Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the fringe theories noticeboard
This page is for requesting input on possible fringe theories. Post here to seek advice on whether a particular topic is fringe or mainstream, or whether undue weight is being given to fringe theories.
  • Questions related to articles on fringe theories may also be posted here.
  • The purpose of this board is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but rather to ensure that neutrality is 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 12 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
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:


Fringe phobias[edit]

I've just put leukophobia up for deletion because, as far as I can tell, it's just something someone made up. There were a couple of RFDs which deleted a huge swathe of redirects, ostensibly because articles ought to be written instead. I'm wondering just how much of the -phobias we have have any kind of medical literature behind them. Mangoe (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Do the DSM-IV codes contain a list? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
If a patient presented with this, it would be considered specific phobia. In a perfect world, much of this comically extensive list of phobias could probably be eliminated with a redirect to specific phobia. For what it's worth, I'd guess that traditional perceptions of phobias as well as popular interpretations of mental illness generally (including and perhaps especially psychotherapy) are inextricably intertwined with pseudoscience. Murky stuff. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
It's not in my copy of DSM, and the only place I could find a definition was in the Urban Dictionary, suggesting that it's more of a "pop" diagnosis than a real one. One of the cited sources (a blog, I think) goes on to describe fear of other colors -- yellow, purple, black, etc. I don't think we want to open that can of worms. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
The very thought of the colour of those worms makes me squirm. Ugh. **shivers** -Roxy the dog™ bark 23:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
The Colour Out of Space, of course. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Some of this people already said in this thread, but I'm quoting myself from Talk:Trypophobia ("phobia" of clusters of little holes or bumps), because it basically applies to all of the made-up terms that fall under the DSM diagnosis of "specific phobia, other type"... According to the DSM-5, these are the subtypes of specific phobias:

  • Animal (e.g., spiders, insects, dogs).
  • Natural environment (e.g., heights, storms, water).
  • Blood-injection-injury (e.g., needles, invasive medical procedures).
  • Situational (e.g., airplanes, elevators, enclosed places).
  • Other (e.g., situations that may lead to choking or vomiting; in children, e.g., loud sounds or costumed characters)

For example, a clinician would write the diagnosis as "specific phobia, animal (dogs)" or "specific phobia, B-I-I (needles)" or "specific phobia, other (clusters of little holes)", not "other (trypophobia)" (or anything else involving the word "trypophobia", because no one else who read it would have any idea what you were talking about).

The fancy Greek/Latin terms are "pop" diagnoses like DoctorJoeE said and will probably never be in the DSM, because the trend, at least for now, is to move away from using obscure Latin and Greek words in favor of less ambiguous terms (e.g., Trichotillomania → hairpulling disorder). BUT that's not to say that believing someone could have a fear of lots of little holes in one place (or a fear of anything else for that matter) is a fringe concept, because people can have a specific phobia of literally anything and one of the criteria for a phobia diagnosis is that the fear is irrational, so they will always sound... irrational. (That doesn't mean the people self-diagnosing on the internet are right about themselves having it, but that's a completely separate issue.) So when these things come up, and they seem to come up a lot (see also nomophobia—fear of being separated from your smartphone/internet access), IMO, we should look at them as a WP:NEOLOGISMs and if the term doesn't meet the notability criteria for neologisms, then it shouldn't get its own article and in most cases would probably be undue weight to even mention in the body of Specific phobia, but I guess that would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. PermStrump(talk) 04:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I think, as you suggest - Lovecraft references notwithstanding - that this is more of a notability issue than anything else. Yes, there are probably people who really do have an irrational fear of a certain color -- or their underwear, or elevator buttons (like Jack Weston's character in The Four Seasons) -- but how many such people are there? And are those legitimate phobias, or just components of OCD, or something else? Ask 10 shrinks, you'll probably get 11 answers. Unfortunately it is, in all likelihood, a case-by-case thing, as you said. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 08:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

A problem I've noticed with some -phobia articles is that they conflate a psychological disorder subject with a cultural phenomenon subject. Two that I took to AfD last year were Androphobia (an abnormal fear of men (a phobia) or a term that basically means misandry) and Hoplophobia (an abnormal fear of guns (a phobia) or a neologism coined by a gun rights activist for political purposes). Hoplophobia proved controversial (go figure) and was not deleted (*grumble*), but the AfD was, to me, illustrative of this challenge. With trypophobia, at least there's less confusion -- it was a cultural phenomenon, gaining attention via the Internet, at which point psychologists commented on it and said meh, revulsion, priming, and conditioning, and stuff. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

That's a good point. When they end up being notable as neologisms, most/all of the time they need to be re-written to sound less like a medical article and more like an article on a cultural phenomenon. PermStrump(talk) 18:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Is there a point to going through these and weeding them out, and getting rid of the list? A cursory look shows that that probably most of them are sourced/paraphrased from the same website/blog. Mangoe (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I have been nominating these or de-categorizing the various social "phobias". If anyone wants in on the fun... Mangoe (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Graham Hancock[edit]

I've reverted an account for adding text such as "From her personal and non-scientific standpoint, she nevertheless" and an IP for removing sourced text they didn't like, both in the last few hours. I'd prefer not to revert again today. Doug Weller talk 11:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I've watched the page. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Page now under semi-protection until 1 September. jps (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd have got there sooner or later. -Roxy the dog™ bark 22:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Rolfing again[edit]

There are some remaining unresolved issues with this article which could benefit from extra input. As I see it the issues include:

  • Should the article be copiously tagged? I'm not entirely sure any more what this issue is here by those who want to keep the tags, but the description of Rolfing as pseudoscience/quackery has been objected to for example (it was proposed[1] we should say that opponents see it as pseudoscience).
  • How should the question of effectiveness be dealt with? It has been proposed that we say some sources support Rolfing's effectiveness and some don't[2] - although as I see it the only WP:MEDRS we have appears to say there is no good evidence.

Alexbrn (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

There isn't much controversy about MEDRS on the Talk page; there clearly aren't adequate studies to claim medical benefit. Any question on this topic is just about the exact wording of that phrase. Stating it succinctly works ("There is no good evidence that Rolfing is effective for the treatment of any health condition" - as it is currently written is fine to me). There has been a line added about the lack of studies to determine safety or cost-effectiveness; if this is to be included, all of these unknowns should be stated in one simple sentence. We don't need to belabor these points; no evidence is no evidence.
The manner in which pseudoscience/quackery is discussed and the use of a number of weak sources (single-word mention of Rolfing with no specific critique or analysis of the method) is a problem, however. --Karinpower (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
The second paragraph in the lede currently reads:
"There is no good evidence that Rolfing is effective for the treatment of any health condition.[6] It is recognized as a pseudoscience,[7][8] and has been characterized as quackery.[9][10] It is not known whether Rolfing is either safe or cost-effective.[6][11]"
The controversy as I understand it is that 1) the characterizations of quackery come from two sources that simply include rolfing in a laundry list of alternative health, all of which fall into the quackery category in the opinion of the authors. This seems like weak criteria to include in a lede statement. Granted, it's important to include criticism of a topic in the lede and to assure that the alternative nature is apparent. But this categorical statement is not made in the same way on other alternative medicine topics that are included in the laundry lists. 2) The first and third statements in this paragraph seem unnecessarily redundant.
Thatcher57 (talk) 05:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
The last sentence concerns safety and cost-effectiveness, which are not the same things as effectiveness for treating health conditions Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. That Rolfing not is known to be safe or worth the fee is kind of an essential point. It would seem a bit WP:PROFRINGE not to say this in the lede. As to the "laundry list" complaint, I don't see the point. It seems sources mention that Rolfing is quackery as a characterisation, much as they might say (on another topic) "the most beautiful tourist cities in Europe are: X, Y and Z". That doesn't make it any less sourced, or inherently call the source into question, though it does limit what Wikipedia can say about this which is WP:DUE. As I understand it the Rolf-enthusiasts want to remove all mention of the word "quack" from the article, right? Alexbrn (talk) 05:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I propose removing the word "quack" from the lede, not removing it from the article. If the sources referred to rolfing as one of three or four types of quackery, it would carry more weight in my opinion. But it is included in a list of 24 in one source (Agin) and the list is longer in the other from what I can see online (Shapiro). Combining the first and third sentences is a reasonable way to address the effectiveness (or lack thereof). Thatcher57 (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I think whether quackery is due in the lede, is debatable. But we deffo need to have the (lack of) safety and cost-effectiveness knowledge mentioned. And we should also say the concepts of rolfing contradict medical science, per our sourcing. Alexbrn (talk) 06:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Sławomir Biały - the cost-effectiveness phrase comes from an Australian study on 17 Natural Therapies, so that the government paid only for services where a literature survey (2008 to June 2013) found lots of studies meeting highest criteria, and did not find that for any of the 17. I read it as one POV and better worded as "few studies" or "little evidence" or "insufficient evidence" rather than the article wording "no good evidence". In general, the study said about the 17 Natural Therapies "Very little literature exists". For Rolfing 2008-2013 it said in summary "The absence of evidence examining this technique (both in SRs published since 2008 and in RCTs) limits the ability of consumers, health providers and policy-makers to make an informed assessment regarding the effectiveness (and safety, quality and cost-effectiveness) of rolfing." and about overall completeness and applicability "The absence of evidence examining this technique (both in SRs published since 2008 and in RCTs) limits the ability of consumers, health providers and policy-makers to make an informed assessment regarding the effectiveness (and safety, quality and cost-effectiveness) of rolfing." Hope this explained the oddity of saying 'cost-effectiveness'. Markbassett (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I was responding to the points raised above by Thatcher "The controversy as I understand it is..." Whether the statement is supported as stated was not part of the alleged "controversy". Minor disagreements about wording belong on the discussion page of the article, not here. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The problem with those sources (the ones that only have a list in which Rolfing is included) is that they give a drive-by accusation without supporting it with specific critiques, and the list of items is usually quite random, everything from colonics to iridology to past-life regression. So the reader leaves not knowing *why* the author included Rolfing on that list. Also we are unable to assess what research the author did on the many methods that are listed. So, it sounds like we have agreement to remove "quackery" from the lede, and we don't have agreement about removing it from the article itself.
Regarding how to handle those sources.... For over a year (from April 2015 until July 13 2016), all of those sources were grouped into this line: "Skeptics have included Rolfing in lists of alternative health methods that they consider quackery, based on a lack of scientific evidence as well as questionable assessment and treatment methods." To me that is an appropriate container for those sources - they don't give Rolfing enough detailed consideration to warrant quoting them or citing them otherwise. Since that wording proved to be very stable we should return to that. --Karinpower (talk) 06:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Meat?[edit]

Also of concern here now is new accounts warping in with apparently WP:PROFRINGE edits - e.g.[3][4] Recruiting or something going on? Alexbrn (talk) 06:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Ruggero Santilli up for deletion[edit]

Ruggero Santilli is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruggero Santilli (2nd nomination). Please comment there. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Now closed as keep. (I think the result should have been no consensus, but it makes little difference in terms of what happens to the article.) —David Eppstein (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it should have been closed at all, since discussion was still ongoing. I also disagree with the outcome, but I won't lose any sleep over it. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Reopened again. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • it is an interesting case. I hope folks here consider the question. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Hoklo American, Hakka American and Fuzhou Americans[edit]

I encountered 2 of the articles at AfD. For a bit of background Hakka people are sub group of Han Chinese people and so are Hoklo people. As such, these are technically under Chinese Americans. This specific categorisation appears to be a fringe classification of identity to me. I have never heard of this previously (almost nothing in scholarly sources) and lots of the statements in the article are a bunch of OR and SYNTH and plain unverified. I am posting it here so that other editors can have a look as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Does this really belong on the fringe theories noticeboard? -165.234.252.11 (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Larry Sanger[edit]

This article has always had issues with promotionalism. The section on Citizendium is particularly bad, though I've tried to fix it a bit. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

This may be just me, but I find it hard to see how the promotionalism in that article needs treatment on this particular noticeboard. Enterprisey (talk!(formerly APerson) 18:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Tangential - after the academics left, various fringe-to-crank proponents swooped in - David Gerard (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that, but this venue is for topics that are, well, fringe theories (and related pages); it doesn't seem to me that Sanger is heavily involved in such topics. Enterprisey (talk!(formerly APerson) 03:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Murder of Seth Rich[edit]

Just FYI for those interested in conspiracy theories. A brand new account appears and creates this article about a Hillary Clinton staffer who was shot to death in July. Seems only notable on the theory that he's Wikileaks' source for the leaked DNC emails (and presumably was killed for this). But of course there's no RS to support that claim. Mysterious new account that created the article and is guarding it also mysteriously knows how to propose a DYK, which of course is not going over well with the DYK people. Article already listed at AfD, which is attracting lots of activity for some reason. --Krelnik (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Clearly not a brand new user behind that brand new account. If anybody is topic banned from Merkian Politics, stay well clear. I've been reading that lot, and for me, article needs to be merged into something bigger, as a one line "hillary said" addition. but what do I know? -Roxy the dog™ bark 22:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I was going to make the same comment - clearly not a "brand new" editor. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 23:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
for some reason? Possibly because it is notable, reported all over by politically correct main stream media and little guys who don't care a thing about being PC. Possibly it gets a lot of attention because certain people feel that their political cause is threatened by this information. Their claim of non-notable is quite notable & adds to the article's notability. The method of attacking the article is to add in a gratuitous claim (which does not negate notability, namely the repetition of the talking point "conspiracy theory," though the article says nothing about any conspiracy. (PeacePeace (talk) 00:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC))

Category:People accused of pseudoscience[edit]

Before adding the cat to any page make sure the subject has been accused of promoting pseudoscience. For example, the body of the article must state something like "In 2010, Shermer said that Chopra is "the very definition of what we mean by pseudoscience".[114]" or "Hari has been criticized by scientists and others for promoting pseudoscience.[14][15][62]"

You can cut and paste this: [[Category:People accused of pseudoscience]]

Happy editing, QuackGuru (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The cat was nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_August_12#Category:People_accused_of_pseudoscience. QuackGuru (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's a very good category (and it's not grammatical). Applying WP:FRINGE requires more nuance than slapping on labels like this. Alexbrn (talk) 04:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Editors recommended to rename the cat. If you have any suggestions we can create a new cat. QuackGuru (talk) 07:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Biocentric nonsense[edit]

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

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

Much nonsense about this idea which seems to be advertised heavily around the internet. 73.38.255.229 (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the former could use a "criticisms" section. Also, the lead says it is a "concept," which I don't think is the best way of describing it. It's a weird kind of new-age philosophical ideology, and should be described as such (though not using those exact words). The latter seems fine to me, unless there's notable criticism of his other work of which I'm not aware. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
The stem-cell research is the sort of work that doesn't get criticized. There is something about the biographical article which I can't really place (and perhaps it is best not to try). Perhaps it doesn't need a full list of publications. I'm inclined to say I'm not sure why it mentions the fact that Obama, Craig Venter and Lanza were on the same list of influential people, but I'm afraid that I am sure.
The biocentric universe thing is criticized by a number of blogs, but I couldn't find anything with more weight than a blog. This 2009 article is a physicist's critical view of biocentrism and this 2013 skepticblog entry is more accessible. Whether these are sufficiently reliable sources to be included in the article is uncertain. Roches (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
The Skepticblog entry should be good enough to use; it's written by Steven Novella, whom it would be very difficult to argue is not a relevant expert. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
You know better than that, MP. The woosters always find a way. -Roxy the dog™ bark 10:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, sadly. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Where there is a woo, there is a way... Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Electron internal structure again[edit]

I tried to help this guy, but he stopped responding. He's contested the prod, and after giving the page a thorough reading, I couldn't not nominate it at AfD. You can find the entry here. Just remember to use kid gloves with this guy, he's obviously in over his head here already, having troubles with copyright on images, talk page guidelines and more than a few other things we expect folks to know. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Orion correlation theory[edit]

Orion correlation theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is this the right name for this page? I think both the word "correlation" and the word "theory" gives the idea more credence than it deserves.

jps (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016[edit]

Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016 was recently created. As far as I can tell, it doesn't use sources about a subject "Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016", but rather a compilation of sources about individual conspiracy theories. My inclination is to send it to AfD, but it looks like a good amount of work has gone into it, and perhaps there's an argument for it to serve as a place to spin out sections of various other articles where these conspiracy theories might presently be living? (i.e. instead of having a pretty well sourced conspiracy theory in a campaign article). That approaches a textbook WP:COATRACK, and would still require sources about the broader topic, though. Posting here to get more opinions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

It does seem notable, though. I wouldn't AfD it, as the topic is notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Individual examples could be said to be notable, but the actual topic purporting to unite them? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah that's the thing, don't we need some source to tie them together? Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
The topic is not notable and should be deleted. One problem with it is labeling something a conspiracy theory without expert opinion saying it is, and of course it raises BLP problems since actual individuals are named as proponents of conspiracy theories. In popular writing any speculation that has not been proved is often described as a conspiracy theory, but in serious literature it is used to refer to theories that are at odds with known facts and assumes conspirators who have superhuman ability and are absolutely evil. These stories are better classified as unfounded rumors. TFD (talk) 02:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
As mentioned at WP:CSC, stand alone lists of certain things (such as conspiracy theories) that aren't notable enough to have their own articles are appropriate. That article can thus work if it's a standalone list. That's for notability and synthesis concerns though, verifiability and undue weight being given to conspiracy theories are another kettle of problems altogether. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
CSC most certainly does not do that. It does say "one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles", but it does not say "If you have a bunch of things that seem related to you, come up with a topic name and put them all together". In other words, I don't think anybody's questioning whether a list such as this can include non-notable items. The problem is WP:SYNTH, and it's certainly not assuaged by CSC. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Well it generally does do that - provided the list content is well defined. 'A bunch of things that seem related' would not be a well defined list. A list containing only reliably sourced conspiracy theories related to one election is quite a narrowly defined list - and far from being 'a bunch of stuff'. I have not looked at the article in detail yet, but if synth is being used to relate the content to each other, then yes I agree it should probably not be there. But it doesnt appear to be the case. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Still disagree. The thing tying them together is, what, that there's a source for each which uses the term "conspiracy theory"? Except when used in a scholarly context, that's far from a precise term, so yes, it's still a "bunch of stuff". There's no subject here until we have sources about the broader subject conspiracy theories (plural) of this election. It's not like making an article about a genus by gathering articles about species in that genus, or making a list of deaths in a particular year -- those are well defined concepts for which there are many sources that make it very very easy to determine what belongs. In this case we're talking about various narratives characterized individually as conspiracy theories, but one or multiple sources. Even if it were appropriately named along those lines (not pretending that there's a real subject that's simply "conspiracy theories of the 2016 election", it still wouldn't have the sources sufficiently tying them together to show notability of the broader subject. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
One day, we should certainly have this article. However, I have seriously grave doubts about whether that day is today, considering that the election season isn't even over yet. There's still time for the 'flavor' of conspiracy theories to change (consider CSs surrounding Trump: They started with being about how secretly racist he is, and now they're all about how he's a Russian Intelligence puppet. That's a YUUUUUGE shift in style, meaning and tone). We need sources writing about them as a whole, as well as sources discussing them in the context of folklore and psychology. Right now, the main feature being discussed is their truthfullness (which is generally absent), by fact checking sites. WP is not a fact checking site, so we lack the material to do an encyclopedic article right. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I think the bigger benefit of waiting is that after the election, we might actually have some sources looking back, treating these conspiracy theories as a group so as to justify grouping them together. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree, I was just trying to point out that this isn't just for policy reasons: we'd have a better article for it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Since we are on the topic of 2016 election theories, folks here may be interested in Template:Did you know nominations/Trump plant theory and my note there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Poly-MVA[edit]

Found a BLP on Merrill Garnett that looked like this. Given the poor/non-existent sourcing on the guy, but the fact that the supplement he created, Poly-MVA, has some coverage I have boldly gutted this and moved the page to be a stub about the supplement, which is promoted as a treatment for cancer, HIV/AIDS, and other diseases. The article may need watching and expansion would be good. I'll add more from the American Cancer Society source, but are there others? Alexbrn (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

  • And now this has been nominated for deletion (wrongly, in my view). This stuff also seems to go by the names PolyMVA, Polydox, LAPd, Lipoic acid-palladium complex and Palladium-alpha-lipoic acid complex! Alexbrn (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories[edit]

Editor adding material already in the article about chicken bones (and the original text in the article uses a later source which suggests the earlier research was wrong) and skulls in Chile, mixed citation styles, references that don't link to any text, personal commentary, etc. The Matisoo-Smith material is already briefly mentioned in the article in the "Similarity of features and genetics" section but needs enhancement, but not repetition. Doug Weller talk 14:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Watched and reverted once already. I did look at the edits before hitting revert, and I agree that these are not good edits. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Is the word "theories" correct for this title? It seems that we are using this a lot to indicate ideas of dubious provenance, which I find troubling. It confuses many casual readers. jps (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Some of the "theories" here are plausible, particularly the theory of Polynesian contact. If they made it to Hawaii and Easter Island, there is nothing bizarre about the idea that they made it to the American continents. Looie496 (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I guess, for me, that's what makes it all the more frustrating. It encourages the mixing of the plausible with the implausible. Alas, this might just be a right great wrongs situation. Thanks for indulging my complaints, though. jps (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The word "theories" should be removed from the page title. Aside from the problematic ambiguity of the word, the article includes the Norse expeditions to North America which are established fact and not "theories" (in the colloquial sense). Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Agree, but the prose should make it more clear what is verifiable fact (Vikings) plausible theory (Polynesian) and implausible... Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (Frankfurt School)[edit]

Original post noted by all. Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

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

There is currently a request for comment on an issue involving WP:FRINGE at Talk:Frankfurt_School#RfC:_Does_the_lede_of_the_.22Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory.22_section_follow_WP:NPOV_and_is_its_claim_supported_by_cited_sources.3F - editors are encouraged to have a look and help form consensus. --Jobrot (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Nopenopenopenopenopenopenope. I am absolutely done with the political stuff. Not touching the edit button on that talk page. I will say this, though: If someone wants to contend that it's not a conspiracy theory, but a real phenomenon, (referring here to sources, not editors), before you cite that source, see if it addresses the obvious problem of WHY THE HELL WOULD ANY PART OF WESTERN CULTURE LAUNCH AN INSIDIOUS PLOT TO DESTROY WESTERN CULTURE?!?!?!?! Seriously. It's a really stupid conspiracy theory. Unless... Maybe they're part of the Voluntary human extinction movement... (puts on his tin-foil hat and hides in the basement) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Are you saying I need to wear my tin foil hat AND hide in the basement? The voices told me one or the other ... doing both will seriously limit my attendance at Trump rallies ... DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 02:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
FWIW (for those hesitating to jump in anyway), I can't imagine this RfC going anywhere. Same things that have been talked about periodically for years, RfC that takes the form "here's something I don't like. discuss." etc. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
That's exactly why I want nothing to do with that or any other political talk page. All those arguments boil down to "I don't like this!" vs. "Well, I do!" MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
You jest, but there's a serious answer. The Frankfurt school considered the Holocaust to have been proof that Enlightenment philosophy was a failure, and consequently Western culture needed to be redefined in order to avert a second holocaust.[5] They are actually quite open and explicit about wanting to end Christianity[6], patriarchy, and the nuclear family[7]. The conspiracy theory differs from consensus reality mostly in its appraisal of how successful the Frankfurt school was in its aims. Rhoark (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
so completely wrong. yet stated with such certainty. shivers. it is terribly ironic, as that -- that double blindness -- is exactly what the frankfurt school tried to articulate and reckon with in the wake of the holocaust. we are repeating the past. Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay, what's wrong about it? I'm always happy to learn something new. Rhoark (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
It is hard to know where to begin. Two things, and then some stuff. First of all, "the frankfurt school" is a bunch of people who were only loosely affiliated and had very different ideas and even those individuals' ideas changed with time. Saying "the frankfurt school held X stance" falls apart when you drill down and look at what the people affiliated with it said and did over time. Second, pretty much all the threads of contemporary philosophy run through Germany in serious ways; there is no philosophical school (and no serious philosopher) that hasn't reflected on what it means that the Nazi regime and the unprecedented evil of the holocaust arose there, where so many influential thinkers and ideas came from. In light of those two things - it is fair to say that many members of the school focused their work on interpersonal communication and further on the how people/groups in power use speech to gain and maintain their power, and how often that speech involves dehumanizing others (one way that is done is by painting whole groups with a broad, distorting, negative brush), and the oppression and harm that arises as that way of thinking/speaking spreads and is reinforced within the groups of everyday people who identify with those in power generating that speech. How The Big Lie is generated and spreads and turns into action. How that works. So it is ironic (and horrible) that people spread Big Lies about "the Frankfurt School". That's all I'll say. Jytdog (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Any philosophical school comprising multiple people is going to have some internal variation and disagreement, but it still will have some unifying characteristics that can be discussed in general terms. For the Frankfurt school, the common thread is not just having been in physical proximity to the city of Frankfurt. Once stripped of all the Hegelian word-salad, its a prescription for social change that corresponds cleanly with the battle lines of American culture wars. Rhoark (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
It's worth considering that if RSes concurred with you, you wouldn't be trying to argue their hypothetical case here - David Gerard (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that they do.[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] They just don't use the exact term "cultural Marxism", making it easy to maintain a WP:POVFUNNEL. Rhoark (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure you can convince people on the relevant talk page (which is unlikely to be here) that this is not synthesis - David Gerard (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Then you have more faith in Wikipedians' intellectual integrity than I do. I have no interest in fighting the uphill battle to rehabilitate the phrase "cultural Marxism", but maybe when I have nothing better to do I'll add balancing material outside the fringe-containment section. Rhoark (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I am not continuing this; I have no interest in engaging with the nonsense around "cultural marxism". but if you come here and write culture war bullshit dressed up as sloppy, FRINGE pseudo-philosophy you will be called on it Jytdog (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

That's a really unfair glossing of Herbert Marcuse. Rhoark (talk) 18:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Is it as unfair as attributing Anna-Verena Nosthoff's personal interpretation of Adorno's views to every single philosopher in the Frankfurt school? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Scientific dissent[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific dissent (2nd nomination)

Since one of my creationist wikistalkers is needling me by reverting a redirect, I thought I'd let you all know about this situation.

jps (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

A Long-Term Wikipedia Fringe Problem: Wikipedia as a Cryptozoology's Pókemon Database[edit]

Hello folks. I'd like to draw attention to our current coverage of cryptozoology and to four Wikipedia articles in particular: cryptozoology, cryptid, cryptobotany, and list of cryptids.

First, a little context: For those unfamiliar, cryptozoology is, plain and simple, classic pseudoscience. In short, cryptozoology is pretend biology with the pesky science thrown out while excitedly gazing at the folklore record—without any desire for an introductory course in folkloristics. This culminates to form a wrong-headed game of monster-hunting (was it a dinosaur?). Today cryptozoology only lives on the internet and, it would seem, is most notably (and most unknowingly) aided by Wikipedia's current lack of a solid crackdown. Academic institutions won't touch it with a stick.

And I'm sure this sort of monster hunting as a group activity is fun and all but academic it ain't. In fact, it's often presented at the expense of how this material should be handled: by folklorists. Instead of the why, how, and when a being or entity developed among a group of people and how academics have analyzed it from any number of angles over the past few hundred years, the folklore of myriad peoples is all too often reduced to some guy or girl writing an article about it with the key point of maybe-it-exists-and-we-can't-find-it-yet!.

Now, for years we've had cryptozoologists running amuck on Wikipedia, treating Wikipedia as their personal Pokémon database. This seems to be primarily due to a severe lack of folklorists contributing to Wikipedia (a folkloristics task force would have quickly nipped this in the bud). It's a bit like letting our articles on ghosts be guided by ghost-hunters ("paranormal investigators"—there was a cold spot!) or comparable to hollow earth theorists dictating the terms of our geology articles (no, no—there's another sun in there!). We don't allow it because a lot of people simply know a lot better.

Unfortunately, a lot of this stuff is obscure and not a lot of people around here are familiar with the study of folklore nor are they generally aware of what cryptozoology is. It's been a constant battle to keep this stuff at bay and often requires extensive explanation that, no, cryptozoology isn't a science (hey, but it could be a hidden dinosaur, right?). At various points, users—such as myself—have removed some of the most noxious examples of the situation from Wikipedia but there are still many articles on the site that claim that some entity or being from the folklore of some group or another is a "cryptid"—a monster waiting to be found (hiding dinosaur, of course). Where it still occurs, this is a pretty clear cut violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE that would be instantly zapped like a grocery store moth were it not for the obscurity of some of these articles.

My goal in writing this to you folks is to implore you to help me reign this stuff in. It's for too long been out of control and we need to do something about it. Maybe a good place to start is with our coverage on cryptozoology itself. Right now, we've got separate articles for cryptid (a term used exclusively by cryptozoologists and not, for example, by folklorists), cryptobotany (same history and same people as cryptozoology, probably obscure to cryptozoologists—in fact, it's just cryptoozology but with plants and only yields a few pages of Google Books results (!)), and list of cryptids. The last list is absurd beyond reason: literally every creature that someone on the internet decides could be a cryptid can go on this list. The list could simply be replaced with an explanation of what a cryptid is on the cryptozoology page—right now it's just a nonsense magnet.

Shouldn't all of that just be handled at cryptozoology? What do you folks think? :bloodofox: (talk) 06:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I admit I was startled by how extensive list of cryptids was. In principle, I have no more objection to coverage of cryptozoology than to, say, Search for extraterrestrial intelligence. But the devil is in the details. Both monster hunting and UFO hunting are activities accessible to amateur enthusiasts, so there is a potential for a lot of material fueled more by enthusiasm and speculation than by fact. People contribute to what interests them and it's a heavy burden to see that things stay appropriately WP:BALANCEd.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely, I'm certainly promoting coverage of cryptozoology—it's fascinating how this pseudoscience came to exist and its history and activities should be known (albeit they're so out-there that they're surely WP:UNDUE most articles). However, there's a major difference between search for extraterrestrial intelligence—biologists in fact already handle what cryptozoologists claim to search for: biologists regularly describe new species, some of which may have once been considered extinct. The difference is that they leave the analysis of the folklore to the folklorists and strictly abide by the scientific method, whereas cryptozoologists, well, simply don't.
As for list of cryptids, how is that we can have a list with no guiding principles that can stretch on infinitely without restriction? Literally any creature from the folklore record can simply be added by an internet passerby with its current setup. And why do we need this list at all—wouldn't simple mention of a few examples of beings that cryptozoologists have particularly gravitated before on the cryptozoology page be far more useful and informative? :bloodofox: (talk) 07:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Short answer no. Long answer - there is far too much material to whittle down to one article, it would become bloated very quickly. As it stands, you have 4 relatively well organised (by wikipedia's standards) articles/list. And 4 out of 5 million does not seem excessive (even if you include all the individual cryptid articles) compared to some of the dross we have here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
With all due respect, I invite you to take a closer look at these articles. The term cryptid is solely restricted to cryptozoology. So why is it a separate article other than the fact that some cryptozoologists have edit-warred for its existence? And since there are no restrictions on list of cryptids—any being from the folklore record a passerby decides should go on the list appears there—how is is that this article should exist rather than a summary at cryptozoology? As for cryptobotany, why is this an article at all—does this only even exist on Wikipedia and a scant few mentions in cryptozoology literature? A Google Books search for cryptobotany yields only a few pages of results, which indicates me that the term is beyond obscure. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
See the guidelines RE Lists (WP:STANDALONE). As the list has a defined content, and all its listed items are blue-links, its a perfectly valid list. Otherwise you could make an attempt to merge the other crypt-articles, but then you would have to gain consensus on what info to include, what to remove etc. Probably in the face of significant oppposition from editors interested in the subjects. I just dont think it is likely you will get anywhere. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Agreed and this is why I'm inviting others to get involved, such as yourself. Over the years, these articles have been monitored by a hive of cryptozoologists with vested interests in keeping the articles up and looking "legitimate" (as a promotional tool or otherwise). We could really use more people from this board—users interested in managing pseudoscience and fringe on Wikipedia—in keeping this stuff in check and associated articles in good condition. However, if the pages remain dominated by drive-by internet cryptozoologists, they'll never improve and the problem will continue to fester.
Your points regarding lists are taken but it does appear that the list fails Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Selection_criteria, however. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Under 'common selection criteria' - "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers." - Its covered by this one. And in fact, if none of them were notable, it would be covered by the one underneath, as lists of non-notable subsets are a good way of preventing loads of one-reference stub articles. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The list lacks stated criteria. I'd have though something like "this is a list of supposed creatures that have been identified as cryptozoological in nature" might do it, if it was understood that any such "identification" has to be in RS. Alexbrn (talk) 08:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Eh? The criteria is in the first line "This is a list of cryptids notable within cryptozoology" - notable in this context means 'has article'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
That's far too vague. For instance, notable according to who exactly? Random drive-by Wikipedia editors? Because that's what we've got there. And these so-called cryptids even lack references referring to them as cryptids on the articles they're linked to—and it would almost always be WP:UNDUE if they did. It's just a mess of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH without reliable secondary sources establishing notability (or even association). Without a solid criteria and referencing, the list is amorphous and is exactly how we got into the mess we're in at the moment with it. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Notable to have a wikipedia article. You dont get into meta 'ok it has a wikipedia article but is it notable enough' discussions, which is precisely why the list guidelines have 'blue linked' as one of the valid criteria for organising a list. If its notable enough to have a dedicated article survive AFD, it is notable full stop. Although I do agree if any of the articles on that list do not have a source identifying them as cryptids they should be removed from the list. (which is how lists are normally curated, a list item must have a reference at the article to show it belongs on the list) Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. There's no stated criteria, which would at least limit what could go there. And it's notable how difficult to source such a list would be with reliable, secondary sources—something that looks required. After all, we're talking about a pseudoscience here. These beings in folklore are only cryptids to cryptozoologists. And this list could be endless—literally any creature from the folklore record could be placed on this list without reliable secondary sources discussing their relation to cryptozoology. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
OTOH so long as books like this exist, I think it's going to be an uphill struggle to keep this stuff out of WP. This shit is out there. Alexbrn (talk) 08:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, Eberhart's 2002 book came up at the cryptozoology talk page some time ago. He's a fairly apologetic cryptozoologist. Here's a little write up I did of some of the most commonly cited stuff that pops up on Wikipedia sometimes mistaken for reliable sources, including Eberhart's book:
Comments: Published by new age and occult publisher Weiser Books. Budd's book does not attempt to present itself as at all scientific nor does it make the pretense of being an academic work. No mention that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience but that's probably not surprising given the nature of the publisher.
Comments: Rejects the charge of pseudoscience (p. 18), while stating that cryptozoology is a "small subdiscipline" of zoology (Ibid.). Consist of an introduction followed by various figures from folklore (and some entirely internal to cryptozoology). A sample look at "abdominable snowman" states "the real animal behind the name is neither abominable nor a true creature of the snows. These beasts usually appear to live in a quiet retreat in the steamy mountain valleys of the Himalayas, using the snowy passes as a way to move from one spot to another, leaving behind huge mysterious footprints. …" (p. 24). Book is very much internal to cryptozoology.
Comments: Volume 1 discussed here. Similar in nature and format to Coleman's and Clark's Cryptozoology A to Z but willing to admit that cryptozoology is a pseuodoscience but apologetically claims that the field can assist science (cf. p. xi, xxi-xxii). Entries contain less fanciful comments than Coleman and Clark but still pseudoscientific nonsense internal to cryptozoology. Some discussion about zoology but the only mention of "folklore" in the book appears in footnotes (!). Not an academic work.
Might be useful to keep an eye out. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The trouble is that contrary to Bloodofox wishful thinking cryptozoology is not "pure and simple" pseudoscience. Indeed not one of the many advocates of this position on Wikipedia have ever managed to produce a source that says that. Ignoring the pro-cz books, all the the skeptical books I have ever seen say something akin to "this is mostly rubbish but..". Also there is peer reviewed cryptozoology in mainstream zoology journals (e.g. Paxton, C. G. M. (2009), The plural of ‘anecdote’ can be ‘data’: statistical analysis of viewing distances in reports of unidentified large marine animals 1758–2000. Journal of Zoology, 279: 381–387. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.2009.00630.x, Michael A. Woodley, Darren Naish, and Hugh P. Shanahan (2008) How many extant pinniped species remain to be described? Historical Biology Vol. 20 , Iss. 4, 225-235) so it is clearly nonsense to state it is all pseudoscience. The best cryptozoology is using scientific methods that are different to folkloristics and unlike folkloristics cryptozoologists are interested solely in the zoological origins of particular reports rather than the wider origins so it is inappropriate to equate the two although I would happily concede there are overlaps. The cryptid list is less than helpful though. Tullimonstrum (talk) 11:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Note that this user is a cryptozoologist and one of the pro-cryptozoologist revert warriors I was referring to. Sources referring to cryptozoology as a pseudoscience are indeed plentiful, as any search will reveal and, of course, no educational institution offers courses on the subject. It's cut and dry pseudoscience. While we have a bunch discussion about this on the article at the moment, we can always use more, particularly from folklorists (who seem to have largely just ignored the field from its inception until today). :bloodofox: (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • If we substitute "cryptozoology" with "creation science" in the above paragraph by Tullimonstrum, it reads just like a standard creation science tract that sprays around smoke in order to create an illusion of legitimacy on par with mainstream science, when in fact it creates a false balance. "The best creation science is using scientific methods..." and so forth. The WP:PSCI policy along with its explanatory guideline WP:FRINGE were designed to prevent this kind of propaganda from getting into articles. Giving weight to the best sources that are independent can help move things forward. Tullimonstrum, as a purely technical matter, edits that delete content shouldn't ever be marked as minor. Manul ~ talk 12:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Creation science doesn't have editors of Nature supporting it, a prominent blogger on Scientific American and advocates like David Attenborough and Jane Goodall..."Tullimonstrum (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Whatever the reality of these claims (I'll leave researching them to those with more patience and time), something tells me there's a reason why no school in the world offers cryptozoology degrees. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
To be fair, you cant offer a degree in animals that dont exist, and all the relevant practical skills required are already covered by zoology/biology etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Universities offer degrees and certificates for all sorts of things, including folkloristics (the academic field that handles these beings "that don't exist"). The issue here is that what we're talking about here is a pseudoscience, something that the academic world rejects. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

A few years ago I came across List of cryptids filled to the brim with nonsense. I proposed a set of inclusion criteria, but didn't get much of a response. It's probably more conservative than I'd propose these days (might've been timid since I had no background with the page, and very little with the subject -- I just knew I saw a mess). So when nobody objected, I did some purging. Since then I've reverted now and again but haven't been diligent. I'd support something a bit more stringent (e.g. if there's no article, at least 3 sources or somesuch), but it's a notable list. The list might also be useful to serve as a home for some of the poorer articles. As for the other articles, I haven't looked at (and don't know enough about) cryptobotany to comment, but cryptid could just be merged into cryptozoology and list of cryptids as appropriate -- I don't see that that one really adds anything. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC) The section heading and "hidden dinosaur" made me laugh.

Thank you for your efforts, @Rhododendrites:! :bloodofox: (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't help that you have pre-eminent wildlife biologists such as Jane Goodall who have expressed sympathy for cryptozoology as an endeavor. I get the impression it is more out of a romantic idealism than a true evaluation of what this morass entails. There is an excellent 2008 documentary called Not Your Typical Bigfoot Movie (clips here: [18], IMDB here: [19]) which shows in rather sympathetic detail how this subject is really one that transcends the simple pseudoscience being spouted and bleeds into questions of politics, economics, faith, and the conflict between cynical leeches and true believers. jps (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Question: do any of the sources you mention actually mention cryptozoology by name or are they simply entertaining the idea that there might be or have been some bigfoot-like creature lumbering around out there? :bloodofox: (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Following up, I see that cryptozoologists are behind the Not Your Typical Bigfoot Movie production but the subjects don't seem to be (unless I'm missing something). Of course, half-believing or entirely believing that a being from the folklore record may exist is a constant throughout time. A visit to the Pacific Northwest today shows huge amounts of bigfoot iconography, as well as a notable percentage of the population that is willing to entertain that such a being may (or may have) existed (think Harry and the Hendersons). Of course, this doesn't make them cryptozoologists (they're not likely to start coining faux taxonomies or to extoll the virtues of Bernard Heuvelmans anytime soon), rather it's simply everyday folklore. As for Goodall, I can't seem to find her making any mention of cryptozoology or employing the word cryptid? :bloodofox: (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Here's a useful 2012 write up from the Huffington Post regarding Goodall and bigfoot: [20]. It appears that she said that she was sure bigfoot existed in the past but that she's now only willing to entertain the possibility. However, she says nothing about cryptozoology nor does she employ the term cryptid, although she is undoubtedly aware of the existence of the pseudoscience. Had she mentioned either, we could write about it on the cryptozoology article but it appears she has intentionally ignored the field (like the vast majority of biologists and folklorists). :bloodofox: (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
It helps to remember that at the fringes (which is where cryptozoology lies), there isn't a clear demarcation between who is or is not practicing the fringe discipline. I would never argue that the subjects of the film were not cryptozoologists because, as you point out, there really is no protection of this term. On the other hand, they don't use the term in the movie to describe themselves either (I don't think the film uses the associated terms even once). In my opinion, it helps to have a wider view of the geography of ideas, though, because it is exactly this context that is the audience of Wikipedia. Crucially, it is not the context of the sources of Wikipedia. Keeping out Goodall's musings is worth doing to that end. Being very strict in our sourcing standards is laudable (while keeping in mind WP:PARITY). But, among writers and editors, it is useful to keep in mind the wider context of these ideas if for no other reason than it gives us tools to answer the inevitable critics who will complain about the treatment their pet subject received here on Wikipedia. jps (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I've looked at the List of cryptids & tried a few entries. All seemed to make it very clear what the status of the creature was. Perhaps it's a lot of work to keep things that way, but so long as it is I don't see a real problem, other than the work involved. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Can you be a bit more explicit? Given the WP:UNDUE nature of cryptozoology—the concept of the cryptid is limited to a tiny few out there, making this extremely fringe—I'm not following, I'm afraid. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I just read through this entire thread. First off: I'm fine with having a list of cryptids, though I think the word "cryptid" should be a link to our article, and there could stand to be a disclaimer that it's not a real science on that page. Second: I don't recall who said this, and I'm too lazy to check, but cryptozoology absolutely is a pseudoscience, and the claims that no reliable sources identify it as such are completely ridiculous. Full stop. The lead to the article here contains at least three sources which explicitly identify it as a pseudoscience. I find it extremely difficult to believe you don't already know this, and as a result, find myself immediately distrustful of anything else you say. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
    • On the other hand, isn't it better to have the list of cryptids than the list PLUS separate articles for each cryptid? IMO the majority of the individual articles could be summed up in a two sentence description on list. PermStrump(talk) 20:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Would you mind rephrasing that? I don't follow. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Yeah, though obviously Bigfoot and 'Nessie and a number of others will still require their own article. Most can go, however. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
If you guys are suggesting that we delete articles on beings from folklore and then only include them in a brief summary on the cryptozoology list, I think that's an extremely bad idea. Not only is this handing our coverage of beings from the folklore record entirely over the pseudoscientific definition but it's ignoring that just about every entity out there in the folklore record has significant secondary literature about it by scholars in folkloristics. If it's not on the article yet that's an unfortunate problem (another symptom of our lack of folklorists on board with the project) but I think turning people to a cryptozoology list instead is a very bad idea and plays right into the hands of the cryptozoologists. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Fair point. PermStrump(talk) 20:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)That's a good point. I think it would be mitigated by by the introduction of much more information from folklorists on the articles that survive such a purge, as well as into the main cryptid article. But that's not a perfect solution, because it reeks of proscription with regards to the use of the word 'cryptid', when what we're supposed to be doing is description. The problem seems to be that 'cryptid' is the only widespread term used for these things, but that's a term from cryptozoology, not from folklore AFAIK. Can anyone with any interest in folklore see if there is a comparable term? If so, we can work on building up lists an articles based on that, then AfD the cryptid article and lists and redirect them. Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe 'cryptid' is used by folklorists. If so, then we just need to work on getting more information from folklorists into the articles (and still pare it down, I mean does Adjule really pass GNG? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
To be clear, the term cryptid was coined in cryptozoology and it remains restricted to it (except where cryptozoologists are allowed to run amuck here on Wikipedia, it seems). Folklorists absolutely do not use the term cryptid and reject the premise that it's founded on (hidden monsters) and often simply use some variation of the Aarne-Thompson classification systems for classification purposes. The key is probably to do as the folklorists do: just report what they say where we can find it. It's a huge task but getting the pseudoscience out per WP:UNDUE is definitely a good first step. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Good luck trying to do anything about most of these "cryptid" articles. There's a host of sympathetic editors that seem to keep the articles in their current state. Many of them have atrocious sourcing though. They probably wouldn't survive AFD which might bring more eyes. Most editors are probably unaware most of these articles even exist.Capeo (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I've unfortunately also ran into this problem a lot. My hope is that this post and these threads bring more fringe-aware eyes and hands to these articles. Currently there's a cryptozoologist edit-warring (and ping trolling) to have cryptid reinstated as a stand-alone article (I simply redirected it to cryptozoology once I realize all of the references were from cryptozoologists promoting the field rather than reliable secondary sources). :bloodofox: (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
It should be redirected. "Cryptid" is a silly word made up by cryptozoologists so you won't find it anywhere aside from cryptozoologist sources. Hell, cryptozoologist is a silly word (zoologists, biologists, etc. are already in the business of finding new species) but it's a notable enough fringe topic to support an article. Most of the cryptid stand alone articles shouldn't exist though mostly due to a complete lack of notability and reliable sourcing. A few that should exist are dealt with far too much credulity when they are completely legendary, mythological or folklore topics and should be presented as such. Most are just horrid though. There's an article for every piece of sperm whale blubber or basking shark skeleton that ever washed up on a beach or got caught in a fishing net. It's ridiculous. Some are complete fabrications sourced only to sensationalist paperbacks from the fifties and sixties or those books and websites that repeat the stories with no actual corroboration. A similar walled garden of crud is the whole suite of UFO related articles as well. Again, good luck to anyone who wants to go down that rabbit hole too. The only thing that would fix either area is an AFD spree that would hopefully draw a bunch of reasonable eyes to examine the notability and sourcing of a lot of these articles. Capeo (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree, it's a nasty situation that's going to require significant work. There's an ongoing dispute involving a pro-cryptozoology user at the cryptid page that you are welcome to participate in as well (and the same goes for anyone else reading this). :bloodofox: (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Well perhaps you should stop edit warring then? You redirected the article without discussion then edit warred over it when it was justifiably reverted. When it was reverted once you should have either started a merge discussion on the talk page or nominated the article foe deletion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the, uh, advice. Follow the situation and you'll find the item is under discussion at the AFD talk page and discussion has been underway all day at the talk page in question. If you want to help in some way, you're welcome to. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe someone has suggested this but I overlooked it in all the discussion: Yes, it's fringe. The proper way to present all this info is from the academic disciplines: anthropology, sociology, folklore studies, etc. If aspects of the crypto-x worlds (terminology, individuals, beliefs, etc) are notable enough to deserve their own articles, they should be presented with the proper context of the academic disciplines rather than the pseudoscience. --Ronz (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy[edit]

Just an FYI. If one of you FRINGE folks happen to be an AfC reviewer, and want to take a look at this small novel, that would be...uh...welcome. Seems obviously fringy, but I'm not really an expert. TimothyJosephWood 18:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I stopped reading before I got to the end of the seven paragraph lead. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
If it was actually scientifically accurate, and well sourced, it would be a featured article! ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, the issue I was having is how to really elucidate a standard for declining it. TimothyJosephWood 22:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to go with "too much words make Grug brain hurt." Seriously. That article is a wall of text and should be at least rewritten from scratch to be actually readable. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Is it fringe, though? There seems to be a few respectable sources on it from the APA: [21][22]. "Experiential Dynamic Psychotherapy", of which this seems to be a branch, gets more hits. I think we may simply be seeing a jargon-clouded window into a very niche branch of psychotherapy.
I've talked to the author a bit in the Teahouse and I sympathise with them, they've put a lot of effort into the draft including an effort to understand and stay with in policy (my personal gold standard for what separates the wheat from the chaff at AfC)... but they just don't seem to have grasped the difference between an encyclopedia article and a term paper. Joe Roe (talk) 13:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I think I agree with this assessment. Although the article definitely gives off a fringey sort of vibe, I do not get the impression that the actual subject is fringe. (At least, not any more than any other modality for psychotherapy—but that's a whole other can of worms.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I've accepted the draft. It's not an easy read but it's not fringe and it passes the criteria for AfC. Joe Roe (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree it's not fringe, but the breadth and depth is more like that of a thesis on Fosha than an encyclopedia article. It's been noted the author is willing to make the effort to improve the article, so with some collaboration with editors in similar areas, it should be possible to take it down to a manageable length. Roches (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Call me a cynic, but I wonder how often the original editor will tell customers to look it up in Wikipedia, knowing they won't understand a word? -Roxy the dog™ bark 16:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Google readily reveals the COI. I am personally uncomfortable with an article of this size created by a brand new editor with no other contributions whatoever, whose business is supplying the described service. Guy (Help!) 09:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

You guys are gonna love this[edit]

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

Prophet_Yahweh - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhoark (talkcontribs) 15:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Not to mention this snow-keep from 2005[23] Alexbrn (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Promoters of pseudoscience[edit]

You can cut and paste this: [[Category:Promoters of pseudoscience]]

Editors recommended to rename the cat. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 12#Category:People accused of pseudoscience. That's exactly what I did. The cat can be added to an article where a person is known to be a promoter of pseudoscience. Edit wisely, QuackGuru (talk) 08:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Seems to me the decision was to delete, not rename, this cat. Alexbrn (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Besides the actual CFD outcome being delete, there is already Category:Advocates of pseudoscience. But you already know about that category, making this new category doubly puzzling. Manul ~ talk 15:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I didn't see the extensive discussion about Category:Advocates of pseudoscience. I don't understand why it's not sufficient to have e.g. Category:Pseudoscience -> Category:Intelligent design -> Category:Intelligent design advocates, but I suppose it's already been discussed to death. Manul ~ talk 16:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 20#Category:Promoters of pseudoscience. - MrX 16:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
What cat can be used for articles. I think Category:Advocates of pseudoscience is only a container cat. QuackGuru (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Can you provide an example of an article for which such a categorization would be a defining characteristic of the subject?- MrX 19:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
See "In 2010, Shermer said that Chopra is "the very definition of what we mean by pseudoscience".[114]" QuackGuru (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Links would have helped, but I assume you are talking about Deepak Chopra. Do you really think our policies would allow a living person to be labelled an "advocate (or promoter) of pseudoscience" based on a cherry-picked opinion of a single person? I think you need to read WP:CATDEF and WP:BLPCAT.- MrX 19:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
You asked for "an example". I will give another example from the same article. See "Chopra's "nonsensical references to quantum physics" are placed in a lineage of American religious pseudoscience, extending back through Scientology to Christian Science.[119]" Also see Vani Hari#Promotion of pseudoscience. QuackGuru (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Your examples don't convince me that our policies (as I cited) would allow those subjects to be described as promoters or advocates of pseudoscience via categorization. Before you embark on a quest to RIGHTGREATWRONGS, I strongly suggest that you conduct an RfC at WP:BLPN or WP:VPP to determine if the community has an appetite for (possibly libelously) describing people as advocates or promoters of pseudoscience. - MrX 21:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
See "Hari has been criticized by scientists and others for promoting pseudoscience.[14][15][63]"
Since you did not oppose or delete the specific text then I assume you think there is no problem with the text. The claim of "possibly libelously" must be shown not asserted. MrX, so what is the problem with the current text? If there is no problem then the cat is appropriate. QuackGuru (talk) 04:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Categories speak in Wikipedia's voice. You can't use them to apply contentious labels to people based on the opinions of a few other people. For this same reason we don't use categories to label people as racists, fraudsters, pedophiles, homophobes, and other such pejoratives.- MrX 14:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Put it this way, try and make a category 'Racist' and tag a certain US politician with it citing all the numerous reliable sources that have accused/outright labelled him as such, and see how long it lasts. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
@QuackGuru: The category has no benefit. While someone might get a one-minute warm glow after adding this category to declare someone is a promoter of pseudoscience, the only people who will notice are those on the other extreme—the rusted-on supporters of pseudoscience. The only result will be completely pointless bickering about adding/removing/deleting the category, and those who persist in adding it will have the battleground activity thrown in their face when some ANI issue blows up. There is an encyclopedic benefit from having an article make it clear that some claim is pseudoscience, but the category is an invisible distraction. Johnuniq (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
What he said. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I disagree, the category does have a benefit: it allows a reader to see a list of all well-documented purveyors of pseudoscience on one page, rather than having to click through further categories. This would save time for someone trying to look up one of these people without remembering their name. That being said, there is a BLP issue with directly labeling individuals like this, as well as the political (WP politics, not government politics) issue of creating a category of people that 'slanders' all of its members. I was initially tentatively supportive of this idea, but the more I think about it, the less appealing it is. Is the time we save the reader worth the fight? No, I don't really think so. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I can see the value, but can also see how it would be a continual PITA for everyone (same as any contentious category). Rhoark (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Purveyors of pseudoscience[edit]

I know Jimbo Wales can resolve this issue if the cat is deleted. Wales speaks to the media, but editors on Wikipedia want results. See WP:QUACKS. Wales can start a new cat called [[Category:Purveyors of pseudoscience]]. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Or, and I know this is a really radical thought, you could listen to what people above have said and stop trying to label living people with contentious, argument-causing categories that cause more problems than they solve. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, this initiative doesn't help. Alexbrn (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Murder of Seth Rich bis[edit]

Editors views are solicited on the talk page thread captioned Deletion of Rewards. SPECIFICO talk 20:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

An Rfc has been posted here. It could use comments by editors who are well-versed in sourcing and editing policy. SPECIFICO talk 01:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Markus Rothkranz[edit]

This BLP of a handsome chap (I googled him) never got deleted after an AfD "delete" result. There is some handwaving at the talk page. My interest was sparked by this entry at COIN.

Much Some of the sourcing is to a website by another handsome chap called Mike Adams, who seems a little confused about reality. The same ref appears three different times on the reflist, and is cited more than thrice.

What to do? -Roxy the dog™ bark 08:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is blatant advertorial and the latest puffery was added by an obvious sock of a banned paid editor. I have nuked it pending any actual Wikipedian writing a proper article. We have surprisingly few active good faith editors whose mission is to promote "wellness" gurus, but you never know. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
That was quick. -Roxy the dog™ bark 10:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain[edit]

The theory that the natives of Britain were exterminated is generally considered highly unlikely by all sources, except for one source claiming the opposite. I do not think one source is enough grounds for accepting the theory as necessary for acknowledgement.

"Weale et al. is very recent scholarship and it claimed that 50% to 100% of English genetics derives from North Germany. Most other recent scholarship does not agree with this extreme view." - Urselius (on talk page)

An extreme view seems to be a fringe theory. Besides, Weale's study does not even give evidence to extermination unless the number was 100%. But the number is between 50 and 100 allowing a certain number of natives to survive. Thus, my case is that no contemporary source supports the extermination theory and should be edited for lacking sources. Gordon410 (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

There seems to have been an extermination theory that enjoyed popularity in the 1880s and was out of favor by the 1960s. The theory expressed starting with genetic evidence in 2002 is clearly not strictly a historical theory, and not pseudoscientific.[24] Rhoark (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I realize that Weale is not fringe. But I am making a case that extermination is fringe and should be classified as a historical theory not a contemporary theory as it is now. Can we conclude on this? Thanks. Gordon410 (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I say yes to the historical vs. contemporary thing, although if it were me, I'd offer the olive branch of mentioning that there are a handful of fringe sources who still buy it (one sentence, max). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
What are the "fringe sources who still buy it"? You can't just state it without there actually being sources that support extermination. Gordon410 (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Your first comment in this thread indicated that there was such a source. If you were wrong to suggest that there are sources still claiming it, then do not add any mention of it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Weale et al. don’t argue for the extermination theory at all: in fact they say “… our data do not allow us to distinguish an event that simply added to the indigenous Central English male gene pool from one where indigenous males were displaced elsewhere or one where indigenous males were reduced in number.” They do consider large-scale immigration—“an Anglo-Saxon immigration event affecting 50%–100% of the Central English male gene pool”—to be the best explanation of their findings (a pronounced ‘tide-mark‘ at the England–Wales border), while acknowledging even this hypothesis to be unproven. So if this paper is supposed to be the “one source claiming the opposite” mentioned in the first paragraph above, I would strongly dispute that characterization, regardless of the accuracy of the 50–100% figure, or whether or not it’s “extreme”. I haven‘t looked at the discussion, but from here it looks like someone trying to beat a dead horse with an overcooked noodle.—Odysseus1479 18:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I was only quoting what Urselius said who has obviously erred. I do not support his/her stance in anyway. This also doesn't solve the problem of the fringe theory. I can't find any source in favor of it now that Weale is out of the picture. Thus, my case is further strengthened by the lack of any sources whatsoever. Gordon410 (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
What about Thomas 2006?[25] Rhoark (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
What about him? Gordon410 (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
It's a paper cited several times in the current article. The primary author was a co-author of Weale and cites Weale. He seems to concur that >50% of English Y chromosomes are of Anglo-Saxon origin. Rhoark (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Scientists don't use primary sources like Thomas uncritically and as Wikipedia editors we cannot use them critically; we avoid them when writing about biology/medicine and they should never be cited in this kind of historical article. Ever. Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
First of all, policy says no such thing. Secondly, a 2006 paper is not a primary source with respect to history in the 7th century, nor in this case is it the primary source for the genetic population studies it cites. Rhoark (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
The paper is primary for its analysis of the genetic data and application to the historical issue; it presents the results of research and the methods they used to do it. Every policy urges us to rely on secondary sources and use primary sources with great care. Again, other scientists would not use this uncritically and we cannot use it critically. It has no place in an article about history. Bad things happens when people do what they can do, rather as they should, and fringe pushers will do as they will, ignoring best practices in pursuit of whatever their agenda is.Jytdog (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Secondary sources perform their own analyses. It may have been some time since you carefully read WP:PRIMARY. What you're suggesting is writing articles based on tertiary sources alone. That might result in higher trustworthiness, but would certainly leave gaps in knowledge. In any case, its not a policy or widespread consensus. Rhoark (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Whatever, you are locating yourself more and more solidly outside the mainstream of WP. Not what I would choose to do, but you will do as you will, of course. Jytdog (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
@Rhoark: I can't believe what I'm reading here -- have you actually survived on Wikipedia since 2014 with this as your sourcing philosophy? Yes, a 2006 paper on genetics is not a primary source for events of the seventh (fifth?) century, but it most certainly is a primary source for its author's own 2006 genetics research. Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
WP:ANALYSIS A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. That describes more or less what Thomas has done using the Domesday book and Weale's 2002 genetics research as primary sources. Rhoark (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don’t see anything in the Thomas paper about extermination. It argues for “differential reproductive success” due to socio-economic factors, suggesting that the indigenous British and Romano-Celtic men were squeezed out of the gene-pool over a period of a few centuries, rather than having been eliminated during the invasion. (I don’t agree with their use of “apartheid-like“, which to me suggests not only relegation of the colonized people to a low status but also avoidance of ‘miscegenation’, but regardless apartheid is not the same as genocide.)—Odysseus1479 20:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I think that's where we're at. Extermination, as in 100% would be a fringe idea. Whether it happened directly at the head of an axe is fanciful. Neither Weale or Thomas seems to advance these ideas. What they do advance is that "differential reproductive success" took the Anglo-Saxon proportion of English population from <%20 to >%50 in less than 15 generations. It's apparently a minority view in scholarship, but not a fringe or pseudoscientific one. Rhoark (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
So let's get off the subject of Thomas and Weale, and focus on sources that support extermination, and there appears to be none. Extermination is a fringe theory, full stop. Let's repair the article. Gordon410 (talk) 02:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
The extermination/displacement hypothesis was the only widely-accepted theory from the mid 19th century (with even older antecedents), right down to around 1960. This is a very long time and it has taken firm root in the collective psyche. It has given way since then to acculturation scenarios. However, before I and another editor (who did the majority of the work) started on the Wikipedia article in question, the older theory was the only one truly represented in it. It looked as though it had been written c. 1955! The article needs to represent the full range of scholarly thought in order to be impartial, a major Wikipedia goal. User Gordon 410 would like the article to reflect his opinions (see the extensive discussions on the article talk page) as to what he thinks is the most-likely scenario. I also have quite firm opinions that the acculturation scenario for English ethnogenesis is probably much more likely than the extermination/displacement scenario. I, as Gordon 410 should emulate, do not push this viewpoint to the exclusion of differing possibilities in the article. Hiving off the extermination/displacement hypothesis into a 'historical/fringe section' is not at all a helpful suggestion, as retaining the Pryor view (virtually no immigration whatsoever - just acculturation due to cross-North Sea contacts) would create bias. We need the full range of hypotheses to be available to the reader, until such time as fully watertight evidence points to a particular scenario. This, of course, may never happen. Urselius (talk) 09:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Urselius i fucking love what you wrote. Yes, when we don't know, we don't know. So much bullshit is generated from claims of certainty when things are actually unclear. Jytdog (talk) 10:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Let's find sources that support extermination. You can say all you want, but unless you have a source to back it up, your case is useless - give it up. Gordon410 (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Why not apply your evident zeal and industry to something constructive? Instead, you either construct huge swathes of own research synthesis, and expect this to be incorporated into articles, or you pick at minor elements and expect others to expend their limited time and patience defending to the minutest of degrees the bloody obvious. Urselius (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Please stay on topic. Criticizing the way another spends his/her time is a miserable way to defend one's own case. Until a source shows up supporting it, extermination is a fringe theory and should be editing according to WP:Fringe_theory. Thank you. Gordon410 (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Please stop wasting my time with these niggling hobby-horses, do so and I will return to my usual civility. Urselius (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
@Urselius: If what you say in your above long comment about how the extermination theory was the dominant theory until around 1960 is accurate and verifiable, then I am in essential agreement with you. It should be discussed in a section of the article focused on the history of older scholarly views of the issue, but if it is no longer widely accepted then it should not be treated as though this is not the case. Can you cite sources that specifically verify what you wrote above? Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
The abstract from a typical review-type paper from 2007, I quote: "The nature of the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons in Britain c 450-600, and the survival of the incumbent Romano-British population, has long been an emotive topic. Traditional views represented the coming of the Anglo-Saxons as an invasion of entire tribes with large and aggressive warbands, and used vivid imagery of the Anglo-Saxons 'storming the earthwork camps ... slaughtering and driving away the Romanised Britons', and of the Romano-Britons being 'as nearly extirpated as a nation can be'.1 The last 50 years, however, have seen a growing trend towards representations of the Anglo-Saxon arrival as an elite settlement, in which the Romano-Britons assimilated with the Anglo-Saxons, adopting their cultural characteristics in order to fit in to a new social order. This paper aims to consider the process by which views of the Anglo-Saxon arrival have undergone this transformation, and to place this process in the broader context of England's changing position in the world, and its changing relationship with its Celtic neighbours." Grimmer, M. (2007) Invasion, Settlement or Political Conquest: Changing Representations of the Arrival of the Anglo-Saxons in Britain, Journal of the Australian Early Medieval Association, 3(1) pp. 169-186. See also: Brugmann, B. Migration and Endogenous Change in The Oxford Handbook of Anglo-Saxon Archaeology (2011), Hamerow, H., Hinton, D.A. and Crawford, S. (eds.), OUP Oxford, pp. 30-45. The book is on Google Books as a preview, with the particular chapter readable, so this can be checked for my reliability of interpretation. Urselius (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
In no way does this support extermination. In fact, it does quite the opposite. It shows that the extermination theory, in the last 50 years, (really 59 since the book is published in 2007) has decreased in popularity. And basically, the only reason people still believe the theory is that they are uninformed. Are we going to continue to uniform readers by acknowledging this fringe theory as a possible reality? Furthermore, if this source is really a good one, why is it not represented in the Wikipedia article? Gordon410 (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
The extermination/displacement view was the only show in town before c. 1960, but it is not a museum-piece and should be retained as one extreme of a wide variety of viewpoints, not hived off into a 'museum of ideas section'. It is the default position from which all modern discussions of the subject start, and to which all other hypotheses relate. It is of continuing importance and relevance in contemporary scholarship. Urselius (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
"It is of continuing importance and relevance in contemporary scholarship." Find a source that supports the theory. You cannot. Drop the case. Since a source is required and it is not common knowledge, the fringe theory must be edited. That is the position I am taking. Can we come to this consensus? Thank you. Gordon410 (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016[edit]

An AfD that falls within the scope of this noticeboard -- interested editors are invited to participate. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the points made by FourViolas on the one hand and Rhododendrites and MjolnirPants on the other, so I'm abstaining because I'm torn and don't have anything to add that hasn't already been said. I'm commenting here instead of at the AFD since it's already quite lengthy. I also wanted to say that I found a lot of the discussion interesting and constructive. :) PermStrump(talk) 06:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Sherri Tenpenny[edit]

Recently, an editor removed the word "false" from the article Sherri Tenpenny in response to an edit request on the article's talk page. Prior to this word being removed, the article stated that "She supports the false beliefs that vaccines cause autism, asthma, ADHD and autoimmune disorders." Is it, in the opinion of other editors, a violation of WP:NPOV or WP:BLP to include the word "false" in this sentence? Everymorning (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems like a violation of NPOV, specifically WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, to remove it. I don't see how including violates BLP. PermStrump(talk) 02:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
It may be better to add context in a separate sentence. I think the body and the lead is lacking context. See "But Dr Tenpenny's opinions, while disproved by science and criticised by medical experts, are not against the law and should be allowed a forum."[26] QuackGuru (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Autoimmune reactions to vaccines are a rare but documented phenomenon, whereas a connection with autism is a conjecture that's been totally rejected. Whoever this person is is probably vastly overstating the autoimmune risk, but it requires more careful wording. Rhoark (talk) 04:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

NotHere issues at Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016[edit]

K.e.coffman has been aggressively (though, so far, within the bounds of RR) deleting [27] this section (titled "Specific claims") of content that notes videos and photos cited by conspiracy theorists who believe in the "Healther" hoax were manipulated or taken out of context. Some additional eyes would be appreciated so this doesn't turn into a pro-CT article. LavaBaron (talk) 05:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, please see the discussion with the OP on the article's Talk page. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I commented at the talkpage. PermStrump(talk) 06:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Zoltan Istvan advocate at transhumanist politics again[edit]

on the talk page, cut'n'pasted from the subject talk page. A combative advocate given to personal attacks. I originally thought it was a persistent driveby (what looked like sandboxing)(removal of criticism) so set the article to autoconfirmed, but the editor claims to be spearheading a call to action. More eyes needed - David Gerard (talk) 09:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

ABSOLUTELY MORE EYES NEEDED. That's the issue here. You hae a few people, like David Gerard, editing and essetially controlling various wikipedia pages to the world regarding transhumanism. With Zoltan Istvan's running in the top 6 or 7 presidential candidacies now for 2 full years, there's a lot of people looking. And his page, the transhumanist politics page, and the transhumanism page is way off. It's deliberately not repesenting him or transhumanism politics correctly. There's an enourmous amount of material out there to create accurate pages. What's needed is more eyes and more editors being honest. Endlessdaysagain
@David Gerard: You should post about this on ANI as well. Having more eyes on the article is good, but WP:NOTHERE accounts should be blocked as well. Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I did post a request for page protection, given the claim that this was the spearhead for a brigading - David Gerard (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I left a note about civility, reliable sources and signing comments on the user's talk page. Hopefully, it will help. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)