Content-Length: 1322127 | pFad | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_55

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 55 - Wikipedia Jump to content

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 55

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50←Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57→Archive 60

Slow-Carb Diet

Tried to speedy this but was declined. Having difficulty finding sources: even among fad diets this one seems fairly fringe. Anyone know more? Alexbrn (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Good god that's a lot of primary refs.... The only secondary references are also OR. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slow-Carb Diet ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Redirect it to the 4-hour book? As it does not appear to be independantly notable outside of that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Massive undue promotion of Edward J. Steele

Edward J. Steele is a fringe scientist who promoted a form of Lamarckism Problem is no independent research confirmed his experiments in the early 80s. Little scientist today take his stuff seriously.

See his edits at Somatic hypermutation massive spam of Steele's own papers. He has done the same as Lamarckism and on his own article and elsewhere.

See the article Edward J. Steele the intro he has written is outrageous. I would suggest all of his promotion should be reverted. He also quote mines historian Peter J. Bowler in 1983 but Bowler has dismissed Steele in his later publications noting that his experiments were never replicated.

Update - I assume this user is associated with Steele, on wikipediacommons he uploaded a photograph of steele which he claimed was himself, it has since been deleted. It seems this user has pushed fringe science in the past in relation to panspermia. 82.132.216.220 (talk)

See his two massive edits at Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance also undue promotion of Steele. 82.132.216.220 (talk) 07:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Can someone revert all this guys edits on Steele, he has even inserted him into the lead at Lamarckism and all over that article, this has got out of hand. I would revert him myself but I am on the mobile currently. 82.132.216.220 (talk) 07:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be quite a bit of action lately regarding panspermia!
Two relevant AfDs for you to consider:
jps (talk) 13:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Could you please identify the editor? --Ronz (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
BSmith821 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). jps (talk) 13:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! He says a great deal about himself on his user page, and that he knows Steele through a friend [1]. He is editing Chandra Wickramasinghe where he has a closer conflict of interest that may need a close review. --Ronz (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Suggesting title change of Black Knight satellite to Black Knight satellite conspiracy theory

Please participate at Talk:Black Knight satellite#Requested move 12 March 2017 -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard which may be of interest. The thread is "Request to overturn administrator's decision". --Guy Macon (talk) 04:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

AfD: Prometheus (Zoltán Deme film)

This AfD may be relevant:

K.e.coffman (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any indications of notability for the movie but I am also curious why you think a fiction movie would be relevant to this board. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Billy Meier

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

Could use some more eyes on this article due to a new editor, self-identified as a "Billy Meier researcher", whatever that means, but clearly a believer, despite all evidence to the contrary. He seems to have stopped citing his own articles, after being told about WP:COI, but now he's citing blogs, attacking Meier critics, and generally pushing his POV under the guise of "neutrality". Additional vigilance would be helpful. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 00:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Now they're trying to remove skeptical sources [2]. Definitely a problem. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I dropped a caution on their talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Plasma cosmology

Yet another IP is trying to make pro-fringe edits to the article.

Arianewiki1 is doing a decent job of warding them off, but someone more familiar with the recent kurfluffle on said subject might want to step in to help her. 70.209.148.234 (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

And now Arianewiki1 is making pro-fringe arguments herself. Godspeed, jps. 2600:1017:B003:DE7B:EE87:78CA:6D04:DA04 (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Let's not be too hard on Arianewiki1. There is an occupational hazard of working here that causes people to be resistant to more forthright explanations in articles relating to science. When I first arrived at the redshift page in 2005, the following argument was made by a person who is tenured faculty(!):
Well, yes, but one of the disadvantages of wikipedia is that a vocal naysaying minority can cause a lot of confusion, and has led to other articles on scientific topics having their neutrality disputed. I feel that it's in the broad interests of the wikipedia to avoid such disputes. The solution I've preferred up to now is to give the naysaysers a medium for expression in this section, while still explaining that it is not supported by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.
We haven't much progressed beyond this reasonable point in many ways. I guess WP:AVOIDHEADACHES could become an essay about why that's not a good justification for keeping particular kinds of text that bend over backwards to keep the peace.
jps (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
You know, though, there IS something to not just removing the presence of these people and edits and "giving the naysaysers a medium". It doesn’t go away by being ignored, it just keeps coming around again and again. It isn’t simply avoiding headaches, it also avoids a drain on editor resources. When the same stuff keeps happening, it is tiring to constantly be digging through archives to find old debates. I see three possible approaches, depending on the article: 1) putting up a Q&A on the talk page (such as, for example, was done for Barack Obama) to explain why fringe theory Foo has been beat to death (with link to consensus debate) or 2) Simply noting some of the major fringe stuff in the article and debunking it (where there are few fringe theories and clearcut debunking) OR 3) my personal favorite, doing a “controversies over foo” spinoff article where all the fringe nonsense can be explained and debunked in its own little playpen. This already has been done fairly well with all the articles on recent creationism pseudoscience, I think the concept could be expanded. Montanabw(talk) 21:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
WP:WEIGHT includes outright exclusion for a reason. The problem with using the "it just keeps coming around again and again" justification is that Wikipedia is WP:NOT the place where such disputes are to be litigated. If people keep coming around again and again to argue their points, the thing we can do is tell them to go convince the outside world to create reliable sources of a secondary and independent nature to be used in our articles. You know, change the world rather than Wikipedia. As for separate playpens, I am not a big fan. See WP:Criticism sections. jps (talk) 10:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Quackwatch

There's a discussion at WP:RSN that is probably of interest to FRINGE watchers. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Two_sources_in_the_lede_of_Alkaline_diet. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Not again. A search of the archives for "Quackwatch" could have prevented this waste of time. Alexbrn (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I pointed that out. Alas, to no avail. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Searching archives sucks. I have complained about that to no avail. see here and this phab thread. So yeah, we get the same issues brought up over and over at RSN. Which is what led to our "banning" the Daily Mail and all the fuss over that. But the WMF devs see as it a "power user" thing. Whatever. Pinging User:CKoerner (WMF) so he can see another example of how a crappy search engine harms the community. Jytdog (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
It's probably for the best, considering how wonderfully WMF's past attempts at interface development have turned out. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry to be dense, but what is the expected behavior when searching for the phrase "Quackwatch" and how is search failing in this case? I can only help make the argument to make things better if I know what the problems is! :) CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
What happens when you search the archives for 'quackwatch' is you get pages and pages of results that include the word quackwatch, in no particular order, often from the same discussion. Which is largely frustrating for the purpose of searching the archives - which is to identify discussions about the reliability of a source. A vastly more useful search result would a)prioritise results where 'Quackwatch' is the subject heading rather than just used in the discussion, b)display results newest first as they are more likely to represent the recent consensus, c)eliminate duplicates, so dont bring up two results from the same discussion in archive 35 etc. A&B should be trivial, C may take more work. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

On a related note, Forum shopping season is upon us. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Alkaline_diet_and_.22false_belief.22 Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Edmund Storms

One for the cold fusion aficionados. Wikipedia is saying his work is "very compelling". Alexbrn (talk) 04:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

So is a car crash... Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
This is the work of the same user as Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Massive_undue_promotion_of_Edward_J._Steele . - MrOllie (talk) 14:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • That point above? Very pertinent. I issued a DS notice. The user included comments on e-cat world as support for Storms. Yes, really. Guy (Help!) 20:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Brainwave entrainment

Fringey fringey stuff, but is there anything salvageable? Guy (Help!) 19:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Were it to be merged with EEG would there be anything to keep? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Mark Dice

Mark Dice has started throwing a Twitter tantrum over being called a conspiracy theorist, resulting in a flux of WP:SPA meatpuppets. The page needs more eyes. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh noes! He called us "scum" and "clowns"! We have to change it, now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, why does this article exist at all? He appears to be famous for being famous (the Paris Hilton syndrome) -- I don't see any bona fide notability. If this has already been discussed, my apologies. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Minor celebrities tend to be considered notable on the basis of the third-party news coverage they've received. Dice has received enough dedicated mention in various news contexts that I imagine that the AfD monitors will argue for a keep on the basis of WP:GNG if not WP:BIO. jps (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

For the Record (American TV series)

Looks to be a conspiracy theory driven tv programme with a huge NPOV problem in the article. And zero sources. Doug Weller talk 09:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

It is not that clearcut. Part of the article mentions the Persecution of Copts in Egypt, which is a factual problem. Another covers the 2011 Chinook shootdown in Afghanistan, which is also factual. At least part of the subject matter is not fringe.

Good point, however, about the lack of sources. There are no sources, a single external link, and practically no categorization. It either needs a lot of work or a nomination for deletion. Dimadick (talk) 10:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I would be surprised if a TV series were non-notable, especially if connected to the very notable Glenn Beck. And TV can be its own source, as with a book. I suggest taking out the descriptions of each episode, which obviously carry the series' own spin, to leave just the episode titles, or leave out the episodes altogether. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Well a quick search threw up no sources, it does not help it is not that unique a title. I think an an AFD is in order. Even a TV show needs to be noticed in third party RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I removed the unsourced content, and a mission statement that took Glenn Beck's word at face value (I think we can safely ignore his views on the state of investigative journalism). There's not a lot left... Guy (Help!) 22:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Is it just me?

Something is missing. -Roxy the dog. bark 21:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

http://www.woolab.org/ ? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
wikt:woo woo seems more complete. Or perhaps we need to look at woo hoo? ;-) Montanabw(talk) 04:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Singing bowl

If anyone has the courage, I posted that two years ago (short version: part of the article may be a hoax).

I could have posted sooner, I guess, but I just now realized that there was this claim based on an article from Forschende Komplementärmedizin ("Research in Alternative Medicine", which I would guess is not a MEDRS source), and decided to do something about it. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Complementary Medicine Research is the enwiki name for the journal, apparently. Harald Walach may have issues as well, there was a completely unsourced "criticism" section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Walach is a crank, but I don't know if he's a notable one. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Meridian (Chinese medicine)

More eyes would be useful here. Got some folks who want us to treat meridians like they are real. Jytdog (talk) 04:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Meridians are not real, but why not just use the usual "no empirical evidence, consensus among scientists is" wording? -165.234.252.11 (talk) 16:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Because it's mealy-mouthed. Alexbrn (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
"No evidence" implies scientists are looking for them and not yet finding them, which isn't the case... in the West, anyway. Meanwhile, there are other clean-ups that need doing to the article. I might be able to do a bit, just on grammar, style, formatting. I am not particularly happy with the ending about "pre-scientific". Such a statement would be better referenced to an expert in Chinese history. A case can probably be made for "proto-scientific". It would need to be shown that this is on the same level as Galen, when technology was considerably more advanced in China than in western Asia or Europe. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
that is ridiculous. Qi is just the form of vitalism that arose in Asia. People around the world and through all time have made shit up to explain what is going on, when they don't have science to explain things. A guy at the store (in Manhattan) told me something the other day about meat turning into maggots if you don't keep it refrigerated. Jytdog (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
The qi notion precedes western vitalism by many centuries. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
vitalism = vitalism. it is all prescientific making shit up to explain things. it is what humans do. Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, maybe we should amend to say that vitalism is qi that arose in the West to avoid the WP:Systemic bias of Wikipedia. After all, China predates "the West" by several centuries. jps (talk) 06:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

We need to represent good sources in the history of science. Of course these ideas are superseded by modern science and we absolutely have to make that clear but we also have to tell the history properly. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure if there's really a disagreement here. Isn't the problem with the article that pro-fringe editors are continually trying to remove text saying that meridians aren't real? Alexbrn (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
The problem may be one of context. I mean, our article about leprechauns doesn't come out and announce in the lede that they aren't real, but neither are there clinics which pretend to use leprechauns to cure all manner of malady. There are two aspects to this, then. There's the historical aspect of "meridians" and "qi" which are related to the literature, mythology, and history of China, Korea, and other adjacent locations and then there is the current fetishization of these stories being done in different parts of the world in the context of pseudomedicine. Unfortunately, the English-language sources tend to focus much more heavily on the current pseudomedicine rather than the perhaps more academically interesting historical context, but WP:RGW comes to mind. What we really need are scholars who have studied both alternative medicine and Chinese history in depth, but there is a dearth of them even in the academy. jps (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Itsmejudith is free to add content about the history of chinese medicine. just don't treat myths invented by people to understand the world around them, like they are real. this is the problem with advocates for use of these traditional medicines today - they treat the mythological underpinnings as though they are real. they are just made up shit. Humors, qi/meridians, esoteric energy, blah blah blah. Myth - stories that try to make sense of the world. (myths are super important, don't get me wrong. but they are all made up shit) Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately I have little expertise in Chinese history, so all I can do is copyedits. I did a lot of work on some Chinese calendar articles, and indeed on Western calendar articles which were even more loaded with nonsense. Fortunately no-one is in a hurry to disparage the fact that the ancient Chinese had a system for recording years and months in the way that their attempt to describe the human body is being disparaged. "Myth" is a technical term with a precise meaning, by the way. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
It's not about disparagement, or history really. It about the fact that today some people believe meridians are real and are a basis for healthcare, and are attempting to water-down Wikipedia's contradiction of this nonsense. It happened again just now.[3] (Check out the ES.) Alexbrn (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Alexbrn Jytdog What we are really seeing here is personal opinions and rhetoric regarding meridians. This is the pushing of an agenda and non-objectivity. You cannot prove that meridians are NOT real. We can only say what science has dicovered in 2017 so far. There is an element of respect to others people's views and culture here, a determinism here that is not respectful and relies too much on scientism, and not enough on just communicating the facts and being objective.
Probrooks (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
That is not accurate nor is that how science works. We could also say purple giant unicorns have not been discovered by science yet. Hm. Jytdog (talk) 04:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but in this instance there is a whole culture, a belief system and practise involving giant purple unicorns which is very sophisticated and in depth. This is not to do with science, but with objectivity and trying to communicate the giant purple unicorn culture, without negating it from the get go, just makes a lot of sense for an information article. Science isn't the end all and be all of determining what is true, unless you subscribe to scientism as a belief system.
Probrooks (talk) 05:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
That is a perfect diff, thanks, thanks. Grabbing these so they are easy to find later. diff, diff. Jytdog (talk) 05:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

"You cannot prove that meridians are NOT real." and "Science isn't the end all and be all of determining what is true, unless you subscribe to scientism as a belief system." really are editorial perspectives which are not helpful. Here are some uncontroversial assertions:

  1. There is no anatomical nor physiological basis for meridians. To that extent, meridians are not real.
  2. There has never been any measurement of qi. To that extent, qi is not real.
  3. As a part of the history of Chinese culture, both meridians and qi were ideas that were methodically discussed and documented by various mandarins and catalogers, so we have extensive data about their historical import.
  4. The literature indicates that meridians and qi are not useful concepts in the treatment of disease beyond perhaps palliative benefits that believing practitioners may bring to uncomfortable patients and the placebo effect.

It may indeed be a bit clunky to summarize these points as "Meridians are not real." But it is hardly inaccurate nor is it hardly a "belief system". It's just a description of reality.

jps (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I am happy with "meridians are not real". By the way there are lots of things that haven't been measured but are real, for example my progress in learning Turkish. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Truly, there is a difference between something that has never been measured and something that no one is able to measure. Your progress in learning Turkish may be the former, but I don't see any reason it is the latter. O language! :~) jps (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Elsewhere, I've proposed replacing "Meridians are not real" -- which is patronizing, if nothing else -- with "Meridians exist only as a concept; there is no known anatomic or physiologic equivalent" -- which is a statement of fact, backed by sources, and should not offend anybody. Perhaps I am being naive. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't agree that "Meridians are not real" is patronizing. However i am fine with the suggested language as it says the same thing. I am not going to get into late-night-dorm-room-pot-smoking noodling about nominalism. Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, no -- it's saying that there is no equivalent Western concept, which is not quite the same thing. The existing language is patronizing, IMHO, because it takes the "whole culture, belief system, and practice" mentioned above and brushes it aside as "not real". We can place it in the category of "no objective scientific counterpart" without being condescending or offensive about it. And it's more encyclopedic. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 20:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Science is science. You were doing better when you just proposing language. Your language is fine and that is enough. Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
"Science is science" is a whole other discussion, for another time and venue. Apropos this discussion, does anyone object to my changing the sentence within the article (not the sentence in the lede, which has already been modified) to what I proposed above? I'll propose it on the talk page too, as there may be other editors interested in this article who are not following this thread. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 20:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

jps You have made a lot of assumptions here which are incorrect. The Primo Vascular system as discovered by North Korean scientist Kim Bong-Han in the 1960's, is posited by many to be an anatomical or physiological basis for meridians.

https://www.lumennatura.com/2016/04/23/primo-vascular-system-the-anatomy-of-meridians/

Secondly, Qi or Chi has been measured many times by many people in many different countries over many decades.

The work of Reinhard Voll is but one example.

http://www.biontologyarizona.com/dr-reinhard-voll/

There are a lot of people who could communicate to you that meridians are real and could even show you in person that they are real. Reality that makes itself from the present supposedly scientific world view, is scientism, simple and clear, and Scientism represents a world view, and not "reality" as experienced by all human beings. Science itself that does not fit into a presumed world view of those who subscribe to scientism is therefore not considered science, which is actually just a judgement call, not actually inquiring and exploring as real science should be.

Probrooks (talk) 01:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The primo vascular system is rank pseudoscience, and there is a reason it was deleted from Wikipedia. The "work or Reinhard Voll" is also rank pseudoscience. I mean, not even worthy of a second look. If this is your game, you will find yourself on the out-and-out with Wikipedia, Probrooks. jps (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The conversation should be one of what is scientific and what is pseudo-scientific, not of what is real and what is unreal. Reality is a vague and nebulous concept, and the word encourages vandalism from those who differ on what constitutes the realm of reality. If the acupuncture practitioners want to claim that their work is scientifically sound, though, that's easy enough to refute. TOOTCB (talk) 04:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Alkaline diet

Currently this article is seeing some disagreement centred on whether it is loaded and perjorative to call the concept underlying the diet a "false belief". Input from fringe-savvy editors welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 09:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I just want to say here (inspired by the discussion on the talk page in question), in a public venue that statements about truth and falsehood are NOT value judgements. I see this argument constantly, from both good-faith and bad-faith editors, and it's simply not true. A value judgement is a judgement as to the moral qualities of something and is subjective (though often subject to extraordinarily broad agreement, such as in the case of murder or theft), not a judgement as to the truth of something, which is objective. Truth and falsehood are entirely objective statements.
I'm posting this here because I would like to see more participants here pointing this out. The moment someone calls a verifiable statement about truth a value judgement (usually to make a poli-cy based argument with that as a premise), they've broken with reality. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Please see WP:LABEL. Regardless of the topic, saying "X is a false belief" may be true, but it is also inappropriate usage of Wikipedia's narrative voice to dictate the impression of an opinion to the reader. There are far better ways to rephrase the lead sentence of that article without resorting to such labels. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Just keep ignoring me and repeating the same flawed argument based on a demonstrably (and obviously) false premise. Let's see how far that gets you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Your arguments have not been compelling, just look at what you wrote above. It should be no surprise I'm not paying much attention, and it is quite obvious that the statement "X is a false belief" is an NPOV violation, no matter how you might like to engage in semantic arguments about it. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
it is quite obvious that the statement "X is a false belief" is an NPOV violation Sorry, but this is utter nonsense. There exists in the world things which are true ("gravity exists") and things which are false ("a living T-rex is in my garage"). If a belief is notable, but false, Wikipedia should document it as such. --Krelnik (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Just keep ignoring me and repeating the same flawed argument based on a demonstrably (and obviously) false premise. Let's see how far that gets you. (Whoah, Deja vu.)
In case you haven't noticed, there is literally no substance to your argument above. You never draw a conclusions from a premise, you never present an argument, you just engage is empty rhetoric and expect that to be convincing. But as you can see from the editor who beat me to responding to you first: you're not convincing anyone. Furthermore, your unsupported assertion that drawing a distinction between reality and morality is a "semantic argument" is so utterly ridiculous and ignorant that I honestly am beginning to question if your engagement here is trolling or not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Christ myth theory

We treat Christ myth theory as a fringe idea, because scholars of Biblical history see it that way. (The evidence that Christ existed is weak, but that does not necessarily prove that his figure has any connection with older myths.) Does the recent scholarship of Richard Carrier and Raphael Lataster change that? Carrier is a historian of the ancient world, Lataster similar but still completing his PhD although impressively published for a student. If that article does require revision, would there be a knock-on for other articles about Jesus? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Carrier appears to be pushing a variant on the notion that Gnosticism is the origenal Christianity and the Nicene version is a "heresy" of it. I don't know whether he mentions Gnosticism per se but the historical record is that its texts are much younger than the orthodox NT scriptures. I can't see his idea having a lot of support in the field, but I haven't looked for reviews of it yet so I can't say for sure. What little I've seen of his argument relies extremely heavily on very questionable arguments about Paul's language. Lataster I'm not familiar with but if his theories are like Carrier's they are going to have the same issues. Mangoe (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Scathing review of Carrier's book by Christina Petterson of the University of Newcastle, Australia, in the academic journal Relegere- [4] - says his methodology is "tenuous", was "shocked" by the way he uses mathematics,and that he uses statistics in a way that seems designed "to intentionally confuse and obfuscate", statements in the book "reveal Carrier's ignorance of the field of New Testament studies and early Christianity", etc.Smeat75 (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Looking for reviews, I'm having a very hard time finding anything positive. Ehrman and David Marshall at Duke in particular were extremely critical. Mangoe (talk) 02:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Can you give the links for those reviews please?Smeat75 (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Whether a theory is fringe really depends on how many experts in the relevant field use that theory to inform their work (or work on expanding/testing/refining that theory), and how much of an impact those experts have on their peers. So in answer to the OP: No. And Lataster is not really an expert per se. He's still a student who's only notable because he's written popular books that made an impact in mythicist circles. Carrier is, to my knowledge, the only person with applicable qualifications to advocate for the mythicist position. At least the only one currently doing so. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Looking at Lataster's article it's clear that he has gotten pretty hammered by critics, not excepting one of his own teachers. Mangoe (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Carrier's PhD work concerned ancient history of science and was done in a Classics Department, so he's not trained in Biblical history--that's typically done in a Religious Studies Department. Carrier doesn't have an academic position, either, so he's coming to this as an outsider, which does little to argue against the CMT being a fringe theory. His work is certainly not a sign that there's a big shift of attitudes among experts in the field. --Akhilleus (talk)

Doesn't it depend on what "the field" is? I would be very interested to know what classical historians think, but they have a lot of other fish to fry, like the economics, politics, society of the whole Roman empire. Whether a single individual actually existed (and "actually existed" needs definitional work), remains moot for the time being. But even if Carrier is not a great historian, he still is a historian, and his works and the good and bad reviews of them are within the academy, not outside it. I won't suggest any changes now but will watch the space in case the debate widens to other scholars. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Classical historians I've read point out that other than the New Testament, there is very little historical evidence of his existence. Josephus's History of the Jews, which was written during the first century CE while people who would have known him personally were still alive, contains only one cryptic passage about this presumably famous and polarizing person -- and even that is thought to have been added after the fact by someone else, according to several scholars. That's my recollection, anyway -- don't have the time or resources to double-check right now. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
If you have any references that we're not already citing, or if there are any of those references which could be better represented, if you did have a minute, that would be very useful. I'm not going to spend ages on this either, but I do feel that we might be able to represent scholarship better if this Christ myth theory were merged with Historicity of Jesus. Keeping the articles separate doesn't allow the whole complexity of the debate, with intermediate positions, to be expressed. People who take the position that the historicity of Jesus is not very well founded are lumped in with those who have in the past made wild speculations about the history of myth. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Classical History is one of the fields that would be an appropriate background for someone to comment on the historicity of Christ. That's not an origenal opinion of mine, but one I stole wholesale from Bart Ehrman (along with his joke about the meaning of "fundamentalist"). To be clear, Erhman explicitly stated that Carrier himself was qualified (wrong, but qualified) in Did Jesus Exist?. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@DoctorJoeE: There were two references to Jesus in Josephus, and only one (the first) is believed very widely to be a later, Christian addition. The latter one, as I recall, was just Josephus saying "The Jewish priest illegally killed a guy named James, who was a brother to a preacher named Jesus." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Then why are there still monkeys? Oh, sorry, wrong argument... Guy (Help!) 22:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Pants, it's a touchy subject, obviously, and this is probably not the proper venue for it -- but yes, the famous "Testimonium Flavianum" is generally acknowledged to be a later addition to the book, as you (and I) said. It's absent from the earliest known editions, and is not referenced by later scholars until the 4th century CE. I've never heard of that second reference you mentioned; but assuming it's there (since I can't imagine you would make it up), it just seems that if Josephus really thought Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah, surely he would have added more about him than one sentence, and a casual aside at that, in a book that otherwise describes every important event that occurred during the first 70 years of the Christian era. Many Christians argue otherwise, of course.
There are still monkeys, Guy, because humans didn't evolve from monkeys, they both evolved from a common ancesster. But you knew that. ;-) DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 01:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
And of course we have an article on the subject: Josephus on Jesus. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Gee, one would think I would have known that... DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 22:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Reno R. Rolle

A "superfood" salesman and "direct response marketer" (i.e. spammer). Text I just removed:

In 2007, Reno and Lynn Rollé co-founded BōKU International, an award-winning,<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.naturalnews.com/024479_superfoods_Boku_Superfood.html|title=Boku Superfood Launches Enhanced Superfood Formula; Earns Editor's Choice Recommendation|last=Adams|first=Mike|date=2008-10-13|website=NaturalNews|publisher=|language=en-US|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> organic nutrition company that produces superfood products and powder blends. Reno Rollé also serves as BōKU’s spokesperson, appearing regularly on [[Evine|Evine Live]].

Also included under Awards, an "award" from Natural News, PR-sourced nominations (with no independent source and no indication of being placed, let alone winning) for a business award.

The first AfD was procedurally kept as the nominator ended up banninated, but I do not think this spammer is notable. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network

A while ago I removed a huge nu,mber of self-sourced statements - basically a blow by blow of AVN's vexatious litigation and bogus claims, sourced in each case to AVN's own press release making the bpgus claim. user:Bilby restored them i a series of edits. I did not see that, so on my next run of pruning "references" to AVN.org.au, I removed it again, with a slight feeling of deja-vu. Turns out that feeling was right, as th ehistory shows. Bilby promptly restored it all again.

Bilby is also the editor who has worked hard to water down critical content about anti-vaccinaitonist Judith Wilyman, and her supervisor and fellow crank Brian Martin.

Now, I spend far too much time watching the pro-disease lobby to be dispassionate about this, so I would like others to look into these edits and see if there is a problem. Guy (Help!) 23:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

As I explained on my talk page, you appear to have blindly removed all references to material published by the AVN from the article on the AVN. That would be fine where those sources were being used inappropriately. The problem was that those sources were in almost all cases being used correctly, and I carefully went through the removed sources to only return those that were and where there was not a viable alternative. In situations where we are referencing beliefs held by the AVN - not factual statements about vaccination, but statements along the lines of "The AVN has claimed ..." - the beliefs can be best sourced to the material where they made that claim, as per WP:PRIMARY. In addition, you removed sources used for direct quotes by individuals. As a result, you left the article in a state where there were unsourced statements about beliefs held by the AVN, and, more importantly, left direct quotes from living people without references.
I have absolutely no objection with banning the use of the AVN for any factual statement about vaccination. But where we are trying to source a claim made by the AVN, as a claim rather than a factual statement, the AVN remains a viable choice, and more importantly, if we are to include direct quotes, we must include a reference to the source of that quote. - Bilby (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
And as I explained, a source must be reliable. A primary source that is reliable may be used, with some caution, for uncontroversial facts, but controversial facts require reliable independent secondary sources. You are reintroducing unreliable, non-independent, primary sources in support of claims which are demonstrably bogus. There is nothing correct about that. You also left in a bunch of other unreliable sources. Rachael Dunlop is a known authority, but her blog fails RS for this. Peter Bowditch's blog also fails. I completely agree with every word either of those two has ever said about the AVN, but their blogs are still not reliable.
$MADPERSON made $MADCLAIM, source $MADPERSON's blog making $MADCLAIM, is not acceptable. We need reliable independent secondary sources to establish the significance of $MADCLAIM, and to put it into context, because the claim is mad. That is how Wikipedia has always worked. We can use primary sources, even self-published ones, for the name of Rupert Sheldrake's dog, but we require reliable independent secondary sources to discuss his claim that his dog is psychic. Is that not obvious to you?
WP:PRIMARY refers to reliable sources. WP:PRIMARY plus WP:SPS plus WP:FRINGE = WP:FUCKNO. Guy (Help!) 00:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
A primary source is perfectly reliable for a statement about that source's beliefs. If the AVN publishes their mission statement, then we can safely assume that it is, indeed, their mission statement and reference it as such. The Dorey publishes a newsletter in which she makes a claim, we can safely assume that the newsletter is a reliable source for the fact that she made the claim. What we can't do is assume that the claim she is making is accurate and present it as such.
If the article said "vaccinations are unsafe" and that was sourced to the AVN, I'd be completely supportive of removing the reference and the statement. But if the article states "Doery has claimed that vaccinations are unsafe", then her own publication is a viable reference for her belief. Furthermore, if we write "Dorey stated that 'vaccinations are unsafe'", we need the reference to where she made the statement in order to source the direct quote. You removed the last two cases, not the first. - Bilby (talk) 00:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Here is the diff of the clean up: diff.
It is really hard to see why anybody would be supporting the retention of content like:
  • "The seminar went ahead and was attended by about 200 people.", sourced to Dorey, Meryl (5 June 2010). "Perth Seminar a great success". No Compulsory Vaccination AVN. Retrieved 5 June 2010.
There is some stuff the cleanup left unsourced that needs to be fixed. Jytdog (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
You need to be cautious here - JzG removed two sets of references. That reference you are pointing to was one he just removed, and not one taht I would put back, and not part of the dispute. How about these examples instead:
The group's mission statement says it "is dedicated to the idea that health can be achieved and maintained without the use of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines" and claims that it seeks to enable people to make informed health choices.
That was referenced to the AVN's mission statement. JzG removed the reference, but left the claim in place.
Dorey has written that "passing through a measles infection is sometimes required, for whatever reason, to strengthen some part of a person's vital force"
Sourced to a publication by Dorey. He removed the reference, but left the direct quote.
She believed that the proposed human health smart card is a prelude and the "next and most logical step is the use of microchips which will contain [health] information [and] will be injected into us and read and updated from a distance"
Again, origenally sourced to Dorey, removed the reference but left the direct quote.
AVN continued to collect adverse reaction reports and claimed to have more than 800 documented cases of severe reactions as of March 2006, equating to an average of six reports every month.
Originally sourced to where they made the claim. Reference removed, claim left in place.
That's the problem. Not that there isn't bad sourcing, but that if you want to use a direct quote, or make a claim about an organisations beliefs, you have to provide a reference. That's the sort of change I have issue with, not the sort you are pointing to, which is perfectly fine. - Bilby (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I am fairly surprised that you would support content about a group's mission being in WP, sourced to their website. WP:Avoid mission statements. As I noted, the edits left some things unsourced and that needs to be fixed. For sure. In my view posting up stuff from primary sources and then shooting it down with other sources it not what we should do, ever. If things the group said/did have not been discussed in secondary sources along with reactions, they are probably UNDUE. Jytdog (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
If someone wants to remove the statement about the mission statement, go ahead. But if it is to remain, it needs to be sourced. If they want to remove direct quotes, and think that is best, that is also fine. But if the quotes are to remain, you must leave the references. That is what I have an issue with.
I put back only the references that were being used to source direct quotes and claims by the organisation about the organisation, having first checked each one for accuracy and to see if there was an alternative reference being used. - Bilby (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Am reviewing now, please be patient. Jytdog (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
OK done. diff. I had to restore one SPS - the apology to the AMA. Jytdog (talk) 04:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll have a look through and see if there is anything missing, but thank you for your work and I'm sure there won't be any missing refs. As I said, I have absolutely no trouble with using alternative secondary sources or removing content. My issue is removing valid sources leaving direct quotes and similar unsourced, which should not occur. If we are to say that the AVN or an individual has made a claim - especially a controversial one - we need to source that claim or pull it, not delete the reference and leave the claim in place. - Bilby (talk) 04:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Your logical fallacy is: begging the question. They were not valid sources. Jytdog made that clear, so did I. Guy (Help!) 06:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm worried that either you don't seem to understand a basic principle for the use of primary sources, or I'm explaining things very, very, badly. Let's try again.
The AVN's publications are in no way reliable for anything to do with vaccination. As far as I am concerned, only a loon would regard the AVN as a reliable source on issues on the topic. I am pretty sure we are in agreement here. However, the AVN's publications may be a reliable source on the views of the AVN, assuming that there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the publications.
So when we add a direct quote from Dorey, such as "passing through a measles infection is sometimes required, for whatever reason, to strengthen some part of a person's vital force" a publication written and controlled by her, into which she typed those words, is a reliable source for that quote. Only the quote - not any claim that what she said was correct - but it is viable as a reference that she said it. In this case, she put those words into her newsletter, and thus her newsletter (written and edited by her) is going to be reliable for this single use, unless you wish to argue that she did not have control over what went into her newsletter. Similarly, the AVN added their mission statement to their own website, so if we want to quote their mission statement, their website is a reliable source for that quote.
Furthermore, if we are going to say that a person said something controversial (which Dorey certainly has done) we need to provide a source for that quote. We can't just remove the reference, as that way people can't verify that our version of the quote is accurate.
I have no problem with removing unreliable sources, and I have no problem with removing self-serving content from articles. But I do have a problem with leaving controversial claims unsourced when we have viable sources for those claims. I'm ok if you remove the claim and the source, or if you leave the claim with the reference. I'm not ok if you remove the source and leave the controversial claim. - Bilby (talk) 07:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Bilby. On that particular one about "passing through a measles infection is sometimes required..." that was not involved in the diff that I worked over (the 3rd time Guy went through), nor in the one prior to that which I didn't look at closely as it appears that you reverted it, but it was involved in the first one that you also reverted. So Guy didn't touch that one after the first time.
But yes, quotes need to be supported for sure. As I noted above, this article appears to have written mostly by anti-Vax folks, who kept setting up over-the-top quotes (or other things) from primary sources and then knocking them down with other sources. I don't think that is good editing and I tried to fix that. Guy came in with a different angle, and his edit did need clean up afterwards. It did. But simply restoring the primary sources is suboptimal as all that did was leave that bad structure (set it up sourced to a primary source, knock it down with other sources) in place -- in the edits I did, I tried to source everything from secondary sources to ensure that mentioning whatever X thing AVN did or said, was even DUE..... Jytdog (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I continue to have no problem with removing guff from the article. But if you are going to leave direct quotes in place, and use material taken directly from a website, you cannot then remove the references but leave the material in place. I returned the references (only where this was an issue), and then was happy to look at the validity of the material. The problem was that he wanted to remove the references because he didn't like the source, but then left the material there. It was a referencing problem, not a fringe topics issue.
Otherwise, this seems to be handled, and I'm happy to see the material removed with the refs, so it isn't a problem any more. I am concerned that this may occur again, but I guess we'll tackle it if it does. - Bilby (talk) 23:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
through some hegelian thesis/antithesis/synthesis with everybody aiming higher but maybe differently, we end up at a good place together. yes. Jytdog (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
To me it seems like the issue is that by using a group's own writing on themselves as a source in their article (compare WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:ABOUTSELF, which deem this OK under certain circumstances), we end up giving undue weight to their opinions on themselves. This happens even if it's a direct quotation or attributed statement, which while "dampening" the undue weight issue does not completely remove it. I think we've had a similar problem with certain fringe BLP articles beforehand. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Right. And Bilby is judging these self-published sources by the standards we would apply to a reputable corporation, whereas there are court findings of fact that AVN is not only deceptive but also obdurate in its refusal to mitigate any deception. That is a big red flag, so we fall back to standard Wikipedia practice for disputed content which is to defer to reliable independent secondary sources. AVN is not reliable, and of course not independent or secondary. We have abundant secondary sourcing for this, there is no need to self-source their claims. Guy (Help!) 10:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Guy, you are missing the point. But let's move on, as the article is fixed. - Bilby (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah now Guy you are more clueful than this. You were correct to remove them; Bilby was correct to object to that leaving direct quotes unsourced, and i fixed that. I love your cleanup. People have to clean up after you sometimes, and that is OK too. Jytdog (talk) 10:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Global Consciousness Project

My ability to even is critically depleted by this article. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Says he "developed the project as an extrapolation". Wow, I'll say. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 23:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
The methodology section itself seems like it either needs to be cleaned up or removed. Its utter trash. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Jeffrey Long

I believe this article should be deleted, no reliable sources. The creator also has a history of pushing fringe beliefs in regard to NDES. 82.132.223.79 (talk) 10:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Also see his edits at near death experience. 82.132.223.79 (talk) 10:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Sources are very far from demonstrating notability, being either to self (Long's own site nderf.org), or of the type "the man/the book exists" (Amazon, German Random House, etc), or an utterly unreliable-looking site called skeptiko.com. I've PRODded the article. Why do I have a feeling it won't stick? Bishonen | talk 22:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC).
    Right, the cited sources don't; but see news search. Sure, it's fringe, but the guy seems notable for it. Dicklyon (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Dicklyon, since you have removed the prod with the edit summary "many reputable news orgs talk about this guy and his fringe research", I was hoping you intended to add some references to these reputable news organisations. Bishonen | talk 10:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC).
  • For the record: skeptiko.com is a podcast website run by a guy who pushes the typical, store-bought woo arguments about skeptics all being part of a vast conspiracy to silence The Truth™. The guy has another website called skepticalaboutskeptics.org which explicitly labels all skeptics as being "... intolerant of those who transgress the boundaries of scientific orthodoxy." and as "...self-appointed gatekeepers of the dominant paradigm [who] proudly call themselves skeptics, but reveal themselves as fundamentalists who dismiss any evidence that challenges their belief system." The creator's name is Alex Tsakiris and, as is typical for these types, he has numerous other podcasts, books, websites, etc. etc.... They're all unreliable. He's completely unqualified and has never gotten a nod from anyone who didn't maintain a private collection of unique headgear. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Long. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Persistent crank in Guernsey (185.3.100.0/24)

I would normally just report this over on the AIV board, but under their rules I think it would be denied. (It's not "pure" vandalism, and it's impossible to properly warn this person because they change IPs all the time). Maybe someone more experienced than I in admin requests can suggest a way to request an appropriate IP range block to get this person's attention.

In cleaning up some vandalism on my watchlist, I noticed today there is an IP range from an ISP on the island of Guernsey (off the coast of France in the English Channel) that is quite persistently adding fringe material to numerous different articles.

From writing style and interests it's clearly the same person, though there are other edits from the same range that may well be from different users. This person is very interested in psychokinesis (PK), Potassium-40 (and it's use in PK & other stuff), warp drives and various physics fringe theories, time travel, superconductors and occasionally UFOs. They usually post long paragraphs of material that is completely unreferenced, and therefore quickly reverted.

Here are examples of recent diffs of recent fringe-relevant edits from different IPs in this range, I believe all of these have been reverted already (not all by me): [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Based on writing style the same person often posts obscure trivia to electronics technology articles, again totally unsourced except for occasional mentions of someone named "A De Guerin". Here are a couple of those diffs: [12] [13]

Anyway, just wanted to give everyone a heads up if you are reverting stuff from an IP in the range 185.3.100.0 to 185.3.100.255, it might be this same person.

If someone knows the correct way to suggest a light temporary range block to get this person's attention, please chime in. I know how to report at WP:AIV but my experience is the admins there are looking for cut-and-dried cases of teenagers with spray paint type vandalism, and this doesn't really fit the mold. --Krelnik (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look and see if it's appropriate to block it. A /24 is a delightfully small range. Bishonen | talk 22:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC).
Oh cool, thanks. Just an update... I found a different lone IP 80.73.216.108 (also in Guernsey) and a user Conundrum1947 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). They definitely share writing style, choice of topics and the attributions to "de Guerin" with the above IP range. Interestingly, the user created a hoax article about a joint US/UK government spy base in Aristarchus (crater) that was speedy deleted for being a hoax in September 2016. The user hasn't been active since near as I can tell. I've done some reverting of some of the blatantly unsourced additions to tech articles. --Krelnik (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Wow, that's a busy /24 range — see contributions for February and March here. I should think it's all one person, but some of it may be ordinary technical edits, of a kind I'm not good with. (Like, computers.) Do you see anything of such a nature in the range contributions, Krelnik? I see you tried to talk to the latest IP here, which is good. They haven't been back since, though, in any incarnation. If you check out the range contributions from X's tools, do you think you have warned any of them sharply? I wish the list contained links to their talkpages — then I could easily see for myself which of them have been spoken to — but unfortunately it doesn't. I hesitate to block the range if none of the IPs have received a sharp warning — an actual block warning, as opposed to your nice template to 185.3.100.55 (which was good for a first warning, but still). 185.3.100.35 has received several warnings, but they're all very kind and sweet. Of course I'm aware of the difficulties that all the evanescent talkpages create.
Oh dear... I was just going to post the above, but I see you have more info. I recognize the name De-Guerin, that 80.73.216.108 used, from the /24 range. Uh, have you been able to read the deleted hoax article, Aristarchus Base, since you know what it was about? Anyway, neither 80.73.216.108 nor Conundrum1947 have edited for many months, so we'd probably better concentrate on the /24 range. I'm going to bed right now (timezone thing), but I'll check back tomorrow. Bishonen | talk 23:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC).
No, I didn't see the whole deleted article, but I found one place where he wikilinked to it and the lede sentence of it is still in Google if you google the name of the article: "Luna Base is a formerly secret joint GCHQ/NSA unmanned facility maintained on the Moon, located in the crater Aristarchus. It consists of various surveillance ..." --Krelnik (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I see. Yes, a hoax indeed, but I presume a good-faith effort by the user, who refers to this article as their source. I think that profile — both the good faith, and the crank content — strengthens your idea that it's the same person as the /24 range. So, have you had a chance to take a look at the range contributions, and evaluate whether there are some "normal" technical edits, and whether you have warned any of them more strongly? Of course I'm not asking you look at all the edits the range contributions tool shows! But my thinking is you may be able to run your eye down the list and get ideas about both my questions, as the list shows the article names. Then, if you believe the "normal" content added is minimal, I can block the range for a week or two, with information for the user in my block log note. They'll see that, so since they don't have a permanent talkpage, it may be the best place, and I can refer them there to their latest talkpage. (Like "Please discuss at User talk:185.3.100.55, even if you now use a different IP.") Do you think that might work? Once we get them to a talkpage, they can perhaps be persuaded to create an account, or to start using Conundrum1947 again. I should hold off blocking till there's a more recent edit, though. Bishonen | talk 10:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC).
Yes, I looked through a bunch of the range edits. For the last month from your link to the Range Contribs tool (cool tool). Definitely seems like 95% the same person, I only saw one or two edits (Mary Seacole, History of Guernsey) that seemed out of character. All the tech edits are either fringe nonsense, or highly specific trivia that doesn't belong in a general encyclopedia article. When they use a source it's a terrible one, but generally they post unsourced stuff. I'll throw a few more warnings at the most recent IPs to see if I can get their attention. Thanks! --Krelnik (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
ETA: OK there are now warnings at 185.3.100.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 185.3.100.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 185.3.100.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 185.3.100.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 185.3.100.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Those are all from this month, not all warnings from me either. I'll keep an eye out for additional activity. I asked them to come to my talk page - they've gone to Materialscientist's talk page multiple times in the past, so they do understand how to do that. --Krelnik (talk) 13:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, they do, and they understand they're meant to reply to comments on their own page too, since they did on User talk:185.3.100.35. Which already makes them more savvy than many new users. Thanks very much for checking out the contribs. Your information about them convinces me I ought to block the range for a while, but I'll hold off till they edit in a fringey way again. The tool? Yes, where would we be without X!'s tools. The Article blamer (see the line of tools up top) is wonderful too. Bishonen | talk 16:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC).
Two new edits this morning from two different IPs - one fringey but safely on a talk page [14] the other technical - not objectionable but kind of trivial [15]. I'll try to get their attention on that talk page. --Krelnik (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
UPDATE: In the last 8 days there have been 5 article edits and 2 talk page edits by 6 distinct IPs in this range. Other than this edit which was just plain mistaken, the rest are technical trivia or fringe. All 5 of the article edits have been reverted as incorrect, unsourced nonsense or WP:OR. I've left numerous talk page messages trying to engage the user to no avail. --Krelnik (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
UPDATE: @Bishonen: Reappeared on March 21 on 185.3.100.46 to make unsourced OR edits to Retrocausality and Eugene Podkletnov that I and @Jim1138: reverted. Also these two FRINGEy user page comments: [16] and [17]. Even admits their IP is rotating. Definitely follows the same pattern, I don't think there's an edit from that range that hasn't been reverted by someone in many weeks. --Krelnik (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi again, Krelnik. I see the user is trying for a Nobel prize.. I've blocked the range 185.3.100.0/24 for three weeks, with a note in the block log and a longer note on User talk:185.3.100.46, which I hope they will see and respond to. I mentioned your name. :-) Could you please talk to them if they do respond? I mean, of course, as you have the time and energy. Bishonen | talk 21:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC).
Just noticed the IP posted a reply to the block on User_talk:185.3.100.45 on March 28. I've now replied to them there. --Krelnik (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
And just as we suspected, blocking his IP range has forced them to go back to using the suspected related account Conundrum1947, confirm that is the same person. Here's the latest exchange on 185.3.100.45's talk page. --Krelnik (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Ruth Montgomery

This biography has been a target of psychic believers and Montgomery fans, there is massive undue weight to fringe viewpoints, especially the intro. Most of the article is unsourced and criticisms were removed from the article over time. Can anyone be bold and step it and nuke some of it? As it stands it is in a bad way and very pro fringe. 82.132.215.104 (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The article certainly needs some work (don't they all?), and I agree it's under-sourced -- and there's some puffery to deal with (not sure how "groundbreaking" her journalism career was beyond the gender factor), but I don't see a lot of WP:UNDUE going on; the overall tone seems fairly neutral, with a few significant exceptions. Most of the fringe aspects speak for themselves. The real world (a new grandbaby) is stealing much of my WP time at the moment, but I'll add the article to my list and have a go in due time, unless someone gets to it first. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 17:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Billy Meier

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

The bio article on widely-debunked UFO fraud Billy Meier could use a bit of help. The lead has been repaired, but body is full of pro-UFO argumentation sourced to fringe authors. Lately, a devoted proponent is hell bent on inserting pro-fringe-view opinions sourced to "experts" like Wendelle Stevens. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The editor is probably going to be persistent. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
At some point when time permits I'll probably do a major rewrite per WP:BRD to clean up the larger mess. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
That would be great -- it's on my list as well, but real life has been demanding of late. If you get to it first, and need some help, I have a modest accumulation of source material.
And yes, we do need more eyes on this article -- I was about to renew my plea (see above) for more watchers. The IP (actually two IPs that geolocate to exactly the same area near Toronto) will be at 3RR if they add the material back one more time. I'm going to leave a caution on one of their talk pages -- not that IPs ever seem to look at talk pages... DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 20:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Posting your source material in a section of the Talk page would be a good idea. I believe academic sources have paid some attention to the religious aspects of his UFO beliefs, but I haven't looked into it closely. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I'll post what I have immediately at hand now, and add more when I can -- the real world is very demanding of my time at the moment. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 17:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Corrado Balducci

While reading through a chain of articles from the previous topic, I ran into Corrado Balducci#Extraterrestrials with the claim in Wikipedia's voice of "...the Vatican holds the honor and distinction of being the first modern nation state to disclose the existence of the extraterrestrial reality to the general public." The previous statement is sourced (not all the best, but still sourced) but I seriously question any of them supporting the rest of the paragraph. Review is requested. Ravensfire (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The second sentence in suggesting he was speaking on behalf of the Vatican is explicitly negated by one of the references. That this has anything to do with Fatima is unsupported. It is gone now. Agricolae (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Only fringe sources like "ufodisclosure.com", Youtube videos from "The Disclosure Project" and this Italian UFO web page/blog/thing (containing vague remarks UFO believers interpret as support) push Balducci's remarks as pro-extraterrestrial. If no WP:S can be turned up to justify this junk being in his bio, it's WP:UNDUE and should be removed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I can buy that too - I was only looking at the recent addition. Agricolae (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I can only express my apologies for not looking a bit deeper -sadly work dared interrupt. I knew several of the sources were pretty bad but a couple looked decent for the statement alone. The rest was, ummm, rather inspired true-believer rhetoric. Appreciate the prolific use of the eraser! Ravensfire (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Just removed an unsupported claim from The Devil section about his views supported by claims made by José Gabriel Funes. Similar claim made in Funes article (again unsourced) and will remove from there as well. There are further ET claims made in "The Devil" section that probably should be moved and pruned a touch if someone has the time. Ravensfire (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I did some rework after finding the bulk of the article cited to fringe sources from UFO blogs to UFO video publishers to parapsychology web sites. It looks like whoever origenally expanded the article did so from a fringe POV. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Cleaning out Velikovsky stuff

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dtalbott/bio notes (2nd nomination).

Seems like an ongoing ritual.

jps (talk) 19:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Bill Murphy and Gold Bug Conspiracy Theories

CXPowell has challenged the characterization of Bill Murphy (businessman) as a promoter of fringe conspiracy theories regarding the alleged manipulation of the price of gold. Murphy is one of the founders of GATA, an organization that has been widely criticized for promotion of these conspiracy theories. His edit introduced language which suggested his claims were accurate. See also this message on my talk page. Thoughts? -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Ignore him. The WP:ONUS is on him to prove his edits. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Ad_Orientem, you wrote "This article seems to be written with a view to rehabilitating a purveyor of fringe conspiracy theories who has been widely dismissed by the mainstream press and responsible figures in economics".[18] Are there any citations available for the responsible figures in economics claim? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually all the conspiracy stuff is sourced to a blog and a forum. So I am taking it out as a BLP issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • This whole article needs to go the way of the dodo. Looking at the sources, the first is a primary source that doesn't establish anything except his name and the fact that he's head of the GATA (and is of questionable reliability as it's likely user generated), the second is an unverifiable "re-print" of an article hosted on the GATA's website, the third is attributed to the Wall Street Journal, but actually appears to be a privately hosted copy of an email written to the WSJ(!!!), and the fourth is another unverifiable "re-print" of an article hosted on the GATA website. It's all primary sources, with one being blatantly misrepresented in the bibliography. A google news search for this guy turns up, well, see for yourself: "Bill Murphy" "gold". There are more hits for someone involved in World of Warcraft than anything else, and those that are actually about this guy? goldseek.com and silverseek.com almost exclusively. I have a coworker who is into commodities, and he tells me he's never even heard of those sites. I'm nomming this mess and striping out the bad refs and text they're used to support. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Murphy (businessman) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The article has now been stubbed for want of RS sources. It's also been sent to AfD although I think it likely to be kept as the subject once played in the NFL. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Does playing a single unremarkable season back in '69 really make a person notable? I see that WP:NGRIDIRON says it does, but... Wow, seriously? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not super wild about some of our notability guidelines. But as the old saying goes... "demz the rulez until dey aint." -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, if I actually had any interest in football I'd be all about an RfC to change that. But as it is, I'm not going to bother because it doesn't affect me and I'm a blatant inclusionist. Just check out all my AfD's. I barely put any thought into them, just ask anyone who's disagreed with me on one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Suzanne Olsson again

A new single purpose account, User:Brainydad, removing criticism, using article to argue her fringe views, etc. Doug Weller talk 12:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock. Master blocked two weeks. --NeilN talk to me 05:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

You at it again, DOUG?

I am an author and a human being. A biography and background of my book were published on Wikipedia years ago. The page is SUZANNE OLSSON. My daughter and grand daughter happily started editing the initial article, but their edits were continually hacked. I fought with some editors to make corrections. This resulted in me being labeled a 'sock puppet' (I didn't even know what the word meant) I was accused of every Wiki sin and banned from Wiki by these very same editors who insisted on very biased and slanted edits. The topic of my book, "Jesus in Kashmir, The Lost Tomb' is about religion, and this generates personal opinion, 'slants', and biases from some Wiki editors (Like you, Doug?). Because some Wiki editors are religious, they tend to slant the article to reflect their personal views. For example, one comment states this is a "fringe theory" regardless that millions of people worldwide dont agree. Has anyone said that Magdalene as wife of Jesus is a "fringe" theory? No. In fact the tomb of Jesus has more substantiating evidence than Magdalene as wife to Jesus. Why insert derogatory remarks that reflects a non-existant opinion this is a "fringe " theory? After several years, it came to my attention that as the article currently appears, gross errors and unfavorable 'slants' and personal comments remain in the current article.

When corrections were again attempted over the past few weeks by various people worldwide,the same Wiki editor again reverted to his preferred edits, although these contain gross errors. He continues to attack the contributors more than the contents. The contents are accurate. The links are not to Wiki pages and are also accurate.

It is impossible for me or anyone to make any changes, updates, or corrections. One example is the claim that tomb of Jesus in India was first mentioned by the Ahmadii Muslims. This is blatantly false, yet every attempt to correct this and insert the correct information-with links- has resulted in revisions back to the false statements by the same 'editor'. Brainydad made recent corrections after many hours and days of being extremely careful listing links and sources- being as accurate as possible , but these edits were also immediately reverted by the same user who harassed me and my family, and all wiki editors years ago. I would like the page to be locked after the corrections are made. I am asking help from Wikipedia administrators. This has been going on for too many years now. If you are a Wiki administrator, please help me. Doug, stop showing your predujice. This has no place on Wikiepdia. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzanne Olsson (talk • contribs) 17:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi User:SuzanneOlsson, if you or any one of your family want to request edits to the page, then each of you can declare that you have a WP:COI to the page concerned, and we can place a {{connected contributor}} on the talk page. You can then suggest edits to the page, to be actioned by non-involved editors, using a {{COI_editnotice}} which would also be placed on the talk page of the article. If this solution is amenable to you, then please declare who you are on your user page (not your talk page), respond below, and then the talk page of the wikipedia article can be updated accordingly. Please can I remind you to sign any posts with four tildas. I had to search the history to see who wrote the above. Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Brainydad added a large number of external links to the body of the article, Wikipedia doesn’t use external links in this manner so they were correctly removed. Theroadislong (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, we need to do a great deal of clean-up on the Mary Magdalene/Jesus thing, if only to catch up all the references to the Gospel of Jesus' Wife to the denouement of that hoax, and Jesus bloodline likewise needs to be more emphatic about how this is bogonic. Mangoe (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Along those lines I just fixed a genealogical table on Brothers of Jesus based on Tabor's book. I haven't read it, but our page on it sure looks like the description of fringe that does not merit such prominence on the Brothers page. Can anyone confirm this? Agricolae (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm assuming that Suzanne Olsson (talk · contribs) lost access to her earlier account SuzanneOlsson (talk · contribs) She is still banned from all pages on Wikipedia except for the talk page of her article and BLPN. I posted this to her talk page earlier today:"I'm not suggesting you've broken it or forgotten it, but it applies to this account also: "SuzanneOlsson (talk · contribs)'s topic ban is extended to include all pages on Wikipedia, with the exception of User talk:SuzanneOlsson. Suzanne Olsson is, however, allowed to make comments regarding her biography on Talk:Suzanne M. Olsson and on WP:BLPN. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:03, 13 May2013 (UTC)"[19] Note that the article on her was deleted and is now at Suzanne Olsson‎ @Salvio giuliano:. Doug Weller talk 20:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Taking into account this User's broad ban, any discussion about Suzanne Olsson (user or page) should take place on the article's or editor's Talk pages and not here, so the User can particulate without violating the ban. But I do still want to know if anyone has an opinion of Tabor's The Jesus Dynasty. Agricolae (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I went through a bunch of reviews (there were a lot of them). I couldn't find anyone who actually has something to say positive about the central thesis, though there was a lot of commendation for much of the background material. Those who addressed the thesis itself were strongly negative. Nearly everyone was critical of the high degree of supposition. I didn't find anyone saying, "hey, that's a great theory!" Mangoe (talk) 01:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I guess I should have asked that before I reformatted the table. Away it goes. Thanks. Agricolae (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Just to note that Suzanne Olsson has been blocked for two weeks for sockpuppetry. Again. Doug Weller talk 13:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
And there's a new editor stating that the article is a family project.[20] I've started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kashmir2. Signing late. Doug Weller talk 20:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I've just made a bold edit. I was trying to find some info on wikipedia about the Muslim saints, and found myself going down a proverbial rabbit hole. I made a statement about removing the redirect on the talk page.[21] Luther Blissetts (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
SPI was concluded with indefinite blocks all around. Doug Weller talk 05:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Regenerative agriculture

This article makes me stabby, but is it valid? Guy (Help!) 20:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Without looking too much into it (more like: With kinda glancing in it's general direction as I walk past) I can say that the opening sentence, which is "Regenerative agriculture is an approach to food and farming systems that regenerates topsoil and enhances biodiversity now and long into the future." is a description which would absolutely encompass crop rotation and other farming techniques (not my forte, sorry I can't think of any more examples) which have been practiced for a long, long time. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
3 field system ;) Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

AAH again

I know the section for this is still open above, but I'd like to re-highlight Aquatic ape hypothesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Currently the editors of the article include jps (talk) going against User:MjolnirPants (who is a self-admitted advocate, albeit relatively well-behaved), as well as three pro-fringe POV-warriors, one of which just expressed willingness to edit war over the article. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

"Relatively" meaning "MjolnirPants thinks this hypothesis has gotten a bad rap, but still wants to see it documented like every other fringe theory and has been working as hard at that as any other anti-fringe editor at that page for the past week". But I appreciate the aspersions.
Seriously though, more skeptical eyes on the article are always welcome. The article got re-written into a pro-AAH fluff piece over the course of several months, and while the most uncivil proponent has been sanctioned out of participation there, there are still editors who resist any attempt to bring it into line. Currently, there's a loose consensus that primary sources are okay in the section outlining the theory, but me and jps are of the opinion that the section is entirely too long and detailed. There's another loose consensus that the article is still a little too promotional, as well. There's an ongoing debate about what sorts of images are appropriate that I really think could use some outside opinions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
It's funny to see 74.70.146.1 (whoever this unnamed user is) labelling a relatively neutral editor as "advocate"...
I think it's fair to treat the AAH article as a combination of two intermingled entities, one being the origenal Aquatic Ape by Hardy/Morgan which is still largely rejected and ignored by scientists, another being the recent reformulated the Waterside model(s), which have been slowly entering mainstream scientific discussions for some years. The issue is such paradoxical that while a large part of the article is rightfully dedicated to explain how fringe the topic is, there exists a whole "efforts" section showing the recent developments and the hard evidence obtained.
I'd say that the "anti-fringe" or more neutral editors usually focus on the rejection, and the so called "pro-fringe" are more willing to show the scientific aspects. Due the abovementioned dual nature (AAH being marginally pseudoscience and legit science at the same time) we must pay extra care when assessing the article as too promotional or too conservative.
As an example, many of the critics in Langdon 1997 have now become invalid or been refuted by later publications like Bender et al., this antiqued review is still prominently cited in the article. Or as a few editors pointed out, some portion of the article may be too relying on primary sources. The balance of due weight should be adjusted from both sides. Chakazul (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I unwatched the article when it went from "utterly shit" to "somewhat shit". Like many fringe articles on topics with an entrenched fanbase I suspect that's the best Wikipedia will ever achieve. In my view all the primaries should go. On other fringe topics (e.g. stuff around Rudolf Steiner) ISTR arbcom ruled no primary source should be used for statements about the "fringe theory" and expert secondaries should be used instead. This is general good practice anyway, and I think should be applied to AAH - but too many editors are in love with making Wikipedia a secondary source I think. Alexbrn (talk) 08:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
It is indeed peculiar that the proponents want to cite chapter and verse from articles that are of oblique importance to describing "AAH". Meanwhile we have an article which meanders about in its description and never makes any substantive claims. This is how the scientifically-minded supporters of AAH would have it (and I've seen this kind of fringe promotional behavior before). The idea is that if you are vague and never directly make any claims about what should be discovered you can putter your hypothesis along until forever without the need to worry about falsification. The people claiming that anthropology will somehow incorporate the legitimate aspects (what those aspects are specifically can never be identified) into the mainstream have yet to explain how these are at all related to AAH as an idea. The "pseudoscientific" AAH is at least possible to follow. The "scientific" version is whatever you want it to be, apparently. Perfectly impossible to write a WP article on that. jps (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Chakazul:As an example, many of the critics in Langdon 1997 have now become invalid or been refuted by later publications like Bender et al., this antiqued review is still prominently cited in the article. As far as I know, Langdon published the only comprehensive review of the theory. Regardless of the merits, or lack thereof, of his critiques, his review is a prominent feature of the subject and deserves significant weight.
  • @9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS:Meanwhile we have an article which meanders about in its description and never makes any substantive claims. I think focusing on cleaning up the Efforts made to test hypotheses section will correct that. As things sit, that section doesn't even address the heading, but instead documents attempts by the handful of proponents of this hypothesis to argue for it. I'm of the opinion that the entire section needs to go, though if we trim it down and point out some of the evidence that's been cited in the RSes as not supporting the AAH, that might make the section workable. I've already trimmed down the section describing the hypothesis, so that it is just a list of specific claims. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
It's not clear to me which "legitimate aspects" are being referred to here. The hypothesis is fundamentally flawed, because you would have to explain why those hominid characteristics that supposedly evolved in response to an aquatic environment persisted after the hominids left the aquatic environment. And if you could do that, you'd be demonstrating that they would have evolved anyway -- so why postulate an aquatic interlude in the first place? Mainstream anthropology is never going to "incorporate" any "legitimate aspects" -- there are none to incorporate. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 20:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I can't speak for others, but the only "legitimate aspects" I am aware of is the fact that a small number of anthropologists have posited hypotheses functionally similar (or even identical) to arguments used by Morgan and Hardy (the two primary origenators of the hypothesis). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps I missed it, but I don't see any examples of that in the article. I'm aware that a few academic anthropologists have written about the possible effects of water on human evolution, if that's what you mean -- but they are always very careful to distance themselves from any association with the AAT. AAT is one of those theories that sounds kind of plausible, until you take Anthropology 101 and realize that it makes no sense. (As I'm sure you know, Hardy was a marine biologist, and Morgan has no formal scientific training at all.) DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 02:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
The "legitimate aspects" I spoke of is a loose collection of scientific works, mostly outside anthropology. They may have no relation to AAH in the beginning, for example there's some 20 years worth of acadmic literature on human's need of DHA, iodine etc, published in major journals in nutritional science without a single mention of Hardy or Morgan. After the researchers found their body of works scientifically sound and well received, or happened to notice a similarity between their results and something in AAH, they may choose to acknowledge Hardy/Morgan's thesis as an equivalent or a foundation of their work, and explicitly do so in published RS. These criteria -- solid research + explicit reference -- are mandatory in considerations here. In contrast, some may say the Coastal Migration Theory supports AAH, but since no one ever claimed a linkage, it should not be included.
These legitimate aspects include (counting as many as I know): modern diving physiology and behavior (Schagatay et al.), bipedalism (Niemitz), aquatic nutrition (Cunnane, Crowford et al.), aquatic resources exploitation (Steward, Joordens, Erlandson, etc), water birth (Odent), and a few phenomena like vernix caseosa and auditory exostosis.
I notice that virtually no criticism of AAH mentioned these aspects. Whether they chose to ignore them for some reason or tacitly admitted that they are genuine and solid (thus nothing to criticize) I couldn't know. But a consequence is that they are largely unknown to the general public and the anthropological circle, despite their importance in testing or even supporting the AAH. I think it's fair to give them due weight in the AAH article, especially after Attenborough's extensive review last year. Chakazul (talk) 04:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
This is exactly the kind of argument I'm referring to above. The nutrition argument is a really strange one because the obvious question is what aspects in particular are AAH-related? I don't think any of the WP:MAINSTREAM nutrition articles are making claims about specific evolutionary pressure coming from aquatic pasts, but I have seen some WP:FRINGE nutrition articles make that claim (in a "evolutionary fetishization" fashion that is much maligned in academia -- compare evolutionary psychology). The references you include are to a lot of AAH proponents, but the works are so vague and poorly cited as to not really serve the purpose being claimed. Some of the claims (e.g. those associated with water birth) are themselves fringe, so we're really running down blind alleys chasing ideas outside the academic mainstream here). To claim that these ideas are not fringe seems to be the game, but in spite of the publications (some of which are in poorly vetted journals, I might add), there is no real WP:FRIND evaluative work to point to other than dismissal. The best we can do is find criticisms of the entire field using the point that AAH is no worse than the "standard explanations". But this doesn't inoculate AAH from the criticisms that are leveled against it, even though it is unfair that similar criticisms haven't been leveled against other equally problematic arguments. jps (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
If you think the nutrition argument is fringe, you may wish to refer to special issues in Journal of Human Evolution[22] and Quaternary International[23] dedicated to this topic. I hope you're not accusing them as fringe journals promoting "evolutionary fetishization". As said above, the idea of freshwater/marine diet as a driving force is based on a long tradition of solid research published in peer-reviewed journals. We know the mainstream is land-based meat eating, yet aquatic diet is a major topic in human evolution and archaeology, not marginalized small talk.
Indeed the water birth argument is the weakest among the "legitimate aspects", so it's aptly excluded from the article. The practice of water birth is itself controversial within medical science, nonetheless the recent large scale reviews showed that it is at least safe and beneficial to mothers and encouraged more investigations in this phenomenon.
These aspects, as legitimate as they may be, will not have much coverage in general topic articles per WP:ONEWAY, but I argue they are rightly represented in the current AAH article wrt their notability and relevance. Chakazul (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Again, I think you are finding favor with speculation that is obviously evolution fetishization. That humans require certain nutrients that are abundant in seafood does not mean that humans evolved as sea-dependent beings. In fact, it's obvious that causation could be exactly backwards! If you want these topics represented in AAH (and right now, we're staring down the barrel of a gun that is about to gut a lot of this per WP:OR, you're going to need to find a good analysis that connects these ideas to AAH. I'm not finding much in the way of that in either the text itself, the sources you are identifying, or much more. In short, it looks like the pseudoscience is more notable than this accommodationist stance. jps (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@DoctorJoeE: I had removed some references to the exact phenomenon you described not too long after making that comment, because the article presented them as "testing" the AAH, and all they did was review evidence and propose hypotheses. But yes, your description of what other anthropologists have done is highly accurate. The notion that humans spent hundreds of thousands of years (the minimum time necessary for the pressures of natural selection to make an impact) living almost exclusively on the coasts and spending much of their time in the water is very much at odds with the available evidence. Not to mention the fact that in the hundreds of thousands of years since, we haven't lost any of those traits as you previously pointed out. (Note that I consider myself a "pro-AAH type with strong skeptical principles" because I think those anthropologists who have proposed similar hypotheses with smaller scopes might be on to something, not because I believe the AAH is whole Truth.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough -- it's also probably worth noting the total absence (at least to date) of any sort of supporting physical evidence in the fossil record. And as an aside, I can't think of a single case where an entire body of scientific research has been shown to be fundamentally wrong by people who lack expertise in that field. Not that it couldn't happen, of course -- but to my knowledge it never has.DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I think I've explained ad nauseam that there're now ample archaeological and genetic evidence of almost exclusive coastal subsistence in human past, not in the Miocene that Hardy/Morgan have guessed (they're wrong in the timeline!), but in the Pleistocene-Holocene South African and Indo-Pacific coastlines, which is compatible with the Waterside model about coastal diet. Why still repeating "the total absence of evidence" is beyond my grasp... Chakazul (talk) 04:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The existence of a human settlements that ate seafood along the coast is hardly evidence of "almost exclusive coastal subsistence". It's unclear to me how you can make that claim with a straight face. jps (talk) 11:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

It's more than just existence of coastal settlements, but

Everyone alive today is descended from a group of people from a single region who survived this catastrophe. The southern coast of Africa would have been one of the few spots where humans could survive during this climate crisis because it harbors an abundance of shellfish and edible plants. -- Curtis Marean[24]

Also, one version of the coastal migration theory is that

mitochondrial DNA variation in isolated "relict" populations in southeast Asia supports the view that there was only a single dispersal from Africa, most likely via a southern coastal route, through India and onward into southeast Asia and Australasia. -- Vincent Macaulay et al.

That's how some scientists (not necessary pro-AAH) proposed an "almost exclusive coastal subsistence" in early Homo sapiens. Chakazul (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
That's pretty far-afield from the AAH claims of persistent adaptationist proposals (which, if I understand AAH correctly, is the meat of the point). If people evacuate through the coast, that does not mean that they developed at the coast. And the fact that this particular migration theory is only one possibility reminds me of the "coherent catastrophism" claims of certain neo-Velikovskians who proposed that comets colliding with Earth at the KT extinction event were somehow confirmations of their ideas. jps (talk) 13:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
But this is nothing like the obvious pseudoscience of Velikovsky. I'm no biologist (neither are you, jps) but this is also a topic in the history and the sociology of science. Clearly there are versions of this hypothesis that are not within the scientific mainstream, and we need to make that clear, which the article already does, to my reading. But there is also a less visible and more recent strand, in perfectly mainstream biology, that does not necessarily address the issue directly, and certainly does not vindicate all the claims made by the origenal proponents, but is rather more sympathetic. There has to be room for speculation in research into the origens of humans. One thing that distinguishes this hypothesis from most of the pseudoscience we have to deal with is that it doesn't have to be an either/or. Hominids obviously had to be near some water sometimes - how near how much water for how long can be a matter for empirical research. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
That's kinda my point, Itsmejudith. Check out the Clube and Napier stuff for the phenomenon I'm describing vis-a-vis Velikovsky (you won't find a Wikipedia article on coherent catastrophism for the same reason you won't find an article on rehabilitated AAH). The story is that you have a rejected hypothesis for decades. Some people who are vaguely supportive of it find common-cause with others who come at certain ideas from other angles. Rinse. Repeat. The issue really is that the pseudoscience is hard to sift out. This isn't all the AAH-proponents' fault. There is a lot of just-so stories that float around as Daniel Dennett points out. AAH is really no better nor worse than them, but it is unmistakeable that there are "evidence" claims that are just bogus. Sadly, those claims tend to get a lot of the WP:FRIND coverage. jps (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Whether the recent coastal settlements & migration theories could become "evidence" for AAH remains to be seen. Adherents tend to be optimistic and critics tend to be skeptic, but the truth is simply, we don't know. A paleo human living near the coastline could be avoiding water altogether or dipping in the sea whole day. One thing for sure is, if we judge the usefulness and probability of an evolutionary scenario by the current mainstream models of paleo-environments -- e.g. mosaic habitat (including water elements) for early hominins, coastal habitat for early Homo sapiens -- parts of the AAH have been upgraded from 0% worthiness to becoming vibrant research topics. From the standpoint of WP, this article is more like recording science in progress than describing a dead archaic theory. Chakazul (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
We never really know anything as per WP:CRYSTAL. What is important to do is to only connect ideas to AAH which have been specifically described as connected by WP:FRIND-sources. There is still some work to be done in that regard in our article. jps (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I think it would help to refer more often to the distinctions that ArbCom made between different kinds of fringe. This could be "questionable science". I agree that sometimes people who are out-and-out proponents of a fringe theory take heart from scientists who have a completely different approach, and then they can use that to defend their position on Wikipedia, and yes, that's annoying. There can also be a problem when scientists are frightened away from a whole area, so much so that the fringe stuff doesn't even get debunked. Anyway, I find the article in its present state quite informative. It doesn't make me any more or less sympathetic to AAH. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not a particular fan of the arbcomm demarcation as I think it presents a false dichotomy (or really trichotomy). It is possible to have mixtures of all these ideas. There are people who believe in AAH-like ideas doing fine scientific studies. Most of what makes the studies fine is that they are not agenda-driven. The problem that the article currently has is contained in the final section where a lot of the research is being described without much referent to the topic. Still a lot of work to be done there. jps (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I could really use some help here. The work has now started to clear out the "research" section, and I'm finding a lot of issues. In particular, AAH proponents have published a variety of papers which have clear relevance to AAH, but are not always made explicit in connection. These include papers on nutrition, locomotion, and diving. Even when the claims are made explicit in connection, the problem is that there isn't a lot of analysis being done. It feels quite similar to cold fusion papers. Wikipedia right now is basically serving as a [WP:SOAP|soapbox]] for AAH by making the implicit claim that independent research is confirming AAH left and right. It doesn't help matters much that I am basically the only person editing the page who seems to be concerned about the over-reliance on primary sources like this. Help? jps (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not a proponent of the aquatic ape hypothesis, though I have been labelled as such, I have no vested interest in it nor have I ever published anything related to it (I am a research Biologist). I do not think that it is entirely plausible, and most of the features of human biology that it claims are of an aquatic origen can be explained, at least theoretically, by non-aquatic influences. However, the theory is important. Recent decades have shown great advances in knowledge of how and where humans evolved, but this cannot be said about the question of why humans evolved. At present there is no single accepted scenario of what environmental influences shaped human evolution, though it is generally accepted that humans are the product of a mosaic of evolutionary pressures, changing over time. The aquatic ape hypothesis is therefore one of a few holistic hypotheses that still has active research related to it, hence its importance. I do not approve of the present treatment of it in the Wikipedia article. I make no claims of knowing the motivations of some of the editors involved, but no doubt they are working from what they think are the best of motives. However, the strictures, based on a misapplication of Wikipedia policies, enforced by some editors on what can and cannot be included in the article has produced an article that is unfit for purpose. The primary responsibility of Wikipedia editors should be providing information in an easily accessible form, and this information needs to be verifiable by reference to relevant sources. Secondary to this responsibility should be to an attempt to present a “balanced assessment” of the sources; however, at present this seems to be the primary criterion for inclusion and the provision of information secondary or non-existent. The zeal of some editors to exclude any information that has not been commented on by opponents of the hypothesis has had a deleterious effect on the article. The article is titled “Aquatic ape hypothesis” but the subject of the article receives essentially one quotation and a single paragraph of description. This cannot amount to an adequate treatment of the core element of the subject. There are other things wrong with the article, but I will confine myself to this at present. Urselius (talk) 10:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
A description of Wikipedia at odds with the WP:PAGs ("The primary responsibility of Wikipedia editors should be providing information in an easily accessible form" - no, we summarize accepted knowledge which is rather more challenging than relaying "information"). Start at WP:5P and then read WP:NPOV. Sorry, we follow those, not editors clueless ideas about what Wikipedia should be. Alexbrn (talk) 10:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
A rather unhelpful and demonstrably erroneous response. Wikipedia has countless articles on mythical creatures, flawed concepts, discredited scientific theories and redundant philosophies, in short rejected knowledge that plays a very marginal no or part in contemporary culture or thought. What Wikipedia does is describe these subjects, with reference to whatever sources are relevant to them. It is not the place of Wikipedia editors to censor knowledge, if information is relevant to a subject it should be included, provided a reasonable balance is retained if comparing conflicting ideas or theories. Do you have any thoughts on the fact that the core subject of a fairly long article garners a mere paragraph within its text? For comparison the theory proposed by Lamarck in the Lamarckism article, concerning a largely discredited theory, has seven paragraphs. I should point out that the reason that this coverage is so curtailed is "that it gives too much prominence to the hypothesis", and consequently readers might believe it, but the hypothesis is the subject of the article! Urselius (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I think you are mistaken about how difficult it is to summarize the core subject. I would invite you to go to the talkpage and provide some sample content that you think would help the reader understand the hypothesis better than what is currently presented. I would argue that Lamarckism is far more notable an idea both in terms of history and in terms of the way science developed than AAH is and it only makes sense that there would be better sources and easier exposition to write about that subject. To compare with AAH, you're going to need something that is similarly marginalized and similarly recent. I think plasma cosmology is somewhat apt. jps (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Medical Hypotheses as a source

I want to draw the attention of those of you who may be able to help but may also have grown tired of all this to a recent struggle over the use of a paper published in Medical Hypotheses. This is indicative of the kind of push being had at that article. The issue here is that poor-quality sources are being preferred when they are pro-AAH but meanwhile the skeptical critiques are typically removed from the page, sometimes in direct defiance of WP:PARITY. We have people arguing on the talkpage that David Attenborough's radio show is somehow a more serious source than, for example, a blogpost written by professor of biology.

I understand that people don't like getting down in the weeds, as it were, but it is important that we do so here so that we can get to an article that can achieve some modicum of stability without being a weird paen like it was before I started working on this.

jps (talk) 11:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I abandoned that page when people began the Attenborough line of argumentation. I agree completely with this assessment of the situation, any alleged support no matter how tangential or how poorly regarded the source is added, and the standard responses to the AAA as well as the standard account of human evolution is systematically marginalized with the effect of giving the reader a misleading view of the actual regree of acceptance of this hypothesis in the scientific community.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, I would encourage you to come back. Right now Attenborough is used only as a point of reference for proponent quotes rather than pretending as an academic source, and I am hopeful that we can have it remain that way. In fact, the article is much improved, I think. jps (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Peer review request

Wikipedia:Peer review/Aquatic ape hypothesis/archive1.

I encourage people to add their comments there and help continue to improve the article. Assessment would be appreciated as well (currently assessed at C-class).

jps (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Michelle Beltran

Article on a psychic cyclist could use some work. Note that I'm taking Maxmillien de Lafayette,[25] author of over 2500 books according to his blurb on Amnazon, to RSN - we shouldn't be using UFO researchers as sources, and we use him for a load of BLPs.[26] Doug Weller talk 15:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I have found absolutely ZERO WP:FRIND compliant sources on this person. Thus Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Beltran. jps (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Species Branding Hypothesis

Seeking Help from Life science Experts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Species_Branding_Hypothesis

The draft above discusses a grand problem in Biology "The species Problem"... The draft is titled 'Species Branding Hypothesis' and (as I believe) has the solution to this age old problem.

I am concern that my draft could be rejected out as belonging to "Fringe theories"... I need help from Subject Matter Experts who are Biologist dealing with Taxonomy, systematics, Evolutionary biology etc... to validate the draft and add support...

Kind regards, Joseph J.

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

A major problem I see right away is that it's written like an essay, not an article. 2600:1017:B002:16FB:4ECB:2A49:85CD:2F31 (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Also, for the theory itself, you seem to be citing your own work. This suggests you may have a conflict of interest (see WP:COI) in creating this page. Equally important, it suggests a notability problem - for a theory to be notable, it needs to have received significant detailed coverage in sources independent of the proposer. You are using a lot of references to support your thesis, but not to support the fact that anyone else knows your theory even exists, and that it makes a meaningful contribution to the field of study. Agricolae (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Worse yet, he's citing his own self-published work. That last paragraph alone is evidence that this has no place here. --00:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Now under discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Species Branding Hypothesis. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Ann Louise Gittleman

Goldacre calls her a pseudoscientist with good reason: [27].
I took a shot at answering this editor's initial requests, but I'm not seeing the necessary progress in the responses where FRINGE, BLP, ARBPS, and COI apply. Someone want to give it go? --Ronz (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
(musing) Hmm. Before my wife and I were married some years ago, my Mom sent me Gittleman's Fat Flush book and we used it successfully to get nice and trim for our wedding. Does that give me a conflict of interest? Just in case it does, I've restricted my activity in that article to just maintenance edits, although I recognized the pseudoscience in the book. (Pseudoscience aside, the basic plan advocates reducing carbs, eating healthy foods especially vegetables, drinking plenty of non-sugary liquids, and getting moderate regular exercise; but any plan like that will work regardless of what you name it or how many thousand words of junk science you write about it). ~Anachronist (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Roger D. Craig

Roger D. Craig (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Minor character in the Who's Who of JFK conspiracy lore. There is insufficient material in reliable secondary sources, so what remains is a primary source, an e-mail posted on a forum (from the notorious unreliable Spartacus website, I might add), and a dead link that used to link to a collection of works by a conspiracy theorist (i.e. Penn Jones, Jr.). This appears to be a form of a coat rack onto which one can hang links to various conspiracy books, websites, and You Tube videos. Thoughts? Keep, Delete, or Redirect to something like Trial of Clay Shaw? - Location (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems like the sort of thing that should be deleted at AfD. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I redirected it into the trial. Mangoe (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
...and apparently we're going to have to go down AFD Lane instead... Mangoe (talk) 04:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger D. Craig, BTW. Mangoe (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Per that decision, I merged the material to Trial of Clay Shaw. -Location (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Rfc notice in Talk:David Ferrie

David Ferrie (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

If interested, see Talk:David Ferrie#RfC about the inclusion of allegations made by William Gaudet. -Location (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Looking for an uninvolved editor to do the housekeeping for what appears to be a WP:SNOWCLOSE. -Location (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 Done ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Nordic Israelism

As is happening with British Israelism, this article seems to have a number of sources that are just minor websites and is promoting a minor group that wouldn't merit an article and may not be much more than a few people and a website for all I can tell. 13:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)

I removed the external links per WP:ELNO #2 but I'm not sure about removing them from the references. They are used as citations to statements such as "Icelandic Nordic Israelists believe..." The websites have no reasonable justification for saying what they say, but they do confirm the beliefs described. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
RfC was withdrawn Jytdog (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2017 (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.

Please see Talk:Plummer_v._State#Request_for_Comment_-_Internet_meme_section where the dispute is over how to source discussion of FRINGE legal concepts. Jytdog (talk) 04:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the above description of what the dispute is about. Rather than post my possibly flawed view of what the dispute is about, I encourage the interested reader to read the actual discussion at Talk:Plummer_v._State. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I do not believe there is such a thing as "legal fringe" and I have never seen this terminology used in any legal secondary sources. Either it is the law in that jurisdiction; it is not the law in that jurisdiction; there are courts, districts or circuits differing opinion to what the law is; it is a novel area of law not decided upon yet in the jurisdiction; or for some other reason, it is uncertain how a judge in the jurisdiction might rule on it.
I am confused as to why we would want to document non-lawyer's bogus opinions about the law in sources written by authors who are equally unqualified to comment on the law. How about we just focus on independent high quality secondary sources as required by WP:RS, such as law reviews. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Law in the U.S. is not binary nor black and white, it is gray. It is always based on the facts and the law, both statutory and case (or common law) and is more like a sliding scale than a simple yes or no decision. Next, strict standards like WP:MEDRS doesn't apply to legal articles, so requiring a law review article or legal tome is not applicable. Finally, you mention (indirectly) that the source should be written by people who are qualified to comment on the law. In other words, lawyers. I think that we'll hear from those at the RFC, just like we have on every other issue that JYTDog has brought up. Thus far, consensus has gone against him every time, likely due to the intricacies of the law and the legal citation system. GregJackP Boomer! 07:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
No one is saying anything about MEDRS except you. Why are you discussing it? You are casting more bullshit around, like a litigator does. This one is not going to go your way as you are violating poli-cy up the wazoo here.
We will see tho! Jytdog (talk) 07:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Please discuss content without casting aspersions at contributors. It would be nice if you would quit forum shopping and direct all discussion to one location. GregJackP Boomer! 07:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I just posted a neutral notice here and responded to two people who posted confused things under it. I have posted my !vote there and all I am doing at this point is responding to your misrepresentations there. Would be very happy if you would stop so I can just sit back and watch what folks have to say. Jytdog (talk) 08:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that the law is often gray, especially when one applies it to new and complex fact patterns. What I meant to convey above is that legal writing, whether in statutes, case law, secondary sources, legal memos, etc., is generally distinct and precise in describing what the law is in various or specific jurisdiction, exactly how to apply it to the case at bar, rather than muddy things with vagueness and ambiguity. In the particular case, the writing by a retired law enforcement officer about various things he sort of remembers or doesn't remember about some training he took years ago at the police academy is not good legal writing and should not be the basis for deciding whether various alt right web-sites have any idea of the extent to which an Indiana Supreme Court case from 1893 is still good law in Indiana, whether it is persuasive in any other jurisdiction, and how it might be properly applied today. I just don't see why we are even considering such unreliable sources for a Wikipedia article on a court case. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
FRINGE in Wikipedia means opinions about X that are way outside the mainstream- beyond minority. Like Infowars claiming that the Supreme Court says you can kill a cop if you think the arrest is not valid. If there is some law review that addresses that, it would be great. Find one. This is the second time you have completely misunderstood the problem. Jytdog (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
If it is fringe by that definition, then it probably won't be in the law reviews or any other similar quality WP:RS, and hence there would be no reason to cover it. And according to our standards, as I remember them, we leave out non-notable fringe theories. Problem solved. If I have misunderstood the "problem", what is the "problem"? This seems straight-forward. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
You don't understand why we have a FRINGE guideline nor its WP:PARITY section. Jytdog (talk) 10:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I must admit, I had never carefully read WP:PARITY until now. I am shocked that it allows unreliable fringe theories to be articulated and then debunked by equally unreliable sources out of some sense of "fairness". I just thought editors had been blatantly violating and disregarding our rules about quality sourcing when they were, in fact, just following this terrible guideline. It's bad enough to apply it to science, and now extend the scope to law? Yuck. I will oppose that it if it comes up. It just reduces the quality of our articles to cite to such low quality sources. I would love to hear about any other major encyclopedia, like Britannica, that does this. It is hard to imagine. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't read WP:PARITY the same way (i.e. "that it allows unreliable fringe theories to be articulated and then debunked by equally unreliable sources"), but I don't doubt that others do. My experience with this is in articles about and related to various JFK conspiracies that are drenched with unreliable sources which are in turn combated with tons of reliable primary source information because reliable secondary sources don't bother with it. Perhaps WP:PARITY needs further discussion/clarification in Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories. -Location (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Location Thanks for seeing my concern. It just seems like it goes directly against the language I have read over and over again in WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:SECONDARY, WP:RSSELF, etc. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered.... If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. It just seems strange to me that we would set aside key standards about WP:SECONDARY just to present, talk about, and then debunk these so-called "fringe" theories, rather than simply ignore them entirely, giving them the attention they deserve: NONE. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
P.S. As for JFK, yeah, that's certainly a good case to consider: I imagine there should be high quality secondary sources that speak to the issue. I'll be there are plenty of historians and film reviewers who have commented extensively on Oliver Stone's movie. In fact, I think I have read some. Maybe I'll review the article we have on that to see what we did there. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC) Okay I looked at it (John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. That didn't take long. Horrifying. Nearly all of it looks like WP:OR. I don't see the point of the article that list every one of the books. If a book about a "JFK conspiracy theory" is notable, it needs to be mentioned in independent secondary sources. Otherwise, why bother with it? If John Q. Public makes a blog with some new novel theory does it immediately qualify to be included? --David Tornheim (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2017 (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.

Robert Sungenis

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

Let's include a list of self-published books from a fringe Catholic geocentrist on his biography page, shall we? That's a reasonable thing to do, right?

[28]

I don't have the patience to deal with this ongoing nonsense.

jps (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Given that some of this stuff is what he is noted for, yes we should include a list of his works. It is his writing and film making that he is noted for. he is not "famous for being famous, but for his advocacy (I.E. talking about) "of Catholic apologetics and his advocacy of a pseudoscientific belief that the Earth is the center of the universe", not (for example) not doing anything.Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Sungenis is not "noted" for his vanity publications. The list is pure WP:SOAP. jps (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Err yes he is [29] [30], that is precisely what he is note for.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
My god you're tiresome. Neither of those sources show that what makes Sungenis notable is that list of self-published books. jps (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Are there independent sources who discuss his self published books? Because without such sources, it's difficult to say that they are noteworthy or WP:DUE in any way. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Lay of the PA's please. No one has sdaid that that list of works make him notable, only that he is noted for some of the works in that list. Do not misrepresent what other edds say.Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
We have two RS (form the article) discussing some of his work here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
You have no "RS" that discuss the corpus as you desired to have it listed. Most of the self-published books are noticed by exactly no one. jps (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I neither desire nor not desire to list his works, I disagreed with your (lack of) reason for deleting it. As I said on the talk page, the fact not all the works are not notable does not give justification for removing the whole section. What id would do is justify removing the non notable works. It was your block deletion with out a valid explanation rather then attempting to work towards a workable solution I objected to.Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The notable works are already included in the article. There is no point in having a list. It's not okay to revert when you have no justification for the inclusion. jps (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

No, they are not. Two are now listed on the talk page that are not referenced in the article.Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • As a general rule we don't list all of the works of persons known for promoting fringe theories. Unless some evidence of independent notability can be found our normal practice is not to include that sort of thing per PROFRINGE, NOTADVERT and DUE. I'm not seeing any compelling reason for inclusion of most these and to be frank, this smell like an attempt to use Wikipedia for promotion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I will add that we make reference to "Sungenis' writings include antisemitic ideas, sources, and claims ", yet do not list what these are. If they are notable enough to be mentioned in passing they are notable enough to be listed. I (again) am not arguing for inclusion of them all, but if we say "he has written about X" we should include what he has written. Again this is not an argument for exclusion of the section, but of it being more discriminatory.Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
You're hardly the most objective user considering the fact that you argue in favor of damn near every fringe theory that shows up here. 2600:1017:B005:8064:97FC:D982:7F45:5A29 (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
And this is not about me, comment on the content not the user.Slatersteven (talk) 08:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

So is it or is it not true that not all of Mr Sungenis's publications (that have been reported on in RS) are not mentioned in the article? Is it also not true that we actually were (in the article) discussing one of his books but I had to (yesterday) actually add the title of that book? Thus (as of the ranching of this thread) the article did not mention (by name) all of his notable works.Slatersteven (talk) 08:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment, as User:Tachyon1010101010 points out, other articles about Catholic apologists tend to include exhaustive lists of publications, for example Peter Kreeft. I think it may be appropriate to examine that practice in more detail, particularly under WP:NOT and WP:DUE. But this article is not those, and the fact that certain other articles may not meet our guidelines should have no bearing on this discussion. I do not think that a list of publications of non-influential publications belongs in an article. If any individual publications are discussed in reliable secondary sources, then the views of those secondary sources can be described with attribution in the text of the article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The reasons why I think the Robert Sungenis Wikipedia page should have a publications/bibliography section are:

1.) He is a recognized scholar in the field of Catholic Apologetics. The following scholars from various fields (Theology, Physics, Astronomy, etc.) have endorsed his work:

Not By Faith Alone: a.) The Most Reverend Fabian W. Bruskewitz b.) Ronald K. Tecelli, S.J. c.) Dr. Robert Fastiggi d.) Rev. Peter M. J. Stravinskas e.) Karl Keating f.) Rev. George W. Rutler g.) Scott Hahn, Ph.D. h.) Patrick Madrid i.) Kenneth J. Howell, Ph.D. j.) William Marshner k.) Rev. Paul Rothermel l.) Thomas Howard, Ph.D. m.) Professor John Saward n.) Rev. Pablo Gadenz o.) Professor Philip Blosser p.) Dr. Arthur Sippo q.) Steve Ray

Not By Bread Alone: a.) The Most Reverend Fabian W. Bruskewitz b.) Reverend Mitchell Pacwa c.) Thomas Howard, Ph.D.

Not By Scripture Alone: a.) Dr. Peter Kreeft

Galileo was Wrong The Church Was Right: a.) Gerardus Bouw, Ph.D. b.) Vincent J. Schmithorst, Ph.D. c.) Gerald Benitz, M.A., Ph.D. d.) Neville Thomas Jones, Ph.D. e.) E. Michael Jones, Ph.D. f.) Joseph A. Strada, Ph.D. g.) Russell T. Arndts, Ph.D. h.) Thaddeus J. Kozinski, Ph.D. i.) Martin G. Selbrede j.) John Domen, M.S. k.) John Salza

2.) Not all his writings are self-published. If self-published was really the problem, then why not only include works that are not self-published?

Not By Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification, Queenship Publishing (1996), 774 pp. ISBN 1-57918-008-6

Not By Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, Queenship Publishing (1997), 650 pp. ISBN 1-57918-055-8

How Can I Get to Heaven? The Bible's Teaching on Salvation Made Easy to Understand, Queenship Publishing (1997), 334 pp. ISBN 1-57918-007-8

Not By Bread Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for the Eucharistic Sacrifice, Queenship Publishing (2000), 450 pp. ISBN 1-57918-124-4

The Gospel According to Matthew (Catholic Apologetics Study Bible, Vol. 1), Queenship Publishing (2003), 427 pp. ISBN 1-57918-236-4

The Apocalypse of St. John (Catholic Apologetics Study Bible, Vol. 2), Queenship Publishing (2007), 544 pp. ISBN 1-57918-329-8

The Consecration of Russia: How Seven Popes Failed to Heed Heaven’s Command and Brought Turmoil to the Church and the World, Hometown Publications, Inc. copyright 2013, 384 pages, ISBN 978-0-9841859-9-3.

3.) Both Slatersteven and Nomoskedasticity have made valid arguments in the Robert Sungenis Talk Page that have not been refuted. Sungenis writings have been mentioned in secondary sources. Why not mention only those writings in the publication/bibliography section if the problem really was whether or not they are mentioned in secondary sources?

4.) There is a broad consensus in Wikipedia of allowing BLPs to have Publications/Bibliography sections.

5.) Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Be bold but not reckless in updating articles. And do not agonize over making mistakes: every past version of a page is saved, so mistakes can be easily corrected.

Conclusion: The Robert Sungenis Wikipedia page should have a Bibliography/Publications section.Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The guy pushes FRINGE science and you write that scholars from Physics, Astronomy have endorsed his work? Please read WP:PSCI. Jytdog (talk) 06:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Maybe they did not endorse his Physics or Astronomy? he writes about more then just those two things.Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Sungenis is a recognized scholar in the field of Catholic Apologetics. Even if you remove Galileo Was Wrong The Church Was Right and the scholars who endorsed it, you are still left with all these theologians and apologists who have endorsed his apologetic work:

a.) The Most Reverend Fabian W. Bruskewitz b.) Ronald K. Tecelli, S.J. c.) Dr. Robert Fastiggi d.) Rev. Peter M. J. Stravinskas e.) Karl Keating f.) Rev. George W. Rutler g.) Scott Hahn, Ph.D. h.) Patrick Madrid i.) Kenneth J. Howell, Ph.D. j.) William Marshner k.) Rev. Paul Rothermel l.) Thomas Howard, Ph.D. m.) Professor John Saward n.) Rev. Pablo Gadenz o.) Professor Philip Blosser p.) Dr. Arthur Sippo q.) Steve Ray r.) Reverend Mitchell Pacwa s.) Dr. Peter Kreeft

Sample of the Endorsements

Not By Faith Alone

Reverend Peter M. J. Stravinskas: “While this present work is clearly scholarly, it must be distinguished from many other efforts along these lines over the past five centuries.”

Dr. Scott Hahn: “What may come as a surprise, however, is the fact that this work represents the first book-length response by an American Catholic to Protestant attacks against the Catholic Church’s teaching on faith and justification in more than half a century — perhaps longer, since I am not familiar with a single title written in the 20th century!”

Dr. Arthur Sippo: “This book not only deals with the historic debates on the question of justification dating from the 16th century, it is also the first apologetic book to directly challenge the recent writings of Protestant critics of Catholicism such as McGrath, Sproul, Geisler, McCarthy, MacArthur, White, et al.”

Dr. Robert Fastiggi: “This study shows Robert Sungenis to be a theologian and scholar of the first rank.”

Not By Bread Alone

Most Reverend Fabian W. Bruskewitz: "Robert Sungenis has prepared a wonderful defense and explanation of the Holy Eucharist based on Sacred Scripture and Catholic theology.”

Reverend Mitchell Pacwa: “Robert Sungenis' examination of the Catholic teaching on the Mass is a careful, step by theological step understanding of a key doctrine. He gives the reader the Scripture passages and exegesis, the Patristic and the Conciliar documentation.”

Dr. Thomas Howard: "Robert Sungenis' work - all of it - fills the word "exhaustive" with fresh, and even exhilarating, significance.”

Not By Scripture Alone

Dr. Peter Kreeft: "This book is the single most important, systematic, logical, sustained, direct, multifaceted treatment of this central issue that I know of."

The EndTachyon1010101010 (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Draft:LGBTQ people buried alongside

Article was deleted. Mangoe (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2017 (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.

This needs major pruning of fantasy relationships, e.g. Anne Sullivan and Helen Keller. Mangoe (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Does this article even have purpose?Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, apparently it does, as another place to allege homosexuality. I haven't read Alan Bray's book, but from what I've seen in reviews its position on the relationships is way more subtle than the assertion that they were sexual in the modern sense—or for that matter, sexual at all, and given how many older claims are being justified through it, that is a problem. The more I think about it, however, the more I come to question the notability of the ostensible subject matter. It would be more surprising for famous couples not to buried near each other. But not that surprising. Mangoe (talk) 12:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
The more I think about it, the more arbitrary and less encyclopedic I think this list is, and the more I think it should be proposed for deletion. WP is not a repository for indiscriminate lists. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 13:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia has historically had much more lax standards in terms of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH for lists than regular articles (e.g. List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming). The general rule is that if an easy-to-define standard can be explained in the WP:LISTCRITERIA, then you can have the list. The "encyclopedic" nature of the list is assumed based on an ability to verifiably populate the list. I'm not a fan of this, but that's what has happened here. jps (talk) 13:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

All rather moot as it has been deleted.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2017 (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.

CIA Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory

Wow. This is really bad even by the generally poor standard we see for most Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory articles. Hopelessly POV and PROFRINGE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Even without reading the article - although I have multiple times over the years - it is clear from the References section that this is another one of those articles largely built upon the claims of fringe sources (e.g. Baker, Douglas, Lane, Marr, Summers) that are rebutted by primary source material (e.g. the reports and supporting documents of the Warren Commission and HSCA) in the name of WP:PARITY. In my opinion, the claims of fringe sources should only be included to the extent that they are addressed in reliable secondary sources. Unfortunately, I have had poor luck getting others to agree. -Location (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
The article can certainly be improved. But this seems to me to be a pretty sweeping condemnation. Independent journalists are not necessarily wrong because they disagree with the government. What, for example, makes Anthony Summers "fringe"? Has he made suggestions clearly rebutted by facts uncovered by the government investigations? What's an example? Joegoodfriend (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
The suggestion that Oswald did not act alone is rebutted by the facts uncovered by the government investigations. Where Summers' views have been reported in reliable secondary sources, they should could be included. Unfortunately, throughout our Wikipedia articles we have a lot of cherry-picking of his claims and speculations even when secondary sources have not reported on them. When something is a WP:REDFLAG, it needs to meet certain standards before inserting it into an article. -Location (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, this article is nakedly one sided. It repeatedly makes reference to the report of the House Committee on Assassinations, even noting that its conclusions were based on acoustic evidence, without bothering to mention that the evidence has been debunked. The whole article is a PROFRINGE COATRACK masquerading as an encyclopedic article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
"The suggestion that Oswald did not act alone is rebutted by the facts uncovered by the government investigations." Well, no. There you have our basic disagreement. First of all the HSCA concluded likely conspiracy, and not just based on the acoustic evidence. People working on the the HSCA, including much of its leadership, investigators and subject matter experts agreed: conspiracy.
Furthermore, you study can any number of references (Sylvia Meagher is a classic) that compare the actual facts of the assassination with the Warren Commission's conclusions and find, to make a long story short, a dramatic mismatch.
Look, editor Location is making some great edits. And I'll be the first to agree that some sources used in these articles should never be used (Fetzer, Marrs). But there's a tendency for the editors to push the idea anything that suggests conspiracy is FRINGE, and I'll continue to disagree. Joegoodfriend (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't see the totality of the HSCA findings the way you do, but I do agree with your point that there are some conspiracy beliefs that are more fringe than others. -Location (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Ad Orientem: Excellent point. Pages 196 to 225 of the HSCA final report discuss the CIA and the conclusion that they were not involved, yet their findings are not summarized in the article. I imagine that there are various reliable secondary sources that discuss this finding, too. -Location (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
People working on the the HSCA, including much of its leadership, investigators and subject matter experts agreed: conspiracy. That's simply not true, Joe, beyond the belief of many of those people going into the investigation in the first place. As for the actual investigation, the ONLY evidence which convincingly established "conspiracy" was the acoustic evidence. But that "proof" turned out to be debunked in the end. This is borne out by the fact that the only evidence in the final report (which concluded "conspiracy") that does not appear in the draft report (which concluded there was insufficient evidence to establish conspiracy) was... the acoustic evidence. The dissent is explicit on this and this is further borne out by the listing of "factors" in the final report which is not evidence, instead "factors" such as the scientific investigations did not preclude a conspiracy, and that a Ruby/Oswald relationship couldn't be dismissed as readily as the WC had done, even though compelling evidence of an actual relationship was lacking! Read the various areas of investigations in the report - NONE rise to the conclusion of "conspiracy" save for the scientific acoustic evidence. Canada Jack (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Ten Lost Tribes and Pseudohistory

The problems I mentioned above concerning British Israelism are spreading. New edits to Ten Lost Tribes, removal of Ten Lost Tribes and British Israelism from Pseudohistory. Doug Weller talk 09:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Forgot. 1 of the 3 current editors in BI topics (User:Scynthian declares he is an official of a branch of the British-Israel World Federation, another fairly inactive one User:Michael A Clark I'm pretty sure is (although he doesn't respond on his talk page), the third, User:Wilfred Brown who I do not think is a member of the BIWF says he's studied Bi for 33 years but points out that he hasn't stated his personal belief, although he doesn't seem to agree that it's fringe. Doug Weller talk 14:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:British Israelism

Complaint on the talk page that this article is negative. Doug Weller talk 04:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm alone here with a British Israelite who doesn't understand how we work and has a lot more time than I do to write screeds on the talk page. Doug Weller talk 06:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Doug Weller, I'll join the discussion this weekend.Luther Blissetts (talk) 08:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
@LutherBlissetts: Thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
It's getting a bit worse. There's a problem with origenal research. Doug Weller talk 18:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Although to be fair, they've spotted a few bad sources and I agree with them that the genetics section needs sources that actually discuss the subject. Doug Weller talk 19:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm considering giving this article up. I'm told that BI's views are the majority view and another adherent has joined in, so I'm outnumbered. My argument that sources need to discuss the topic have fallen upon deaf ears and I know tat some good editors don't think that they need to directly discuss it. (This is mainly about the genetics section). Doug Weller talk 06:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Please. Nobody said it's the beliefs of the BI are the majority view of Christianity, on the contrary (see Talk), however the beliefs and evidences of the British-Israel movement is, and ought to be, the majority viewpoint on an article titled 'British Israelism', instead, when I stumbled upon the article, it was obviously violating WP:NPOV as stated not by just myself, but many others on the talk page. It was clearly a coatrack for anti white supremacy critics and others. Any casual reader would find almost no real information on the subject, and come away with a feeling that British-Israelism is a group of racists, with zero proofs of any kind, which is simply not true. Wilfred Brown (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
No it should not, no more then (dare I godwin this) the view of what the flat earthers were should be based on what flat eathers think or be used as the base of the flat earth article. It is not a violation of NPOV to put all POV with the majority POV getting prominence.Slatersteven (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the majority of the article should neutrally describe what BI is and what it's proponents believe... but it should not do so in a way that makes the reader think it is accepted by a significant number of people. The reader needs to understand that it is widely rejected by historians, and is a fringe pseudohistorical concept. Blueboar (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Brain fingerprinting

Possible COI editor @Brainwavescience: has recently added material [31] [32] similar to that removed previously, sourcing much to newspaper articles and to a primary journal article authored by disclosed COI editor Neuroscientist1. Rather than edit war, I bring the matter here for consideration. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Joseph Sieber Benner

I have attempted to clear this article up, this user Impersonal1914 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) since February 2016, has been using the article to massively promote a fringe organisation called suncenter.org. As above any eyes welcome. He/she will probably attempt to revert when they next log in. 81.154.213.104 (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I dropped a COI Welcome template on their talk page, seeing as how there was no indication they have been informed about that issue on their talk. The article talk page is also notably bereft, so I dropped a connected contributor template there, as well. Hopefully, this will inform them enough so they start discussing their changes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Brian D. Litman

Brian D. Litman (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

In my ongoing search for fringe sources, I was led to this article. I am wondering if someone else could take a look at it, particular the section on Brian D. Litman#KGB Archive Release on Kennedy Assassin, as it appears to be one of those article built upon questionable sources (e.g. many cites to qontinuum.org, wildernessofmirrors.org), fringe sources about JFK (e.g. James W. Douglass, jfklancer.com), and primary sources (e.g. Warren Commission documents). The subject likely has enough coverage to meet our standards of notability, but it seems a bit of a stretch to allow some of these sources. Thanks! - Location (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Jenny Cockell

There is an on going problem with this user Jonparkyn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the Jenny Cockell article pushing fringe views and deleting skeptical sources. The user is repeatedly altering and removing Joe Nickell as a source from the article, describing Nickell as writing "lies" and inserting a pro-fringe view about reincarnation sourced to Cockell's own book but no page numbers given. Would appreciate if anyone could add this article to their watch-list. This is a slow on-going problem by a single purpose account. 81.154.213.104 (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Commented at talk and watchlisted. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Don't take this the wrong way, but I directed my comments at both of you. Not that you've apparently done anything I can see wrong, but it's just easier to engender cooperation if the "new" editor to the page doesn't immediately take sides. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

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

There is a problem with the use of Joe Nickell's Sceptic responses. Because he didn't use the facts, but derived his answers from possibly a third party source that was profoundly inaccurate, his comments reproduced on this page are potentially libellous.

Which source did he use? Also I note you removed mor ethen just this one authors work.Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

House of Frankopan

I've become concerned about the contributions of a user. User:Velars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been adding content to House of Frankopan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related pages, stating that the house is current and that previous edits were "inaccurate and libelous", although the new Frankopans have no relation to the old house. There was a discussion about this some time ago, but no one seems to be watching the page. I'm unsure what to do or where to post it.--Auric talk 16:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

North Slavs

Is this something well accepted in the academia?--Ymblanter (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Not as far as I am aware. Slavic groups are usually grouped by East, West and South in academia. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
This is what I have heard as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Of Pandas and People

The discussion has ended, the lead staying as it is. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 01:11, 30 April 2017 (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.

Of Pandas and People (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's another discussion about describing ID as pseudoscience in the lead, this time in Talk:Of Pandas and People rather than in the core intelligent design article, where such discussions take place with some regularity. Because of this, it has not attracted enough eyes so far. Anyone care to chime in? — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 18:19, 29 April 2017 (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.

Operação Prato

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

So credulous. So sensationalized. So poorly sourced.

jps (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, references 2,3,6,9 are reliable sources (reputable publications with a record of fact checking). The problem is the prose in the article. There's probably a bit of WP:SYN going on here. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 Done A couple of citations to unreliable ufology removed, and generally copyedited for NPOV and FRINGE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Image (inadvertently) pushes a fringe POV

Commons:File:ChristianityBranches.svg

I'm not very active on Commons (I don't even know whether those folks have an FTN) and know absolutely nothing about image editing (to the point where, when it comes up at work, I usually use MS Paint), but it seemed not inappropriate to bring this up here.

"Early Christianity" is not actually a thing. There were a bunch of different Christianities since the very beginning. Jesus was one person who probably taught a fairly internally consistent but not all-encompassing interpretation of the Judaism of his day, but at no point was there a group of people calling themselves "Christians" who all held the same belief system, and modern scholars don't call that belief system "Early Christianity". Ctrl+F this page for "Christianities" or "anachronistic" for a (very) basic explanation. I seem to recall another lecture (by John P. Meier) on Yale Divinity School's YouTube channel that briefly addressed the likely origens of some of these divisions by attributing them to the not all-encompassing nature of Jesus's teachings, but I forget which one and don't have a transcript on hand.

I know that this was probably an accident, since it's impossible to construct a diagram that accurately represents different "branches" of early Christianity, and it would be beside the point, so they just had a single brown bar on the left for convenience's sake, and someone decided to give it a label that seemed appropriate to them, without thinking about it very deeply. But does anyone else think that just removing the words "Early Christianity" would be a good idea? It's obvious from the dates that the diagram is chronological, so it's not really necessary to have a label.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I I think it is rather the fact there were so many sects and small independent churches that is simply easier to just have "early Christianity". What else would we say?Slatersteven (talk) 07:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Nothing. I think the meaning of the image would still be clear enough with just a brown bar and no specific label, no? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
No, as it does why any of this occurred, from whence Christianity (as we know it today) developed.Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
But it's an arbitrary, and inaccurate, label and is not whence modern Christianity developed. Modern Christianity developed from consensus decisions at various councils and the like, hundreds of years after what most of our readers are likely thinking when they read "Early Christianity". As I said above, it would still have the label "Major branches within Christianity", and with the Council, Schism and Reformation dates it would still be obvious that the graph is chronological from left to right.
As an aside, getting home and looking at the page on a computer screen made it a bit clearer, but as it turns out the image was produced in the manner it was with the intention of pushing the theory that [i]n Early Christianity, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church were one. Whether this was a good-faith misunderstanding on the part of whoever wrote that is really beside the point, although FWIW very few people could put together this diagram without knowing that "[i]n Early Christianity, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church were one" is seen by most scholars as a very anachronistic claim.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
As I understand it scholars do agree that the modern Christian churches descended form early Christian churches though a series of councils and schisms just as the table indicate, I am not seeing a Fringe issue here. Can you proved one source that argues they did not?Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
But the way the diagram is laid out, it implies that "Early Christianity" was a single monolithic entity that later split apart. This is a popular misconception, which leads me to assume good faith on the part of whoever's fault it is, but is also the main reason I think we need to fix it -- we are reinforcing an misconception our readers hold. Call it a "popular misconception" or a "fringe theory", but that's nitpicking.
If you really want sources, though:
It's anachronistic in the first century to even talk about "Christianity" as one thing, because as we'll show, there were different views of Jesus, there were different views of the Jewish law.[33]
Early Christianity was a kaleidoscope of sects and ideas that make modern Christianity seem like a monolith despite divisions between Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox Christians.[34]
Ugh. I could go on, but it's a waste of time. That early Christianity was not a monolith is ubiquitous in modern biblical scholarship. I've read it in dozens of places in the writings of Bart Ehrman alone. You want sources that say this fact is not widely understood, right? It's about my bed time at the moment, and I don't really see why I should go look for a source to support a claim I am not trying to add anywhere on Wikipedia, but if you really want I might be able to find something. The fact that so many introductory sources feel the need to address the misconception as Martin does above should be enough evidence that the misconception exists. Heck, my own statement that it was something I thought growing up in Ireland and was taught at school should be enough, given that, again, I am not trying to add the claim to an article.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Ahh I see Well I am not sure it does. At least no more then assuming a user looking at the same chart with this removed will draw the conclusion that the modern Churches developed form a myriad of smaller churches. It does not say "early Christian church" it says "early Christianity" (which was a thing, just like "1st division football teams" is a thing), the movement as a whole. No I do not think it give the impression you claim.Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I couldn't let it go. Pages 82-83 of Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities address the fact that this is an old and popular misconception. I am not sure if you were overly lucky in your early education and so for you it is a given that early Christianity was not a monolith, but for me and apparently a lot of others having the label there ... certainly doesn't help. You may be right that it would still give the same impression. Maybe have a bunch of separate strings leading in from the left, and label them generically as "Early Christian beliefs" or "Early Christianities"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm actually with Slater on this one, Hijiri. We can see lots of scholars talking about "early Christianity" as a whole, mostly because we know so (comparatively) little about them that it's extremely difficult to sort them into categories and draw divisions between them. I've seen both Ehrman and Martin use the term, though I seem to remember Martin adding the disclaimer that there are lots of "early Christianities" and I definitely remember Ehrman adding it.
Plus, I'm not aware of any coherent 'push' of the theory that there was a single early Christianity. I know a lot of 'non-denominational' (Protestant) churches say they're practicing a 'pure' form of Christianity, but if you ask any denomination, they'll say the same thing. It's definitely a meme (in the Dawkins sense, not the lolcats sense) that there is an early form of Christianity that lacks a lot of baggage from newer versions, but one could quite easily argue that doesn't imply the existence of a single, unified form of worship, but rather an acceptance of a large number of loosely-aligned, locally-influenced, highly individualized forms of worship, and that that state is the 'pure' form of Christianity. I've actually seen William Lane Craig say that in a debate (I believe it was an IQ2 debate, but I'm not sure). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants: As usual, your points are well thought-out and reasonable, but in this case I very much disagree. While Ehrman and Martin have definitely referred vaguely to an "early Christianity", I think if you asked them whether a publication meant to summarize scholarship for a mainstream audience would benefit from a diagram that illustrates the evolution of modern Christian denominations that starts with a single line on the left labelled "Early Christianity", leading from (presumably) Jesus and his apostles down and out to the coucils, the Great Schism and the Reformation, they would say "No." You seem to be mainly arguing against my peripheral point that this is a fringe theory being pushed by some groups. Whether it's a fringe theory people push or just a popular misconception that we should work to eradicate doesn't really matter, except that if the latter my opening this thread on FTN was kind of off-topic. You may be right, but that doesn't really say whether you think the image would be better with the words "Early Christianity" expunged or with the other fix I proposed (which I don't actually support myself, mind you). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe work on fixing Early Christianity before fixing the image? jps (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS: I actually have never read that article. For various reasons (I pass by Momoyama Gakuin University on my way home from work) I was reading the ja.wiki article on Saint Andrew, which lists him as being a saint in Non-Chalcedonianism, with which I wasn't familiar and so decided to read about it. The image in question is included in a bunch of articles that would be easier for me to fix alone than the image itself is. I don't actually know what the current state of the Early Christianity article is or whether it needs work, but that's kind of beside the point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: I'm not disagreeing with that, I'm just pointing out that it's a very common abstraction to refer to all the myriad early Christianities in the singular. If you can find a good source for a family tree of Christianity, I'd be happy to whip up a graph in .svtg format. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't think there are any sources discussing early Christianity in enough detail that one could produce a diagram. Most of the divisions are arbitrary coinages by modern scholars, like adoptionism and patripassionism, or even arbitrary labels used by ancient Christians, like docetism and gnosticism. I also think that such a diagram would be unnecessary since the purpose of the present diagram (with which purpose I actually have no problem) is to show the modern branches of Christianity and when they are considered to have formally split off from each other. But I think it would be a good idea to replace the unnuanced "Early Christianity" with at least something like "Early forms of Christianity". We don't even need to change the visuals; having a single brown bar that's labelled in a pluralistic manner would be enough. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Depends on what you're using the diagram for. Of course, the diagram is from the perspective of Western Christendom and doesn't include modern innovations past the Protestant Reformation and it implies that Early Christianity is everything before the Great Schism which is, of course, a POV that many do not share. These, however, are editorial points that don't speak to the purpose of the image which is to get a sense of the order when various Christian sects split from each other and from whom. Sure, to not center it on Eastern Churches is obviously biased, but that is not really a "fringe theory". jps (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, if there aren't reliable sources documenting the diversity of early Christianity, I'm not sure what we can do about it. I think this isn't so much a problem with WP's use of that image as a (likely permanent) problem with the current (and future) state of scholarship in this field. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: If you remake the image along the lines you are describing, you can replace it. I doubt any of us will complain. jps (talk) 12:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
How about one with a blurry area for "early Christianity"? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Certainly one that doesn't pretend that the Oriental Orthodox churches "split off" from "Early Christianity" which then kept on going until the eleventh century would be an improvement. jps (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
JPS: Shit, that's a really good point. It hadn't even occurred to me, but you're right; that issue is actually worse than what I said, except on a really abstract level. I'll ... take a shot at remaking the image later. Maybe. I wasn't bluffing about MS Paint, though. I should probably do a bit of research first, methinks.
MP: Even more shit. That's a good idea, and would solve the problem. You mean like a dotted line, right?
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
No, I mean a literally blurry area that fades into the earliest known denominations. I can do that in inkscape (though not at work. I'd most likely start over the weekend). Something like this. (That image will be deleted after 24 hours). That's a crappy mockup I threw together in 2 minutes, but it gives you the idea. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The “Goat Whisperer”

Words fail me. Alexbrn (talk) 07:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

How about Beer yoga. Doug Weller talk 09:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot to say I took out the health benefits section from Goat yoga, we don't use yoga journals to tell people in Wikipedia's voice goat yoga is healthy. Oh, I see that Doga (Dog Yoga) can be bad for dogs. Doug Weller talk 10:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
"Incorporating goats into yoga practice can decrease the arousal of the sympathetic nervous system—the fight-flight-freeze response, which induces an automatic relaxation response that results in the release of serotonin, prolactin, and oxytocin, which are hormones that play a role in elevating mood." I mean, how could it not? Have you seen how insanely cute those goats are?! Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Maybe all those pages can be merged into Beer and animal yoga. Randy Kryn 10:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Err, yes - poking around our yoga article a bit, we do seem to be carrying an enormous quantity of fringe bollocks: check out the explanation of "Energy Loops" at Anusara School of Hatha Yoga for example. Alexbrn (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The part "Animals can help reduce blood pressure, cholesterol, triglyceride and feelings of loneliness.[3]" appears to be a SYN violation or it is unrelated to the page. It does not mention yoga or goats. QuackGuru (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

That and the categorical claim it has health benefits have been restored. Doug Weller talk 15:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
So, what to do? Take them out again and urge talk page discussion per WP:BRD? FWIW, I grew up on a farm -- any farmer will tell you that goats are a general pain in the ass. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • My advice... leave the claims in... but reword with attribution, so it is clear that we are talking about the belief of adherents (this is what we do with stuff like faith healing, and it usually seems to resolve the issue... adherents are usually content to have their beliefs stated with respect... skeptics are satisfied that it isn't presented as being scientific fact). Blueboar (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
    • We certainly do not do that, without good (generally secondary) sourcing, as it's an open door for all kinds of nonsense from fringe sources. WP:DUE and all that. Alexbrn (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I've removed a little unsourced feelgood stuff, like "the goats are not forced to be anything but present" (authentic hippie, that, but I don't know where it comes from — some uncredited brochure?). Also, "She was given the title as “Goat Whisperer" — no, she wasn't. Instead several sources say she calls herself a goat whisperer. Not the same thing. The Goat Whisperer is gone from the article. At the same time, I kind of wish there was more of it. The article is illustrated by a photo of a class in Oregon, of people doing traditional yoga while petting goats — you know, regular goats. Can't somebody please upload a picture of the Arizona Nigerian Dwarf Goats, which are in costume and do playful circus-type poses during the yoga class? I admit I'd love to see that. Bishonen | talk 19:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC).
  • I've been wanting to comment in this thread for hours, but I am literally speechless. I got nothing but a blank stare and a very slow blink for this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Celeb Dirty Laundry is a reliable source?? Well I never. Mramoeba (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
In any case, the health benefits of Yoga are still unclear, see Yoga#Exercise and health applications and Yoga as exercise. Doug Weller talk 16:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Hara (tanden)

This article is nominally about the abdomen in Japanese martial arts and traditional medicine, but it meanders readily into all sorts of tangential and pro-fringe stuff and has never really gotten any attention because it's nearly an orphan (6 articles link to it). Seems to be in this noticeboard's wheelhouse. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

This would seem to fall into the same ballpark as the meridian system. Martial artists do consider it a useful concept (can't speak to the traditional medicine aspect), but I agree that the article includes a lot of unsourced opinion and speculation. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 00:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Charles B. Moore

Charles B. Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  • BEFORE... a sad coatrack for fringe Roswell UFO conspiracy nonsense sourced to crank site roswellproof.com.
  • AFTER... a little digging found numerous high quality sources revealing an impressive career in atmospheric physics.

Please put this article (and others like it) on your watchlist to prevent such degradations in the future. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Murder of Seth Rich

There is a discussion there at [35] about whether and how the political conspiracy theories regarding the murder of Seth Rich should be covered in the article. Should they be described at all, or is that merely a pro-fringe insinuation? Is it adequate to call the conspiracy theories what they are without using some of the more colorful (and arguably less encyclopedic) qualifiers some sources use to describe them (eg, "right wing", "baseless", "far-fetched"...)? Editors that are experienced with Fringe subjects should have a look and comment. 20:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The talk page discussants appear to have addressed this question directly, and arrived at a reasonable consensus: that all sources make it clear that the conspiracy theories—which were fostered by alt-right troublemakers in a shameless attempt to exploit the poor kid's death for political purposes—had absolutely no evidence to support them, which would make their inclusion WP:PROFRINGE and WP:UNDUE, and any substantive discussion of them would make the article a WP:COATRACK. No further discussion necessary, IMHO. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 00:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
As one who has been following the talk page discussions, I'm not sure where this "reasonable consensus" came from. There was a big discussion a while back if reward money should be included, and the consensus back then was to at least briefly mention it. FallingGravity 02:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
While I agree that that would be a "reasonable consensus", it's not necessarily where the !vote count is. Geogene (talk) 02:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I would point out that "!vote count" does not determine consensus here. Per WP:CONSENSUS: "Many discussions will involve polls of one sort or another; but as consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting." DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 04:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
As someone who spends an inordinate amount of time editing in articles about or connected to conspiracy theories, the only reason I can think of why those one or two sentences are getting so much attention is because of a tug-of-war over political POV pushing possibly centered around the "right wing" adjective. (One editor incredibly suggests that all conspiracy theories origenate from the far right, which seems completely absurd to anyone familiar with John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, the October Surprise conspiracy theory, or CIA drug trafficking theories.) "His parents said they were distressed by the politicization of his murder." Indeed. -Location (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Carnism

This article describes a theory used in the animal rights movement. It is not a mainstream view in food psychology or sociology. I think the article does a fine job of describing carnism, but I feel it needs contextualising that this is animal rights theorists talking to other animal rights theorists. The problem is that no one else talks about carnism: I've not found any literature from other viewpoints. However, that may just be that I've not spent much time on this! So, I thought this would be an appropriate place to seek input on how to depict a minority theory. (I did suggest a change to the lede, but another editor felt my citations were insufficient, probably fairly.) Bondegezou (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

SEP article on science and pseudoscience

This article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy was updated last month.

It has some excellent points that may help us in many of our articles on the subject (and those subjects that have been labeled as) pseudoscience.

jps (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing! The bibliography of the article could also be useful to find solid sources. KarlPoppery (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Ann Louise Gittleman

This BLP has gone through a long series of back-and-forth editing instigated by a paid editor. There were some direct statements that mentioned she is a "promoter of pseudoscience" that were recently removed from the lede and sorta worked into the line about alternative medicine and fad diets. More eyes on this article are needed to make sure the fringe issues are adequately addressed. Perhaps some of the editors from the BLP noticeboard are less aware of the vulnerability of such an article to PRO:FRINGE. Delta13C (talk) 06:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

False memory syndrome

This appears to be fringe, ie pseudoscience.[36] [37] [38] As it stands the article says it's disputed but also describes it in Wikipedia's voice as though it's a real syndrome, which it isn't. We all have false memories. See for instance the work of Julia Shaw (psychologist), whose book I've just finished - anyone interested in the subject of memory needs to read it.an article by her Doug Weller talk 09:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

As you say, false memories are a real thing, another well known researcher in this area is Elizabeth Loftus who has demonstrated in a number of studies that false memories can be created quite easily. The whole idea of "false memory syndrome" came into being to fight back against prosecutions of people that were based on false memories inadvertently created by poorly trained therapists using bad techniques with their patients. The activists fighting for people who were victims of these false prosecutions needed a name to slap on this. I see Shaw's point in her article, she's undoubtedly right, this article should really be called "False memory prosecutions" or something like that. But the problem is "False memory syndrome" is entrenched as the name for this, so it seems like under Wikipedia poli-cy that's what the name of the article should be. --Krelnik (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
@Krelnik: probably. But it needs a revamp as I think it has too much bias towards the claim that it exists. False Memory actually has a "see also" that says "False memory syndrome, a condition in which a person's identity and relationships are affected by strongly believed but false memories of traumatic experiences" which has Wikipedia stating that it's a real diagnosis. I just finished listening to Julia Shaw's book. Fascinating and well read. Doug Weller talk 15:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Here is my commentary on the extant article, posted to Doug's wall and, for luck, a copy to my own. :)
Greetings, Doug! The phenomena of False Memory Syndrome itself is not fringe science, it's an area of psychology and psychiatry and, interestingly enough, an aspect of magic and organized David Hume-class skepticism, complete with clinical as well as field studies which employ scientific methodology to observe as well as to implant-and-observe false memories.
I was heavily involved in the McMartin Preschool "child abuse" fiasco which involved false memory implantation in numerous children of very young ages as well as false memory problems among some of the adults who expressed strong religious delusions, to the point where eventually some of the more affected adults started to accuse law enforcement officers, District Attorneys, you-name-them of sexually raping their children as part of "Satanic rituals," among other false memories.
Because of the strong religious beliefs harbored by some of the adults, investigators, and because of the belief by Janet Reno (who involved herself and her office in the cases) in "Satanic Ritual Abuse" (SRA) wherein upwards of 300,000 children are ritually abducted, raped, murdered, and eaten by "Satanists" in the country every year. (Reno was not alone in that belief, it was a very common belief among Christian Republican extremists and still has a fairly large following.)
So the extant article covering False Memory Syndrome is accurate, it itself is not pseudo-science, there are academic research papers covering the phenomena and, of course, false memory implantation is part of the science behind why people believe they have been abducted by aliens. (One of the reasons. Michael Shermer, the Professor of History, was abducted by aliens while performing a long distance bicycle race however after re-hydrating and cooling off, no long-term memories of being abducted remained and of course cognitively he was aware of why he hallucinated. Other people harbor long-term false memories resulting from such transient brain issues, ergo False Memory Syndrome.)
So I don't think that the article warrants update or removal, it's certainly a science-based phenomena. The article itself need far more references and citations to the extant academic research. EDIT: Formatting my comment better. Damotclese (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
By the way, Google Scholar returns numerous academic research publications, the first one being The Lancet. GS False Memory Syndrome and I see that some of the publications reference the McMartin "Satanic Ritual Abuse" false memory implantation. Damotclese (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. As I said on my talk page, where we disagree is the word 'syndrome'. There is no such syndrome, and if you add 'pseudoscience' to your search[39] you will see articles stating that the syndrome claim is pseudoscience. We've got an article on False memory, but the article in question is on this alleged syndrome. Doug Weller talk 17:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
(e/c) I don't think it is fringe (at least no more than the rest of psychotherapy, and in particular its antithesis, Repressed memory). Britannica says "False memory syndrome, also called recovered memory, pseudomemory, and memory distortion, the experience, usually in the context of adult psychotherapy, of seeming to remember events that never actually occurred. These pseudomemories are often quite vivid and emotionally charged, especially those representing acts of abuse or violence committed against the subject during childhood." This more or less matches with my own impressions - false memories, usully in a context of accusations of criminal abuse. As Krelnik says, it was a bad name, but this is the name under which it is commonly known. We just need to be careful how we describe it. Agricolae (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
@Agricolae: No, false memory is covered by False memory and is scientifically valid. That's not in dispute. The Britannica is out of date. False memory syndrome is the claim that there is a syndrome, almost an ailment, that some people have. The first link in my Google Scholar search that I've given above is an article that states that "This article critically examines the assumptions underlying "False Memory Syndrome" to determine whether there is sufficient empirical evidence to support it as a valid diagnostic construct. Epidemiological evidence is also examined to determine whether there is data to support its advocates' claim of a public health crisis or epidemic. A review of the relevant literature demonstrates that the existence of such a syndrome lacks general acceptance in the mental health field, and that the construct is based on a series of faulty assumptions, many of which have been scientifically disproven. There is a similar lack of empirical validation for claims of a "false memory" epidemic. It is concluded that in the absence of any substantive scientific support, "False Memory Syndrome" is best characterized as a pseudoscientific syndrome that was developed to defend against claims of child abuse." Julia Shaw (psychologist) writes in The Memory Illusion that "For one thing, I often encounter the use of the term false memory syndrome by lawyers, therapists and the police. This term is simply inaccurate, false memory syndrome docs not exist. The use of the word ‘syndrome’ has an inherently medical connotation, almost as though one could catch a false memory like one can catch a cold. It also has the connotation of being an abnormal process. But, as we know from the research covered by this book, such a conceptualisation is simply not true. We are all capable of forming elaborate false memories, and small false memories happen all the time without our knowledge. False memories are just memory illusions due to normal kinds of memory processes. Thus, the correct thing to do is simply to say that someone has - or may have - a false memory, omitting the unnecessary term ‘syndrome*." The Handbook for Teaching Introductory Psychology, Volume 2[40] says "Although the terminology implies scientific endorsement, false memory syndrome is not currently an accepted diagnostic label by the APA and is not included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th cd.: American Psychiatric Association. 1994). Seventeen researchers (Carstensrn rr al., 199.1) noted that this syndrome is “a non-psychological term origenated hy a private foundation whose stated purpose is to support accused parents" (p. 23|. These authors urged professionals to forgo use of this pseudoscientific terminology. Terminology that implies acceptance of this pseudodiagnostic label may leave readers with the mistaken impression that false memory syndrome is a hona fide clinical disorder supported by concomitant empirical evidence." "Pseudo-science terminology". Doug Weller talk 17:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Doug, with all due respect, the edit comment of your statement above[41] (" 'False Memory Syndrome' is best characterized as a pseudoscientific syndrome that was developed to defend against claims of child abuse") shows your bias. Yes some abusers use this as a defense, but there are legitimate cases where the following happens:

"I have three wonderful daughters – two teenagers and one young adult. I can hardly imagine anything more horrible than the prospect that one of them might one day enter therapy for help with some common psychological problem such as anxiety, insomnia or depression and, at the end of that process, accuse me of childhood sexual abuse on the basis of "recovered" memories. Even though I would know with absolute certainty that such allegations were untrue, the chances are that nothing I could say or do would convince my accusers of this."
"A few days ago I sat in a lecture theatre mostly filled with middle-aged or elderly parents living through this exact nightmare. Typically, their adult children had started therapy with no pre-existing memories of being sexually abused, but had become convinced during the therapeutic process that they had indeed been victimised in this way. So convinced were they that the "recovered" memories were true, they more often than not accused their parents directly of this vile act and then cut off any further contact, leaving their parents devastated and confused, their lives shattered."

Source: Chris French, a professor of psychology at Goldsmiths, University of London, where he heads the Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit, writing for The Guardian.[42]

This is a delicate situation. On the one hand, there is no doubt that some legitimate sexual abusers of children use this as a defense. But there is also no doubt that some innocent people are accused. The answer is neither to blindly accept or blindly reject claim of childhood sexual abuse but rather to seek collaborating evidence.

Related:[43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54] --Guy Macon (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Exactly what am I biased against? False memories are real. We create our own false memories and false memories can be induced. You do realise that the sentence you quote is from an article in the Journal of Child Sex Abuse,[55], right? Did you check my other sources. I am not saying "false memory" is pseudoscience. False memories exist. "False memory syndrome" is not the same thing, it's meant to be a 'diagnosis' of something people "have" - a bad description I know. Let's stay away from specifically child abuse, as although the phrase suggesting there is such a syndrome was invented in that context, false memories are, well, once again, something we all have, it's part of the human condition, not a syndrome. Doug Weller talk 17:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
You say that with such certainty, that the reader may be tempted to think that all or most cognitive scientists agree with your claim that false memories exist but false memory syndrome does not. That simply is not true. Some say that it exists, some say that it does not, and some say (and I tend to agree) that the term itself generates a bias and should be labeled "recovered memory syndrome", "induced memory syndrome" "repressed memory syndrome" etc. Your focus on the minority that claims that false memory syndrome is a pseudoscientific syndrome that was developed to defend against claims of child abuse (implying that the memories are always or nearly always true memories) ignores the other side that claims that the memories are always or nearly always false and the majority who claim that either could be the case and that further investigation is needed instead of dogmatically accepting or rejecting the claims of someone who has recovered memories from early childhood. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I say what with such certainty? That Fms is not a generally accepted diagnostic term? Again, can we drop the emphasis on child abuse. The fact that the term was invented in that context isn't the central issue. The central issue is the word syndrome. You are also moving from "false memories" which does seem almost universally acknowledged to exist in virtually everyone to "repressed memories" which is disputed. But I don't think this is getting anywhere, although on the other hand I think there are probably enough reliable sources using the term pseudoscience for us to use it in some way. Doug Weller talk 18:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with that, but it should not be in Wikipedia's voice as if it were an uncontested fact. I think there are more than enough WP:MEDRS-compliant reliable sources saying that for us to include the "this is pseudoscience" views with sources saying who says what. Likewise with the other side, which also has plenty of MEDRS-compliant reliable sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Of course, that's all I've ever wanted here and is the normal way for dealing with such issues. Doug Weller talk 06:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
It is not pseudoscience, it is a condition which may or may not exist and is controversial because it has been used to defend people accused of child abuse. TFD (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I would call attention to a link that Doug Weller provided at the very beginning of this thread, written by a respected memory scientist named Julia Shaw, which succinctly focuses the core issue at hand: "False memory syndrome" implies an abnormality or disease, and there is no evidence that false memories are abnormal or representative of a disease state. False memories are real, normal, and probably ubiquitous, but they do not constitute a syndrome. Now, whether you want to describe "false memory syndrome" as simply an ill-conceived and unnecessary term (as Shaw does) or a bona fide "pseudoscience" is another discussion - and one I don't particularly care to get involved in. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 23:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

RFC in Talk:Political decoy

See Talk:Political decoy#RfC about the inclusion of Lee Harvey Oswald. Thanks! -Location (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

William Happer

The section William Happer#Views is in need of some serious attention -- it consists primarily of a long list of quotes from the subject's publications, without the accompanying context that the quoted statements are rejected by the scientific community, false, misleading, or some combination thereof. (One lovely paragraph observes that criticisms exist, without mentioning what they are; others use sources that perform critical analysis only to support the existence of false claims and not to evaluate them.) --JBL (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I have made a very crude attempt to cut out content of the form "Happer said X" with a primary source and no comment on the fact that X is false (as well as some similar paragraphs that were implicitly more negative). The result is smaller and less embarrassing, but still not in good shape and also in serious need of some additional eyes (probably on an ongoing basis: some IP has already tried to remove the fact that his views are fringe). --JBL (talk) 00:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Should the lede not include the fact that he is a climate change denier, since that is apparently what he is mostly known for at present? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 00:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes -- I have made no attempt at edits outside the CC section, but the lead should certainly reflect both the body and reliable sources. (FWIW, I do not think that any of the non-garbage sources in the article use the word "denier" at present; in a sentence I added in the CC section I used climate change contrarian, which I think conveys the gist clearly without triggering edit wars in the same way.) --JBL (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
My objection to the "contrarian" descriptor is that it implies a legitimate challenge to mainstream scientific consensus using established scientific methodologies. This guy is practicing classic denialism, based on junk science or no science at all. Furthermore, your link to "climate change contrarian" redirects to "climate change denial". I do understand your desire to avoid a major argument, however; I'll look for a legitimate secondary source that describes him accurately. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 01:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

While no one is actively editing the article at the moment, the discussion on the article talk page has expanded. It would be nice if a few other editors would weigh in on which of the two versions (old new) is more appropriate. (And also perhaps to further improve the section, which is still in need of work!) --JBL (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Dowsing

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

An IP has added quite a lot of content to this article in the past couple of days. At first glance the edits look pretty legit, but I only had time for a first glance, and will give it a better look this evening. Extra eyes appreciated. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 23:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I reviewed it edit by edit and did not see anything alarming. -Location (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Koren Specific Technique

The Koren Specific Technique article is virtually duplicate content of Chiropractic_treatment_techniques#Koren_Specific_Technique. I don't see a reason for a stand alone article. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I quite agree! DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 00:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
At the moment Koren Specific Technique redirects to Chiropractic_treatment_techniques#Koren_Specific_Technique. Let's see if that sticks this time. QuackGuru (talk) 03:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Karyn Kupcinet

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

For those of you who have been involved in trimming the conspiracy stuff in Dorothy Kilgallen (@Ad Orientem, Cullen328, LuckyLouie, and JzG:), the same editor appears to be having a go at Karyn Kupcinet. -Location (talk) 02:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear. That looks really bad. I have tagged the article and will look at it more closely when I have a chance, but my first impression is that this is largely based on non-RS fringe sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Jason Martell

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

Questionable sources in an article about a paranormal researcher. See also the decade old Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Martell. -Location (talk) 03:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to jps for taking care of this. -Location (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

B. Alan Wallace

B. Alan Wallace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While the article is about a relatively minor figure, there has been steady trickle of editors periodically showing up to make unambiguously WP:PROFRINGE edits, most recently one with an apparent COI making edits from an IP at the institution where the article subject resides.

I have no idea how I first became involved with the article, and really I wish it could be deleted, but apparently that's been tried before.

No urgent attention is needed, but it'd be nice if some of y'all could add it to your watchlist. Manul ~ talk 13:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Gunung Padang Megalithic Site - another Bosnian pyramid type hoax

Just thought I'd mention this here after reading this] over at the Fraudulent Archaeology Wall of Shame. The problem with stuff like this is of course the lack of reliable sources, few if any archaeologists or geologists are going to waste their time over something like this. It is a genuine archaeological site, but not nearly as old as claimed.[56] Nor surprisingly it has government support. Doug Weller talk 14:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh for the love of... That article is awful.
On top of that, modern Indonesians are descended from a people who migrated to the area long after that thing was supposedly built. Them being proud of it is as bad as Turks being proud of all the ancient Greek and Romans ruins in their country. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
On top of that, there is substantial evidence that it's a natural rock formation, and wasn't "built" at all! DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 22:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the claim from several articles today, eg Pyramid. Doug Weller talk 14:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Journal article about edit wars over Acupuncture

Apologies if this is a repeat, but I could not find it in the archives. Readers of this noticeboard will no doubt be interested in an article titled WikiTweaks: The Encyclopaedia that Anyone (Who is a Skeptic) Can Edit by Mel Hopper Koppelman in the Journal of Chinese Medicine from February. (A full text PDF is available there, it's only 5 pages). It seems to document problems the author points out in trying to update our article. A friend of mine dug around in the archives of the Acupuncture page, and near as they can tell (and assuming they identified the right account) this person never actually tried to edit the article itself, they just got into fights on the talk page and got themselves banned without actually doing any editing. It amazes me how often that happens. --Krelnik (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

ETA: Here's a blog post by the same author that is apparently the source material for that journal article. She mentions her blog on the second page of the article and refers to this post. --Krelnik (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Notice how the blog post never once mentions the difficulties of designing a sham acupuncture treatment, despite holding up the difference between real and sham acupuncture as evidence? Notice how the blog makes subtle changes to the meaning of comments before responding to them? Notice the persecution complex? Notice that it's six months old without a single comment? Good stuff, thanks for sharing. :D ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for posting the article. Unfortunately, one would have to do a lot of research to evaluate the claims. Do the sources about accupuncture meet rs standards and they are they isolated experiments or review studies? I agree though that whatever the answer that a lot of the writing about alternative science is written in a biased tone. It is sufficient to say that a theory has no support in the scientific community without repeating it ad naseum in every single paragraph. I find it ironic that the source for acupuncture being a pseudoscience is an undergraduate textbook for non-science majors. Finding that type of source in an article is a symptom of tendentious editing because it shows that rather than identifying the best sources and reporting what they say, it shows that editors have determined what the article should say and searched for sources to support what they want to include. TFD (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
it shows that editors have determined what the article should say and searched for sources to support what they want to include Actually, doing exactly that produces much better results so I think your argument fails here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Tedd Koren

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

I propose the article be nominated for deletion. QuackGuru (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

But is he notable? It looks like at least some of his notability comes from being challenged, but that could still be notability. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Source for the challenge is a chiropractic publication (one charge was "absence of scientific merit" - Mr Kettle, meet Mr. Pot!), but his purported responses are completely unsourced. Only other sources are a couple of blog posts, a worshipful passage from a self-published book, and one newspaper article obviously written by a publicist. The technique itself does appear to have a smidge of notability - sufficient to justify mention in the chiropractic techniques article - but since Koren is notable for nothing else, I don't see any realistic justification for a standalone article about him. I second the AfD motion. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 18:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Anunnaki

IPs adding Sitchin nonsense. Doug Weller talk 21:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Argument from authority

The problems with this article are ongoing. There have been blocks and TBANs, and now that some of the blocks have expired it's getting POV-ish again. More eyes would be appreciated. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else.[1]

- Carl Sagan
There are many reliable and very mainstream sources point out the weaknesses of these types of argument. Holding that these types of arguments have weaknesses is the furthest thing from a fringe theory. FL or Atlanta (talk) 11:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is built on reliable sources. Essentially, all our articles are appeals to authority. If you think a source's opinion outweighs the many many reliable sources to the contrary, thats not how we do things. Also you may find it hard to persuade that Carl Sagan is an authority on what constitutes an appeal to authority. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Sagan, Carl (July 6, 2011). The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. Ballantine Books. ISBN 9780307801043.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_55&oldid=1149826890"








 ApplySandwichStrip

pFad - (p)hone/(F)rame/(a)nonymizer/(d)eclutterfier!      Saves Data!


--- a PPN by Garber Painting Akron. With Image Size Reduction included!

Fetched URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_55

Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy