Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the fringe theories noticeboard
This page is for discussing possible fringe theories. Post here to seek advice on whether a particular topic is fringe or mainstream, whether there may be problematic promotion of fringe theories, or whether undue weight is being given to fringe theories.
  • Discussions related to fringe theories may also be posted here, with an emphasis on material that can be useful for creating new articles or improving existing articles that relate to fringe theories.
  • The purpose of this board is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but rather to ensure that neutrality and accuracy are maintained.
  • Familiarize yourself with the fringe theories guideline before reporting issues here.
  • To aid in promoting constructive dialogue with advocates of a fringe theory, {{talk fringe|fringe theory name}} may be added to the top of the corresponding talk page.
Sections older than 20 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so.

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

  • If your question regards whether material constitutes original research or original synthesis, please use the no original research noticeboard instead.
  • Discussion of fringe theories will depend entirely on their notability and reliable coverage in popular media. Above all, fringe theories should never be presented as fact.
  • Volunteers: To mark a discussion resolved, place {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Article alerts


Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Featured article candidates

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split


Academic research about UFOs and related phenomena[edit]

Recent WP:POVFORK of UFO proposes UFOs are piloted by various aliens and interdimensional creatures. Any criticism is framed as mere "allegations". Fascinating. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is zero prospect of this crock of badly-sourced fringe-POV-pushing WP:OR nonsense surviving an AfD discussion, which sadly looks like being necessary now that the redirect to the Unidentified flying object article has been reverted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academic research about UFOs and related phenomena. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How is it badly sourced? It's based on WP:RS like quality secondary sources like The New York Times, NASA, The Washington Post, nonprimary scientific studies, BBC, etc. How is it "fringe-POV-pushing" or WP:OR? It's fine and compliant with policies, redirecting/deleting it is not, please make specific concrete points and see WP:RS, WP:NPV & WP:DEL and especially WP:DEM. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is so much wrong with this article it would take a wall of text to go through it point by point, but here’s a few highlights: a classic WP:POVFORK, it contradicts Unidentified_flying_object#Studies at the main article....sources like the ‘’Journal of Scientific Exploration’’, Knuth’s conference paper/Entropy article, ufologists like Budd Hopkins, etc. completely outside WP:FRIND.....Synthesis of WP:SENSATIONAL speculations extracted from disparate sources assembled into a narrative....attempts to balance fringe interpretations with mainstream views, as if both are equally valid. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not a POVFORK, I addressed why at the deletion discussion even without you clarifying why that would be the case. How does it contradict with that section? It's irrelevant here anyway and probably that section is just a bit outdated or incomplete. One can use academic articles as refs and these did have additional secondary sources, if there's some that you find should be removed you'd need to remove them in specific. The Knuth paper was a topic of WP:RS as well and these refs are right next to it. Hopkins is not referenced or mentioned and name-calling somebody an "ufologist" is not a valid Wikipedia-policy-compliant argument, it is not synthetic or sensational either (why would it? for example even Director of national intelligence Avril Haines or NASA administrator Bill Nelson appear to affirm the validity of this subject as a topic of academia in principle and so without precluding any potential explanations), instead of violating FRIND, WP:RS are used, if your personal opinion favored view is not portrayed as the only valid view, that's still not an argument at all and would violate WP:NPOV. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said, the problems with this article are too substantial to list here. But if you want to just address the images: [[File:Scars from different "abductees".jpg|thumb|[[Budd Hopkins]] thought these scars on people's bodies were examples of evidence of the physical reality of alien abductions.]] remains as hidden text within the article. (And yes, Budd Hopkins is a ufologist.) The Giancarlo Cecconi image leaves out the identification as black plastic bags by the Italian Ministry of Defense. The mystery airship illustration again leaves out the context that airship reports were not taken very seriously even at the time of publication. And the technosignatures chart is lifted from a paper that isn't even vaguely related to UFOs-UAPs. Far from being a summary of academic thought on the topic, these images appear to have been added into the mix just to spice things up. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Removed that already commented out image and added the identification as black plastic bags by the Italian Ministry of Defense. I don't understand your concern about the mystery airship illustration. Why would the illustration imply that and why would it be relevant whether or not it was taken seriously and which info do you think is missing (if it is that it wasn't widely taken seriously do you have a source for that)?
The technosignatures chart is very related to UFOs-UAPs – stopping just short of including something like "Probes within Earth's atmosphere", it includes "Artifacts on Earth co-orbitals" and "Interstellar probes". In principle, "Probes within Earth's atmosphere" could actually be a subcategory of "Interstellar probes", albeit the inclusion of the image does not suggest that. It's there because it's relevant content that shows which related or similar things some scientists are looking for in SETI (e.g. some indicated UFOs may be technosignatures and these are [the other] technosignatures illustrated in one useful image). These are all the article's images already, there certainly aren't too many in there. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note the off-wiki coordination: [1]. jps (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That is not "coordination", I'm allowed to post links to articles there, especially as I don't want my work to be wasted as in never getting read before getting deleted for no good reason.
    As I have already stated, I don't think the way some of you apparently routinely (or very frequently) keep out content you don't like and coordinate on skeptics community noticeboards like this one here complies with WP:DEM (but I could be wrong about that and this is not meant personally but just as a concern I have which I think am allowed to express [if not please remove that part of the comment]). Decisions should not be made with voting but via arguments-discussion, proper rationales and Wikipedia policies, like WP:RS and WP:NPOV. I don't think this is currently the case in a category of topics you are heavily involved in, possibly even approaching single-purpose type of editing in some sense. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Please stop pretending you have the slightest clue what WP:RS means. [2] AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's not bite newbies. IF they don't understand RS, they certainly doing understand OFFWIKI. Closers over at the AFD obviously need to be on the lookout for votestacking, but this isn't our first rodeo, we know how to do that. We're a wiki -- this user came and gave us a whole article. Is it up to our standards?? no. But let's not treat them like a criminal just for TRYING to help us. Feoffer (talk) 12:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I appreciate your WP:AGF spirit here, but none of this is helpful. Read about the derision directed towards our community in those threads. They aren't out to add to Wikipedia; they're here for WP:AGENDA purposes. Feels like old times. jps (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not here for WP:AGENDA. Have you checked my contributions, does that look like a profringe agenda or like trying to improve Wikipedia on a variety of mostly UFO-unrelated topics? No derision. albeit I do have concerns about your contributions.
Again I think decisions should not be made with voting or with whether it "feels like old times" or what you personally assess as "helpful" or how you think of my personal concerns voiced here but via arguments-discussion, proper rationales and Wikipedia policies, like WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You didn't follow WP:RS and WP:NPOV in this terrible article. So if you take your own medicine, it would be a great gesture of good faith for you to ask for the article to be removed from articlespace so that you can work with others who might be able to help you attain this. However, from your commentary in the off-wiki link I see above, it seems that you have already decided you are better than the rest of us here, so I won't be holding my breath that you're actually going to take this criticism on board. jps (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Read about the derision directed towards our community in those threads. Why? Third parties are totally free to deride us in other venues. We're a wiki -- finding fault with extant content is the first step to participation! If we see anons piling up at an AFD, we can compensate at closure. Feoffer (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What third party? This is the person who wrote the article! jps (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article Pentagon UFO videos severely violates WP:NPOV, while this article does not. WP:RS was complied with and the article has good referencing. It is "based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered". I did not decide that I'm "better than the rest of us here". Anyway, this is going nowhere: you're not making any objective arguments (constructive criticism that includes but not only consists of e.g. citing policies) except for various hollow claims and more or less personal attacks. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article Pentagon UFO videos severely violates WP:NPOV ORLY? Perhaps you'd like to explain exactly how it violates NPOV? jps (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quote: I'm not here for WP:AGENDA. Have you checked my contributions, does that look like a profringe agenda... I'm going to go with 'yes', having looked at the history of the Ufology article, and at its talk page, where Prototyperspective tried and failed to gain consensus to include content now found in the new article, tried to edit-war it in anyway, and having failed, created this blatant POV-fork. And I'd have to suggest that a statement that posts were made to the r/UFOs subreddit because I don't want my work to be wasted as in never getting read before getting deleted for no good reason looks to me very like an admission of canvassing - an off-Wikipedia posting made with the intention of influencing the AfD result. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Full quote: Have you checked my contributions, does that look like a profringe agenda or like trying to improve Wikipedia on a variety of mostly UFO-unrelated topics?. And concerning your other concern That is not "coordination", I'm allowed to post links to articles there, especially as I don't want my work to be wasted as in never getting read before getting deleted for no good reason.As I have already stated, I don't think the way some of you apparently routinely (or very frequently) keep out content you don't like and coordinate on skeptics community noticeboards like this one here complies with WP:DEM (but I could be wrong about that and this is not meant personally but just as a concern I have which I think am allowed to express [if not please remove that part of the comment]). Decisions should not be made with voting but via arguments-discussion, proper rationales and Wikipedia policies, like WP:RS and WP:NPOV.. What I meant was that if people read my work before it is getting deleted or despite of it, then my, btw fully WP policies-compliant, work at least isn't completely wasted. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No work which cites 'Space Navy' as a source [3] is policy compliant. Not even remotely. Not ever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, it doesn't. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you explain the reasoning by which you came to include it in the first place? Is this just not knowing any better? Or is this because it's a source you were hoping you could use for other reasons? Or is it because you didn't know you had used the source? jps (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, it was a mistake and I didn't check the source good enough (I previously read another, maybe the primary, source). Sorry about that, it was my fault. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you see now why this is a bit exhausting for us? This isn't the only source like that included in the article. It isn't ready for mainspace. And yet you insist that there isn't anything wrong. WP:CLEANUP is one thing, but WP:TNT is closer to what is needed here. Again, if you would just allow this to be draftified and get some help, that would be one thing. But you keep insisting that you are right and everyone else is wrong in spite of evidence to the contrary. This does not bode well for future collaborative work on this sort of project, does it? jps (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Evidently the assertion that the article was 'fully WP policies-compliant' was in fact incorrect. There is a pattern evolving here. One I'm sure some here are familiar with, from other AfD discussions. Someone submits a ref-bombed article. Insists it is fine. Others say it is badly sourced. Examples are asked for. Examples are given. Eventually, a single reference is removed, grudgingly, followed by an insistence that the article is now policy compliant. Rinse and repeat... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This was an exception and I don't know of any other well-referenced article that gets deleted just because a minor mention with an unreliable source is included. There are already hatnotes at the top of the article and you could tag or remove things, which as f now isn't required.
Concrete concerns are asked for. One (and at most two) concrete issue is given. This issue is immediately fixed without a grudge, followed by an insistence that the article must not be ready for mainspace and unelaborated links to various Wikipedia policies that the article meets. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are numerous inline tags I put in the lede. You haven't dealt with any of them. There are numerous sources that are worse than the one you removed. They are still in the article. Like this one. Are you really unable to see these problems? jps (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because that needs a little bit of time, dealt with most of them now and I don't think most of the are appropriate. For example, I replaced one with an excessive detail tag now as this level of detail shouldn't need to be in the lead. That source is from transcluded content. Deal with it one the respective article, here I only transcluded it and I haven't added this reference, next to which there are multiple other ones (however, please consider the contextual text next to it). Prototyperspective (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it needs "a little bit of time", it should be sandboxed. The article is atrocious and yet it is in mainspace. I agree that excessive detail doesn't belong in the lede, but you can't put generalizations in the lede for which is there is no reference in the text. You have, essentially, a propaganda piece written by UFOlogists right now. That's not okay. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an excuse for poor writing. jps (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are references for these things in the article body. Afaik, most ledes on WP don't have references / many references if their respective refs are in the article body. Saying things like "some scientists" is better than specifying who all stated that explicitly which is overly detailed. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are references for these things in the article body. There are not. That you think there are indicates to me that either you did not author this piece or you are very bad at remembering what you wrote. Saying things like "some scientists" is definitionally WP:WEASEL. You need to do more work learning to write for Wikipedia. What you are doing right now is not good enough. jps (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prototyperspective I had some misguided optimism yesterday that maybe you would work together with me to get to an article that would be okay. Lord knows there are people out there who might like to learn about the (lack of) academic research that has gone into UFOs. But you seemed either willfully or obliviously impervious to understanding the basic problem of source-based writing. You want to make hasty generalizations and labeling of people as "some scientists" versus "other scientists" as if there are two opposing camps in these situations which is very much not what any reliable source says about the situation. What we have are a handful of, let's call them "mavericks" who are making noise in a way that gets media attention and we have a relatively quiet opposition in exactly the way that WP:FRINGE describes. The article then falls into WP:GEVAL traps almost immediately instead of patiently explaining the lack of academic research on the subject. Additionally, a tremendous amount of space is spent on explaining things that are manifestly not academic studies. And this was just the lede. I have given up trying to collaborate on this because I don't see a way forward that is not [[WP:TNT}]. You say you are worried about editors being driven away. I have to say that this is a legitimate worry, but it is the way of the wiki because fringe subjects are hard to write about. WP:PROFRINGE is just too easy a trap to fall into and you have fallen into it whether you want to believe it or not. I was hoping you might find your way out, but it doesn't appear to me that you will and I've seen this kind of circus too many times before to not identify the patterned behavior here. jps (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd be happy to further work constructively on the article.
What we have are a handful of, let's call them "mavericks" who are making noise in a way that gets media attention and we have a relatively quiet opposition That's a statement of personal opinion as is. See WP:NPOV and WP:RS.
I added some further info about the way the research has been described by WP:RS after the criticism with the section "Status as a field", even right at the top. The relative! lack of academic research on the subject is expanded upon in the section "Research about the status of the field". Do you find that info is missing there...what is your concern?
The lead was very short until you wanted it to get expanded, and even after adding to it you added tags about specifying "some scientists" which made it even longer due to listing specific examples.
This is at the very least not as fringe as you make it out to be at this point, and yes things do have changed in recent years. Copying from the discussion:
    • Please actually look into what the WP:RS say about that. Some indeed call it a minority opinion, however a significant one (see WP:NPOV)! Others don't and these include this reported by WP:RS which said: A smaller but still sizable share of the public (51%) says that UFOs reported by people in the military are likely evidence of intelligent life outside Earth. Most of this sentiment comes from people who say that military-reported UFOs are “probably” evidence of extraterrestrial life (40%), rather than “definitely” such evidence (11%), according to the survey of 10,417 U.S. adults, conducted June 14 to 24. On the other hand, 47% of Americans say the military reports are probably (36%) or definitely (11%) not evidence of life outside Earth.
    • Many other sources only implicitly saying it's not a minority view at least at this point. Moreover, if you read the article you'd know that NASA administrator Bill Nelson stated that UAP could be from a civilization that is civilised and organised like ours, the U.S.' Director of national intelligence Avril Haines has stated There’s always the question of 'is there something else that we simply do not understand, that might come extraterrestrially?'. It is a valid possibility to take seriously. There are further WP:RS, many of which in the article, that show this to be a significant possibility that is not to be precluded (or reduced to ~one small sentence which nearly ridicules it) and to be (sufficiently) covered via WP:RS, including(!) statements from various experts / scientists.
    • It's very important for the public perception of and quality of Wikipedia that we do not make decisions based on opinions (see WP:DEM), but on WP:RS & WP:NPOV (facts, not our views), and policy-based-rational-and-specific arguments.
Maybe something about the relative(!) lack of academic research on the subject should be added to the lead, beyond the very brief content about that already included there?
I'd like to contribute as constructively as possible and am open to criticism that is specific and that I can understand, even if I do not agree with it. Sorry if my efforts seem like a "patterned behavior" you identified. Constructive criticism is welcome. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is at the very least not as fringe as you make it out to be at this point, and yes things do have changed in recent years. This is simply not true and is essentially a WP:PROFRINGE WP:POVPUSH. Until you recognize that you do not have reliable sources which indicate this we really cannot move forward because you will just be promoting a fringe understanding of this topic. jps (talk) 11:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have put 3 quotes that are cited in WP:RS right there (plus there are more).
If you referred to the second part things do have changed in recent years beyond those three things many WP:RS of the article said so, often quite explicitly, I don't know if this info is included in the article (of the recent change, not just e.g. the current status) and would have to revisit them to check which ones it were. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quotemining does you no favors if your goal is to show how you aren't succumbing to WP:PROFRINGE behavior. You also have not identified reliable sources. You've identified many sources that are of questionable reliability due to WP:SENSATION and more than a few which are blatant violations of WP:FRIND. I think you need to stop working in this area. You just are not competenet enough yet. jps (talk) 12:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would not put lots of quotes there if you didn't appear to require such for it as proof of the validity. I only added it after the criticisms to address them as far as I could understand them despite their inspecificity. That it is sensational is, again, your personal opinion, please see WP:RS. In cases were a source you find incompatible with FRIND, which you think applies here, is used such are only next to even better sources so they could be removed without any change in content.
  • I'd like to revert this revert of yours for which you had the rationale Rv fringe POV pusher and None of these are published in mainstream journals. They don't count as academic studied and there are no reliable sources that identify them as such.. You are not the one who decides what counts as academic studied, this is about what WP:RS said. Please see that policy – your removal is unwarranted and not compatible with Wikipedia policies. Per WP:BRD you should now consider that these are WP:RS – you can't just remove info about these studies & reports which are backed by lots of WP:RS and need to discuss the removal by addressing my point (WP:RS).
Prototyperspective (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you want to collaborate, you'll have to start from the WP:STUBified version that doesn't suffer from your wild beliefs that interviews in news sources or quotes from UFO fanatics are somehow indicative of academic works. jps (talk) 12:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article was not called "Academic works about..." but "Academic research about..."² and research findings can be communicated as well as covered in WP:RS news sources (which I used intentionally to avoid criticisms about WP:PRIMARY when citing studies). (²Alternative article names are possible and a few have been proposed.) Most RS news sources aren't interviews or cited for quotes and in the cases where they are, they are usually not the only source but next to plenty of other RS. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Huey Long[edit]

Articles relating to the assassination of Huey Long appear to be giving undue weight to a conspiracy theory about Long's death. Huey Long was shot and killed by Carl Weiss in 1935, but text has been added to several articles to cast doubt on this, giving undue weight to a theory that Long was murdered by his own guards and that there was a "cover up". About half of the text in the article Assassination of Huey Long is dedicated to this theory. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is quite a bit about the theory, yes, but there is also quite a bit written in the media about it. Perhaps it could be spun out into a separate article, like is done for the Assassination of JFK. Or trim the section and rename to "Conspiracy theory," rather than "Counter theory". Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Race & intelligence (still) at Intelligence quotient[edit]

Firefangledfeathers has been doing an excellent job mediating a protracted dispute over race and intelligence at Talk:Intelligence quotient#The "no evidence" statement. At this point, however, I don't think it's fair to be putting the entire weight on their shoulders. I know that there is reticence to get involved in this topic area, but wider participation here would be helpful. Generalrelative (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Steve Cokely[edit]

No specific recent activity, but probably worth watching and improving. Cokely gave over 5,000 lectures on the topic of global warming and corporate conspiracies, the Trilateral Commission, The Bilderberg Group, Rothchilds, Rockefellers, Boule, etc. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now thats a name I haven't heard in a while, in his day he was a perennial fixture of the conspiracy circuit (and in the writing of those critiquing said conspiracy circuit). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Macroevolution[edit]

has been turned into creationist propaganda. I reverted, but I guess that is not the last we will hear of this. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was not. The guy seems to think that this is about me, and tries to argue on my Talk page instead of the article Talk. Also, refuses to adhere to WP:BRD. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Turns out I did not check the whole content: the section said those ideas were refuted. But the inappropriate section title "Criticism" fooled me - it looked profringe. Still does. Could somebody else tell him about WP:ONEWAY? He probably won't listen to me. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sathya Sai Baba[edit]

There was an unusual incident at the article Sathya Sai Baba. A user changed the subject's religion to "Humanity" and added content which is unsourced and gave false balance to claims of supernatural powers. They're at AIV now, since they have resorted to long-winded personal attacks, such as [4], which typically accuse users of imperialist fact-distorting. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 21:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now blocked for 72 hours, officially due to a legal threat in one of the attacks. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 21:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Martin Kulldorff (Great Barrington Declaration author)[edit]

After some months of stability, this has flared up again, with disagreements about Kulldorff's stance on various COVID-19 matters. Could use more eyes. Bon courage (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bachelor's Grove Cemetery[edit]

The spooky should be cut down, but I am unsure how much. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

let me take a pair of sheers to it Sgerbic (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see what you mean Hob. The Ghost Research Society is notable but the citation for the cemetery looks like it's just something from their website. Several others are linked to books I don't have access to. Let me see. Sgerbic (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nice images though - I love me some photos! Sgerbic (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Element Encyclopedia of the Psychic World and ghostresearch.org are not remotely WP:RS. News stories published on or around Halloween such as "Visit Dead for a Halloween Treat" and "Dixon Shutterbug Boasts a Supernatural Snapshot" etc. are WP:SENSATIONAL not-meant-to-be-taken-seriously coverage by normally reliable sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
okay - let me cut farther Sgerbic (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, done Sgerbic (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What do you think of this mention of a paranormal test - in the Journal of Perceptual and Motor Skills? I can't locate it, it's not R/S and if I remove it then all the ghost stuff is gone. Sgerbic (talk) 18:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[5] Here is the abstract Sgerbic (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay I just read the study (thank you WikiMedia Library). Summation - these researchers used a lot of different camera types and went to this cemetery and set up quadrants. They cite Joe Nickell who says that "film anomalies are a function of conventional mechanisms, rather than parapsychological factors." He also says that "film anomalies are merely conventional artifacts misinterpreted do to contextual variables such as a belief in the paranormal or demand characteristics of the situation". The final conclusion is that they think this test might be helpful for future researchers. But the main takeaway seems to be this "Researchers using photography or analyzing photographs in the investigation of anomalous phenomena have not extensively pursued alternative causes for photographic anomalies. Clearly, researchers must consistently take into account such variables to begin to distinguish between photographic artifacts and possible evidence of paranormal or Fortean-type phenomena." They also say in the study that "that ambiguous (yet otherwise normal) events are often considered meaningful due to paranormal contexts."
In other words, they found nothing. And in conclusion what seems to be happening is ghost-photographers are seeing ghosts in their pictures because they aren't looking for the reasons why the photo looks that way, they are seeing what they want to see.
So what do you think we should do with this? Expand on the reference or leave the paranormal section out? The Bachelor's Grove Cemetery was where this test was done, but back in 1997. Sgerbic (talk) 18:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This particular cite to Houran is probably OK. It's typical of parapsychologists of the era who were aiming to distinguish "false" paranormal evidence from "real" paranormal evidence. Some of his other stuff published in Parapsychology journals would not be considered a WP:FRIND source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay - I'm about to go run some errands (cats are out of food) so I'm leaving this on my desk and will get back to it in a couple hours. I did a search on Newspapers.com and found two articles, one on Halloween eve talking about how it might be haunted and the other was ghost hunters cleaning up the place as it is always vandalized and trashed. I don't think I will add those articles. Kitties await their dinner.Sgerbic (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Despite the cute headline and Halloween season publishing date, this Chicago Tribune story is one of the least credulous, and establishes that the place is most notable for legend tripping-related vandalism [6]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did some cleanup and added some sourcing. I'd advise fleshing out the history section using this history page written by one of the local trustees. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pretty soon all that will be left are the photos. Sorry I got distracted after my cat food run. About to check out that history article now. Sgerbic (talk) 02:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I just added a bit of history about how the place might have gotten the name - and who were the first and last people buried there. I also removed the haunted category. So now the page has pretty much been de-ghosted. The video by the historian looks really interesting, he starts off talking about how all the folklore and ghost stories were just made up. I didn't watch the rest of the video, but added it as an external link. I'm sure anyone really interested in the cemetery as a historical place will find it interesting. I think we are done team. Good job! Hope I don't have nightmares of bachelors haunting me tonight ooooooooooooo Sgerbic (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also removed the haunted category - um... are you aware of the huge category tree this is part of? One large branch of the tree is Category:Reportedly haunted locations in the United States by state. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh Lard - Hob! More! I have cats that need feeding! Sgerbic (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I ended up removing the Houran cite. As a holdover from the old days when alleged photos of ghosts were minutely analyzed and hotly debated, it's no longer relevant to the focus of the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
great! Sgerbic (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tabby cat-yawning-01.jpg Cats may now eat undisturbed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uyghurs[edit]

Can someone with experience dealing with racial pseudoscience review the recent edits at Uyghurs and History of the Uyghur people? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I love the edit summary "Dont change this,because i added real facts". --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lol, you are totally right about the edit summaries... "Althought stay this. Because its true information about uyghur ethnogenesis" is one of the most unintentionally poetic things I've ever seen. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been twice too late today. The only thing left for me to revert was the completely useless talk page edit by a link-"fixing" LTA. –Austronesier (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Socionics[edit]

More eyes are needed at Socionics. Crossroads -talk- 17:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History of Christianity[edit]

What do you think about [7]?

Yes, that's the point. The naive churchgoer's understanding of Christianity is "the Bible, then the fundamental doctrines like the Trinity, then the patristic fathers debating other stuff." But in fact it was totally different: The NT was produced *by* the second generation of disciples, and reflects controversies that already had arisen in a church that was at least 40 years old by the time that the oldest material in the NT was written, then only centuries later did trinitarianism become a significant issue. There isn't really anyone who disputes this other than a small fringe of non-academic Protestants who will tell you that God prefigured later debates by divinely inspiring resolutions to them in material written centuries earlier. The article leads people to the wrong idea about the historical development of the doctrine and presents the false apologetic notion that trinitarianism was a commonly understood belief in the early church.

The beliefs of traditionalist Christians should be accurately included in the article, but its structure should not depend on them. Predestiprestidigitation (talk) 11:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I see [8] as WP:SOAPBOXING for WP:FRINGE views. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All thise opinions do need to be attributed, if that's what you mean. StAnselm (talk) 13:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mutatis mutandis:

Wikipedia works on the basis that whatever scientists commonly consider to be true is true. Binksternet (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The text in 14 which was removed and may be some of what is at issue reads:

The claimed theological unity of the Christian Church was propaganda retrospectively projected by the clergy, rather than a genuine historical reality. Post-Bauer historians give the lie to Eusebius's Historia Ecclesiastica with its claim that true faith precedes heresy, and heresy being a wilful, devilish choice to disbelieve the theological truth.

There are some WP:WEASEL words and WP:PEACOCK terms in there. Was it "propaganda"? The word "propaganda" did not exist until the Counter-Reformation, so it seems at least somewhat anachronistic to label it as such in Wikipedia's voice. Surely another term could be used ("doctrine"?, "dogma"?, "belief"?) that does not suffer from this problem. "Genuine historical reality" as well didn't really exist as a rhetorical proposition until post-Enlightenment. You might as well say that it was "pseudoscience". And while post-Bauer historians may have consensus on a topic, do they really "give the lie to" a third/fourth century bishop? I'm not sure that you could find a quorum of scholars who would agree that this is what they are doing when they evaluate the context of the writing of the New Testament. The sources do not seem to be going on about "debunking" Eusebius in spite of what contradictions are evident from what we know happened in comparison to what may have been written about circa 400 CE.

Besides, to have any iron in the fire at all about whether "true faith precedes heresy" presupposes that true faith and heresy actually exist. Most non-believers reject that premise out of hand. Neither side is correct just as the there is not necessarily a correct "side" in the conflict between heaven and hell. :)

jps (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Made me laugh. But books of Bible scholarship are rife with claims of Ancient propaganda, e.g. in respect to the United Monarchy, the House of David, the chosen people, Babylonian exile, Cyrus as the Messiah, etc. Just because the Ancients could not use the word "propaganda" does not mean we should not use the word, either.
And of course, I believe in making it simple, without adulterating its meaning. But others are free to rephrase my words. E.g., terms like "heresy" and "true faith" reflect the views of the group which has won the Ancient theological struggles, but we use these terms without endorsing their perspective.
If you ask me, propaganda simply means preaching something, or WP:SOAPBOXING as we say. I would translate the title "Book of Ecclesiastes" as "Book of the Propagandist".
I don't see propaganda as necessarily nefarious, e.g. I wish that propaganda for peace had more power. See also emic and etic. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I can agree to all that. Still, it strikes me as a bit startling to read the term "propaganda" in that context. If we have sources that use that kind of description, we could attribute, and if most of the reliable sources use the term we could WP:ASSERT it, but from what I could see of the sources I don't think that's the word they use. I'm not necessarily a stickler for precise word usage to determine our choice of vocabulary. But when it comes to a term as loaded with meaning as "propaganda" (what, is there an equivalency between Eusebius and Leni Riefenstahl?), I think it's good to at least consider whether there is a way to say this differently or expand upon the point if it is really one that is being made in the sources. jps (talk) 03:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And a citation to Keith Hopkins "Christian Number and its implications" is inappropriate for "propaganda". Unrealistic to accept the self-representation of unity certainly: Of course, the drive towards unification did not succeed completely, ever. The house cult-groups and communities were too diverse and too diffused over different regions with their own cultural traditions, and individual Christian believers were too passionate and inventive for unity ever to be achieved in reality. But the ideal and illusion of unity as a church and as a grand (apostolic) tradition persisted, and had a powerful effect on Christian organization and self-representation. Christian church leaders repeatedly tried, at least from the middle of the third century onwards, to achieve unity of belief and practice. I think in some measure our author might have agreed with "propaganda" as a term if there were more expansion and explanation, but as is this is somewhat a disservice to his work. Hopkins is interested in the implications of: One tentative but radical conclusion is that Christianity was for a century after Jesus' death the intellectual property at any one time of scarcely a few dozen, perhaps rising to two hundred, literate adult males, dispersed throughout the Mediterranean basin. How these numbers and dispersion played into dogma, exclusivity, and an illusory self-representation of unity are all very interesting and hit ideas appropriate for the article, but consider: I don't think that anyone in the middle of the second century could have reasonably predicted that the policy of dogmatic exclusivism would end up with a triumphant monopoly. The success of the strategy was discovered only over time; it was not purposively invented as a marketing device. Editors should summarize sources, rather than pulling quotes to support a preconceived construction.
Also, Hopkins is a source beyond the competence of editors to use without reference to more general and comprehensive works. This paper is an experiment in both method and substance. My methods are frankly speculative and exploratory. For the moment, I am interested more in competing probabilities, and in their logical implications, than in established or establishable facts. He is looking at Rodney Stark's work and speculating on implications. In the same way "primary" and "secondary" are often used on this board to describe how for instance an original paper shouldn't be used without reference to a review or more comprehensive source. fiveby(zero) 15:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Propaganda" could mean lying like a dog, but it does not have to. Having grown in a Communist regime, I know their propaganda follows the pattern lie, lie, lie, blame the capitalists. Having analyzed the propaganda of the Dutch government, it follows the pattern real fact, real fact, real fact, desire. Dutch propaganda is preponderantly reality-based, Communist propaganda is preponderantly out of touch with reality (creates its own fake reality). tgeorgescu (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

German Wikipedia Tiwanaku article Touts Fringe Research about Geopolymers[edit]

I was looking at the German Wikipedia article about Tiwanaku for recent information and found that it has several pargraphs discussing many of its building stones being manmade blocks composed of synthetic geopolymers. This concept is incorrectly presented as being main-stream, instead of fringe, science and give undue weight to this idea. Paul H. (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This page has "jurisdiction" over the English Wikipedia, not other languages. Sadly, a similar noticeboard is missing in the German version. But I'll check that article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, dubious things not pointed out as dubious clearly enough (that microbiologist is a layman, and what he says is bollocks). But I think you should try the Talk page first. Most of the people there should understand the subject better than me or anyone else you can pick up here who understands German. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my understanding, the German Wikipedia is in pretty poor shape for matters fringe. But the problem needs to be sorted there, not here. Bon courage (talk) 19:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MBTI[edit]

Lots of activity and some disagreement here recently. Could use eyes. The article in general has been in pretty poor shape for a long time. Bon courage (talk) 06:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User is edit-warring and saying in the edit summary, I'm not interested in Edit War. Mistakes mainstream psychology for "bad faith". --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Origins of COVID (2022 edition)[edit]

So the Lancet commission report dropped recently and has caused some consternation for its apparent suggestion of US/NIH involvement in SARS-CoV-2 origin. Lab leakers in particular seem upset this is the wrong kind of conspiracy theory (it should have been blaming China!). Anyway relevant edits/discussion at

and a recent thread at

could all uses input/oversight of fringe-savvy editors. Bon courage (talk) 06:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Canaanite religion[edit]

Someone is inserting crappy sources and removing good ones, see [9]. To sum up, their church does not like that God was originally a Pagan deity, so they deny that Yahweh is worthy of worship, they deny that God=Yahweh. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pieruto33: What the heck is wendag.com? It does not remotely look like a WP:RS. And you have replaced Amsterdam University Press with MDPI, which made it to Beall's List. At the same time you have removed fas.harvard.edu and the book of a winner of the Dan David Prize. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have to qualify my previous statement about their church: on one hand, they claim that the Bible is a work of fiction, on the other hand, they speak of demonic entities. So, this leaves me puzzled about their own religion. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chiropractic in Canada[edit]

See Talk:Chiropractic in Canada#This article seems pretty non-neutral. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I cleared out most of the promo, poorly sourced material, and copyvio. There was little left, and I took it to AfD. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Levitation (paranormal)[edit]

Someone wants to add questionable fringey sources. Discussion has just started. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Digit ratio[edit]

Digit ratio Seems to be a chaotic mess of cherry picked primary sources some of which don't even agree with whats being said in the article. The few non primary ones also decidedly call it pseudoscience. I'm not familiar enough with medical literature or WP:medrs to know where to even begin with this. Any help or eyes on this would be good.—blindlynx 14:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yikes, agreed that this is exactly the kind of fringey pseudoscience MEDRS is meant to address. Going to need to take quite a hatchet to the article. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I made a first stab, removing a 42k character table of all the suggested correlations. I expect that's only the start, and we'll basically get down to a handful of notable claims (gender and prenatal hormone ratios), with the associated secondary sources that seem to show a lack of evidence. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll try to find some secondary sources—blindlynx 14:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robert Thieme and Berachah Church[edit]

This is a classic example of a non-neutral, fringe religious figure whose biography is written from the perspective of a member of their church (which I'm convinced, based on the edit history, is exactly what happened). Our biographical article on Robert Thieme and Berachah Church have flown under the radar for many years. Looking at the administrative archival record, the only thing I could find in regards to this problem was an edit war that took place back in 2017.[10] Moving forward, all the usual problems noted on this board can be found in the biographical article. (@ජපස: as he is a recognized expert on this topic.) It isn't clear if we need the article on both the biography and the church. Someone might be able to make the case that we only require one article on both subjects.

I think Thieme is more notable than the church itself, but when one looks closely at the current biography (and the link to the edit war above), it is evident that the article was written by a member of the church as an overt hagiography of Thieme, as well as a deliberate whitewash of the published criticism of Thieme and his church, which have been repeatedly described as a Christian cult, most notably in the popular press for having the family of Dan Quale, the 44th vice president of the United States, as members and believers, specifically his wife's family. The Associated Press initially covered the story[11], followed by Elinor J. Brecher and Robert T. Garrett of The Courier-Journal, who published a brief expose in The New Republic back in November 14, 1988, followed by the New York Times in the Summer of 1989,[12] and the Chicago Tribune later that year.[13]

I'm fairly certain the cult literature has additional information on Thieme and his church, but it's not easy to find. In any case, the Christian literature, which is apparently highly skeptical and critical of Thieme and his church, isn't represented at all in the article. I would appreciate any help with this. Viriditas (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I rather agree with your assessment: the man is likely more notable than the church, but I actually like the church article somewhat better. Lovingly documenting the finer points of a particular preacher's theology is not something Wikipedia is really set up to do. We don't even really do that with legitimately famous preachers like Oral Roberts or Billy Graham. jps (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There seems to be a disturbing pattern of this in the extant literature. For example, the entry for the church and Thieme in the Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions (Lewis 1998) on pp. 73-74, briefly touches upon some of the internal controversy in the Christian community, but the entry mentions nothing about the greater controversy documented by sociologists, religious historians, political scientists, and cult experts, and is mostly written from the POV of the church. I get the feeling that this reference work was written based on Thieme's promotional materials, not on a critical appraisal by a religious historian. Viriditas (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update: Gary Wills was able to interview Thieme for about two hours, and summarizes the event in his book Under God (1990). As you can imagine, almost none of this material appears in the current article. My overarching point is that the current article is mostly composed of primary sources, when we have secondary sources that aren’t used that provide a more reasonable, neutral, and critical appraisal of the topic. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flight 105 UFO sighting[edit]

Flight 105 UFO sighting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is this really a "Good" article? It doesn't say much of anything.... but I guess that is par for the course with UFO sightings of this nature. jps (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From a cursory glance, it looks like it meets the bare minimum criteria, and the review did entail changes. I would have to look closer at it to know more, but nothing stands out as unusual. Viriditas (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My concern is that it lacks context. Pilots and a stewardess reportedly saw lights in the plane. Why do we have an article about that? I don't see the overall notability claim or the WP:N justification from my read. jps (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Look at it as documenting the spread of mass hysteria, or a meme, or a new religion. If a reader wants to know how UFO hysteria spread and developed, Flight 105 is an important datapoint in the story. UFOs tells us nothing about aliens but they tell us a LOT about humans, hysteria, and the start of the Cold War. Feoffer (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, but to the point of the objection, there is a larger parent topic, 1947 flying disc craze, of which this is a daughter subtopic. Pursuing this argument further, is there enough to sustain a separate page? It looks like there could be, but the original writer didn’t expand all that much on the subject before nominating it. Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If a reader wants to know how UFO hysteria spread and developed, Flight 105 is an important datapoint in the story. Have any third party sources expressed this, or wrote of Flight 105 as culturally significant? - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep! 21st-century third-party RS covering the 1947 craze discuss Flight 105 immediately after the Arnold sighting. Random example from March 2021. Feoffer (talk) 02:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's included as an item in a list in that article, essentially. Two sentences devoted to describing it as part of the saucer craze. Where is the justification for an article to stand on its own? jps (talk) 09:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's included as an item in a list in that article, essentially. Come on now, J. That's not a fair characterization, ppllease try to dial down the battleground if possible. Louie asked if any third party RSes mention 105 -- they do. It's not our idea to list Flight 105 after Kenneth Arnold in 1947 flying disc craze. Feoffer (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's fair to ask if there are a reasonable number of sources that discuss the significance of Flight 105 as an important datapoint in the saucer craze in depth rather than mentioning it as one among many. The entry at 1947 flying disc craze already does a good job putting it in its place. I'm not sure we need a standalone article that duplicates the content and pads it out with random details. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ppllease try to dial down the battleground if possible. Please try to dial down the gaslighting if possible. But back to the topic...Being just one of a great many UFO sightings during that period for which the supporting evidence is solely "We saw somethin'!", the significance of the event seems suspect. I am also not seeing any sources that identify this particular event as an "important datapoint" for understanding the spread and development of UFO hysteria interest in UFOs. Is this a WP Good Article? No. I do think, however, the article can be retained and improved by removing the padding and, if possible, expanding the on-topic content with FRIND sources (as opposed to, for example, expanding the list of credulous ufologists who have mentioned the event). JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a good distillation of my concern. I like having somewhat comprehensive coverage of UFO sightings that received notice. I don't think we have the ability at this point to properly contextualize them outside of the broader craze. Taken as a whole, it becomes obvious that there was self-reinforcing attention being paid to these claims which ebbs and flows throughout the decades. Detailing the big picture view of the 1947 craze is useful and there are plenty of sources which take the bird's eye view to explain the social dynamics and the severe problems with claimed evidence that gets established as a pattern throughout. If you start siloing these sightings to their own articles, it becomes something of a synth game. I compare it to doing something like taking each creationist claim and writing an article about it. Not a tenable enterprise. jps (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I compare it to doing something like taking each creationist claim and writing an article about it. GOOD communicating, jps. I understand your concern now.... If we keep Flight 105 as a standalone, I'll need to add more context about mass hysteria and such. Now that I understand your concern, I do think there's lots to be said for moving 105 into the parent article. But that won't work for all the sub-articles -- some of them have to be split off or the parent article will become unreadable. Flight 105 is literally inseparable from the craze, and it would be the best candidate for merging back into parent article.
If I understand your objection, it wouldn't apply to hoaxed recovered discs, right? Those are explicitly labeled hoaxes, so they include context right in the article? I'm thinking of the 100% obvious hoaxes Twin Falls hoax and the Hollywood hoax etc. (not Rhodes, I gotta think more on how to improve that one). But the obvious hoaxes (of which there were many) should be safe to split, right? Feoffer (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It all depends. An obscure hoax is still difficult to contextualize on its own sometimes. I'm thinking more that things like Kenneth Arnold and Roswell which are part of the craze and perhaps overly discussed in the literature are the most obvious candidates for standalone articles. But most of the rest of the 1947 craze articles seem to be too obscure for independent curation. This is the same concern I have with the Rhodes UFO photographs. jps (talk) 13:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I shall think on this. There's just too much detail put it all in one article, and we have a duty to cover this material somewhere -- and per summary style, it can't all fit into one monolithic, unreadable 'block of text' article. Based on your feedback, I'm thinking your original observation is best -- the child articles need more context. I've started added that context, and will continue. I hear ya on Rhodes, it's def the most challenging event of 1947, and I'll continue to think about how to best structure that one. I feel like twin falls is ideal for its own article because it's so obvious a hoax, there's zero reason to go into the details on the main article -- nobody's gonna mistake that for a FRINGE topic, it's obviously a hoax. Feoffer (talk) 04:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One thing I worry about is that we don't really have a clear standard for the notability of UFO sightings. Over the course of years LuckyLouie and I have been going through sightings articles to see which ones we had decent sources for and which ones we did not. Often the conclusions were pretty deflating. Most UFO sightings are attested to in simply awful sources that mix credulity with all sorts of weird armchair commentary and irrelevant discourse to the extent that it can become untenable to do much more than just say that it is a story that is included in the MUFON database. I once had a student in a data science class who thought that it would be interesting to see what could be done with that database, only to throw his hands up in despair when he realized that the data was so poorly organized, accounted for, and cleaned that he had an easier time handling the used car market in the US than the UFO sightings database. It's just not a very well accounted-for set of events. jps (talk) 11:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Multimedia artist Todd Siler and his fractal reactor[edit]

This may be of interest to editors here: The article Todd Siler includes a section in something called a "fractal reactor". Here's the entire section:

In 2006, Siler used a multimedia exhibition at New York's Ronald Feldman Gallery to present his proposal for the nature-inspired "Fractal Reactor," which offers an environmental-friendly, alternative method of using controlled nuclear fusion for energy purposes. While the actual processes used by the fractal reactor, rely on highly sophisticated physical and mathematical formulations, its principles re-examine the hypotheses behind nuclear fusion in novel ways. This proposal has been taken up by the International Atomic Energy Agency for further study.

There is no citation, and the red flags are obvious, so I looked for sources. Most are reviews in arts journals which lack topic expertise. Here's a presentation PDF given by Siler at the 13th International Conference on Emerging Nuclear Energy Systems. At a glance it's not quite as bizarre as the Wikipedia article makes it seem, but it's still above my level.

The current article is very poorly sourced, but an older version includes a lengthy list of sources, most of which are offline or not linked. Grayfell (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's conceptual art, mostly, firmly part of what I call the "fractals and chaos craze" that captivated popsci discourse for the twenty years following the publication of James Gleick's book Chaos: Making a New Science. While nonlinear differential equations and fractals are fascinating things to learn about, they did not really lead to the breakthroughs that were implicitly predicted by certain commentators. jps (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sacred geometry[edit]

See Talk page "This is woeful". --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree: it is woeful. Here I think, is a better explanation as to what is going on: [14]. What we might do is recast the article to refer to academic works that examined geometrical design elements in churches, mosques, temples, and religious artwork. There is a lot of literature on that which is routine and interesting. A disambig link to Drunvalo Melchizedek could then be used for those people looking for what is passing for this subject in the woo-obsessed communities. jps (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have been investigating this situation a bit more. It happens that in 1982, Robert Lawlor wrote a book: Sacred Geomtery which I think is probably much better attested to than Drunvalo Melchizedek. In fact, it may have been the source for some of Drunvalo Melchizedek's flights of fancy. jps (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trait Emotional Intelligence (Trait EI)[edit]

This page was created today and appears to be largely promotional, created by a user who's contributed little beyond pushing this model and fluffing its originator. I have a few concerns but unfortunately little time right now to devote to resolving them. First of all, the article contains lots of WP:PEACOCK language that I doubt is supported by the sources. Second, I'm not sure the topic merits a standalone article separate from Emotional intelligence, and may be a WP:POVFORK. Third, the model's originator has some prima facie WP:PROFRINGE associations –– allegedly serving on the board of Personality and Individual Differences (though this actually failed verification) and publications with Hans Eysenck. More eyes on this would be helpful. See also Konstantinos V. Petrides. Generalrelative (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've opened a thread at COIN. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Konstantinos_V._Petrides. I agree that this doesn't warrant a standalone article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Daemonologie and others[edit]

An IP found a sentence embracing a witch-hunter POV in the lede. See Talk page.

The user who added it, User:Mysticalresearch (contributions [15]) has done similar things in other articles.

An earlier version said, Charles Miron discovered the fraud by making her drink holy water under the disguise of normal water - yeah, that is how you find out if someone is possessed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]