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 08:31, 5 February 2024 (→‎Wellness influencers and climate change conspiracy.: +). 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

    Articles to be merged

    Articles to be split

    Adverse vaccine reactions in pets

    I am concerned with a paragraph stating that "in an open letter to WSAVA, an Australian pet owner and long-time consumer advocate has created a detailed critique of these guidelines, with numerous scholarly citations, arguing that the 3-year booster or re-vaccination recommendations are either arbitrary or influenced by vaccine manufacturers". The paragraph is cited to nothing but the self-published "open letter" itself, and the "Australian pet owner and long-time consumer advocate" appears to have no kind of medical (or even veterinary) credentials. BD2412 T 13:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Service: Adverse vaccine reactions in pets (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
    Related: Vaccine-associated sarcoma (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The citation of the letter was absurd. I've removed the paragraph in question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good catch. The article was clearly a WP:COATrack. I have tried to work on getting it into shape, but a lot more work is needed. There was some appalling language being used and source misrepresentation. Adverse reactions to vaccines in pets is exceedingly rare (0.19% by the latest study). That should be front-and-center with the most common adverse reactions listed (which are generally very mild reactions to say the least). jps (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure about the rarity. I had a cat that was diagnosed with a vaccine-associated sarcoma. The vet said they saw it all the time and the surgery was quite a simple procedure. This was in 1996, mind you, so perhaps they have solved that problem with newer vaccine formulations. Viriditas (talk) 07:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The ratio quoted in the updated study I added to the article is 19 adverse reactions per 10,000 injections. Most vet staff see ~40 pets per 8 hour day, so an office with two staff members would be giving out more than 20,000 injections over the course of a year. That would imply seeing an adverse reaction once every two weeks (don't know what "all the time" necessarily means). jps (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fascinating perspective. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the author of this has not been active since 2017, but still a search through their contributions to check for other problems that have been festering for years may be worthwhile: [1]. jps (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If a non-MEDRS source is ever needed to contextualize (DUE) coverage of antivax claims, SkeptVet is a great expert vet blog I pull out when arguing with proponents of pet chiropractic or whatever on thecatsite forums. JoelleJay (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Just curious why we even have this article? It looks like all the sources deal with cats or dogs separately (not "pets"), and we already have articles about vaccination of dogs and feline vaccination (where the creator of this page has added a lot of the same content already). Any reason not to send it to AfD? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Anthroposophy

    This is about making stuff up. See [2]. Seen Talk:Anthroposophy, wherein others made the same point (look for posts of 1 November 2023), I came to believe that most citations by SamwiseGSix are phony. Meaning the WP:RS fail to WP:V the claims they're WP:CITED for. SamwiseGSix cited a bunch of sources, putting his own opinions in their mouth. He might not understand what we mean by WP:V, but that's not a reason for allowing his citations to stay in the article.

    Herbermann, Charles George (2015-10-02). The Catholic Encyclopedia. Arkose Press. ISBN 978-1-343-86075-9. is an 80-pages booklet. It is not a 16-volumes encyclopedia. So, it does not have a volume 13, nor a volume 14. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    ? Charles George Herbermann and Catholic Encyclopedia. Arkose Press looks like some kind of on demand publisher of public domain works, but i have no idea what he was intending to cite there, some quick text searches of volume 13 don't turn up anything likely. fiveby(zero) 14:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fiveby: There is Hardon, J.A. (2003). "Steiner, Rudolf". In Catholic University of America (ed.). New Catholic Encyclopedia: Seq-The. Vol. 13 (Second ed.). Detroit (Mi) New York San Diego (Ca) Washington, D.C: Gale. p. 507. ISBN 0-7876-4017-4., but that:
    • is not written by Herbermann;
    • does not WP:V SamwiseGSix's claim either;
    • what it does say is that Steiner left Catholicism. Verbatim: "His bent for occultism led him from Catholicism into THEOSOPHY." It does not claim that Steiner ever returned as a member of the Catholic Church.
    • what it does say is that Steiner left Catholicism. Verbatim: "His bent for occultism led him from Catholicism into THEOSOPHY." tgeorgescu (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you Google cathen13.pdf and cathen14.pdf you will find Herbermann's encyclopedia. Nothing about Steiner therein (AFAIK). tgeorgescu (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Herbermann couldn't write or edit anything about The Christian Community as he was dead before its founding, so don't know if this is CIR or misrepresenting sources. I'm not familiar with the topic, but The Christian Community#Ecumenical relations cites [3] with In Germany, the group's country of origin, the Roman Catholic Church totally rejects the Christian Community. Why can't we just remove the offending text and if SamwiseGSix returns and objects take it from there? fiveby(zero) 16:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fiveby: SamwiseGSix claims that calling Anthroposophy a heresy was engineered by Mussolini. But fact is that the Mussolini Cabinet had two ministers who were labeled heretics by the Vatican. I have commented out his edits. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Started sampling major mainspace edits and making stuff up and putting his own opinions in their mouth seem like appropriate descriptions. Need to check all the Steiner related edits and revert probably, don't know what is the most economical way to deal with the user. fiveby(zero) 17:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A simpler point is that Anthroposophic theology is wholly incompatible with Catholic theology (e.g. two Jesus children; Jesus and Christ were two different beings who got fused at a certain point, AKA adoptionism; and so on). tgeorgescu (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't want to step on your edits as i was going thru contribs, but why only comment out and not just remove? I'd say this should just be removed and earn the editor at least a topic ban. i might be overly angry about having to find and wade through Eco-Alchemy to make sure the text was contradicted in all three sources tho.fiveby(zero) 18:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello everyone - fiveby and tg do you deny the extensive body of anti-racist statements Steiner made in his time, in contrast with then US President Woodrow Wilson who was actively segregating the US Federal Government, and prominent thinkers like F. Engels who actively called for wholesale genocide, using the Polish people as an example? The advent of the heresy label in 1922 could potentially be an interesting issue to consider - tg appears correct in pointing out that a very small number of ministers from Mussolini's early government also received this classification, and that while in Germany the Nazi's actively and aggressively persecuted Steiner (driving him out of Germany) that Mussolini's early cabinet contained a small number of apparently Anthroposophically curious individuals with fringe ideas in relation to the majority of members of the society, which contained so many deep anti-fascist and liberal/democratic actors (Steiner called for 'equality' in politics, eg one person one vote, and solidarity/brotherhood in the economy) that it appears most of these cabinet members either had to quite quickly leave the cabinet or cease all contact with Anthroposophists during the 1920's - please do feel free to demonstrate literature that shows otherwise. SamwiseGSix (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your recent edit to Steiner's article [4] cherry pick info from sources. Segall's says His comments scattered through various lecture transcripts concerning historical racial hierarchies must be condemned even while they should also be read in the context of his resolutely anti-racist and anti-sexist view of the human present and future. not just the second part as your ref suggests. Similarly, Staudenmaier's thesis talks about how depending on what you read of his he is both racist and not (p28-29). He does not just say that Steiner is antiracist. (On a side not citing a 800 page paper without page numbers is counterproductive.)—blindlynx 17:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Steiner did not advocate for liberal democracy, nor for capitalism (I can provide RS for these claims). In respect to racism, he wrote/spoke a mixed bag. The Christian Community aren't Nicene Trinitarians, so no wonder that most Christians churches do not consider them Christians. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Rather then providing links how about three really good quotes that back up your suggestion? Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

    what has this to do with "Both also acknowledge the extensive ontological, epistemological, and phenomenological bases and arguments upon which the philosophy and social movement is grounded", what is this thread about? Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

    Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi SamwiseGSix, when you add text to an article and provide citations in this manner the expectation is that others can find support for your claims within the given sources. Other editors, and most importantly readers, extend you some trust and good faith that you are meeting this expectation and following WP's verifiability policy. What i see is that you are violating this trust and good faith, i don't find such support for the text you have added in the given citations. Arguments such as you are making above are irrelevant, what matters is whether or not you are making reasonable use of sources to support the article text. In my opinion you are not, and ask that you clarify for example your use of Catholic Encyclopedia and the three sources cited in the edit i linked above. fiveby(zero) 16:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, Rudolf Hess was 100% Anthroposophist, while Heinrich Himmler was 50%. So, why would the Nazis chase down Steiner? It makes little sense. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Fiveby - while I had found a source online several months ago referencing the Christian Community being mentioned in the Catholic Encyclopedia, I should have bought or further sought an original Encyclopedia copy to fully verify this specific edit, and I do apologize if I incorrectly cited this specific reference. I am not seeking to revert changes in this specific regard in the 'Religious Nature' section of the article in question, although some important information later in the article (for example the ordination of female priests et al even in the 1920's) does seem potentially important to keep in mind hm
    As for your assertions TGeorgescu - while Hess and Himmler may have sought quietly behind the scenes to leverage some anthroposophical ideas long after Steiner's death, and long after the effective crushing and bringing to heel / under full control of small remnants of the German Anthroposophical society by the Nazi dictatorship (to great protest from the French Anthroposophical Society, the British Anthroposophical Society the American and Swiss societies etc) Hitler and his Nazi followers stood in great opposition to Steiner and his teachings, Hitler personally ordering his fascist nazi followers to "wage war on Steiner" as the WP:V Independant.co.uk article demonstrates: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/the-big-question-who-was-rudolf-steiner-and-what-were-his-revolutionary-teaching-ideas-433407.html SamwiseGSix (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not the only WP:RS to be ever written. Another RS says:

    Heise holds the Jews responsible for the World War (Entente-Freimaurerei und Weltkrieg 32-33, 84, 262, 295, etc.), warns repeatedly against “Jewish capitalists” (e.g. 286), claims that the Roosevelts are Jewish and that their real name is Rosenfeld (285), that Woodrow Wilson's wife is Jewish (296), that the news agencies are controlled by Jews (306), that the Jews control Britain and the Empire is a plaything of the Zionists (122-127), and that Bolshevism is an Anglo-Jewish invention (253). Heise invokes Steiner and anthroposophy throughout the book, at one point praising Steiner as the alternative to “Jewish thinking” (297). The book draws heavily on ariosophist sources as well. Heise’s work continues to find anthroposophist admirers; Ursula Marcum, for example, writes: “What makes Heise’s book special is his treatment of Jewish influence in world affairs.” Marcum, “Rudolf Steiner: An Intellectual Biography,” 408. See also the extremely positive reviews of Heise’s book in Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus no. 47 (1920) and Das Reich January 1919, 474.

    Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There have at times been some odd Anthroposophists on the fringe espousing contradictory ideas to Rudolf Steiner and his movement overall - Steiner during his lifetime was however a leading critic of the popular anti-Semitism of his time, and also opposed the rise of the fascist Nazi dictators, who quickly drove him out of Germany hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that Steiner himself sponsored the publication of Heise's book and wrote its foreword. But I digress: we're discussing about your indulgence in original research. What Steiner did or didn't is not germane to our discussion. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    the citations you provided don't support this claim—blindlynx 18:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    And the article about its founder

    Someone (a newbie) erasing WP:PSCI-compliant statements from Rudolf Steiner. More eyes needed. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    How's your German? The Hitler "war against Steiner" quote looks suspicious, possible wikigenisis but maybe found in Anthroposophen in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus p. 7 (reviewed here)? And the ...and he immediately had to flee to Switzerland[5] looks like invention. fiveby(zero) 15:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can parse German through my knowledge of Dutch and the help of Google Translate, but I'm not a proficient reader in German.
    Anyway, the review confirms what I already thought (since it's not that hard to figure it out), namely that Werner's work is mainly apologetics. If an older Anthroposophist told him that the Nazis fought a war against Steiner, he would take it at face value, wouldn't he? WP:MANDY.
    Another issue: the number of newbies and WP:SPAs editing Anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner is quite significant for the past three or four months. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When my WP:PSCI-compliant and WP:MEDRS-compliant edits get reverted by WP:SPAs called NeThera and Nederlance of course I get suspicious. There are organizations around the world whose purpose is to peddle pseudoscience and quackery. Such as the Xi Jinping Administration acting based upon Article 21 of the Chinese Constitution, the Second Modi ministry acting through the Ministry of Ayush, the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, the Anthroposophical Society, thousands of quackademics, and so on. They all have an axe to grind against Wikipedia snitching upon their pseudoscience/quackery. Quackery is a multi-billion dollars industry, so its adepts with always grumble against Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia is humiliating them 24/24 and 7/7. I mean it's not so much me humiliating them daily, as Wikipedia as a whole humiliating them daily. Even if I could be considered one of the main cheerleaders, I'm not the brain of this operation. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    And now I have evidence

    See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:MEAT at Anthroposophy. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Zhou Yusen

    Zhou Yusen could do with attention, it's a new article and the sources are a primary source, the National Review and NY Post, a PerthNow page which is syndicated DailyMail content, and an article by Sharri Markson who is a lab leak conspiracy theorist. The current wording of the article seems heavily skewed towards promoting lab leak conspiracy theories. The external links section links to multiple unreliable sources. (I'm also not sure if Zhou Yusen is notable enough to need a page, from a quick search most of the coverage seems to come from conspiracy theorists and unreliable sources, but a deeper dive might turn up some better ones). JaggedHamster (talk) 08:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Now at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zhou_Yusen fiveby(zero) 22:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Problem at List of reported UFO sightings

    Not sure what what a "condom report' is[6] , also see User talk:Mcorrlo#January 2024 Doug Weller talk 17:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    See Condon Committee. And I don't think there's actually a problem any more, since the user concerned hasn't tried to restore the disputed edit. At least, not anything specific to that one edit, rather than credulous flying-saucer-woo-promoters in general doing the usual... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @AndyTheGrump thanks. I’d forgotten about that. Just a typo. As you suggest, at the moment we just wait and see. Doug Weller talk 21:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've interacted with that user over on pt.wiki and can confirm he has pushed the ALIENS ARE HERE agenda over there (and maybe other strange beliefs, perhaps ghost stuff? Not sure ATM). Also, IIRC, he was immune to arguments, and just got his way as I gave up trying to reason with him. pt.wiki is pretty bad. VdSV9•♫ 02:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    List of topics characterized as pseudoscience

    Can anyone explain why this article is allowed to exist in its present form, and apparently has been for over a decade? This is the kind of gibberish that gets Wikipedia a reputation for being a hypertrophied blog that self-identifies as an encyclopedia without actually being one in any meaningful sense.

    Not that I'm suggesting you should't have a list of the major pseudosciences. Of course you should. Pseudoscience matters. If you're seriously ill, being treated with remedies based on pseudoscience rather than seeing a proper doctor may kill you. And if pseudoscientific ideas about climate change influence the policies of enough major governments, it may even kill the planet! So yes, by all means let's have a list of significant pseudoscientific topics!

    The trouble is, you don't have one. What you've got instead is - well, look at the title, and then think about what it actually means. And then read the introduction to the article itself:

    "This is a list of topics that have, either currently or in the past, been characterized as pseudoscience by academics or researchers. ... These characterizations were made in the context of educating the public about questionable or potentially fraudulent or dangerous claims and practices—efforts to define the nature of science, or humorous parodies of poor scientific reasoning."

    If we untangle that hairball of weasel words, what it's basically saying is that this a list of things which have at any time in recorded history been described using the word "pseudoscience" by any person who either had academic qualifications, possibly in a relevant field, or didn't have any qualifications at all, and was either making a serious point or just having a laugh. By the way, is "practices-efforts" a real word?

    And then it gets worse!

    "Other ideas presented here are entirely non-scientific, but have in one way or another impinged on scientific domains or practices."

    Now, the definition of pseudoscience, and I'm quoting Wikipedia itself here, is "unscientific claims wrongly presented as science", and it's hard to see how something which is entirely non-scientific can be presented, however wrongly, as science. But remember, this is not a list of things which are pseudoscience; it's a list of things which have been characterized as pseudoscience by anyone at any time for any reason. Which would seem to me to include an impossibly vast number of topics, but fortunately the persons responsible for this brain-dead drivel didn't do very much research before getting bored and going off to play with their Batman Lego.

    Talking of research, if you can call it that, it's pretty obvious how this article was "researched". The authors gathered a few likely-looking texts, mostly published by Prometheus Books and/or written by Michael Shermer, ran a wordsearch for "pseudoscience", and listed every single thing described in those books using that word. Then they wrote that idiotic intro to justify the inclusion of things even they could dimly grasp weren't altogether relevant, and retitled the article to be on the safe side. Perhaps it should be retitled again, to something like "List of stuff described as woo-woo by CSICOP"? Because it would be near as dammit the same article, and it would be much clearer what it was about and how useful it was.

    Seriously, look at this list! Cold Fusion isn't listed as a pseudoscience even though it's inarguably a very significant example thereof because none of the books these children let a machine read for them specifically "characterized" that topic as such, but one specific alleged cold fusion device called an E-Cat does merit inclusion. Are we to therefore assume that Cold Fusion in general is perfectly valid science, apart from one obscure scam by some fellow who built a contraption called an E-Cat? Are we likewise to assume that Scientology as such isn't pseudoscientific at all, apart from two specific practices (or perhaps they're practices-efforts?), Dianetics, which is basically just pop psychotherapy, and the Purification Rundown, which advances the only mildly cranky idea that vitamins and saunas can cure drug addiction? And everything else that lot get up to is less scientifically unorthodox than those two mildly odd activities?

    It's true that almost every entry has a link to a page describing it in more detail, so you can click the link and read a page hopefully written by an adult which will probably tell you whether or not the topic is relevant and/or important, but if you have to look up every entry on the list to find out whether it ought to be on the list, what use is the list? And how do you follow the non-existent link to something like Cold Fusion which isn't listed at all, unless you happen to notice that an E-Cat, whatever that is, has some connection with it?

    Do you have access to a reasonably advanced AI? You might try asking it to rewrite this article, because although it has no mind at all, it'll do a far better job than some little boys who are too lazy to do any proper research and too stupid to see why they should. Because it'll be using exactly the same method as they did but far more efficiently, since its database will be many orders of magnitude larger. So instead of mindlessly listing every trivial use of a certain word in a few books, it'd be able to determine whether a scientific consensus exists that a thing is pseudoscientific, and will thus include only the topics that matter, such as Cold Fusion, while omitting nonsense like Rumpology, which is included here not because it was ever in any way important or has even the remotest connection with science, but because it gets a passing mention in The Skeptic's Dictionary so onto the list it jolly well goes!

    Also, a reasonably efficient piece of software would be able to break up inconvenietly long lists using subheadings somewhat better than these kiddiwinks could. It looks very much as though they once got a brief glimpse of a real encyclopedia and understood that very long lists should be subdivided in this way, but didn't have the slightest idea how to do it, never mind why. It would also probably know that "practices-efforts" isn't really a word.

    Or even better, you could dispense with both the quasi-smart machine and the authentically dumb humans and scrap the whole sorry mess, then start again with a title such as "List of major pseudoscientific ideas" and write an article that fits the title instead of the other way round. That way you might end up with something that would be much more useful to your readers, and much less embarrassing to you. 86.130.233.248 (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    We go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't read all of the above, but I got curious on the cold fusion thing, and not surprisingly it's been discussed on the article talkpage a few times:[7] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the interested, Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_47#RFC. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What a rant. Whining about alleged kids and their toys on a volunteer project with name calling, where nobody needs to feel responsible for an article, isn't constructive. I agree that "characterized as" is suboptimal and similar to "have been accused", "claimed to be", where "List of pseudoscience/pseudoscientific topics" would be better. There's a process for suggesting a name change. List articles are often problematic and their inclusion criteria must be established. In an encyclopedia needing citations and avoiding editorials, a mention in a source that can be cited for inclusion is common practice. It's also common to exclude when there is no existing article on the topic to link. If the inclusion of Cold Fusion is important to you, why not make your case at the article's talk page with a list of sources? —PaleoNeonate – 18:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. 'List of topics characterized as X' is a poor topic to construct an article around, regardless of the value of X. And beyond that, the list in question very likely contains things that probably don't belong, and omits things that probably do - with the proviso that 'probably' is shorthand for personal opinion pretending to be something else. That's the nature of Wikipedia, where anyone can add whatever takes their fancy, provided they can make it look convincing, or argue long enough to make it stick. As for AI doing the job better, I'll believe that when I see the evidence. As of right now, it seems to be a toss-up as to whether the bullshit generated by AI is greater than the bullshit generated about it, or vice versa. Either way, the volume is impressive, but its still bullshit. At least, that's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it until I see proof to the contrary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Once upon a time, I suggested that List of pseudosciences was a better title. I was overruled. C'est la vie. But maybe now the time is ripe to revisit that question. I've grown past caring. Be WP:BOLD, 86, and start an account and an AfD! jps (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, after 14 years (the redirect is from 2010), it is time to change that weasely title into the correct one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    NESARA

    Main article: NESARA

    Should this article be split into the actual proposal and the conspiracy theory? Lumping them both in together seems bizarre and WP:COATRACKy to me. --GnocchiFan (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    From a brief look, the conspiracy theory may meet Wikipedia notability requirements, but the article presents relatively little evidence that Barnard's original proposal does. On that basis, since it clearly isn't possible to describe the conspiracy theory without discussing the proposal, a split doesn't look viable. Having said that, the article could do with substantial work - there are a number of highly-questionable sources being cited, and there is more than a hint of WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Burzynski (cancer quackery)

    There has been an renewed uptick of interest in this recently, with the suggestion that Japanese primary research in some way validates the clinic's products. Relatedly, I notice a supposed Burynski 'success story' being added[8] to Brainstem_glioma. More eyes helpful. Bon courage (talk) 09:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh I think this page fell off my watchlist. Thanks for the reminder. Sgerbic (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    America B.C.: Ancient Settlers in the New World changed from a redirect to Barry Fell to a new article.

    {https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=America_B.C.%3A_Ancient_Settlers_in_the_New_World&diff=1196827934&oldid=1147349167]. This was done by User:BOZ. Doug Weller talk 17:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Happy to discuss or implement any changes which may need to be made. BOZ (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A "reference work"? And we have the read about the reviews in The Manhattan Mercury and The Ellsworth American first before we are informed somewhere buried at the end that most of the scientific world rejected Fell's work as pseudoscience? –Austronesier (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Jilly Juice

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jilly Juice.

    Please comment.

    jps (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Spiritism

    This article has at some point been expanded from the Portuguese version. But it is full of original research and uses many in-universe sources, mostly in Portuguese, which makes it difficult to evaluate them. Needs a good going over by someone knowledgeable about fringe issues, who preferably also understands Portuguese. Skyerise (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wildly, I think that the Catholic Encyclopedia (for all its weirdness) has a better entry than Wikipedia on this subject: [9]. jps (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That article seems to cover the topic of spiritualism generally (which we have a separate article for, see spiritualism) rather than this particular offshoot which is popular in contemporary Brazil. Admittedly, I don't really understand what distinguishes classic 19th century British-American style spiritualism from contemporary Brazilian spiritism. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That might be a little out of date, see spiritism and spiritism in Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion which is 'Kardecan Spiritism'. The hatnote needs improved, maybe something like "this article is for 'Kardecan Spiritism' for the belief or religious practice based on supposed communication with the spirits of the dead see spiritualism" but not to be confused with spiritualism (philosophy). fiveby(zero) 15:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Brazilian spiritism is an entire organized religion. It's a spin-off of Allan Kardec's ideas, but it has gained popularity in Brazil because of Chico Xavier's work. He was an obvious fraud, but millions of people literally worship him. There are lots of issues with this theme in the Portuguese WP, and it's really hard to push back against the true believers. Please don't let the English project be contaminated by it. VdSV9•♫ 21:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    UFOlogy promoter BLPs

    BLPs

    Related

    UFO articles

    Eyes needed on new SPAs showing up at these WP:FRINGEBLPs of UFOlogy promoters. Apparently UFO Twitter and the Reddit UFO community think I am some sort of "disinformation agent" [10],[11] and they are trying to mobilize followers with some disturbing rhetoric, which has quickly evolved into a conspiracy theory that I am a sock of Mick West. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    They've been pinging me on the X from time to time as well. That they are not a fan makes me think you are doing something right. jps (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reverted the problematic edits to Knapp, if that helps. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. All this attention feels a little stalky. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would take it as a badge of honour. Displeasing the UFO fanatics is a sign that you're doing a good job. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see those gentle, pro-woo folk claim you are a member of "The Anti-UFO Taliban." Do you get a membership card with that? FWIW, I've added those pages to my watchlist and will try to help. I note also that Luis Elizondo has received a recent spike in SPA activity. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 12:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @LuckyLouie Blocked. Jeremy Corbell works for newsnationnow, of course they call him an investigative journalist, but we shouldn't. Someone needs to revert at that article. I see a couple of the other SPAs have also been blocked.. I see JoJo Anthrax has given out some CT alerts. Let me know if I can help more as an Admin. I read the REDDIT page. Doug Weller talk 14:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankfully, their attention has shifted to Sean Kirkpatrick, whom they are really, really, really mad at. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not accurate in the slightest. Jeremy Corbell has zero official affiliation or employment with NewsNation. If you have evidence or proof saying otherwise, please link.
    Fox News also calls Corbell an "investigative journalist" or "investigative reporter" (https://www.foxnews.com/video/6344773221112/)
    How many independent news sources do you need before calling someone a title?
    Also: "of course they call him an investigative journalist, but we shouldn't"
    I'd ask simply why? This sentence alone feels fairly problematic and "gatekeep". CrunchyDolphin (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @CrunchyDolphin As I've said on your talk page, NewsNation's business plan has depended a lot on UFOs[12], he writes for them and is publicized on their YouTube channel. I consider paid writing to be work even if there is no official affiliation. If you return here after your block expires please note that the contentious topics sanctions apply to behavior on talk pages as well. Doug Weller talk 09:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a very odd conversation with someone in the wee hours this morning who wanted to alert @LuckyLouie to the fact that these people were going to dox him today and make his life miserable. He showed me how they were going to do it, obviously I can't show here but it seems like it will work. They remain convinced that Louie is West and if not he is their enemy. They did a second video yesterday on their evidence[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjHqE3GsI9o] This has just gotten beyond stupid. Some advice please? Sgerbic (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, those knuckleheads are sending out phishing emails and DMs to Wikipedia editors under the guise of a concerned Wikipedian needing the information to get in touch with me. Just ignore it, my contact info is double screened with a special auto tracking feature to ID spammers and miscreants. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't listen to a 2h ranting podcast but I quickly went through about 50m speeding until I found non-Gerbic related WP screenshots then listened a bit at those places. It was somewhat entertaining, but also confirms my previous impression about not being familiar with Wikipedia (and some paranoia). "GreenC ... is he one of THEM?" "Oh, yes" (an experienced regular who is not part of WP:SKEPTIC, not part of GSoW, a rare participant at WP:FTN). Then it's about Hemiauchenia, "he's pretty hardcore, look all the accounts he has in all languages..." actually a standard WP feature, WP:SUL. I remember a claim about "getting their denialist dogma in the world" (how can you "deny" a lack of evidence, then since we rely on independent non-promotional sources, it's a diversion to focus on editors instead on the text and sources, where WP:FOC is relevant). They're also apparently impressed by the number of edits, but that's nothing surprising for someone who cares about the encyclopedia and is actually there for the project (it's the opposite of WP:SPA). They also argue that he's a proficient editor of the RU Wikipedia (I only see a few citation related edits that may not even require knowledge of the language, personally. I rarely but sometimes also edited in languages I didn't know in relation to sources. If it was something Hemiauchenia wanted to keep secret, why would they be doing it as the same account anyway? And to my knowledge, still not GSoW affiliated (I also am not). I'll stop there, it doesn't deserve more of my time (and I will not be watching video updates). —PaleoNeonate – 04:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can confirm that I'm definitely not a Russian speaker. I've made a small number of edits to numerous wikis for which I don't speak the language, so picking my small number of contributions to ruwiki to conclude I speak Russian is odd, but I guess such unevidenced leaps of logic would be expected for UFO believers. Almost none of the regulars here (including me) have any connection to GSoW, as was demonstrated in the ArbCom case. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey so welcome to GSoW Louie! I just discovered these threads a few hours ago, and was just coming over here to notify everyone. The posts are amazing. They are going to hold off donating to Wikipedia, going to report Louie and GSoW, and many more things. I read a post somewhere in that mass of comments about who all are considered a part of the GSoW team (or cult as one person said). When I find it I'll add it here, they should know they have been found out and have not been showing up to meetings, or sending me their cut of Big NASA payments that cover up the existence of space aliens or something. This guy on X seems to be really excited to join GSoW and keeps posting how to get involved in my training.[13] Sgerbic (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding Westall UFO as apparently Louie "is a paid disinformation agent or he is doing an Oscar level impersonation of one". Sgerbic (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well this guy on X is encouraging his followers to out Louie "And his ardent attack dog JoJo Anthrax"[14] He calls out "Psyops Susan Gough" who I have not heard of before, for a minute I thought he was just misspelling my last name. Apparently that is a real person who works with Kirkpatrick.Sgerbic (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Ardent attack dog?!" And here I was thinking that I was his sock. Or was he my sock? Or am I the Walrus? Coo Coo Ca Choo. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't keep it straight either. One of the commenters on the UFO Reddit thread kept contacting me on Twitter a few years ago about wanting to edit the remote viewing Wikipedia page as he knows he can do it. I kept asking him to tell me what color my socks were, he didn't even try. I knew socks would be important eventually.
    I can't find that post that lists all my GSoW team members according to the Reddit thread. I've given up, there is so much "out there" content I can't follow it. If someone does see it, please let these people know that we are going to have to change the secret handshake yet again and we are moving the meetings to Tuesdays and I'm sick of the potato salad that everyone keeps bringing to the meetings. Sgerbic (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This section tying astronomy to a UFO sighting, cited to The DeBrief, the Guardian, and some journal paper, may be WP:OR, hard to tell. Cosmologist or astronomer needed to evaluate this claim. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Might also want to read "A glint in the eye: Photographic plate archive searches for non-terrestrial artefacts" by the VASCO project authors where i guess you could say they are a little more forthright as to what they are doing as opposed to the MNRAS article. Is Acta Astronautica really widely known as one of the top aerospace engineering journals? fiveby(zero) 19:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done some astronomy. What specific question are you asking? I'm new to this behind the scenes Wiki stuff so I don't get the jargon. AstroDoc (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @AstroDoc: Are the sources Astrorudolf is using in this edit: [15] enough to justify what they're adding to the article? Similar material is also present in the technosignature article. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 08:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry that you're having to deal with these yoyo's, LuckyLouie. I've gone ahead and watchlisted your talk page so I can at least help there if they keep harassing you. SilverserenC 23:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    On the off chance that anyone is interested, some researcher named Heatherly will be exposing my GSoW group "with receipts" and a statement from Luz tonight in this interview on the Matt Ford show. I'm not planning on watching[16].Sgerbic (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    "Disclosure" really has taken some weird turns! Dumuzid (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure this isn't a comic parody? The title is "UFO Coverup: The Wikipedia Secret Cabal". - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are welcome to watch and let me know what you think. But I'm pretty sure from what others have told me that this is a serious UFO believers channel and they plan on roasting me or attacking GSoW or something. Here is what they are writing "On today's Livestream with Dr. Michael Masters, we have a significant announcement regarding details of the organized cabal manipulating Wikipedia. We have the receipts the attorneys will want to see. More to come."[https://twitter.com/GoodTroubleShow/status/1749172454466199756?fbclid=IwAR1-Y7pvMcQJeYX1QGLtWNdpq6TMqnMjUvUwCaKjgAlv0BytK4Qa_JK_8-A] They even have a written statement they plan on reading by Luis Elizondo apparently they have the "goods" on me.Sgerbic (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugg there is the pinned tweet for the person they are interviewing tonight who will expose GSoW.[https://twitter.com/RobHeatherly1/status/1726806320295166442] "Yes, isn't that interesting. One editor archived their own Talk Page Nov. 10th. Wonder why? David's page was rolled into "David Grusch Claims" page by the same small half dirty dozen editors that actively monitor and control over 10k Wiki pages by page majority rule, including Lue Elizondo's page (I recognize the snark!), Ross Coulthart (stub, aweful attacks), Tim Burchett, Bob Lazar, Jacques Vallee, George Knapp, Chris Mellon, Garry Nolan, Jeremy Corbell, Hal Puthoff. **ALL UFO** related pages, other bunk, pseudo science, religion, conspiracy theories, paranormal, COVID-19, Covid Lab leak "bunk", scroll to the bottom of each page (mobile view works better than PC) and follow the edits, check Talk for each page, and each editor. Let's figure out who LuckyLouie is, shall we? And his ardent attack dog JoJo Anthrax. There are others, but these two... Perhaps he was already banned from the platform for previous sock puppetry? I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Court of public opinion will decide. There are around 5 others of particular interest, that combined have dominated entire genres on Wikipedia for over 17 years now." Looks like they are coming after all of us on FTN. Batten down the hatches, the storm is coming.Sgerbic (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "I'd say Wiki has an infestation and liability issue on hand they need to sort out. I was suppressed on my attempt to set the record straight. Perhaps others will have better luck..." this is from that Heatherly character - I suppose he is admitting that he is trying to edit Wikipedia pages but got banned?Sgerbic (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There I am again, an "ardent attack dog!" Oh mama, I made it! And I can't wait to participate in WP's liability issue.
    If they only knew the TRUTH: I am actually a gray on a mission of disinformation to get people like this guy off our backs. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 07:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it was a Double Secret Cabal I might have been interested. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 08:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Triple Double Secret Cabals next up! I didn't watch the video interview last night, but others did and they shared screen shots with me. It went on for 3-hours and the comments were unreal. The guy they interviewed said he spent 60-hours last week going though my old videos on GSoW from back in 2013 even, he shared screen shots from FTN conversations (probably they are reading this now) they completely don't understand how Wikipedia works, thinks we work for the government who endorses us ... yet they think that we need to be reported to the government so we can be stopped. They 1,000% believe that Lucky Louie IS Mick West, I think at one point they were trying to geo-locate Louie. It didn't dawn on any of them that Louie's Wikipedia account has existed long before Mick was investigating UFO's and there could possibly be two different people working on two different things. They thought that JoJo and Louie having their own Wikipedia user pages was evidence of something nefarious. Edits to BLP pages were "systematic character assassinations" and they think we have committed crimes and should be arrested. They used A.I. with some posts written by Louie and comparing them to the writings of Mick West to see if they compared. They said on Reddit, "Wikipedia is a propaganda free for all" which my "informant" said makes no sense if it is a free for all, wouldn't using it for propaganda not be very efficient or useful? Oh and @Hob Gadling got mentioned “Hob Gadling is a GSoW editor they call in when they need the big guns. He’s like a drunken guy who walks in to command the room”. All the "information" they gave was public information, but the interviewer said he was "blown away" by all that was uncovered. Another comment "It's almost racist to call homeopathy quackery because there are MANY indigenous medicines that have been successfully proven to have medicinal properties".
    Now that I've said all this, here is the good news ... I saw this happen on the Reddit thread, and heard this from someone who follows the UFO community. On the Reddit thread it took a while but after the first day there were UFO believers that are also Wikipedia editors and they were pushing back on what was being said. They could see clearly that the community of UFO believers they are associating with are "loose" with the "evidence" and that is going to make them question the other bits of evidence. Some of the comments about Wikipedia were waaaaay out there, these editors knew that. The other person I talked to who follows the community said that there are a lot of UFO believers that are very new to the topic and they aren't quite so invested in it. They are reading the Reddit comments and watching the video and then reading the UFO Wikipedia pages and are starting to understand that what the UFO community says isn't fitting with the sources on Wikipedia. And maybe they will start backing away from the true believers. So very interesting experience. The Susan Gerbic Wikipedia page got vandalized last night, added that I was an "American intelligence asset and propagandist" but then the IP self-reverted their edit 3-minutes after making it. Maybe they thought that the edit would track them or something. Sgerbic (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe they were happy to have a screenshot they can post on various fora as proof of WP censorship. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I am GSoW too? Nice. I thought I had started wikiing six years before GSoW was born, but if UFO believers say it, those contribution histories must be fake.
    there could possibly be two different people working on two different things They are probably not far away from the realization that all skeptics are the same person. After all, it is difficult to imagine for such people how even one person could disagree with them without being paid for it by someone. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Love! HR is upset you moved and didn't get your paperwork filed in time. Come to the meetings more often please, it's okay if you bring potato salad againSgerbic (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe it's time to remind promoters about what Wikipedia is and isn't (WP:NOT). The harassment of specific editors because they are among patrollers or administrators is unfortunately not a new thing, but it is unlikely to succeed, the reason being that those regulars are there for the project, are familiar with its policies and are only some among many editors who are all expected to follow those policies. Biography subjects do not control the articles about them, just like those with a conflict of interest (WP:COI) cannot be allowed to use Wikipedia for their marketting. WP is also not about the promotion of particular or popular opinions, but reporting about them by representing what decent sources have reported. More useful links for reference: WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, WP:PSCI. For conspiracy theorists, everyone is trying to censor them and the cabals are everywhere, in government, on Wikipedia, etc. From Wikipedia's point of view (not only for LuckyLouie or GSoW, or FTN participants, but for all edit patrollers), when promoters try to get their way, there are pages to protect. Other than reverting and reporting edit warring and sockpuppets, pages that are a persistent target of WP:SPA sockpuppetry can be protected. That's all standard for WP... —PaleoNeonate – 00:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think YOU should go on this interview show tonight and tell them this! Sgerbic (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Anyone who is threatening to "hold off" their financial contributions to the Wikimedia Foundation in an attempt to make our content more "fringe friendly" should be advised to "hold off" their donations until our sun, 93 million miles away, goes supernova. Cullen328 (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, too long. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Y'all remember when Deepak Chopra and Rupert Sheldrake were the aggrieved parties setting up to reform Wikipedia? Before that, it was the cold fusioneers. Before that, it was Dana Ullman and the homeopaths. Then there were the EVP fanatics? The Velikovskians? The creationists? The perpetual motion enthusiasts? When have we ever not had this fun barrage?

    Same as it ever was. Today it's the UFO true believers and the antivaxxing COVID Lab Leak preachers. Tomorrow it will be something else.

    jps (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't forget the AYUSH propagandists. I got harassed by OpIndia on twitter for my Ayurveda edits, hah. JoelleJay (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, I got fed up and joined the Reddit group.[17] This guy (llindstad) claims to be an experienced editor and Admin, but there's no account here with that name. I've challenged him to reveal this identity. "llindstad · I'll talk to other editors tomorrow and bring this user's history to their attention. It's our achilles heel, that we can't control bad faith actors from within our own ranks. But we'll see. One potential fix is to lock his page.

    To be fair. His old page was a bit fawning, yet his accomplishments are legit and real. This isn't up for debate whether LuckyLouie likes it or not. I can also see that he's very active censuring other UAP related wiki pages.

    Update: User LuckyLouie has received a formal warning from a Wikipedia administrator (not me, and not something I deserve credit for). He then deleted the warning from his talk page: https://imgur.com/a/C2RkMaL. I'm still investigating this user. He appears to be part of a group of accounts that specifically target the UFO community." And "Rindstad 6 days agoI've been a wiki editor for 14+ years. Bad faith edits are hard to prove and usually result in nothing, but I'll file a complaint. Perhaps my account history adds some extra credence to it." There was no formal warning by an admin. Someone from that group posted to his talk page, I blocked the editor, User:Johnuniq protected the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 16:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Special:Contributions/The real AG bragged on the X thread about their edit, the first in a couple of years. Hm, is this meatpuppetry? Doug Weller talk 20:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    New activity at Mick West [18] - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What are the chances this new editor doesn't come from Reddit or the X thread? The editor at the BLPN discussion is upset about my comment. But how do we handle all this? Where can we go to discuss it as an issue? Doug Weller talk 08:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also see this Reddit thread Doug Weller talk 09:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I note that a discussion about the Luis Elizondo page has been started at BLPN, a discussion that appears directly related to some of the activities/events described here. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a friendly reminder that these are still BLPs. WP:CSECTIONs acting as a coatrack for picked quotes are still a no-no for BLPs. There were some legit problems with Elizondo's article, and I'm sure there are with many of the others. We shouldn't ignore legitimate BLP concerns because they're coming from people behaving like assholes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    True. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I add to this the friendly reminder that per the policies at WP:NOT, Wikipedia articles, including BLPs, are not to be used for publicity, promotion, advocacy, or public relations. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 08:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. It's actually the same section of NOT that covers both of our concerns. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By an editor with warnings for BLP violations. Doug Weller talk 10:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At X I explained about AN an ANI, response:"Excellent idea to try. Need concise complaints that indicate which policies are being violated. I have assembled a comprehensive document with relevant information to appeal to the Wiki Admin board. Others have tried to follow Wiki recommendations to post Villiage Pump where Admin are supposed to be neutral and evaluate the concern. Instead, affiliated editors were alerted the complaint, and the user was blocked from editing other than their own Talk page for daring to raise a complaint against their closely affiliated fellow editors. Apparently, if a novice user that hasn't made much of any edits first posts a complaint, they are accused of not being on Wiki to build an encyclopedia and summarily blocked. I'd be highly interested to know about anyone else's attempts to bring concerns to the recommended boards... "
    Any ideas what VP threads they might be? Doug Weller talk 19:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone here on this thread named Cruncy came here to FTN to complain about an article and was blocked. Is that the kind of thing you are talking about? Possibly I'm not clearly understanding the issue. People who are editing for the very first time and clearly show that they do not understand even the basics of Wikipedia are raising concerns on various noticeboards ... how is that help? Just pick any of their "concerns" awards removed from a Wikipedia page ... OUTRAGE!!!!! But actually the awards were moved and citations were added. Okay then how dare people remove the honorifics on an article ... SENSORSHIP!!! Well that is a Wikipedia policy that happens on all Wikipedia pages, see Neil Tyson mentions around Wikipedia, you should never see a PhD after his name, if you try to explain, they handwave and move on to the next outrage. These people making the most noise with hours long videos creating hateful comments are not listening to reason, they don't want to listen ... outrage is how they get clicks and popularity. This isn't about improving Wikipedia and developing a consensus. This is a group of people who have a different agenda (and this is not a UFO problem, it is common to all the FRINGE topics, just some are more organized than others) we just have to continue doing what needs to be done, and wait them out. Remember there are many people watching the outrage that know how Wikipedia works and/or sees the ad hominem attacks and says to themselves "I'm otta here, this community I thought might have answers are not serious about the topic and are disrespectful and unhelpful". Sgerbic (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, there are a few people there who have explained how Wikipedia works, even about the “Dr” thing. The rest are clueless at best. Doug Weller talk 20:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen those comments also, and those are the people who are not so invested in the frenzy of the topic, they are the ones I'm talking about who hopefully will walk away. Hope they don't lose interest in the subject completely, we can really use reasonable people discussing the subject respectfully.Sgerbic (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is sensorship something similar to mediumship? ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow. jps (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you provide context? All I am seeing is West's tweet that just says "No". Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's in reply to the question "Is Mick West Lucky Louie?" Schazjmd (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm amazed they're still banging on this drum. It reminds me of when the UK press was obsessed with the idea that Philip Cross was really Oliver Kamm, something that was obviously false to basically anyone familiar with Wikipedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am he as you are he as you are me... JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [reply]
    Sorry, I thought it came with the tweet to which West was responding. jps (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Earthlings have rumbled us. I think we should return to the home world. Bon courage (talk) 04:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is very strange to suddenly find oneself the object of jps-level notoriety on the interwebs. Oh well. I hope this doesn't discourage experienced editors from improving UFO related articles (shout out to User:Feoffer, who is currently improving many of these articles). - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then there is this strangeness[https://twitter.com/SapphireBushman/status/1751769442697265229] Sgerbic (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the shoutout. It won't discourage me, Louie, and you know why? Cause "I don't have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you!" <grin>. Anybody shows up with pitchforks and torches outside my castle, I get to be like "Hey, I didn't wanna WP:ASSERT it was Mogul, the FTN gang forced my hand!" Seriously though, I'm not really sure what all this thread is talking about, but I'm really sorry it's happening to you. Thanks for all you do, couldn't imagine the project without ya'll. Feoffer (talk) 12:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the latest manifestation of this.[19] Bon courage (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone have a clue as to what this might be about?[20] You need to read the editor's talk page for context. User:Hob Gadling the editor says you were very helpful, as was User:Rp2006. Mick West was unblocked recently, there was socking but his appeal explains it well. Doug Weller talk 13:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Since most of what the user wrote is delusions, my and Rp2006's alleged helpfulness was probably also a mirage. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That seemed pretty obvious. I can't figure out the post today about some Village Pump though. Doug Weller talk 14:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My impression is that they meant the help desk. A good block in any case... —PaleoNeonate – 00:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Makes sense. Doug Weller talk 10:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Found my ID here... and I have absolutely NO idea what this statement is referring to. Can someone explain? Rp2006 (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here[21]. I removed it. Doug Weller talk 18:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK... I STILL have no idea what that was about! I have not been involved in the kerfuffle I am reading about here, nor do I make it a special point to edit UFO related pages! I did make a comment on a talk page recently though, but I do not see the relevance to what's going on here! Rp2006 (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're one of the few confirmed members of GSoW, which the UFO fanatics have been spinning conspiracy theories about. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it that I am "one of the few confirmed members of GSoW"? Confirmed how and where? And if I were a member of that group, how is someone making such a claim not doxing, and contrary to WP rules? Rp2006 (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I seem to recall a brouhaha regarding your editing which sort of mutated into a discussion of GSoW. I am not sure if it was ever 'proven' that you were associated or if you 'admitted' it, but I can see how someone might come away with that impression. That said, it would be a bit of a deep cut, but I guess conspiracy types and ancient alien "theorists" are kind of used to deep cuts. Just a thought! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That poster was just spouting nonsense, don’t look for meaning. Doug Weller talk 19:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently @Rp2006 you have been really helpful! I think this was about the conspiracy theory that Louie had archived his talk page on November 12th as if there was something odd about that. They do know that editors often archive their talk pages, for no reason other than to keep it fresh and able to find things ... right? Kinda creepy that somewhere in Archangel1966's files is a stack of screenshots of Louie's talk page. Some people collect odd things ... whatever floats your boat. Sgerbic (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again... I have not been involved with ANY of this, regarding a Talk page archive or otherwise, so I do not understand why my ID has come up. This is quite disturbing. Rp2006 (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Rp2006, those on the outside stirring this up are likely connecting you and others to GSoW because of the 2022 Arbitration case. 5Q5|✉ 13:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the one I was thinking of above! Getting old is not fun, but I guess it beats the alternative. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that editor was referring to this Help Desk discussion. For some reason it did not get far. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Damn it's all about Louie .... Louie Louie Louie ... Louie gets all the credit and he has never seen the inside of The Secret Cabal, nor JoJo they can't get past the secret handshake. Sgerbic (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Disruption now at Sean M. Kirkpatrick [22]. I've reverted but there may be more to follow. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    SPA activity

    A couple of excitable new editors at Pentagon UFO videos as well. - MrOllie (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Should we have a CT alert on the talk page? Doug Weller talk 10:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Three "new" WP:SPAs within the last 12 hours, yerrrs. Bon courage (talk) 13:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now a discussion on Maussan's talkpage: Talk:Jaime_Maussan#Request_for_Removal_of_Irrelevant_and_Misleading_Information. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, CT notices have been sent to the new editors' Talk pages. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given current disruptions, it's reasonable to add semi protection to these pages per WP:SEMIGUIDE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Protected the Pentagon page but I can only protect those with recent disruption. Doug Weller talk 19:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Somebody's been trying to include an article by "thedebrief.org" on Kirkpatrick's bio, so I've made a RSN post, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Thedebrief.org. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I reviewed a bunch of Twitter threads last night and on that basis think that we may be at the end of the campaign directed at Pentagon UFO videos. All in all, I think the interactions went okay. Putting my WP:ENEMY hat on here, there is a fair critique to be had that the article focuses quite a bit on Mick West, but I think there is nothing for it as his ideas seem to be the ones that the best sources are paying attention to. There is, of course, the NASA report which fully debunked one of the videos and the NYMag source that came out a few days ago focuses on balloons in ways that may deserve a bit more coverage. I feel for the fact that Graves is upset his interview with The Debrief is being blackballed, but I think the message was delivered to him that inclusion of his recollections in Wikipedia would require mention/attention paid by more mainstream sources than The Debrief. That's as good as we can hope for. jps (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been reviewing X notifications also, as the only editor in this mix that uses her real name, I'm under attack every hour. They are all over the map of reporting me to Wikipedia or the Govt or they are suing me or about to sue me or something. All this is of course ridiculous. But what is concerning is their constant threats to out the real life names of the GSoW team, apparently they will make those people accountable. Not sure what they plan on doing, but I'm sure it isn't to send them a bouquet of flowers. When we went though the ArbCom "trial" I raised my concerns about Wikipedia editors who attempted to make a list of my team members. It was strongly suggested that I should create that list myself and maintain an open editing project here on Wikipedia for those editors. The concerns for the safety of my editors should their real-life personas be revealed were poo-pooed and hand-waved away by Wikipedia editors. I ignored this and shut the group down further and it is impossible to know who and who is not GSoW.
    Which leads to the next issue, all of you who have made an edit in support of the rules that rankles this UFO group are now considered a part of GSoW in their view. We are on week two of this mess and they have not let up on this piece of twine they think they have got their hands on, any moment in their minds they will pull on the thread and the whole conspiracy will be revealed. And when this finally dies down as jps states, in time it will revive within this community, or it will be another area of FRINGE that we might not even have on the radar right now.
    Those of you who are saying that you are not a part of GSoW, these people don't believe you, of course you would say that. And while I have the floor I want to say that you should be proud to be affiliated with GSoW, these people make me proud every day and if you knew them you would say the same. BTW for those of you on the team, remember meetings are always the second Tuesday of the month when there is a full-moon and I wish people would stop bringing potato salad, potatoes are for French fries and salad is for a bowl with ranch dressing.
    Buckle down editors, these people aren't going away, my psychic powers tell me that they are just now ramping up. Sgerbic (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI "The page on the Pentagon UFO videos is officially locked by the Guerilla Skeptics." and SusanGerbic how about unlocking the page?" [https://twitter.com/StandForBetter/status/1753156374534467777] This is just a tiny percent of the flack I'm receiving every hour. Sgerbic (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I responded. Doug Weller talk 19:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL "She isn’t an Administrator and I didn’t lock the page, semi-protected from being edited by non auto-confirmed accounts. I can also block meatpuppets. ... I'm not a guerilla skepic". Thank you for trying Doug, I'm curious what that response will be but believe they won't understand what that means, nor believe you. The world of reliable sources and critical thinking alas is not in their world. Sgerbic (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me know if there is anything else I can do. Doug Weller talk 20:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Sgerbic. A few thoughts:
    1. If you wanted to organize a GSoW WProject, people could use their pseudonyms of course. But I understand where you are coming from in wanting to maintain secrecy.
    2. While there is almost certainly more bark here than bite, any kind of threat or harassment is simply unacceptable in my book. Please document harassment and share it with the WMF safety. They may not be able to do anything, but the paper trail is good to have.
    3. GSoW, for better or worse, serves as a kind of paranoid touchstone for the frustrations with Wikipedia that pseudoscience pushers of all stripes experience. Like Avi Loeb's magnet dragged along the seabed, GSoW serves as the attractor for the ire of these personalities. And you make a good point that because there is a lack of critical thinking essentially by definition in those whose ire is provoked, there isn't much in the way of disabusing them of their conspiracy theory about how the GSoW rules all Wikipedia pages. While I don't want to invite more harassment of you, there is a service being done by redirecting this kind of advocacy away from Wikipedia proper and onto metaconcerns about cabals and the like.
    I'm going to go give you a barnstar now.
    jps (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm really touched jps and Doug. Thank you both! Sgerbic (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yoga Journal

    There is a discussion at WP:RS/N#Yoga Journal as a Reliable Source which may be of interest to participants here. Bon courage (talk) 10:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thomson Jay Hudson

    Guy invented laws for ghosts. Article may profit from more eyes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I notice a lot of the article depends on citations to sources from the 1890s, which were much more credulous about ghosts, psychic powers, etc. than RS are today. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_96#Thomson_Jay_Hudson. That you say he "invented laws for ghosts" probably goes to show how poor the article is, he put forth these mind theories to show that spiritualists of the time were not communicating with ghosts. The result of the prior discussion was addition of a bunch of old newspaper sources to show notability. Biographies of minor 19th and early 20th figures are often lacking good sources, and the WP:FRIND ones called for might simply be unavailable. Who would care enough to write other than basic biography and a simple description of Hudson's "objective" and "subjective" minds? fiveby(zero) 14:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Shellenberger

    WSJ confirms lab leak. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to fix it as follows:

    In 2023, Public was credited by the Wall Street Journal for publicly identifying three scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology who were allegedly working on Coronaviruses and had taken ill near the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.[53]

    It more accurately describes what the WSJ credited Public with doing, and omits mention of lab leak theories etc.
    -- M.boli (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, except the WSJ mentions Publics influence on lab leak theory proponents in both the headline and body copy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My interpretation of @Hob Gadling's note is: by Wikipedia mentioning the lab leak theory we were indirectly giving it credence.
    • The WSJ article credits Public with publicizing the names of the 3 scientists, and the WSJ reprters confirmed that information.
    • The WSJ article also credits Public with juicing the lab leak theory. But that is a more amorphous claim with no mention of confirmation or independent checking.
    This reference is about Public. The point of the reference is to show that Public is a thing, it can publish actual information. Thus it was easy to mention credit for the 3 names and omit lab-leak from Wikipedia. Which to my mind fixed the problem. If we put lab-leak back, I guess we probably wiki-link it to COVID-19 lab leak theory and add a disclaimer? -- M.boli (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I rather thought we were not indirectly but directly giving it credence, by saying in Wikivoice that someone confirmed one of the lab leak tropes. I thought I should leave it to those who are deeper in the subject matter. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Diana Walsh Pasulka

    Diana Walsh Pasulka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Article uncritically parrots some pretty WP:ECREE claims about "base reality" to alien abductions. Pasulka is one of those academics who seems to be teetering off the edge of the limb they climbed out on. Are there sources we can use to show the WP:MAINSTREAM does not accept her fantastical beliefs as being, y'know, based in "base reality"?

    jps (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    People often misinterpret WP:ECREE. The "claim" being presented is that this person believes whatever thing thing they believe, not that that thing is true. "Genesis says that God created the Earth in seven days" is not an exceptional claim. "God created the Earth in seven days" IS an exceptional claim. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are missing the point that this page is functionally a WP:COATrack for Pasulka's beliefs without any indication that these beliefs have been noticed (contrary to your Genesis example). If no independent sources have documented those beliefs, they do not deserve articlespace attention. jps (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:FRIND yeah. No independent sources? then trim the fringe. Bon courage (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is short bio about a person that wrote some books. The sources are briefly describing what the author lays out in the books. Other sources are snippets of reviews of the books. So, where is the issue? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is with the lies being told in the sources and being parroted uncritically in the text. For example, Pasulka's beliefs that there have been advances in physics which were being led by investigations into UFOs is laughable on the face, and yet a podcast where this is allowed to be uncritically declaimed is included as a source. The Kirkus Reviews quote chosen was not written by an expert who can evaluate the actual claims Pasulka makes. The article is functioning as a promotional trumpet for a bunch of fringe claims to which this obscure academic seems quite partial. That is not what Wikipedia should be showing in articlespace. jps (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pyrrho the Skipper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) warned for POV pushing pseudoscience. jps (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pushing pseudoscience? Let's stay WP:CALM here. If the author is notable for writing a book, the article should explain why they're notable and what they're notable for, should it not? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pyrrho the Skipper: you have been warned by multiple editors over years over your uncritical and careless promotion of pseudoscience. I see you were lately involved in arguing that acupuncture is not quackery in spite of the best sources stating that it is exactly that. I think you should be topic banned from pseudoscience broadly construed as I do not see you adding anything positive to our work at making sure such topics are well-considered. jps (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, where is the issue? I suggest that the answer can be found by reading WP:NOT and WP:FRINGE. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this a notability issue? If so, that's a different path to go down. But if she's notable enough for an article, than the article should summarize what she is notable for, according to the sources, no? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will repeat here what jps wrote in the first sentence of the first post in this thread: Article uncritically parrots some pretty WP:ECREE claims about "base reality" to alien abductions. That is the issue. I once again suggest reading WP:NOT and WP:FRINGE. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, the "claim" being presented is that this person believes whatever thing they believe, not that that thing is true. It sounds like you're mixing up a subject's claim with a claim made in Wikivoice. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOT and WP:FRINGE. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    good gracious... Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am done here. Good luck, folks. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Text was being cited to a transcript hosted at thedaughtersgrimoire.com, which seems to specialize in credulous UFO narratives. Not a WP:FRIND source in any case. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tell it to the interlocutors: [23] jps (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19

    I attempted to write the synopsis for the book Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19. User:Bon courage deleted the book synopsis per WP:FRINGE, then gave me a less than useful explanation. It's longstanding precedent that book synopses are cited by the book itself, why wouldn't this book qualify? 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 21:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In cases where synopses are challenged, the best thing to do is workshop them carefully. It's very easy for synopses to turn into WP:COATRACKs. I think the best approach is to actually look for what third-party sources have written about the book and focus on those rather than trying to write an entire synopsis. This is no easy task. jps (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's the same problem as with articles like Plandemic or Unplanned. A good book review my be a helpful source. Bon courage (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it actually the case that normally we use a book's own synopses for the book? I know we don't always use the subject of a BLP's description of themself to be stated as fact. Doug Weller talk 12:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a 'convention' about synopses (often some of the worst writing in Wikipedia), but for fringe books/films/etc it runs up against policy, and in particular NPOV which is not negotiable.

    Any inclusion of fringe or pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The fringe or pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how experts in the relevant field have reacted to such views should be prominently included. (my underlining)

    The trouble with Alina Chan and Matt "AIDS came from a lab" Ridley's book is that pretty much everything in it is fringe, to the point that even talking about "evidence for the lab leak" takes us into cranksville. Bon courage (talk) 12:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with using sources other than the book/film for the synopsis of the book/film is that they are often wrong and/or insert their own analysis. For FRINGE purposes I guess another issue is that sometimes synopses are overlong or written from an in-story perspective, or at least in a way that suggests they are about the real world rather than the work of fiction synopsed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's clearly NOR policy that we accept analyses in reliable sources and are not able to substitute our own. Also, it's pretty easy to correct errors in reliable sources that report primary sources without reinventing the wheel. TFD (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we just apply RS: if a book is not reliably published we don't use it as a source. If sources aren't, we don't use them. I am only talking about non-fiction here. As for fiction, agh. Synopses for those are too often terrible. Cherry picked from the book, etc. Doug Weller talk 15:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a weird grey area. It took months to get a synopsis of The Game Changers written and we only achieved what is present there now after the main proponent of the film's main conceit was banned from the page by a third-party admin. jps (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The book was published by a reliable publisher, HarperCollins, but is clearly a WP:FRINGE topic. The problem with this book is that it pushes a non-fiction label into fictional territory, cherry picking evidence as it goes. I guess this is mostly an indictment on HarperCollins for publishing this and invocation of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS might be the only way to get around this grey area. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 04:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well HarperCollins is a trade publisher and I'm sure the book has sold well (so well done them!) but they're not a guarantee of reliability in sci/med (is any publisher these days so reliable?) Bon courage (talk) 04:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Books published by the big 5 aren't even typically factchecked by the publisher as far as I am aware. Being published by a major commercial publisher has never been a indicator of reliability, and that's been true at least since the publication of Worlds in Collision back in 1950. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, publisher hardly matters. What matters is the notice by the relevant experts (in the case of nonfiction). In this case, it looks like there was a lot more attention paid by the social media sphere than there was by serious publications and reliable sources. I notice that the talkpage has now attracted a dormant account to argue, somewhat irrelevantly, "Lab Leak Isn't Fringe!" Sigh. jps (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Workshopping of a possible addition of a synopsis continues. I am all but spent. If others who have sanguine heads about themselves would see it fit to make some judgement calls about this, I would be most appreciative. jps (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Armenia

    I have found reasonable evidence of falsification of history in Azeri Wikipedia pages about Armenia.Which include fake claims of Armenians committing a genocide against Turks and Azeris, other fake claims include a claim that the territory of Armenia was historical Azeri land. These false claims are supported by the Azeri government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farrafiq (talk • contribs) 12:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing can be done on the English Wikipedia about content in the Azeri Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    NYMag: Intelligencer takedown of UFO credulity

    Source here. Probably worth updating a few articles.

    Heh.

    jps (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Including Loeb’s claims of finding evidence. Doug Weller talk 20:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Entertaining excerpts: "The country was, and is, suffering from a paranormalization of the plastic bag." [...] "Watters was fined $40 for 'placing a carcass on the highway.'" ... —PaleoNeonate – 23:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Atlantic meridional overturning circulation

    Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I don't know how closely the average FTN editor follows climate change news. Nevertheless, I would assume there's a better-than-average chance that last summer, you would have seen headlines such as Gulf Stream could collapse as early as 2025, study suggests

    That was based on a paper in Nature Communications - normally a reliable, mainstream source. Yet, in this case, the conclusion was very far outside of the scientific consensus - you can see a summary of just how far in these commentaries from scientists here and here. At times, cutting-edge research can overturn consensus - but in this case, the opposite happened, as the paper applied its modelling to what has long been outdated data. Science Media Center had requested comment from scientists on this matter (including lead authors of the other AMOC papers, like Levke Caesar or Niklas Boers): I have been following SMC for a while, and I have never seen a climate change paper prompt over a dozen responses there - let alone for several to criticize it in really stark terms.

    You might also find it interesting that this paper had just two authors (in climate science, papers on major topics typically have 5-10, even when it's other modelling studies - i.e. here and some can have several dozen, like here), and that they are apparently siblings, according to The Conversation article. Now, the brother, Peter Ditlevsen, has apparently chosen to directly edit the way their paper is covered in our article. As you can see from history, the edits were first done through an IP address (curiously, from Bayonne, France, even though the authors are based at the University of Copenhagen), then, after I removed their whitewashing, the exact same thing was done through a newly created account, "Pditlev", which even uses "we" in the edit summary.

    The way I understand policy, this is WP:COI at the very least. I am still not particularly experienced on the administrative side of things, so I would appreciate involvement of more experienced editors. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    So Pditlev is blocked from editing that particular page. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a list of all the papers that cite this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Noah’s Ark discovered by archaeologists?

    [24][25] Doug Weller talk 20:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Suboptimal sources, but that still admit that it's outlandish to jump to the conclusion that a myth was historical, from a natural formation and possible evidence of human activity in the region (the latter is not extraordinary, of course, and we can still expect better sources)... —PaleoNeonate – 00:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Weird to see this has resurfaced, as it is very much old news to me. See David Fasold and Durupınar site. Slp1 (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slp1 These are new people reviving it, a bit of a surprise. I assume there's an agenda. I was in contact with David Fasold not long before he died. Doug Weller talk 17:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. Ağrı İbrahim Çeçen University. An unsourced statement says that "ICUA is the main host of scholarly international conferences related to Noah’s Ark in Eastern Anatolia. There were international symposia on Noah’s Ark and Mount Agri I and II, in 2010 and 2011." Doug Weller talk 17:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    PROFRINGE source in {{press}} header?

    Does a PROFRINGE source belong in the {{press}} header at Talk:Race and intelligence? How about when we're pretty sure it's written by someone we've banned from editing Wikipedia for disrupting the topic area? The question has turned into something of a battleground, unfortunately. Cool heads are invited to help bring down the temperature at Talk:Race and intelligence#Removal of Quillette quote. Generalrelative (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wellness influencers and climate change conspiracy.

    This might be useful somewhere.[1] Doug Weller talk 14:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wellness influencers promoting climate change conspiracy theories. Here is a related article from Institute for Strategic Dialogue[2] (Simmons is quoted in the CNN article). I've added a mention to Joseph Mercola#Other views. -- M.boli (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another source.[3] —PaleoNeonate – 08:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Paddison, Laura (2024-02-04). "Wellness influencers fueled pandemic misinformation. Now they have another big conspiracy in their sights". CNN. Retrieved 2024-02-04.
    2. ^ Simmons, Cécile (2023-11-15). ‘Conspirituality’ and climate: How wellness and new age influencers are serving anti-climate narratives to their audiences (Report). Institute for Strategic Dialogue. Retrieved 2024-02-04.
    3. ^ Voght, Kara (2023-09-30). "The MAGAmerican dream lives in Sarasota". The Washington Post.

    Am I imagining things or does Nahom give undue weight to a fringe view?

    Although this is an article about a religious belief, it is using archaeology for proof. Doug Weller talk 20:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this can be partly resolved with a bit of respectful rewording… to make it clearer that LDS scholars interpret these archaeological findings in a way that supports their beliefs (distinct from the interpretation of mainstream archaeology). We don’t need to say they are “wrong”, but it should be noted that they are “different”. Also, looking at the article, I think I agree that the section is probably overly long, and could be summarized better. That would help with the UNDUEness of it all. Blueboar (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The comet pushers are back with their own journal for fringe material

    Found this on Brad Lepper’s Facebook page. You may remember that Kenneth Tankersley and his colleagues’ paper on a comet supposedly wiping out the Hopewell culture was retracted back in August by Nature’s 'Scientific Reports.' Well it’s back from the dead – in the pages of a new journal devoted to 'Airbursts and Cratering Impacts.' The journal’s editorial policy privileges papers that “run counter to a prevailing view” and “have been rejected by other journals.” And Tankersley is on the editorial board, which should help to ensure that this somewhat revised version of the paper won’t be retracted: https://www.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.14293/ACI.2024.0001 Doug Weller talk 20:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Bicameral mentality

    There's a big dispute at WP:NOR#Bicameral mentality about this concept and the book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Bringing it hear because the person who is probably using OR is also arguing that the articles support the concept unduly. For those unfamiliar with this concept, the lead for the first article says "Bicameral mentality is a hypothesis introduced by Julian Jaynes who argued human ancestors as late as the ancient Greeks did not consider emotions and desires as stemming from their own minds but as the consequences of actions of gods external to themselves. The theory posits that the human mind once operated in a state in which cognitive functions were divided between one part of the brain which appears to be "speaking", and a second part which listens and obeys—a bicameral mind, and that the breakdown of this division gave rise to consciousness in human". Doug Weller talk 07:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=1203645214"