Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Fringe theories

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PaleoNeonate (talk | contribs) at 21:11, 8 September 2023 (→‎Psychohistory: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:FTN" redirects here. For nominations of featured topics, see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates.
    Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
    Shortcuts
    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:

    To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    Article alerts


    Did you know

    Categories for discussion

    Redirects for discussion

    Good article nominees

    Requests for comments

    Peer reviews

    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

    Articles to be split

    Michael Mosley (broadcaster)

    This guy has written a bunch of fringe books promoting the keto diet. He has some extreme views such as banning fruit, advocating fasting and promoting a dangerous 800 calories a day diet which has been criticized for increasing stress amongst those with eating disorders. Outside of that he does promote some sensible advice such as a type of Mediterranean diet.

    In general the medical community have avoided reviewing his books, however, there was a detailed review by Red Pen Reviews for his book Fast 800 Keto [1] which gave the book a 58% score for scientific accuracy. Red Pen Reviews have reviewed other keto books and given them a much lower score. Mosley's Fast 800 Keto book is misleading because in the end he basically advocates a type of Mediterranean diet long-term which has nothing to do with Keto.

    An IP is repeatedly removing the 58% score for scientific accuracy for the book and claiming incorrectly that doesn't apply to the book overall, even though we can all see the score at the top of the review says "overall score". There have been complaints in the past that Michael Mosley's Wikipedia article is too sympathetic for his low-carb fringe ideas about diet. I have re-written some of the article and I wouldn't say it is bad but there seems to be some attempts at white-washing any criticism of Mosley's dietary ideas from the article. I have looked online and I can't find any other expert reviews for Mosley's books. The Red Pen Reviews website is a very good source, but I would hate to see a review by them misrepresented on Mosley's Wikipedia article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The trouble is Mosley has the status as sort of the BBC's "David Attenborough of health" and is relayed uncritically by them.[2] without being whack enough to have attracted any published scepticism. Just goes to show yet again why we need WP:MEDRS for any health claims I suppose. Bon courage (talk) 04:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with that, this guy is promoted heavily by the British media as an expert. It's hard to find critical or neutral coverage of his claims. The only other good source I have seen is Abby Langer's website [3]. However, some may object to that source as it is self-published. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Madhukar (author)

    The biography of Madhukar may need some attention. I removed some unsourced content about Quantum mysticism (a topic I know nothing about). The article has many general references that are unlikely to be found online, and I'm unfamiliar with the publications. Politrukki (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Difficult to find any WP:FRIND sources about this individual. A lot of self-promotional social media and listings with time and date of his retreat events. Boilerplate bio says he was born in Germany in 1957 and worked as a TV journalist before becoming a yoga master. He's mononomial(?) like Madonna and Cher, but there aren't any independent sources that find him notable enough to even mention his former first and last name. Someone with better Google-fu may be able to come up with sources to meet WP:AUTHOR. If not, a good candidate for AfD. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I went ahead and AFD'd it. I couldn't find any independent sources at all. Warrenmck (talk) 03:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which was beside the point, it had already gone through an AFD with a delete vote without actually being deleted. Problem solved. Warrenmck (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Alkaline Water Scam

    This company is mad that we identify alkaline water as a scam.

    Don't know how much traction this campaign may be getting, but it was noticed by a third party so watch-listing alkaline water might be worthwhile.

    jps (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    "Life Ionizers conducted an undercover investigation of the discussion page on Wikipedia about water ionizers and found that Wikipedia’s editors refuse to consider the input of experts who offered to contribute to the water ionizer article. The most likely reason for this is that Kangen water™ sales reps have tried to edit the article with their pseudoscientific claims.

    LOL. When your grift doesn't work, blame other grifters. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading information that is publicly available for free to anyone is conducting an undercover investigation? I have to update my CV. Apparently I'm an experienced undercover investigator. Who knew? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The "undercover investigation" must have been easy, like looking at the talk page history? Since all WP articles are expected to comply with policy like WP:PSCI and that WP:MEDRS quality sources exist directly supporting the criticism,[1] I don't see that as the work of a few opiniated editors or of a nefarious global skepticism cabal... I saw an MDPI source promoted on the talk page, but that cannot be used in attempt to "balance" against much better sources (WP:GEVAL). —PaleoNeonate – 03:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Fenton, Tanis R.; Huang, Tian (June 2016). "Systematic review of the association between dietary acid load, alkaline water and cancer". BMJ Open. 6 (6): e010438. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010438. PMC 4916623. PMID 27297008.
    Is MDPI (as a whole) not considered MEDRS? Good to know...I knew many of their journals are questionable but didn't know if there was consensus about the publisher. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:MDPI --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shivkar Bapuji Talpade

    AfD concerning a man who is claimed to have invented first successful airplane 8 years before Wright Brothers. Editorkamran (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I find his time-traveling far more intriguing:
    "Talpade is reputed to have constructed an unmanned, heavier-than-air aircraft, named Marutsakhā, and flown it above Bombay's Chowpatty Beach in 1895."
    "The aircraft was purportedly inspired by the Vaimānika Shāstra ("Science of Aeronautics"), a text authored in 1904 that is frequently associated with descriptions of aircraft in the Vedas."
    -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Random person no 362478479: Vaimānika Shāstra was written during 1918 - 1923. That's long after the invention of airplane. Editorkamran (talk) 13:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even that date seems questionable. I was just quoting the Talpede article to point out the inconsistency. I don't expect people who believe in this kind of fringe to get the most basic facts straight. It's the glaringly obvious inconsistencies that make my day. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's one of the reasons why I started this AfD. It is better to limit the subject to the movie Hawaizaada. Editorkamran (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is deleted it should probably be turned into a redirect to the film. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there are enough reliable sources and that the argument that a sources written after the film should not be used is nonsense. And of course some of those sources are used to make the same points in the movie’s article, so why are they ok there but not in his? A redirect would not be enough, you’d have to merge some into the movie article no people might rightly object to that. Doug Weller talk 20:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would expect there to be a lot of unreliable sources in the wake of the movie. But I agree that does not mean that everything written after that is unreliable. Just like we cannot assume that things written before are reliable. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am being misrepresented here. I said that the sources that were created in the wake of the movie should not be used for establishing GNG because the subject is inheriting notability from the movie. Editorkamran (talk) 06:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If the sources are reliable there is no reason why they should not count towards notability. If the interest caused by the movie leads to quality sources then that's good. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 07:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Mainstream media in India has been a mouthpiece of the ruling party.[4] That means the so-called "quality sources" are promoting fake narratives and then other sincere "quality sources" are countering those false claims. These things don't have encyclopedic value. For example, the ruling party promoted The Kerala Story just like it had promoted Hawaizaada[5] but we don't have Women recruitment for ISIS in Kerala. Editorkamran (talk) 08:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes current mainstream media in India are in many instances not reliable and not quality sources. I would probably even support declaring all current Indian media unreliable for certain topic areas. And I agree that if all that RS do is refute false claims that is an issue. But that is a very common issue when it comes to WP:FRINGE topics. I would certainly like better sources than the ones currently used in the article, but I don't know if those exist. Personally I have no opinion on whether or not Shivkar Bapuji Talpade should have a stand-alone article or whether the relevant information should just be added to Hawaizaada. I simply haven't really looked into the matter enough to form an opinion. You are right that there is no dedicated article about Women recruitment for ISIS in Kerala, but there is an article about Love Jihad. So in that case the conspiracy theory is treated in an article separate from the movie, just not in a stand-alone article. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 09:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • What Doug said. The claim that he flew a plane has no basis whatsoever, and even if it did, wouldn't change the fact that it was unmanned (ie even if true wouldn't be the "first" anything). That's no reason to delete an article, however, it's a reason to write it neutrally with non-fringe sources; which has been done. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Chan Thomas

    New bio of fringe author could benefit from extra eyes. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Lokenath Brahmachari

    This guy is alleged to have lived to 160 but it more likely he died in his 80s. The page has been re-written by a new account with non-English sources and we have statements now such as "He finally attained Enlightenment in the Himalayas at the age of 90 in 1820. His guru was still alive and was 150 years old at the time".

    Not sure what to do here. The exact same content was added to the Russian Wikipedia article a few days ago but the article was recently deleted [6] due to the unreliability of the content/translation of the sources.

    Some of the newly added sources are suspect, for example Bhowmick, Haripada (2013–2014). শ্রী শ্রী লোকনাথ বাবার জন্মস্থান পূর্ণতীর্থ কচুয়াধাম. I can't find that source online. I see the author has written some books [7] but there is no way to translate these works or verify if the content is accurate. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Both of the books by Bhowmick were published by the Lokenath Mission, Kachua which is a religious institution dedicated to Lokenath Brahmachari. That means that its independence is questionable. And obviously any source stating as fact that he lived to 160 must be considered WP:FRINGE unless extremely solid evidence exists that supports it. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The same editor that recently added content to the article did the same with the Spanish and the German version. They also made edits in other languages recently. I am guessing they added the same information everywhere. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be best to restore the article before they started editing it. Looks like a single purpose account to me that is adding unreliable content that cannot be verified. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If he died in 1890, then why he is getting coverage from partisan sources only now?
    The oldest I could find was this partisan source from 1980 but it provides only a passing mention; "Mauni Baba was probably of the same age as Lokenath Baba , who was 160 years old when he died in 1890."[8] Editorkamran (talk) 06:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The source of Haripada Bhowmick can be verified online in Internet Archive. Link: https://archive.org/details/lokenath-haripada-2023 . Reya3625 (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added the citation and I can read Bengali. I am not doing it for fringe religious discussions but rather stating the true facts. Some of the citations are also available online, please check the citations and sources before removing them. The original author has mentioned the birthplace of Lokenath as Chakla, however, there have been so many sources included in the versions that indicate the birthplace to be Kachua. I do not undertand the obsession with this. If there are not many English citations to the information, then please believe the translations done by people who know the local language :) Spandan uo1 (talk) 13:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anyone takes issue with the question of the birth place. The WP:FRINGE issue concerns claims about his age. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah! I saw the whole article being averted to its former self, hence the confusion. The whole article along with the reliable citations were deleted and reverted to the ones with the lesser cited ones, hence the confusion - sorry. Reya3625 (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can read Bengali : many of the given sources had PDFs online but some didn't. The ones which were available online had the information that Kachua (Kachuadham) is the birthplace of Lokenath Brahmachari, however, the reverting of edits is leading people to believe the birthplace is "Chowrasi Chakla". The problem is, there is no viable citation given to prove Chakla is his birthplace however there are a handful of citations given for Kachua as a proof - I do think guys, that the citations should be verified and studied before the changes are suddenly reverted back. Reya3625 (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Reya3625: Can you describe the reliability of those sources you have used here and how they verify the information? Editorkamran (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I've understood - Haripada Bhowmick is an independent Lokenath researcher. And previously the claim of Chakla being the birthplace was not backed by any source at all. The information of Kachua being the birthplace is backed by 3-4 sources however, so I don't know - for me, some sourced information is better than none at all. Reya3625 (talk) 13:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In many cases, identifying the birthplace of someone is not crucial to the article (says someone who was once involved in a 3 or 4 year long edit war over the birthplace of a celebrity). If the birthplace is disputed, and there is doubt about the sources, leave the birthplace out. Donald Albury 14:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources Spandan uo1 is adding and taking his information from are self-published non-academic works such as this [9]. They should not be cited on Wikipedia. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "The information of Kachua being the birthplace is backed by 3-4 sources however", just because a user may add a source does not mean the source is reliable. The sources Spandan uo1 has been adding are entirely unreliable. One academic work I found on Google Books says "Loknath was born in Chakla village in Twenty Four Parganas, West Bengal" (Kunal Chakrabarti, ‎Shubhra Chakrabarti, Historical Dictionary of the Bengalis, p. 107). Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see the sources being self-published, though. They are separate entities - the author and the publisher. Reya3625 (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully you are not suggesting this [10] is a properly published academic work. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks to me like a brochure by the Lokenath Mission. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I ran several internet searches on "Lokenath Mission" and "Tushar Kanti Basak". The only links that come up are Wikipedia articles created Spandan uo1 for Lokenath Brahmachari [11], [12]. There is no information about "Tushar Kanti Basak", he is not a recognized academic or historian. There is no information about the "Lokenath Mission". I guess that he is associated with the Lokenath Mission and they are also new. The brochure was published a few weeks ago. I believe Lokenath Mission does exist because Spandan uo1 has uploaded a photograph [13] on Commons. But I am afraid I am not convinced this is a good publisher. The brochure is of poor quality. looks self-published. We shouldn't be linking to this on Wikipedia articles. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a brochure here the link: https://archive.org/details/20230809_20230809_0625 it has been published not new but in 1983... Reya3625 (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My comments were not referring to that, I was talking about this booklet which has a different author [14]. Do you agree that Tushar Kanti Basak is an unreliable source? You can easily see the poor quality. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, Lokenath Mission is the institution that takes care of the temple compounds back in Lokenath's birthplace, so why shouldn't one consider it as reliable? I mean, I am just curious. Reya3625 (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a not a recognized or academic publisher. The brochure is very poor quality. It looked like a comic book to me. It is not acceptable to be citing content like this for historical information. The bar is set higher on the English Wikipedia. We need reliable sources. If all Wikipedia articles cited sources as poor as the Lokenath Mission then this website would be in a mess. If we are citing historical content we need good sources. Let's not cite poor sources and ruin the credibility of articles. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Their connection gives rise to issues of independence. We have to ask the question: does the Lokenath Mission exist to support unbiased scholarly studies or to promote a particular view? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    James Tour

    New editor insists that Intelligent design is not pseudoscience. May belong on more watchlists. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like there have been waves of whitewashing and POV-pushing happening for a while. Separating out his religious belief from his support of intelligent design is not a good idea. Also, promoting his h-index and number of citations in the lede is nothing short of bizarre and looks like someone was trying to engage in promotionalism of some sort. A few of the awards listed look a bit thin, in my opinion, as well. On the other hand, I think his support for intelligent design may deserve more prominence that it is currently enjoying. jps (talk) 01:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Anthony Peratt

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

    Note that a significant amount of this article is devoted to a coatrack that various petroglyphs represent aurora phenomena. He seems to be making these claims adjacent to Electric Universe ideas. Can others look to see how to contextualize/weight these ideas? jps (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    "An Editorial Conundrum" for Journal of Folklore Research when their "scientific reviewers expressed considerable skepticism" for the ouroboros paper. That extracted quote from The Truth of Myth is highly misleading, here's more: "One problem is that taking mythology as a guide to the actual past can lead to extremely speculative reconstructions. For example, Marinus van der Sluijs and Anthony L. Peratt combine a detailed survey of the geographical distribution of the mythical image of the ouroboros...Does this sort of speculation mark a bold new interdisciplinary venture made possible by modern science, or a return to the unbridled extravagance of nineteenth-century “solar mythology”? fiveby(zero) 23:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently the paragraph about petroglyphs is entirely sourced to WP:PRIMARY sources. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably shouldn't be citing The Serpent Symbol In Tradition from Arktos Media? fiveby(zero) 23:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The In Tradition part of that title is this traditionalism by the way. van der Sluijs books are self-published anyway so removed it also. fiveby(zero) 02:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Ross Coulthart

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

    I proposed a new source for this page on the talkpage. [15] Help in figuring out what to do with this would be appreciated. jps (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Keith Kloor on rich benefactors of pseudoscience

    This piece doesn't include stuff we didn't already know, but it is an excellent riposte to the recent breathlessness infecting the US Congress. I can think of many different articles where this source might be useful. Note that it is an opinion piece, but the person writing it is Keith Kloor, an acknowledged expert on the subject. jps (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Taurine

    In June 2023 there was a lot of traffic on this article as the British media had misrepresented a paper and made far-fetched claims that taurine has been shown to reduce aging in humans and reduce several chronic diseases. This caused a lot of IPs to visit the article. The actual paper took most of its data from mice studies [16]. There are no clinical trials that have been done on this. Unfortunately there are now a lot of fringe claims being promoted about taurine on social media.

    Another paper which is cited on our Wikipedia article [17] cites data from mice and monkeys. The paper being cited in the lead does not cite clinical data, it cites studies on rodents, monkeys and worms [18], the paper itself admits "Clinical trials in humans seem warranted to test whether taurine deficiency might drive aging in humans", that is because there currently is no human data. I believe both of these studies should be removed from the article. They are not review papers. The data being discussed does not apply to humans. Despite this, the Wikipedia article lead currently says "Taurine levels are inversely-associated with aging-related diseases in humans". Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Incoming cryptid

    Hello all,
    Great spider. I've checked the article deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Spider back in Jan 2020 and it's different enough not to meet WP:G4. @Premeditated Chaos: pinging closing admin.
    --Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 03:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Did it kill Leo G. Carroll already? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jba_fofi. Why can't it be speedied? Same sources William J. Gibbons and Nick Redfern. Cryptid Afd's are much fun but they need some new material. fiveby(zero) 12:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, Dlthewave or Bloodofox ever heard of a Barbegazi? fiveby(zero) 12:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Great Spider of the Congo? What does it feed on? The Large Fly of Rwanda? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On a serious note can we just make a list of cryptids from MonsterQuest and merge this (and whatever else comes our way from them) into that? "List of MonsterQuest characters" or something like that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Journal of Astrobiology

    I created a new redirect today to Journal of Cosmology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as its illustrious leader seems intent on changing the title of his self-published list of crackpot papers maybe to stay one step ahead of the critics. Anyhow, the article itself isn't quite up to the standards I would like. As far as pseudojournals go, the Journal of Cosmology/Journal of Astrobiology universe is as pseudo as it gets, in my opinion. So can we improve the article to help the reader understand that a little better? jps (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It's going to be hard, Headbomb is sure to show up to obstruct any progress. Tercer (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ...at least been an entertaining diversion. Ball, Philip (March 8, 2011). "The aliens haven't landed". Nature.
    Careful, now, Tercer. I may agree with you about NJOURNALS, but Headbomb is still an upstanding member of our community and has done valuable contributions on that page. jps (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Dammit. Headbomb, you've been summoned to account for your sins. [19] jps (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's ironic. But I wasn't talking about NJOURNALS, but about his effort to block progress on Physics Essays. It was a lot of work to overrule him. Tercer (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've warned him on his page that further obstruction in this regard will be brought to WP:AE. I've had enough of this playing innocent WP:PROFRINGE game. He knows better. jps (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And I've had it with your campaign to remove completely basic and verifiable information about topic you disagree with. Journal of Cosmology is perfectly sourced, and removing infobox, other cited infomation, or simply rewording things from "describes itself as" to "presents itself as" is nowhere near WP:PROFRINGE. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ho ho! A "topic you disagree with". This is a junk journal. What are you advocating for here? Some sort of whitewash? Why? The only reason we have an article on this at all is because the journal has been at the center of a number of controversies over its junk nature. That's the information the reader deserves. Stuff from the "horse's mouth",. as it were, is totally unreliable. We don't need to tell the reader what the website describes iteslf as doing. We need only tell the reader what reliable sources have described it as doing and reliable sources describe it as publishing pseudoscientific dreck. jps (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a junk journal, and clearly labeled as such. Removing the infobox, etc... is completely unjustifiable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't see much wrong with Headbomb's edits, I have to say. I don't see any problem with adding an infobox and his version of the first line of the lead doesn't leave much space for doubt that this is not a scientific journal in good standing. His edits most certainly don't merit a topic ban. --Randykitty (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody suggested a topic ban 2600:4040:475E:F600:41D9:41E9:57C1:C7D3 (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I suggested that this could be a next step. Headbomb decided to ask for it first at ANI. jps (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's more than one website. How can we have "infobox journal" for something that is three websites? It's not even a real journal. What are you on about? jps (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's one clear main topic/subject. The other are associates of that topic. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    According to whom?!jps (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Related: Rudolph Schild (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) needs work. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not kidding. I see one reliable source on that page. He's widely known as a crank in astronomy, but I'm not sure many others have noticed. jps (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably could be deleted honestly. Might pass NPROF with an h-index of 47-ish according to ADSABS, but likely that h-index is with self-citations so I wouldn't put too much faith in it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would want to run a Wikipedia Library search first though to ensure there isn't coverage in news sources that aren't publicly Googleable. SilverserenC 20:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a hot minute when MeCOs were seriously entertained as possibilities. A few papers showing that they weren't were penned and the community agreed and moved on. Rudy did not take kindly to that. He took to the internet instead. In his old age, he seems to have gone WAY off the deep end. jps (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now done that Wikipedia Library search and found a ton of news articles entirely about Schild and his research from the 1990's and 2000's. So I've improved the article and removed the notability tag. SilverserenC 01:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have bowed out of editing Journal of Cosmology. If nothing else, there are now plenty of people looking over the thing. jps (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Flood myth#Historicity - comets again

    This pushes Bruce Masses' concept: "His hypothesis suggests that a meteor or comet crashed into the Indian Ocean around 3000–2800 BCE, which created the 30-kilometre (19 mi) undersea Burckle Crater and Fenambosy Chevron, and generated a giant tsunami that flooded coastal lands". I looked at the two articles and found that this hypothesis isn't generally accepted. Doug Weller talk 16:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Domestic violence against men

    Domestic violence against men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    There is a longstanding consensus, reaffirmed e.g. at this RfC, that the victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly women. Every once in a while we see someone come along who wants very badly to challenge this consensus (e.g. like this) but it never gets anywhere. However a new effort to relitigate the issue has brought my attention to another article which appears to be functioning as a WP:POVFORK on the matter. That article is Domestic violence against men, which states in its lead that The relative prevalence of intimate partner violence against men to that of women is highly disputed between studies. There is a section on "Gender symmetry" which appears to contain a highly biased sampling of research, and also some pretty tendentious language such as It is notable that when Erin Pizzey, founder of the world's first women's refuge; in Chiswick, UK, reported her data showing that men are abused by women almost to the same extent as vice-versa, she received death threats from feminists. It's going to take more than just me to address the issues here. Anyone with the stomach for it is invited to wade in! Generalrelative (talk) 06:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Generalrelative: That RfC is on the whether the lede should have "overwhelmingly women", not that the theory of gender symmetry should be ommited.
    Fringe theories in science "depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support." Gender symmetry does have significant, reliable scientific support, which is cited in the article in question. It is an alternative viewpoint.
    You have continuously left out any evidence on what you say is "highly biased". Such a thing is listed as an example of Civil POV pushing: "They argue that reliable sources are biased while their own preferred sources are neutral." Also on WP:FRINGENOT, "Opponents to reliable sources will often argue that their opponents reliable sources are FRINGE because they spread false information or have a viewpoint which is not mainstream". If it is biassed, it is not a good idea to remove it for that reason. WP:FRINGE says "Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. They should not be classified as pseudoscience but should still be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective."
    Now what the article says about Erin Pizzey certainly may be WP:UNDUE, but that does not mean that it is fringe. Panamitsu (talk) 11:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If the mainstream viewpoint is that "the victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly women" to the extent that by consensus it's presented without qualification in the main article, other articles should not be saying stuff like "The relative prevalence of intimate partner violence against men to that of women is highly disputed between studies" without making clear that whatever the dispute, it's well accepted that victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly women. If alternatively theories are to be presented, they need to be put in proper context which means a theory with such limited support that we can simply say the victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly women without qualification needs to be correctly represented as a theory with very limited support. Whether you personally want to say it has 'significant, reliable scientific support', I don't really care provided you don't downplay how little support it has in any articles. Nil Einne (talk) 12:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is what I am saying. It presents WP:FALSEBALANCE, not fringe theories. Panamitsu (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good to see we can agree that this is false balance. I've made a few edits to the lead to accord with this basic agreement. Generalrelative (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors with experience in NPOV disputes or this particular topic might also want to review recent edits at Domestic violence and Intimate partner violence and their talk pages. There's also a new RfC running at Talk:Domestic violence#RFC on "Worldwide, the victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly women". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I remember some time back with Violence against men was a shitshow. I went back to it today and it reads much better than I had remembered, but someone with some category sense might want to look at the associated Category:Violence against men and see that everything is on the up-and-up. jps (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • On the related page Intimate partner violence we're still seeing what appears to me to be very insistent POV-pushing against established consensus by the same user, most recently and glaringly here. I've raised the behavioral issue on the user's talk page. With regard to the matter of fact, the user appears to believe that the community consensus that the article should continue stating that "the victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly women" is somehow consistent with them adding There is not yet consensus on whether IPV is gender symmetrical or asymmetrical.
      When it comes to the FRINGE guideline, it's clear that the "gender symmetry" hypothesis qualifies as an alternative theoretical framework rather than pure pseudoscience, so we do need to discuss it. But it's also clear that the vast majority of high quality sources say that the victims of serious domestic violence are overwhelmingly women. Which is why the consensus has stood for several years despite the contentious nature of the gensex topic area. But that consensus is only as good as the motivation to uphold it against determined WP:1AM behavior. More eyes would be greatly appreciated! Generalrelative (talk) 00:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Again, this would be more appropriate for the Neutral point of view noticeboard. Panamitsu (talk) 00:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps, but at this point taking it to another board would be forum shopping. In any case, I thank you for self-reverting and look forward to working with you collaboratively in the future. Generalrelative (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    UFO sightings in Yugoslavia

    New article. Oh my. Seems to have spilled over to List of reported UFO sightings too. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Electroacupuncture

    Not all sources seem to be MEDRS, but what do I know? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Why can't this be merged to acupuncture? TrangaBellam (talk) 09:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    PragerU

    Do PragerU videos "contain misleading or factually incorrect information" promoting climate change denial, or do they "contain content widely considered to be misleading or false" promoting climate change denial? Which is the better summary in the lede of the climate change denial section? --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The latter sounds like classic WP:PROFRINGE weaselling, given there seems absolutely no doubt about it.[20] Bon courage (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How is that even a question? PragerU publishes blatant falsities. DontKnowWhyIBother (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The first statement almost tries to downplay the amount of blatantly false statements they make, especially in regards to climate change. The second statement is more descriptive anyways so... Frost.xyz | (talk) 07:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The change attempts to misconstrue the topic as ideas, popular and unpopular opinions, which is itself misleading (uncertainty propaganda). But warming is a fact, so is the importance of human activity. Thanks for patrolling, —PaleoNeonate – 10:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I prefer the first phrasing because it is clear that Prager provides false information. TFD (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "classic WP:PROFRINGE weaselling" in "widely considered to be" of course, but why does it matter so much whether the "facts" in the videos are correct or not? Take for instance the one mentioned on the talk page and the Reuters fact check. In the context of the video (which seems to be targeted to about third-grade level) what does it matter really if Antarctic sea ice is growing or not. Arguing the "facts" is like candy for the contrarian thinker. Seems PragerU videos might be better described as a small wedge of truth used to drive home a load of ideological marketing. fiveby(zero) 16:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the usual MO with denial (i.e. "we accept Jews were killed in the Holocaust, but the numbers have been overstated" == classic Holocaust denial). The best way is just to follow the RS which calls it misinformation without getting sucked into the weeds. Bon courage (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the first option is better for the reasons that others have already given. The second option may have some appeal to those who think "if we word it that way then it is less open to challenge" but that would be a big mistake. The kvetchers are going to kvetch whatever we say and the second option actually makes it easier for them to do so. When it comes to the first statement, they will complain that Prager's falsehoods are actually true and we will just point at the sources and rebuff them easily. If we were to go for the second statement then they would sealion by asking "widely considered by who?" and then attacking each source, one by one, as being "lib" or "woke" or "bias" or "soy" or "gay", or whatever nonsense, and it would just become a perpetual whack-a-mole of idiocy. Also, we should bear in mind that some US states will be using Prager's "U" in school classes soon. We may well have some quite young children coming to Wikipedia to look up whether Prager U is legit. We should avoid overcomplicating the information that answers that. As always, we should speak plainly so that as many readers as possible, whether they are children or adults who do not have English as their first language, can understand what is being said. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Psychohistory

    Just noticed this for the first time, coming from Pseudohistory, which mentions it; I had thought Asimov had a monopoly on it.

    Most of the criticism is ghettoed away in a WP:CSECTION, I suspect the categories could use improving, and maybe other things are wrong with it. I am not competent enough to make it better. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I will shy from classifying psychoanalysis as pseudoscience; what is the extent of intersection? TrangaBellam (talk) 09:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see some classic WP:GEVAL there, arguing in favor of why outdated Feudian premises (like the generalizations of psychoanalysis) may be useful. One has to read past the lead to find "According to conventional historians "the science of culture is independent of the laws of biology and psychology"[3] and "the determining cause of a social fact should be sought among social facts preceding and not among the states of individual consciousness".[4]" and then it falls in a type of essay trying to convince the reader that psychoanalysis of societies may be useful despite the fact that historians and anthropologists don't ignore social context... —PaleoNeonate – 21:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    John Ioannidis

    Accused of conspiracy theories or not? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    First assessment: the article is mostly PR, WP:ABOUTSELF-like but self-serving, often directly using primary sources with COI. It's long and may violate WP:NOTCV. However, there used to be an apparently more reasonable article before. —PaleoNeonate – 10:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, article has gone downhill since I last looked at it. Smells of UPE. Bon courage (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ioannidis turning out to be a COVID downplayer was one of my biggest disappointments during the pandemic. JoelleJay (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of idols turned out to have clay feet. I wonder if there's enough sources for COVID grifting yet? Bon courage (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's UPE, it's just that Saintfevrier is just profringe, and arguably WP:NOTHERE. She got into a massive argument on the wikimania listserv a few months ago because she was upset about the possibility of seeing a transwoman in the bathroom at the 2023 event. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The mailing list discussion can be found here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimania-l @ lists.wikimedia.org/thread/5LQ26JNUNC5ROWJ42MYVWWLCSSBQ5WHG/ (gotta remove the space around the @ character first). 93.72.49.123 (talk) 04:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Billy Meier

    Should the article text state that Billy Meier's FIGU group is a "UFO religion"? We have several academic sources that call it that. Or should it be removed? Please discuss at Talk:Billy_Meier#Not_a_religion rather than here. Thanks, - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Fringe and undue

    Is that, that and that edits are really undue and fringe as the undoers claimed there? 202.134.10.130 (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Undue yes, as they are rambaling messes. Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They are undue. Also, those quotes are a lot. Rjjiii(talk) 18:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Asherah

    Hi, this is about [21]. See also A "Mt. Ebal Inscription" in the Western Wall? An Example of Cognitive Priming on YouTube. Or The So-Called Mt. Ebal "Inscription" Publication: One Big Nothingburger on YouTube. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Brant J. Pitre

    A WP:FRINGE Catholic fundamentalist, has a reputation of defending traditional dogmatic POVs widely considered debunked among mainstream Bible scholars. The point is that the article is bereft of sources which aren't WP:BLPSPS or WP:BLPSELFPUB, i.e. lacks sources which are independent of the subject.

    Quoted from the article: "In his works, Pitre has consistently defended the Catholic dogma of transubstantiation [...]". The metaphysical reality of transubstantiation is simply not a matter of Bible scholarship: Bible scholars will tell you who defended it and who opposed it, but cannot tell you if it is metaphysically real. Since that is not a matter of historical research, but a matter of official religious dogma. Telling whether it is metaphysically real would require direct access to the Mind of God, and historians are not privy to such information. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hello there, @Tgeorgescu:. Professor Pitre is not a "Catholic fundamentalist" (whatever that means), but a renowned scholar who has worked for respectable institutions, such as the University of Notre Dame, and has published widely acclaimed scholarly works with Eerdmans and Mohr Siebeck; I can only say that he is a conservative theologian and biblical scholar, which is perfectly legitimate. As for transubstantiation, Pitre's defence obviously belonged to the realm of theology (he is also a theologian) and he was defending the Catholic dogma from Protestant criticism. Please refrain from using such an aggressive language and behave in a constructive way.-Karma1998 (talk) 11:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Pitre's book will only convince the already convinced. Its basic argument is that an objective investigation by an honest researcher will discover a thoroughly Jewish first-century Jesus with a penchant for present-day Catholic teaching on the real presence. This is exceedingly difficult to swallow and shows an altogether naive confidence in the ability of modernist historical methods to deliver Christian doctrine.

    In fact, Pitre's book is not a work that makes a compelling argument but one that uses some words from the New Testament and relatively or very late Jewish sources to re-present Catholic teaching for non-scholarly Catholics. Excavating the roots of Catholic teaching on the Eucharist is an important task, but it is not helped by books that use historical scholarship so naively.

    — C. Kavin Rowe, George Washington Ivey Distinguished Professor of New Testament; Vice Dean for Faculty, Duke Divinity School
    Rowe's books have been published by Yale University Press and Oxford University Press—he's obviously no lowly peon.

    Current scholarship opposes the author Pitre on every account. His stance is fundamentalist at best. His writing style is that of a high school freshman. ... If you want to learn something, read a book by Dr. Paula Fredriksen or even Dr. John P. Meier, who may have taught Brant Pitre while he was a student at Notre Dame. It's obvious that Pitre didn't pay much attention in class.

    — T. Bill, Amazon.com

    Most Catholics are aware that the New American Bible is authorized by the USCCB. It's the Catholic Bible

    What does the NAB say on the subject of the gospel's authorship?

    Matthew: "the unknown author." NAB 1008

    Mark: "although the book is anonymous, apart from the ancient heading 'According to Mark,' in manuscripts, it has traditionally been assigned to John Mark.." (NAB 1064)

    Luke: "Early Christian tradition, from the late 2nd century on, identifies the author of this gospel...as Luke." (This means roughly 175 years had passed before an author's name was affixed to this gospel.

    "And the prologue to this gospel makes it clear that Luke was not is not part of the 1st generation of Christian disciples, but is himself dependent on traditions." NAB 1091

    On John: "Although tradition identifies [the author] as John, the son of Zebedee, most modern scholars find that the evidence does not support this." (1136)

    In other words, the New American Bible states that we-simply-do-not-know who's the author of any of the four gospels. The NAB does not say, or imply, that the majority of Biblical scholars has it wrong that the gospels are works that are fundamentally anonymous.

    If you're a Catholic, you no doubt have your own copy of the NAB, and can check this out for yourself.

    — religio criticus, Amazon.com
    In respect to the last quote: Pitre maintains that Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Mark, and so on. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tgeorgescu: Simon Gathercole also holds that Mark wrote Mark and so on in this paper published at the Journal of Theological Studies. Is he a fundamentalist too? Potatín5 (talk) 13:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe quotes without sources (where did Rowe state this?) and random Amazon reviews should be considered when it comes to a person's reliability. Veverve (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    At https://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/07/confecting-evidence tgeorgescu (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tgeorgescu: As for professor Rowe, he is indeed an appreciated scholar and his opinion is much welcome. As for the other two (who appear to be internet reviews on Amazon.com), their opinion is highly irrelevant. This still does not explain why professor Pitre should not have an article on Wikipedia.-Karma1998 (talk)
    @Karma1998: I did not ask for it to be deleted, I have only pointed some problems with it. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't like the word "fundamentalist", fine: he is naive as a historian of Christianity and kowtows to the theological orthodoxy. If he were part of the Catholic clergy, that would be considered more or less normal. But for a Bible scholar (i.e. an expert in higher criticism) isn't normal. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tgeorgescu: He is simply a conservative biblical scholar, you'll find plenty of them. Other labels are simply slurs used to demonise scholars that are not liberal..--Karma1998 (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, naive is not my own opinion, see the cited article. It wasn't exactly published in a liberal journal. If you want an example, N. T. Wright is conservative, but not naive. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing where this is supposed to be going. It's really quite irrelevant whether or not Pitre's positions and arguments are "naive" or out of step with theologians/scholars outside Catholicism; what matters is whether anyone cares what he says, and what they say if they do care. Mangoe (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was expecting to see something like William Lane Craig with uncritical exposition of positions, but the article is actually pretty skeletal. I'm not sure I understand what the problem is either. Perhaps the word "consistently" is a problem? But that seems a minor thing to encourage a conversation this involved. Help me out! jps (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mangoe and ජපස: If you don't take my word for him being WP:FRINGE, fine, because that is not the main point of this thread. The main point is that this WP:BLP article consists exclusively of WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB, which is not done. I.e. the article has no WP:INDEPENDENT sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, never mind, nobody seems to listen to what I said here, so I started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brant J. Pitre. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that many of the positions this person is advocating are WP:FRINGE, I just am not sure I see the problem with the sourcing the same way you do. jps (talk) 11:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, there are WP:RS if you look good enough for them, but they aren't in the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Younger Dryas impact hypothesis

    Is [22] an improvement? Doug Weller talk 13:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This topic isn't my area of expertise, but no, it looks like an attempt to dilute well-substantiated evidence of researach misconduct. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not. DontKnowWhyIBother (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not familiar with this specific thing but I am a meteoriticist, I’ll do a lit dive and try to clean it up some after. Warrenmck (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Azerbaijanis and Origin of the Azerbaijanis 'mixed ancestry'

    The Azerbaijanis article has a lot of synthy genetic existentialist crap that seems to pervade Turkic articles. The problem is that while the origins are debated and like all cultures 'mixed' but it presents them as being 'mixed' in the present in a way that isn't backed up well. I'm not sure what teh best way to clean this up is.

    Also does anyone know if there is a policy about 'genetics' sections in ethnic group articles? They're always always super fringey but i'm hesitant to just nuke whole sections—blindlynx 14:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Competitive Enterprise Institute

    May need more solid sourcing for denialism. The Institute appears in several places in Merchants of Doubt, but I found no really good quotes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=1174503133"