps (talk) 12:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Judy Mikovits

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

This is likely to become a hotspot very soon. Might benefit from some editors here watching it. So far, looks like the problems are pretty much under control, but we know how quickly that can change.

jps (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Wow, that's an active talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I lost interest in her after she was fired. I had no idea that she'd gone so far to the darkside until a couple of days ago. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 16:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The Dark Side is powerful and seductive. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Plandemic

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

A new article. I'm sure you're all thrilled that this exists.

jps (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

That's actually a very good and useful article, now JzG has filled it out! - David Gerard (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, it's just sad that it has to be made in the sense that it would be better if this thing did not exist. :( jps (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Catchy title, I like it. PackMecEng (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Has anyone made a response like, Screw Loose Change? StrayBolt (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Here is a Google doc Debunking “Plandemic” refuting much of the movie, with references. StrayBolt (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Rashid Buttar

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

Sigh. As above. So below.

jps (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Turtles all the way down. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 16:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Grover Furr

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

Not a historian, pretends to be one, but is a "revisionist", not a pseudohistorian. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he's not actually notable, and put this up for AFD a few years ago. What he does have is a huge following amongst his fellow Stalinists. So expect mountains of special pleading and personal attacks - David Gerard (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Can't stop reading this as Grover Hfuhruhurr . Guy (help!) 22:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's how "Furr" is pronounced. By some. From now on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest doing another notability check, and checking every single reference, and AFD if warranted - David Gerard (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I put him in Category:Historical revisionism, and put that category in Category:Pseudohistory (before, it was the other way around), so the categorization is OK now. People who look for pseudohistorians can find him. --Hob Gadling (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Isn't that confusing Historical revisionism with Historical negationism? Grover Furr aside, revisionism isn't necessarily pseudohistory _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It seemed right to me at the time. Are there any historians here who know the right relation between those terms? Is historical negationism a subset of historical revisionism? --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The first line of Historical negationism says Historical negationism, also called denialism, is a distortion of the historical record. It is often imprecisely referred to as historical revisionism, but that term also applies to legitimate academic reinterpretations of the historical record that diverge from previously accepted views. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Furr's a Holodomor denialist, so definitely belongs in some combination of both of these if he's to be in Wikipedia at all - David Gerard (talk) 11:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

"Holodomor denialist" is not what Furr is, he simply denies it was genocide. This is a very common opinion among historians as there is no historical consensus on the matter.Jorge1777 (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Minimisation - which he does, hard - counts as denial. Compare holocaust minimisation as a variety of holocaust denial, to which holodomor denial is very closely analogous. Furr's track record on this score is extensive. He's well into the fringe - David Gerard (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Use whatever word you want but the pertinent point is that you're either not very familiar with Soviet historiography, not familiar with Furr's work or a combination of both. All Furr has actually done is deny that the famine was intentional which is a widely accepted and mainstream historical opinion.Jorge1777 (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

[33] The “Holodomor” is a myth. Never happened. But if you don't want to believe Furr's own statements of his own views, there you go - David Gerard (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Being unfamiliar with the literature you are confusing 'Ukrainian famine' with 'Holodomor'. The etymology of the term 'Holodomor' suggests the famine was intentional (it means to kill by starvation) so when Furr calls it a myth he's simply saying it was not intentional.Jorge1777 (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Right now those two categories are a mess; at a glance, few if any of the articles listed in Category:Historical revisionism are not examples of Category:Historical negationism. I feel a bit out of my depth trying to fix up categories as I've done very little work in this area, but part of me wonders whether we even need a separate category for Historical revisionism––anecdotally, academics who do productive revisionist work are just known as historians, not "revisionist historians" or "historical revisionists". It could be that the only articles that truly belong in that category are Historical revisionism and Historical negationism. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Edgar Cayce

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

SPA at work, deleting skeptical analyses and inserting "90% accurate" fake statistics. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• DS alert dropped, if this continues they can be topic banned speedily. Guy (help!) 21:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Blond

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

Wiki users like Queenplz, Hapa9100 and myself want to remove what is blantant FRINGE THEORIES edits in the blond article page, we have expressed our opinion on talk page aswell. A user named Hunan201p edited many controversial ethnic groups and mythical historical figures as blond. The most controversial is the inclusion of Huangdi, the mainstream concensus is that he is considered as a mythical figure by the vast majority of scholars and historian, but Hunan201p edited him like he was a real life person. The same goes for claiming Bodonchar Munkhag being blond which also has no mainstream concesus view, the blond hair claims of Bodonchar Mukhag was actually based on the mythical legends of Alan Gua. Is it correct to remove those figures that were never confirmed to be blond ? Please let me know.Shinoshijak (talk)

It would be helpful for the uninitiated if you could give examples of sources used in the article that you consider to be supporting a WP:FRINGE theory. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Like Huangdi for example. In the blond section of Asia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blond#Asia" , the last paragraph says

"Some scholars have suggested that the word "yellow" in Huangdi is more accurately rendered as "blond", referring to the color of Huangdi's hair.[65][66] The sinologist Tsung-Tung Chang said that the epithet "Huang-ti" can be etymologically interpreted as "blond heavenly God". He suggests that Huangdi was related to Indo-European migrations to China.[67] "

It's extremely misleading. Only one sinologist suggested he was related to indo-european and the vast majority does not consider him blond. The way Hunan201p edited it would make people think that he was really blond.

In the Historicity section of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Emperor#Origin_of_the_myth most scholars agree that the yellow emperor is a god.

" Most scholars now agree that the Yellow Emperor originated as a god who was later represented as a historical person. K.C. Chang sees Huangdi and other cultural heroes as "ancient religious figures" who were "euhemerized" in the late Warring States and Han periods. Historian of ancient China Mark Edward Lewis speaks of the Yellow Emperor's "earlier nature as a god", whereas Roel Sterckx, a professor at University of Cambridge, calls Huangdi a "legendary cultural hero". ".

Since most shcolars claim he as God than it makes no sense for Huangdi to mentioned as blond god. Like Queenplz had said, there's even cultural perception section for mythical and historical figures that have some concensus mainstream view of being blond. Huangdi has no mainstream concensus of being blond, there's not even a scholarly debate because the claims of him being blond is almost non-existant.Shinoshijak (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment I agree; determining what hair colour the Yellow Emperor had is like trying to find out Romulus's shoe size. In any case, "Indo-Europeans" are speakers of vast language family not a synonym for "blond people". GPinkerton (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

References

USS Nimitz UFO incident

USS Nimitz UFO incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

THERE ARE NO EXPLANATIONS and we can't let Wikipedia include text that says that the explanations are likely to be mundane.

Can someone else figure out what to do here?

jps (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Source 14 was from Skeptical Inquirer from the source. Joe Nickell, Ph.D., is Senior Research Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) and “Investigative Files” Columnist for Skeptical Inquirer. The other source did not say,the sightings likely have mundane explanations such as equipment malfunction or human errorDriverofknowledge (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Is this a WP:SKYISBLUE issue? Geogene (talk) 02:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Kshara and Sutshekhar Ras

Kind of your classic under-sourced alt-med articles, in this case, Ayurveda. 86.167.240.48 (talk) 12:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)