Jump to content

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 98

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 95Archive 96Archive 97Archive 98Archive 99Archive 100→Archive 102

Wagner Group in a list of Russian neo-Nazi groups

The Wagner Group is currently listed in a list of Russian neo-nazi groups. To me, that makes as much sense as featuring Donald Trump in a list about American fascists under the allegation that his status as such is "disputed". There is a policy regarding what can and cannot be included in these lists, and the Wagner Group seems to fail the criteria. The idea that this organization is a neo-Nazi group is a minority view at best, and a fringe theory at worst. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 05:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

It was named after Hitler's favourite composer, and the late lead officer had SS tattoos.
Aside from that, brand-new editor comes in with a working knowledge of Twinkle and starts immediately advocating pro-Russian views? Suspicious. 208.87.236.202 (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
The article itself says that the status of Wagner as a nazi group is disputed, there is no doubt about that. You cannot categorize a group or a person as a neo-Nazi based solely on an allegation, especially when the topic at hand is so controversial. And I'm not Russian, if that's what you want to know, nice try at poisoning the well. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Not poisoning the well when your username also brings to mind certain symbols of Nazi Germany. It is fine to have it listed as disputed as reliable sources state it as such, and the article reflects that it is not a total consensus. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
"Not poisoning the well when your username also brings to mind certain symbols of Nazi Germany."
I'm speechless. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
You are the one hopping into the fringe theories noticeboard talking about what is and isn't a neo-Nazi group - if we were in any other place on Wikipedia talking about anything else I would have assumed you were a weather geek, but you cannot be speechless when in this context your complaints plus your name wouldn't immediately raise red flags. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
It's just crazy how I created this thread yesterday without thinking too much of it and now I've just been called both a Russian shill and a Nazi. The wheather must be really chaotic on this side of Wikipedia for people to be this cynical and distrustful. I'm kind of offended of being called a Nazi, especially. That's not something that you should just do to people. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
I did not state that you are a Nazi, it is just your user name evokes that imagery in the context surrounding Nazis. I would hope that someone, despite being a "new" Wikipedia editor, who is delving into some seriously intense topic areas in Wikipedia, has enough sense to understand why some eyebrows are raised by your objections. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Adverse vaccine reactions in pets

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

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

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

Send away, as far as I'm concerned. jps (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adverse vaccine reactions in pets

Please comment.

jps (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Pedophilia article content removals

A new-ish account has lately been removing large portions of the article Pedophilia, on grounds including "sexual abuser samples do not refer to the population of this article" and "the numbers of child molesters are of little relevance to this article". While it is technically true that clinicians and academics distinguish between the mental disorder itself, and the behavior of child sexual abuse, the latter is clearly nonetheless highly relevant to the topic as it is often motivated by pedophilic disorder, especially when sources treat it as such. Therefore, I suggest keeping an eye on this matter for a little while. See also the hebephilia article. Crossroads -talk- 21:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't remove the content, I moved it to the "offender" section of Child sexual abuse. It's still there. These studies are about samples of child molesters, so I figured this information should be placed under a section regarding to this population. Maybe we could redirect that treatment section to the "offender" section of the CSA page. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
But it was removed from that article, and a section can't be 'redirected'. There can be wikilinks both inline and under the headings, but many people don't click on those and it is relevant to pedophilia as a topic. Crossroads -talk- 21:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
I can understand the argument that people who are interested in reading about treatments for pedophilia would also be interested in reading about the treatment for child molesters, but nonetheless that does not change the fact that these things are very different. The way the article is written also suggests that CBT and and behavior interventions are treatments for pedophiles in particular, when the citations provided are clearly talking about child molesters. My suggestion is that we keep the child molester treatment content on the CSA page and put a wikilink in Pedophilia to the "offender" section from Child sexual abuse, any smart reader will be able to click the link. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
@Crossroads Yes. The reason given for this[2] removal was "there is no treatment for pedophilia per se". This seems remarkable since the removed material contained sources with titles including e.g. "Pedophilia: Assessment and treatment", "Clinical features of pedophilia and implications for treatment" and "Drug treatment of paraphilic and nonparaphilic sexual disorders". I am reminded of the Minor-attracted person controversy from last year. Bon courage (talk) 04:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
This user is making major additions to the Virtuous Pedophiles page, which seems to have been a big target of many previously banned users. They seem to be edit warring a positive tilt into the article now. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 05:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Treatment aimed at trying to prevent pedophiles from committing child sexual abuse is clearly relevant for the article on pedophilia. But even further, a lot of the treatments mentioned in the article look to be aimed directly at reducing or redirecting the sexual attraction itself, so appear particularly relevant to Pedophilia. Also for that reason, I'm not entirely sure I agree with the heading "For child molestors" added here, as most of the content in the "Behavioural interventions" and "Sex drive reduction" sections don't actually appear to be exclusively about CSA from what I can see. Endwise (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Warrington bombings appears to be promoting a conspiracy theory

This article, and some connected articles, appear to have been heavily compromised by persons with a political axe to grind. For the time being I will restrict myself to this one specific article. The article appears to be giving benefit of the doubt to the persons responsible for the bombing by giving UNDUE weight to a press release by the perpetrators alleging that "precise" warnings were given and ignored while simultaneously casting doubt on the statement of Cheshire Police that the warning was meaningless, merely stating it was "according to Cheshire Police". Reliable sources do not generally dispute Cheshire Police's statement; the only dispute is from the perpetrators, in whose interest it was to shunt blame on to someone else. I had hoped to try to start a reasonable discussion on how the article should present the information, but persons who appear to have a political motivation in bolstering the fringe theory are attempting to shut down discussion, even dismissing declassified government documents as "self-published" sources and attempting to act as gatekeepers by claiming only a specific set of authors on the topic should be listened to (including one who objectively makes glaring factual errors in his work).

I strongly suspect two of the recent editors on the article determined to shut down discussion have some sort of ulterior motive relating to the forthcoming Irish elections. 82.16.150.34 (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can be bothered to get involved in this, but I have no interest in the Irish elections and no interest in defending the IRA. However this edit of yours [3] clearly introducedn non-NPOV language and language which doesn't even seem to come from the any source, so it's not surprising it was reverted. Nil Einne (talk) 11:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Also I can't see anything close to a conspiracy theory in the current version of the article [4] except perhaps the BBC Inside Out stuff but since that appeared on Inside Out, I think it's reasonable to include it. Regardless of whether the language surrounding the alleged warning could be improved, it definitely does not come close to a 'conspiracy theory' at the current time. Nil Einne (talk) 11:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Hypnotic Ego-Strengthening Procedure

I cannot make heads nor tails of what Hypnotic Ego-Strengthening Procedure is supposed to be, but it seems like the article is about a fringe bit of psychobabble. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Most of its citations come from American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, which from the name gives me a pretty clear idea of what this is about. The article's author has historically worked on hypnosis-related pages and I get the impression that they have a positive impression of the techniques, that they made a positive impression on the field on a whole, etc.
Of particular concern are the various things this is purported to successfully treat:
  • Self-harm
  • Asthma
  • Anxiety
  • Incontinence
  • Herpes Simplex
  • Burns
Reconrabbit 20:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Mewing (facial restructuring technique)

This newly created page needs work and watchers. A number of proponents of this technique are editing the page so I've done some tidy up to clarify the fringe nature of it.

Also, shouldn't the page be shifted to 'mewing', since there is only 'mew' (the cat noise) in disambiguation? Zenomonoz (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh great. A topic that is 50% medical and 50% meme. What could possibly go wrong?... DanielRigal (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Indigenous science

Found this via an WP:SBM article by Mark Crislip [5]. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Our article is bad, but there are some things worth saving. This relational science stuff is still being worked out as to how exactly the rhetoric and descriptions work the best. Some descriptions are risible (holism needs to be excised completely, sorry philosophers), others are bizarrely reductive (like reifying the false dichotomy between "Indigenous knowledge" and "science" as if Indigenous people aren't doing "real" science), but the general principle and practice is straightforward: In the context of science that is done in particular places, it makes a lot of sense to listen to people who have longtime connections to the place. It would be nice if we could get clearer wording on this, but the sources themselves are fairly good. It looks like we might be suffering from "undergraditis" as a lot of the rhetoric and phrasing are lazy term paper prose instead of straightforward exposition. I did a copyedit. jps (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
I have to ask if you are aware (as Dr. Crislip seems not to be) of the decolonization of knowledge project? fiveby(zero) 23:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Notwithstanding his opening statement, that article really demands a pointer to Cunningham & Williams 1993 paper, one of the most highly cited in within history of science. fiveby(zero) 16:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
I think it might be worth mentioning the criticism of this concept in our article, since (as Crislip discusses) there are valid objections to retro-designating things as "science", especially when there's so much conflation of "knowledge" and "general problem-solving" with "science". JoelleJay (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
So what is the the "concept in our article" and how to go about locating sources? There are many quality sources to begin the article: Within post-colonial theory indigenous science is a concept... If that is the concept, then what jps is doing is improper, removing 'holistic', looking for "rhetoric and descriptions work the best". Within the theory it is not still being worked out but the rhetoric and description are well-defined. He is also retrofitting, changing a framing intended to achieve a future result into some sensible view of the past and present, and finding risible descriptions and the bizarrely reductive in doing so.
Or do you abandon this framing and take jps's approach of trying to be sensible and describe 'indigenous science' outside the theory? There is much overlap here with the theory and the mainstream, that which is on a very sound basis using the normal tools of historical method and scientific inquiry (which the theory tries to deny us).
In my opinion mixing these two approaches in the "concept in our article" leads to a skewed view of the people of the past, and a somewhat demeaning one of the people of the present. fiveby(zero) 17:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

World Council for Health

Are agitating on social media around this piece.[6] May benefit from more watchers. Bon courage (talk) 10:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Oooh, Larry Sanger thinks Wikipedia is bad. And as I recall, that Trump didn't really lose the election, etc. Doug Weller talk 11:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Book of Tobit

Sorry, wrong forum. This is a run of the mill content dispute that is unrelated to the purpose of this board. Please see WP:DR for suggestions. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:58, 29 February 2024 (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 is about [7]. Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:52, 29 February 2024 (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.

Winchester Mystery House

Well they have found me out. Clearly Sarah Winchester could not have been playing the organ late at night for any other reason. [Talk:Winchester Mystery House#Warning: Page influenced by extreme skeptics.] Sgerbic (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Clearly whoever wrote this has not visited the Grand Paradi Towers article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Breathwork

Got an editor edit-warring to make Wikipedia say this is a legit therapy. Could use eyes. Bon courage (talk) 19:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Related: Reverse breathing seems to be 100% woo, and while the second reference (of 2 total) checks out, this source: [8] contradicts it, seemingly calling reverse breathing something unnatural to be corrected. I'm tempted to AfD it, but maybe someone can tone down the nonsense and add some proper sourcing. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
It's a tricky topic, not least because the terminology in sources are all over the place. I think it would help if we made a clearer distinction between conventional Breathing exercises and the various types of woo. Bon courage (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
15 years with no good sources? I tried myself to find some, but its all bad fitness advice and nonsense blogs Big Money Threepwood (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
@Big Money Threepwood: I suggest you search Google Books and JSTOR rather than just the web, then. You keep proposing to delete articles that actually have significant reliable sources. Reverse breathing has whole chapters dedicated to it in reliable martial arts books. Skyerise (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Younger Dryas impact hypothesis

See latest edits and Talk:Younger Dryas impact hypothesis from Talk:Younger Dryas impact hypothesis#Comet Research Group (CRG) down. I see the editor used Graham hancock for a source. Doug Weller talk 12:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC) .

And Talk:Younger Dryas. I don't think I've got the time or energy to cope. Doug Weller talk 13:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Editor has added Hancock back. I have reverted twice and am stopping. Doug Weller talk 18:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
@Doug Weller You only reverted once. I reverted your undo that included Hancock since I did not understand the context of your comment posted to the CRG topic. Your undo also deleted text from a reliable source, Boslough, which I added back in manually. Please do not undo that without further discussion. The current text does not have the Graham Hancock or CRG text to which you objected. Please see the topic "Discussion of revert of text in CRG section" at Talk:Younger Dryas impact hypothesis Dmcdysan (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
@Doug Weller the only post I have made to Talk:Younger Dryas is the topic "YDIH article contradicts YD article statement of Mainstream Cause." I re-read this and could not find a mention of Hancock" Can you please identify the specific text, or delete it, so that I can understand the context. Thank you. Dmcdysan (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
It doesn’t now. My last revert removed “ by a group of authors of the first YDIH publication in a per-reviewed journal in 2007.[1] A non-profit, charitable corporation of 63 scientists from 55 universities in 16 countries established the CRG website and Facebook page in 2016.[2] As of February 2024, the CRG website[3] had 3 news releases dated in 2016 and a list of publications with the most recent dated 2018. Several scientists listed on the CRG website have been co-authors in papers opposing the YDIH. “ [9]. I am stopping now for tonight. Doug Weller talk 19:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
The reliability of an individual, Allen West and the corporation, Comet Research Group (CRG) is being discussed at Talk:Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, Allen West and CRG topic. The reliability and independence of an individual, Martin Sweatman, is being discussed on the Talk:Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, Sweatman as Reliable source topic. Dmcdysan (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Not sure if this should also be posted on WP:RSN. Your guidance would be appreciated. Dmcdysan (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

That missing source is the article they published. Doug Weller talk 20:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference PNAS07A was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "Comet Research Group". 14 November 2016. Retrieved 14 February 2024.
  3. ^ "Comet Research Group". Retrieved 14 February 2024.

Younger Dryas impact hypothesis

See[10] where a link to the CRG Wikidata was added[11] with the edit summary "Added back in the link to the Wikidata link for CRG - in order to criticize something, it should first be defined. Started CRG topic on this article's Talk page." At Talk:Younger Dryas impact hypothesis#Comet Research Group (CRG) User:Dmcdysan is asking for comments from others. Doug Weller talk 19:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, I am familiar with Wikipedia page type classifications, You posted on the Fringe Theories noticeboard; however, on the Talk:Younger Dryas impact hypothesis page it is show as Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative views, and the YDIH article is shown in the table Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative views/Popular pages.
So, my question is should items be posted here, on Alternative Views, or both? Dmcdysan (talk) 01:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
If someone thinks an article is relevant for this board, they should put up a notice here.
If someone thinks an article is relevant for another board, they should put up a notice there.
It's really simple. Discussion not needed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
@Hob Gadling They did neither, just carried on editing and using both talk pages.User:Hemiauchenia responded at Talk:Younger Dryas impact hypothesis Doug Weller talk 13:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
User User:Hob Gadling, I did eventually post the following to a topic with the same name (anchor) as this one as follows:
The reliability of an individual, Allen West and the corporation, Comet Research Group (CRG) is being discussed at Talk:Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, Allen West and CRG topic. The reliability and independence of an individual, Martin Sweatman, is being discussed on the Talk:Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, Sweatman as Reliable source topic.  Dmcdysan (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for being new to noticeboards. Does the above posting address your concern? If not, can you (or someone) provide a link to something I can read to learn more about this. Thank you. Dmcdysan (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
I do not have any "concerns" that need to be "addressed", I just answered a question. I do not need pings, I have a watchlist. And please to not apologize to me, it did not hurt. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Vedic Mathematics

There seem to be persistent efforts to whitewash the article Vedic Mathematics. Attention welcome. XOR'easter (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Complaints that the tone of the lead was not neutral appear to have been justified. I've worded the lead more neutrally (seriously "mere compendium of tricks"?), while maintaining the fact that the math is not actually derived from the Vedas. Skyerise (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Sex differences in intelligence

Sex differences in intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is the idea that significant differences in general intelligence exist between the sexes a mainstream position? Or is it rather, as I've argued, a claim only coming from a few fringe voices today?
(Note that this is a separate question from whether the sexes differ in average ability in specific domains, such as spatial or verbal intelligence. The mainstream view is clearly that they do.)
A brand-new editor is coming on hot and heavy trying to challenge longstanding text here and I don't have time to deal with them. More eyes would be helpful. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Well. Most individuals would view the idea that there are sexual differences in cognitive ability as reprehensible; they view it as an argument for outdated gender roles and counter to many of the political movements common to western society. So, in that respect, I'll grant you, you can consider it "fringe". However, whether or not an idea agrees with what we believe "ought" be does not dictate the truth of said claim. The Women-are-wonderful effect suggests why the bandwagon and moralistic fallacies could be at full steam here.
The issue, however, is this. Many avoid the following questions entirely: Could it actually be possible that a statistical cognitive difference between the sexes exists? What would the world look like if it did?
The literature often purported that supports equivalence in cognitive ability between men and women utilizes studies of children. I urge everyone to peruse the entirety of the article under question and look through all the sources. So far, from what I've checked there is a consistent utilization of child studies to infer the comparable cognitive capacity of adult men and women. At the very least, even if the meta analyses showing the divide between men and women appears in adulthood [12] are under question, statements should indicate only relative confidence amongst children and that there is doubt amongst adults.
This "fringe theory" seems to have a robust amount of data in support with studies with samples of over 100,000 that demonstrate its truth, and a surprising limited number of adult studies to prove it as fringe and fallacious. The fact this discrepancy is outright dismissed should concern anyone in pursuit of knowledge. AndRueM (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Please read WP:NOTFORUM. This is not the place to present your personal POV on the subject. The one part of your comments that's helpful is the one source you present. That source is an article by Paul Irwing and Richard Lynn. The latter is notorious for racist pseudoscience, and the former publishes his claims about sex differences in intellect primarily in Intelligence (journal), which has also been faulted for publishing racist pseudoscience. It's interesting that promoters of fringe theories of white supremacy also support analogous theories of male supremacy. NightHeron (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
It is not my personal view. It's just what the data say. Your comment is the Genetic fallacy. I don't particularly care which view is correct or not. If you have concerns with my source, kindly show more robust meta-analytic data for adult that show my wrongness. I'll gladly change my position.
In the meantime, I'd urge you and anyone else interested to read the following recent publication to get an overview of the history of theories in this area [13]https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0149-7634(23)00302-0 AndRueM (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM. Please discuss Wikipedia content rather than mean attempts at persuasion. There are plenty of other websites where you can engage in sealioning and devil's advocacy. jps (talk) 14:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
WP:FAITH. Please refrain from casting controversial opinions as bad faith. There exists 2 possibilities. Either a male/female sex difference exists or it does not. It is not a moral judgement. The other contributor broke WP:NOTFORUM by conflating the former, which I'll remind everyone is a valid point to examine given the article in question, with white and male supremacy, assigning a moral judgement to the topic at hand. Please try to maintain a neutral enforcement of standards when addressing issues. AndRueM (talk) 16:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
You are talking about what is true and about what the data say here. That is off-topic. Other users are talking about what the reliable sources say, which is on-topic. The admonitions regarding WP:NOTFORUM are correct. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Please maintain a neutral point of view. The attribution of male supremacy and comparison to racist pseudoscience to the only robust source supplied regarding adults doesn't properly engage with the issue. What the data say is relevant in discussing the whether a theory is fringe. If all the available data are in support of an unsavory theory, is it fringe? Hence, it is necessary to supply robust data that showcases the mainstream theory However, this data is not supported by meta-analysis; hence the lack of genuine engagement and rules-lawyering.
Additionally, the decision to engage only with my rather civil comments instead of contributors who have made the problematic accusations of "sealioning and devil's advocacy" and "mean attempts at persuasion" and use of "racist pseudoscience" and "white supremacy" is not the correct way to handle this issue. I would ask you to more neutrally engage with the discussion here instead of dogpiling on the individual who holds the controversial position. AndRueM (talk) 10:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
As a new Wikipedia editor you'd do well to do a little reading about Wikipedia policy and about your sources before making accusations of policy violations against experienced editors. In particular, you should read a little about the senior coauthor J. Philippe Rushton of one of the sources you seem to like. Referring to him as a white supremacist is not name-calling and is not a violation of NPOV. It's just stating a fact, as you'd know if you read a little about him. He really did believe that white people are superior to Black people in intelligence, and that genetic superiority is the reason why whites dominate over people of color. As your source makes clear, he also seems to have believed that males are superior to females in intelligence, and that genetic superiority is why males usually dominate in society.
You are showing a fundamental misunderstanding of data. Data doesn't speak for itself. First, data has to be gathered in a methodologically sound way, free of sample bias and other distortions. It then has to be analyzed and interpreted carefully. That is not what the white supremacists and male supremacists do. NightHeron (talk) 11:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Tale as old as time.
  1. Person wanders into a dark corner of YouTube et alibi
  2. Person walks out with a malformed whimsy of what heredity is
  3. Despite nothing looking particularly like a nail, it is now hammer time.
Remsense诉 12:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I have read the rules and find your interpretations to be inaccurate, and since you find certain sources debatable, I have pulled the following from the very first source in that has been used in the wikipedia article. Section 11.3.3 in the source titled the variance issue.
"If there is such a small difference in general intelligence (if any) between men and women, why do we care? What is all the fuss about?
Men's scores on measures of general intelligence are more variable than women's scores. This difference, combined with a small difference in mean scores, implies that there will be substantial differences between men and women at both extremes of the intelligence distribution, those of above-normal and below-normal intelligence."
This source acknowledge the possibility of male advantage in intelligence and definitely states men's scores are more variable, showing data in the prior section to support this idea. See below, section 11.3.1:
"Analyses of the adult standardization samples of the WAIS-III and WAIS-R generally show a small difference in IQ in favor of men. The results are consistent across countries, running from two to three IQ points in the United States and Canada45 (in deviation units, d = .19) to four points (d = .27) in China and Japan.46 These results are also close to the results obtained in earlier studies, showing consistency in time.47 There is a somewhat similar picture when we look at children's data. IQ differences are on the order of one to two points in favor of boys in both the US and the Netherlands.48"
It's not just "fringe supremacists" that demonstrate the data as true. You can feel to peruse the whole wikipedia article bibliography to find no sources of adults that indicate the contrary. AndRueM (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure what I'm going to get out of this, but. You've conflated "general intelligence" with "IQ test results". I know the latter's ideological history, its faulty assumptions, its faulty execution. I have never been convinced the former meaningfully exists or that we can measure it. If we decide IQ is worth anything, now we get to talk about why these results might be what they are, our points about which you have not addressed. Unfortunately, the reasons are not those people hang their hats on or seem to get really excited about for some reason. Remsense诉 12:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
What you said has no connection to what I said. Another page you should consult is WP:IDHT. You keep talking about things that are off topic, although I told you they are off topic. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
When you have a concern with rules, I would highly recommend not only posting links but also pulling direct quotes in a genuine attempt at education. Otherwise, you're leaving individuals to find exactly what your point of contention is, which may come off as disingenuous. I truly do not see evidence of your claim about off-topicness on the fringe guidelines. Notwithstanding, I assume you will have no complaint with the following. Sources that discuss the idea:
https://books.google.com/books?id=DwO4TtKAiCoC&pg=PA389#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Brother%E2%80%93sister-differences-in-the-g-factor-in-of-Deary-Irwing/7e8bdb5a9e5835d00c2cc51355f69d8919d8748d
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Are-Apparent-Sex-Differences-in-Mean-IQ-Scores-in-Dykiert-Gale/578dcb66a5ef60f3ad4e75c28dce37bf6f0f9fb9
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20066931/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16248939/
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005Natur.438...31B/abstract (Note this is an attempt of disproval, and yet the author still found a male advantage, the original authors have responded finding the reasoning flawed)
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2012-12982-014
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2004-18581-004
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886911001048
Note that the arguments against Lynn in this case are a circular one. Lynn has been dismissed for concluding difference in intelligence exist within populations, which are sexist, and therefore cannot be used in support of the theory that intelligence differences exist, which is sexist. Basically, it amounts to creating a position that is completely indefensible. However, the works are well-cited, in good impact journals, and are not retracted. Papers exist critiquing the theory, but, however, are unable to outright disprove it, merely giving an alternative explanation, and see the following in {{WP::Fringe}}:
"Articles about hypotheses that have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may note those critics' view" AndRueM (talk) 11:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't think they differ significantly (on average), it's just that there is some research showing the male bell curve for IQ has longer tails. I guess this could be discussed since it is usually in a number of reliable psych textbooks, with the caveat that there are potential confounding explanations and factors. But "significant sex differences" in average IQ is not established. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, and the hypothesis of greater male variability is already discussed in the article. The question I'm concerned with here is about significant differences is average general intelligence, essentially the claim that "men are smarter than women". From my reading of the literature, it appears that no mainstream psychologists are saying that anymore. The ones who still do inevitably turn out to be fringe figures like Lynn. Generalrelative (talk) 03:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Ah yes, it is already discussed. I guess it's possible to discuss Lynn's study if some secondary source covers his work in the context of the other research. I tend to favour this 'discuss and refute' approach to studies that are lower quality or controversial. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
The current wording doesn't say "average". I would say the phenomenon you mention is a "significant sex difference in general intelligence", though not in "average IQ". So perhaps we should add the word "average"? Ornilnas (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
That's what seems to be a more accurate take of the consensus; I have not been able to correct it as my changes are being reverted. Found in 2020 Cambridge Handbook of the International Psychology of Women by Diane Halpern (former president of the APA) et. Al, There is a “consensus of more than 50 years, that the only sex difference in IQ is a slightly greater variance among males” (Blinkhorn, 2005, p. 31)..
The authors also say, Even some critics of Lynn’s (and Irwing’s) studies concede that there are differences in IQ favoring men (d 0.15, about 2.25 IQ; Blinkhorn, 2005). Though it seems a difference in means would be considered fringe by the contributors here regardless of how many sources cited that recognize it as a possibility. AndRueM (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
There is an interesting meta-analysis on the subject here, but don't expect a simple yes/no conclusion! It also has a lengthy list of references if anybody has a few weeks to spare. Meanwhile, this book chapter on the subject comments that it is "among psychology’s most heated controversies", but concludes that "there are no sex differences in general intelligence".--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I have addressed this fact in my comments. See here:
"This meta-analysis reviews 79 studies (N = 46,605) that examined the existence of gender difference on intelligence in school-aged children."
The argument put forth is that a difference between the sexes is demonstrable after puberty due to maturation rates and hormonal effects. The conclusion of no sex differences while simultaneously only analyzing children is specious at best. AndRueM (talk) 12:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the source is clear in concluding that there are no sex differences in general intelligence - the source states unambiguously that There are more males in some categories of mental disability that are genetically linked, but there are no genetic explanations for differential achievement at the high end of the distributions. If you feel you've identified a problem with the methodology of the research they rely on, you can write to them and ask that they issue a retraction, but Wikipedia itself is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by trying to correct what you see as an error in the academic consensus; and you ought to at least consider the possibility that the numerous experts in the field that contributed to and reviewed one of the highest-quality textbooks in the field might know more about the subject than you have gleaned from a few Google Scholar searches, forum-arguments, and so forth. --Aquillion (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
There are two sources listed. The comment you're responding to is regarding the article, which examines differences between "School-aged children", and, therefore makes cannot be used to make conclusions on the general adult population. This is simple common sense.
If you wish to discuss the book, the quote you've provided disproves the claim. If there are more males in some categories of mental disability and differential achievement at the high end of the distributions, there must be differences between the sexes in general intelligence. "No sex differences" cannot be more clear. However, the quote demonstrates differences at some points in the curve: more disabled men. I have further provided the following quote from the book:
"By age ten boys are overrepresented at the high-ability tail, as would be expected given their greater variability. These data suggest that sex differences in variability emerge before preschool and are not shaped by educational experiences"
I cannot find your expressed citation, nor the conclusion of "no sex differences" in the cambridge handbook of intelligence, would you kindly give me the page numbers? AndRueM (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

This is simple common sense.

No, it's original research. Remsense诉 21:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Change.org petition re. Wikipedia and UFOs

In case of dusruption that this adds context to: change.org/p/demand-wikipedia-to-dismiss-editors-suppressing-uap-phenomenon-information Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC) BTW... the petiton cannot be linked to here as Change.org is blacklisted on WP. Rp2006 (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

*sigh* Again? SilverserenC 05:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Gave me a hearty chuckle. Since when has a change.org petition ever resulted in anything of consequence? Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
It's also unfair. Honoring just eight of a few dozen anti-crackpot editors! And elevating several non-GSoW editors to GSoW status just for narrative reasons! --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Some specifics here. Named editors may have been involved in those particular disputes, I haven't checked. Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
LuckyLouie Sgerbic Rp2006 JoJo Anthrax JjHAKE Hob Gadling Hemiauchenia JUSDAFAX = screenshot conversion to text using Abbyy screenshot reader. Doug Weller talk 13:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Think of the children! JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Oh dear! Don't encourage another Pizzagate! It's only a matter of time when these FRINGE topics join allegiance. Sgerbic (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
As my mother liked to say, you can tell the worth of a person by the quality of their enemies. Good job to all the named editors. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
This is old news by now, but the merger of Qanon and UFO conspiracy culture has been solidifying for some time now. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Professor Jeb Card, a commentator on all things fringe, likes to reference the "PUFT" -- the Paranormal Unified Field Theory, which is a framework I have found useful. If I were to paraphrase it, if one is willing to believe one idea with little to no evidence, there's essentially no barrier to accepting others. Bigfoot is transdimensional. UFOs are somehow both nuts-and-bolts and religious phenomena. I think as the energy runs out on QAnon, its adherents will continue flocking to other "theories," so to speak. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Can I just say that I'm getting a bit annoyed that @LuckyLouie gets prominence over me in this conspiracy theory? Is it because I am female and edit using my real name and am public? Sgerbic (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Did I read somewhere that yoga-people were merging into that group as well? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Oh a lot of FRINGE in that community! Sgerbic (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I've heard this called 'Crank Magnetism', a term coined by Dr Hoofnagle. The concept that once you're willing to accept some outlandish idea with little to no evidence it becomes easier and easier to accept other ideas with the same (lack of) backing. There's a RW article on the term. 50.234.188.27 (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
What does "... = screenshot conversion to text using Abbyy screenshot reader" mean? Rp2006 (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I think Doug extracted the list of names from the petition using the Abby screenshot reader's text extraction tool, whatever it is. Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
User:Usedtobecool yes, a very useful tool Doug Weller talk 13:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
There are no WP disputes at all on the UFO arena on my end, and yet my ID is included in the petition! These deluded people just do not like facts which challenge their deeply held beliefs. UFOlogy has become a religion, and I worry some of it's adherents would not be beyond committing acts of violence to support their cause. Rp2006 (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I'd like to see a Why Wikipedia Is So Tough on Bigfoot style article on this. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I see quite a few sensible people there trying to explain how we work. And what this page is. Doug Weller talk 14:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
If you do a alt-find in this article by Benjamin Radford for "Wikipedia" you will find that the leader of the biggest Bigfoot group BFRO blames Committee for Skeptical Inquiry as the reason Bigfoot research can't get no respect. Mainly because CSI controls the content on Wikipedia ... meaning GSoW and I. "If the Bigfoot DNA study yields results it could unravel the power and shadowy cancel-culture-Ish influence of their organization, especially their controlling presence in Wikipedia" And by extension, you all are GSoW. ... welcome to the Cabal.[ https://skepticalinquirer.org/2023/12/is-bigfoot-dead/] Sgerbic (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Well, have to be somewhere. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Remember meetings are on the second Monday of a full moon month. No more potato salad, we can always use more fruit desserts. Sgerbic (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I'll try to make it after my other meeting that day. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Great! Be sure to wear your tin-foil hat. Sgerbic (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Never without it, otherwise they get you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
I am a hard-core contrarian who loves potatoe salad, as Dan Quayle rendered it. Accordingly, I am showing up at the next meeting with a big bowl of potato salad, no matter what Sgerbic says. Cullen328 (talk) 10:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Good Lard ... I just can't stand potato salad. A casserole please! Sgerbic (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
See 2:20 for a recap of the last meeting:[14] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
I hope they kept their tin-foil hat on during the ravishing! Sgerbic (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
It is an odd course of action. Perhaps not futile... But the best it can do is prompt a higher level discussion being opened, which will of course most likely lead to whatever the petitioners disliked as local consensus being enshrined as community consensus. The last thing you should do if you want to push woo is publicize it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
I suppose the most impactful outcome from this sort of thing ever, is the result a certain petition had on Jimbo. Bon courage (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Break1

Some media: "About the show. A cabal of hardcore skeptics and UFO debunkers has surreptitiously seized control of hundreds of Wikipedia pages, including the online biographies of many of the most prominent UFO figures and investigators, including Lue Elizondo, Jeremy Corbell, Robert Bigelow, Bob Lazar, and Coast to Coast's own George Knapp. The editors' slanted viewpoints include nasty comments and dismissive opinions, and they block any attempts by others to correct blatant factual errors." Sunday - February 25, 2024 [15] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I am amazed how gleefully they adopted the tongue-in-cheek cabal vocabulary of this website. jps (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
A sense of humor is lost on these people. Oh BTW they are reading these messages, they tell their audience that they are "back channel" as if they are secret and they have found the "hidden knowledge". I've told them several times that I would be happy to go onto their shows and explain what is going on, and my contact information is everywhere, I even respond to my own messages. But nooo that's not part of the plan, which appears to make as much hay and $$ off this conspiracy as possible ... off my name and my work. It's shameful, unprofessional and disrespectful to treat their fellow humans this way, is the problem because I'm a woman? They credit MY work and MY team to men. I think I understand where they are coming from. They zeroed onto something they think was hidden, when we have been public and active for over a decade. Heck my user name is ...Sgerbic, how much clearer can you get than that? Oh BTW watchers, I just made a live video (I'm sure you can find it) rewriting another UFO stub, I showed my screen the entire time, explaining every edit and was a transparent as possible. Took seven hours over two videos (and two days) and I didn't even get out of my chair. The accusations they are making are cruel, pulling people into the GSoW who are clearly not a part of the team. The evidence is available to them, they won't ask me, how's that for valor, further creating an US vs Them world. sad. Sgerbic (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
their fellow humans So far as you know, human terran person. We are the cabal, and we eat our potatoes raw. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
As a starter. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Coast to Coast is a call-in show. If you have a moment late night on Sunday, maybe call in? jps (talk) 01:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
O_O That sounds... intriguing..! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
I have some pride (somewhere ... must check the sock drawer) if they want me on the show, they need to ask me to be on the show.Sgerbic (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
These guys don't appear to understand that joke cabals are an old Wikipedia tradition. They could also benefit by learning how WP:DIFF works, what MOS:CREDENTIAL and MOS:PUFFERY are, and especially the manner in which WP:FRIND and WP:NOTNEUTRAL applies to their favourite subject matter. I’m hoping somebody will call in and explain Wikipedia to them. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Go for it LL - but put on a British accent first so they know it is you. ;-) Yes, humor or the ability to see it is not in their skill set. Sgerbic (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
If you must use a British accent, I suggest that you use Geordie. Brunton (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
You might want to listen to a bunch of Mick West audio right before calling in, give the people what they want. The Brit accents all sound the same to me, I don't have an "ear" but I do think these examples are wonderful Geordie Sgerbic (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
At least they haven't found out about the Rouge Admins! Brunton (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
"Rouge Admins". So Wikipedia Communists are involved in this conspiracy also! -- M.boli (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
There is a long discussion on this topic on this podcast. Rp2006 (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Dipped into that at a random location. Heard that Wikipedia is suppressing the fact that "psychic healing" cures cancer in mice, and un-dipped fairly quickly. If Wikipedia is pissing-off fuckwittery like this, it must be doing something right! Bon courage (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
My brain hurts because I listened to the entire thing. Near the end, they talk about how all of science and history is wrong, and the truth is being suppressed by Wikipedia. Rp2006 (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
One quote from the very end: “you have this undocumented religion spreading out to the entire world [from Wikipedia] about atheist materialism and we’re all getting this religion from them.” Rp2006 (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Some might remember the adventures of one of those podcast guests as Craig Weiler (talk · contribs), who worked with Tumbleman (talk · contribs) (and sock accounts) to try to whitewash the article on Rupert Sheldrake. MrOllie (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Break2

It is very frustrating to be on the WP:FRINGEs when you think you should be WP:MAINSTREAM. And, to be fair, when it first was developed, Wikipedia did not do a great job of explaining how it intended on addressing this imbalance which is baked in to knowledge production and rational discourse. After more than 20 years, the answer we've come up with is: "if you don't like the status quo, go change it out in the real world." That normally shuts down the arguments, and I am convinced it remains the best argument we can say when people ask us how to fix the situation they dislike.

Back during the cold fusion wars, Steven Krivit interviewed me on the phone (sadly, the recordings were corrupted, so, no, you can't listen to it). When I said that the best advice I had for cold fusion advocates was to convince the rest of the world that they had what they thought they had, he was not happy, but what could he say back? Most of the WP:PROFRINGE want to use Wikipedia to change the world and that's fundamentally why they get frustrated. jps (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Well said jps, they would argue that WE are the ones trying to change the world, they would cite polls saying that the majority of the world believes in FRINGE topics, and some scientists. Or at least science does not actively aggressively push back with journal publications explaining why the Earth isn't hollow or why psychic surgery is a magic trick, which is true, but why would they, they are busy publishing on real science. Also it does not help when we ask for reliable sources and then reliable sources such as the NYT offers pieces that give voice to FRINGE topics. I understand that this is frustrating and confusing to people who have a different world-view. Wikipedia itself is a quagmire of rules and overly verbose wall-of-text explanations of terms. And don't even bring up WikiMedia Commons, I've never seen anything so impossible to navigate. Wikipedia has no serious training, you must know how to make an edit in order to ask a question and people are left to asking someone they know who knows someone who has edited Wikipedia before. Or a YouTube video or Google search. No wonder they get such bad information. And when you have an agenda towards FRINGE topics and are conspiracy minded that "THEY" are hiding something from everyone. And nearly every editor on Wikipedia uses a fake name and isn't clear who they are in real life, that has to be feeding into the belief that we are the enemy. That and the Dunning–Kruger effect.
Thanks MrOlliie for bringing up Craig Weiler, I had been meaning to mention him. When GSoW was newish, back about 2013 and Wikipedia wasn't as good at catching bad actors, we went though (Wikipedia AND GSoW) a very turbulent time. I exchanged emails with Sheldrake and believe that he decided that GSoW was not responsible for editing his page. Though we and most editors have every right to do so. It is exactly the same scenario going on with the BLP of these UFO people. Transparency has been encouraged for GSoW, yet that would solve nothing, we have been accused of everything under the moon that has been edited here, there is no way to prove that we didn't edit something, it's ludicrous to even try to explain. And they won't ask me, even though I'm very very approachable and happy to explain, I do all the time when asked politely, sometimes with long answers, complete with examples, even a zoom call or I'll make a video so I can show my screen, just crickets with these people.
And LASTLY before I go spend the beautiful day working in the garden, I told you so. These UFO people have joined forces with another wing of FRINGE, psychic surgery, remote viewing, psychic dogs and who knows what else. Weiler in their mind is an "expert" on GSoW and Wikipedia, and picking a path towards more fringe topics isn't the hallmark of serious researchers doing science. It's the opposite of that.Sgerbic (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Also it does not help when we ask for reliable sources and then reliable sources such as the NYT offers pieces that give voice to FRINGE topics. An essay needs to be written to expand upon WP:SENSATION. There are times when erstwhile reliable sources are manifestly unreliable. The 2017 article in the New York Times was one of them, even though if you actually read the article the biggest problems were sins of omission instead of hyperbolic claims. Having Kean and Blumenthal as authors was the charge was the real WP:REDFLAG, not the publishing outfit. It'd be like having two scientologists co-author an article about the effectiveness of the E-Meter. jps (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but all this is confusing to those not used to the conversation. We can claim that we are on the side of science, but they often see themselves as pro-science ... with some conditions. I'm not complaining, it is what we have and probably the best way to move forward, shying away from the subject or avoiding BLP or FRINGE pages because we are worried about pushback thankfully is not something this noticeboard has done. What I regret most is that there seems to be a widening chiasm between groups, a "othering" of each other, which is why I had wished they had contacted me before getting stuck in this conspiracy, they claim they have done "research" hours and hours of it, yet not a single message to me, they automatically assume I'm the enemy (or think I'm only the figurehead and actually some male is really in charge). I'm very public, my contact information is easy to find, I respond quickly and I'm told by some people that I'm open and fun. This does not seem to fit their narrative for which I am extremely sad. Sgerbic (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm only the figurehead and actually some male is really in charge Yes, the old "a person with an opinion but without a penis? That does not make sense!" reaction may be at play here too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
By the by, The Dunning-Kruger Effect has been subject of some critique which I find rather convincing: [16][17]. jps (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
HA - I see what you did there. Sgerbic (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
It feels like the Dunning-Kruger effect is rapidly consuming most discourse in public life. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Magna Bowl

This is a recreation of an article merged into our article on Pre-Columbian trans-Atlantic travel.Talk:Fuente Magna. Bedtime and I haven’t checked the references but at least one of the ELs is fringe. Doug Weller talk 21:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

One citation is just for the address of the museum and doesn't mention the bowl, The other is an article in the defunct Página Siete by a Luis F. Sánchez Guzmán who might or might not be a historian. Here's a Bad Archeology post more recent the the AfD which might have some useful pointers. fiveby(zero) 23:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Tried WP:CSD G4. fiveby(zero) 23:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Declined, so:
WP:PARITY sources, will try and track down the two papers but they look pretty obscure? fiveby(zero) 00:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks all. I've found the Pagina Siete source.[18] An opinion piece written by a retired general and using the horrible Clyde Winters and the author of this book.[19] and interviewee in this book.[20]. Just fringe. Doug Weller talk 08:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Abd-ru-shin

A strange character. Looks like he started some sort of cult. It came to my attention because one of his followers came to the Portuguese page of the pineal gland to "spread the word". I see Tgeorgescu has edited this page extensively, but it still looks very strange. It looks like it was written by a follower from in-universe sources, had some cleaning-up done to it with better sources added, but could use a few more pairs of eyes. Should it not be renamed to Oskar Ernst Bernhardt like the german version? VdSV9•♫ 17:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Yup, he claims that he is the apocalyptic Son of Man, sent to bring the True Word of God™ so that people can be saved before the Apocalypse comes. And, that, basically, he is greater than Jesus, who had a basically failed mission. He condemns occult teachings, while his book is full of occult teachings. According to him, it is his book (Grail Message) which redeems people, not his person. The comparison would be that his book claims to be for the moral-spiritual realm what Netwon's books are for the physical world. I don't know if he worded that like this, but this is what he meant. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Howard Zinn and A People's History of the United States

Zinn's article doesn't make it clear enough, at least for me, how bad this book is. See [https://muse.jhu.edu/article/547686/pdf The Second Worst History Book in Print?Rethinking A People’s History of the United States]. I know I have access to MUSE, I assume others do also and the Library may have it, but I can provide it to anyone who wants it. Doug Weller talk 15:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

? I have access to MUSE, and I just read Cohen's essay. Cohen writes (not necessarily in this order):
  • A People's History actually has many more admirers than detractors. It was a finalist for the American Book Award, marking it as one of the top ten history books in the United States in 1981.
  • Although Zinn wrote A People’s History not for historians, but for students and other novice history readers to introduce them to a radical view of the American past, this introductory function is rarely recognized by historians who attack the book.
  • They cannot explain why a book so flawed as a work of history would become so influential with the public, teachers, and students—teaching many people a great deal of history
  • Of the long list of flaws historians cite in Zinn’s work, the most commonly mentioned has been that, instead of convincingly reimagining American history, he simply turns the story’s traditional heroes into villains and villains into heroes.
  • It would be a mistake, however, to judge A People’s History only or even primarily on the basis of such criticism.
  • The book’s public impact has been so impressive and such a contrast with the historical profession’s carping about it that the popularity of A People’s History cries out for further explanation.
  • If historians are to have any hope of engaging students, especially at the secondary-school level where standardized tests consistently attest to poor levels of historical learning and knowledge, it may be time for them to give Zinn a second look as an author and teacher of history.
Carlstak (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Is the quandary here supposed to be "if it's intellectually subpar, how come it's popular"? This seems extremely easy to explain, and in fact happens all the time with all sorts of things. jp×g🗯️ 08:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Have you read Cohen's work? This is a weird post for FTN. I will quote from the blurb of Rethinking America's Past: Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States in the Classroom and Beyond:

[We] use archival and classroom evidence to assess the impact that Zinn's classic work has had on historical teaching and learning and on American culture. This evidence refutes Trump's charges, showing that rather than indoctrinating students, Zinn's book has been used by teachers to have students debate and rethink conventional versions of American history. Rethinking America's Past also explores the ways Zinn's work fostered deeper, more critical renderings of the American past in movies and on stage and television and traces the origins and assesses the strengths and weaknesses of A People's History in light of more recent historical scholarship.

TrangaBellam (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

... Zinn, who has often been misrepresented by the right as un-American, portrayed social movements glowingly in his People’s History because they were part of an American tradition of dissent and resistance he admired, even loved—with its deep commitment to interracial democracy, economic equity, peace, and social justice. [...] So Zinn’s book continues to sell, continues to be attacked by conservatives, continues to help fill theaters with audiences moved by the readings of the dissenting historical voices that Zinn selected.

As Pulitzer Prize–winning historian Eric Foner observed recently, “the main point is that we are still discussing Zinn’s People’s History forty years after it was published, which is quite a tribute to the book.” Zinn’s book lives on as part of America’s dissident culture and the continuing struggle to keep the democratic ideal alive in a nation beset by extreme inequality and a money-driven, unrepresentative political system, presided over until recently by a billionaire president flirting with white nationalism and authoritarianism ...

... If one equates patriotism and Americanism as Trump does, with unreflective boasting about American greatness, Zinn would indeed seem threatening, for his People’s History demands of us (as does the 1619 Project) a critical reckoning, a rethinking of the American past. Zinn beckons us to confront rather than evade the gap between our nation’s inspiring democratic ideals and its failures to live up to them. Yet, contrary to Trump’s accusation, Zinn was not a propagandistic purveyor of shame. For Zinn also narrated the struggles of egalitarian idealists to push America’s government leaders toward policies consistent with the nation’s democratic ideals. So it was just as possible to come away from reading Zinn feeling pride in the courage of antiwar activists as it was to feel shame about the massacre at My Lai. Zinn’s goal, however, was not evoking pride or shame but rather promoting critical thinking about the past (and present) that could yield engaged democratic citizenship ...

... We [Cohen & Murrow] see this approach to the teaching of American history—where students analyze competing historical interpretations, especially those of radical versus non-radical historians, along with conflicting primary sources—as a sure path to exploring the richness, complexity, joys, and tragedies of that history ...
— Introduction in Rethinking America's Past: Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States in the Classroom and Beyond

TrangaBellam (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
@Carlstak@TrangaBellam I was told about the article by someone I assumed had read it. BUT -- does this mean that Zinn's article shouldn't reflect A People's History of the United States#Critical reception or do you both think it does sufficiently? Doug Weller talk 17:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Jumping in here, i see two short paragraphs in "Academic career" concerning A People's History, and a concluding section "Reception" with what looks items and quotes gleaned from posthumous news coverage. If there is any WP:FRINGE concern here at all i think it would be this unbalance in a biography of Howard Zinn. Good or bad, and i am by no means a fan, there is no denying the importance and influence of the work and i don't think this is a very deserving treatment. fiveby(zero) 17:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Could be, I honestly don’t know. What I saw seems to reflect the opinion of participant in thr History News Network. Is that a credible group? Doug Weller talk 18:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
So, I would say it's a credible group, but its opinion alone should not be taken as a consensus of historians. Part of this is the simple trouble of covering ardently Marxist history works, which have long had a complicated relationship with the broad body of "Western" scholarship (one need only think of Eric Hobsbawm to conjure complications both as to the man himself and his critics). That said, I am not sure "fringe" would be the right categorization here. There are good and professional historians who approach the subject matter in this way, even if they are a minority. It has been a long time since I read (or honestly thought about) Zinn, but my recollection is that the recitation of facts in his books were basically accepted, it was rather his interpretations and emphasis that were criticized--but feel free to correct me if I am wrong. Such subjective measures can certainly make for a bad history book, but "second worst" strikes me as intensely hyperbolic, and I would be curious to see the makeup of those polled to achieve such a result. A sentence or even just a clause in the biography might be appropriate to indicate that the work's reception has not been entirely laudatory, but I don't think we need anything beyond that. On a side note, the editor who put together that ranking of the worst history books was a big fan of Chariots of the Gods[21] -- make of that what you will! Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't consider Zinn or A People's History of the United States fringe at all, but as user Fiveby says, there is an imbalance in the coverage given his work in his article. Everyone one of the viewpoints attributed in that article's "Reception" section is negative—a gross imbalance already. I haven't formed an opinion of A People's History because I haven't read it all, but the parts I read I found inspiring and a refreshing antidote to the blinkered Eurocentric history I had been taught. Carlstak (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I tend to agree with you, but I have long held the opinion that the more perspectives one has on history, the closer to the 'truth' one can get. I was merely talking about the Zinn biographical article, but I certainly agree that no discussion of the work should be unilaterally negative. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
@Dumuzid he thought it was amusing but nonsense, didn’t he? Doug Weller talk 20:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Doug, apologies for the delay in responding, but you are correct--he says he doesn't believe it, but finds the idea fun. Not a major point for me, but given our context here, it jumped out at me! Dumuzid (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
HNN looks like a fun read. No matter how credible or not this online contest is i think Robert Cohen writing in Reviews in American History or as TrangaBellam points to, Rethinking America's Past are more credible and better for use as a references. Of course Cohen looks biased in his opinions, but i would give him the benefit of the doubt and suggest that you will probably find pointers to some more considered criticism that this online poll or Mitch Daniels in his works. Cohen leads his review article with the poll, so maybe eventually it might be mentioned in the biography, but i think you would have to summarize the whole and not just pick out the poll results. fiveby(zero) 19:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
If I knew more about this I would, but it looks more than a little complex. I thank everyone for their comments. Doug Weller talk 20:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Just a last note: I would not consider HNN a reliable source by any measure. It was founded by editor Richard Shenkman, formerly a professor of history at George Mason University, and now a fellow of the dubious Independent Institute. I have always been suspicious of research emanating from George Mason University, its Antonin Scalia Law School with its close ties to the Federalist Society, Koch brothers funding of the economics department, where the Koch brothers were allowed to choose candidates for a professorship as a condition of their donations, and its affiliation with the libertarian Mercatus Center think tank. Carlstak (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
@Carlstak Thanks for looking into this. Definitely not a source we should be using. Doug Weller talk 21:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Late to the party, but I read the piece Doug linked to and I thank him for doing so. Here is my rough summary: In spite of a certain group of historians absolutely panning Zinn's approach, the popularity of Zinn is evidenced by the sheer number and quality of appreciative letters found in the Zinn archive. Moreover, the sales of the text and those who purchase attest to the audience desiring the approach in spite of its introductory nature and its intentional narrowness of focus. Far from being scolded for having an obvious political slant, Zinn is recognized as actively acknowledging his approach in the text itself as well as offering a fair critique of other texts which pretend at being apolitical and are instead actively engaged in political posturing. Zinn's critique of Morrison's biography of Columbus, for example, is considered a fair reproach of not only that work but all the derivative works of which there seem to be a majority. The substantive criticism that Zinn's work is given is as follows:

Successful does not mean flawless. Kazin has a point: Zinn could have better explained why most American workers have not rejected capitalism. Kammen was right that A People’s History slighted the history of religion. Zinn tended to be dismissive of reformist presidents, underestimating, for example, Lincoln’s revulsion against slavery. If someone follows in Zinn’s footsteps, writing a phenomenally popular, radically critical introductory history of the United States, hopefully they would learn from Zinn’s critics and strive to write a text that would satisfy historians and the public. So we’d expect a twenty-first century successor to Zinn to publish a new People’s History that, while popular, offers a more nuanced interpretation of the American past.

What's the opposite of "damning with faint praise"? I think that's about it. "the historical profession has failed to surpass or even to approach Zinn in connecting to the public via a best-selling radical history. A great political organizer, debater, pamphleteer, and orator, Zinn’s work in the black freedom and antiwar movements left him with a burning desire as well as the skills to reach beyond academia and bring radical history to the public (even to high schools!). The absence of that desire and those skills in the historical profession today is far more worrisome than any flaws in Zinn’s work." Zinn's work is definitely political'. It's definitely "POV" to use a Wikipedianism. But it commands respect if for nothing else then standing as a counter to the prevailing introductory texts in American history in spite of certain professional historians disdaining its simplicity and lack of nuance. jps (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Spiritism

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

Wildly, I think that the Catholic Encyclopedia (for all its weirdness) has a better entry than Wikipedia on this subject: [22]. jps (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
That article seems to cover the topic of spiritualism generally (which we have a separate article for, see spiritualism) rather than this particular offshoot which is popular in contemporary Brazil. Admittedly, I don't really understand what distinguishes classic 19th century British-American style spiritualism from contemporary Brazilian spiritism. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
That might be a little out of date, see spiritism and spiritism in Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion which is 'Kardecan Spiritism'. The hatnote needs improved, maybe something like "this article is for 'Kardecan Spiritism' for the belief or religious practice based on supposed communication with the spirits of the dead see spiritualism" but not to be confused with spiritualism (philosophy). fiveby(zero) 15:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Brazilian spiritism is an entire organized religion. It's a spin-off of Allan Kardec's ideas, but it has gained popularity in Brazil because of Chico Xavier's work. He was an obvious fraud, but millions of people literally worship him. There are lots of issues with this theme in the Portuguese WP, and it's really hard to push back against the true believers. Please don't let the English project be contaminated by it. VdSV9•♫ 21:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

What do you all think of moving this page to Kardecan Spiritism per WP:Principle of least astonishment? jps (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@ජපස: This should have been discussed on the talk page of the article, not here without any notification. The distinctions are historical: Spiritualism is the proper name of an historical socio-religious movement, not to be confused with Spiritualism (beliefs); Spiritism is the proper name of a distinct historical socio-religious movement, not to be confused with its successor belief, Espiritismo. These all have distinct articles becuase they are historically distinct. If the article had been put through requested moves as it should have been, these distinctions would have been valid arguments against moving the article and creating a completely unhistorical disambiguation. Please take the time to get input from other disciplines before leaping to the conclusion that different movements with different names are "the same". They aren't. Skyerise (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I think you haven't followed the logic here. I am certain that adherents and many who study this subject call it "spiritism". However, independent reliable sources (see fiveby's accounting below) identify the term spiritism with other things as well. This means that we need to decide whether the Kardec version gets top billing, whether DAB gets top billing with the Kardec version renamed, or some other solution, but the argument has to be done at the level of WP:ASTONISH, I would say. jps (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

After the move

Reënacting the move from 2007 to Kardecist spiritism that appeared to be undone by an acolyte, I was doing some cleanup and happened upon

Spiritism in Costa Rica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Should that article exist?

jps (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the Spiritism in Costa Rica article was created by a blocked sock, so there's that to consider. The La Nación source being cited discusses a number of occult movements like astrology and spiritism that arose in the history of Costa Rica. I can't tell if it supports the rather substantial article text. For the time being, a redirect to Kardecist_spiritism#Demographics with a few sentences on Costa Rica would be appropriate until more sources are added to show that it's notable for a WP:SPINOFF. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Missed the move, but how about a DAB? what links to 'Spiritism'. I'd just do it but my last spirit DAB attempt did not go well. fiveby(zero) 16:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
DAB would be fine, but I'm not sure there are other articles to point spiritism to. jps (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
[23], seems spiritism is currently mostly used as a synonym of spiritualism. Will clean up the WhatLinksHere articles to bypass the DAB. fiveby(zero) 14:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Spiritualism is a distinct tradition and a church. Spiritism is not a synonym for it. The dab page should be deleted and the article moved back before more damage is done. Any historian in the area could tell you they are distinct names for distinct traditions, one which developed in the English-speaking world and another in the Latin-speaking world, which have similarities but which are also quite distinct in name and details. It's a disservice to our readers to imply that they are "the same" because they are both "fringe".Skyerise (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
  • "spiritism". New Oxford American Dictionary (3rd ed.). another term for spiritualism (sense 1)
  • "spiritism". Fowler’s Dictionary of Modern English Usage (4th ed.). Coined in the 1850s as an alternative to spiritualism (also first recorded in the 1850s in the sense 'the belief that the spirits of the dead can hold communication with the living'), it has lost ground since and is now far less often used than the longer term. Spiritualism is the usual term for this sense, and also for the philosophical sense 'the doctrine that the spirit exists as distinct from matter, or that spirit is the only reality'.
  • "spiritism". Oxford Dictionary of English (3rd ed.). another term for spiritualism (sense 1)
  • "spiritism". Merriam-Webster. SPIRITUALISM sense 2a
fiveby(zero) 21:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Note, there is an RM here discussing this aforementioned move. Natg 19 (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

PROD was contested. Now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiritism in Costa Rica. jps (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Huh. This will probably end up as a merge to Kardecist spiritism, and i was thinking about and preparing an argument for the talk page that we need to be doing the opposite. Separating the French Spiritism of Kardec from Espiritismo and the current manifestation. Spiritism in France is an interesting narrative which i'll make a pitch for: Édouard Buguet's trial was popularly viewed as a trial of Spiritism itself. While our article calls them spiritualists, and Houdini may also, these were 'Spiritists'. A long line of Kardec's followers testifying: "Yes, i've heard Buguet's confession", "Yes, I see the box of wooden dolls, I see the faces pasted on", "But it's the spirit of my mother in this photograph". There was contemporary debate and recent arguments as to why they believed this in the face of the evidence.
I think we should try and organize all these 'Spiritism' articles to bring such content to the forefront, describe Kardec's metaphysical system before the newer manifestations which only pays lip service to it. That looks like not much fun and a bunch of work trying to do amidst all this junk which has been imported from pt wiki. Anyway, you moved the article, now i'm go to argue to move a bunch of the content out, or just delete it. Nineteenth century fringe is sometimes fun to read about and maybe educational, modern fringe is no fun, just depressing. fiveby(zero) 19:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
That would be fine with me. However, I still think that Spiritism in Costa Rica is likely not a tenable article. jps (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Candida hypersensitivity

Talk page has new discussion about attributing statements to SBM and Quackwatch, and another on citing styles. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Dinosaur of Ta Prohm

New article created by User:Eocursor. Looks good but sadly depends a lot on Atlas Obscura and I can't determine whether the actual source meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Atlas Obscura articles. Hopefully Eocursor can help clear that up. Also, Naish, Darren (2001). "Sea serpents, seals and coelacanths: an attempt at a holistic approach to the identity of large aquatic cryptids". Fortean Studies and Raven, Thomas J. (2021). The Taxonomic, Phylogenetic, Biogeographic and Macroevolutionary History of the Armoured Dinosaurs (Ornithischia: Thyreophora) don't discuss this alleged dinosaur. Doug Weller talk 14:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

There's definitely too much of a reliance on self published sources, particularly Glen Kuban, but it's otherwise not awful. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Not awful but we need to know if the Atlas Obscura source, whatever it is, meets RS. In fact the actual article in that compendium should be referenced. Doug Weller talk 07:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Those are other articles edited by the same user. And the name of the article is obviously begging the question. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Those articles seem ok. If you mean the title human-dinosaur coexistence, the phrase seems to be used quite a bit[24] [25].. Doug Weller talk 12:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
No, I meant the "Dinosaur of Ta Prohm" article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
@Hob Gadling Sorry for the confusion. But I have seen that phrase used a number of times on the web myself, and there is this.[26].
As for Atlas Obscura, I'm confused. The source used seems to be a "Places" article and those shouldn't be used[[27] but I also found [28]. Doug Weller talk 15:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Recovered-memory therapy

I've proposed larger deletions of category "Research" under recovered-memory therapy. Detailed reasoning/proposal in my post on the talk page. Looking for opinions re: WP: GEVAL and WP:REL. Lefthandedlion 22:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I've responded to you on talk. Sgerbic (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, Sgerbic. I will continue going through the article as I don't believe there is much opposition that RMT is fringe and deserves a page which clearly states that these techniques are:
a) discredited b) dangerous c) used by a minority of therapists who have been under legal scrutiny for their use since the mid 90s. Lefthandedlion 23:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Related: Talk:Younger Dryas impact hypothesis § Comments about Wikipedia by editorial staff of new New CRG journal (permalink) —PaleoNeonate – 09:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Part of this discussion concerns whether the policy of this new journal Airbursts and Cratering Impacts Policy complies with Wikipedia:Reliable sources guidelines or are there some issues? Any feedback or guidance would be appreciated. Dmcdysan (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
@Doug Weller, I found the following article A prehistoric cosmic airburst preceded the advent of agriculture in the Levant published in ScienceDaily, which practices Churnalism, which I assume makes it not a reliable source. Is my understanding correct? Dmcdysan (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Probably. In these cases it's worth keeping in mind that if a comet strike had some causal linkage to the advent of agriculture in the Levant, one would expect the entire scientific community to be all over it, not just one journal. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus, some papers link the Abrupt climate change of the Younger Dryas and its cessation to the adoption of agriculture, for example, see Younger Dryas § Effects on agriculture and Rosen 2012. The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis is one of several hypotheses contributing to the YD abrupt climate change event.
Here is another webpage related to this topic: A prehistoric cosmic airburst preceded the advent of agriculture in the Levant where the Subscribe page states "The UC Santa Barbara Current is the official source of news for our campus community." In the context of YDIH-related news (e.g., in the "In popular culture" section of a related article). this appears to be a reliable source. Note that Kennett is a co-author of the first YDIH paper in 2007 is affiliated with UCSB, so not a third-party source per Wikipedia:Fringe theories § Independent sources. Dmcdysan (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

UFOlogy promoter BLPs

BLPs

Related

UFO articles

Eyes needed on new SPAs showing up at these WP:FRINGEBLPs of UFOlogy promoters. Apparently UFO Twitter and the Reddit UFO community think I am some sort of "disinformation agent" [29],[30] and they are trying to mobilize followers with some disturbing rhetoric, which has quickly evolved into a conspiracy theory that I am a sock of Mick West. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

They've been pinging me on the X from time to time as well. That they are not a fan makes me think you are doing something right. jps (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I've reverted the problematic edits to Knapp, if that helps. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. All this attention feels a little stalky. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I would take it as a badge of honour. Displeasing the UFO fanatics is a sign that you're doing a good job. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I see those gentle, pro-woo folk claim you are a member of "The Anti-UFO Taliban." Do you get a membership card with that? FWIW, I've added those pages to my watchlist and will try to help. I note also that Luis Elizondo has received a recent spike in SPA activity. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 12:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
@LuckyLouie Blocked. Jeremy Corbell works for newsnationnow, of course they call him an investigative journalist, but we shouldn't. Someone needs to revert at that article. I see a couple of the other SPAs have also been blocked.. I see JoJo Anthrax has given out some CT alerts. Let me know if I can help more as an Admin. I read the REDDIT page. Doug Weller talk 14:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Thankfully, their attention has shifted to Sean Kirkpatrick, whom they are really, really, really mad at. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
This is not accurate in the slightest. Jeremy Corbell has zero official affiliation or employment with NewsNation. If you have evidence or proof saying otherwise, please link.
Fox News also calls Corbell an "investigative journalist" or "investigative reporter" (https://www.foxnews.com/video/6344773221112/)
How many independent news sources do you need before calling someone a title?
Also: "of course they call him an investigative journalist, but we shouldn't"
I'd ask simply why? This sentence alone feels fairly problematic and "gatekeep". CrunchyDolphin (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
@CrunchyDolphin As I've said on your talk page, NewsNation's business plan has depended a lot on UFOs[31], he writes for them and is publicized on their YouTube channel. I consider paid writing to be work even if there is no official affiliation. If you return here after your block expires please note that the contentious topics sanctions apply to behavior on talk pages as well. Doug Weller talk 09:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
I had a very odd conversation with someone in the wee hours this morning who wanted to alert @LuckyLouie to the fact that these people were going to dox him today and make his life miserable. He showed me how they were going to do it, obviously I can't show here but it seems like it will work. They remain convinced that Louie is West and if not he is their enemy. They did a second video yesterday on their evidence[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjHqE3GsI9o] This has just gotten beyond stupid. Some advice please? Sgerbic (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, those knuckleheads are sending out phishing emails and DMs to Wikipedia editors under the guise of a concerned Wikipedian needing the information to get in touch with me. Just ignore it, my contact info is double screened with a special auto tracking feature to ID spammers and miscreants. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't listen to a 2h ranting podcast but I quickly went through about 50m speeding until I found non-Gerbic related WP screenshots then listened a bit at those places. It was somewhat entertaining, but also confirms my previous impression about not being familiar with Wikipedia (and some paranoia). "GreenC ... is he one of THEM?" "Oh, yes" (an experienced regular who is not part of WP:SKEPTIC, not part of GSoW, a rare participant at WP:FTN). Then it's about Hemiauchenia, "he's pretty hardcore, look all the accounts he has in all languages..." actually a standard WP feature, WP:SUL. I remember a claim about "getting their denialist dogma in the world" (how can you "deny" a lack of evidence, then since we rely on independent non-promotional sources, it's a diversion to focus on editors instead on the text and sources, where WP:FOC is relevant). They're also apparently impressed by the number of edits, but that's nothing surprising for someone who cares about the encyclopedia and is actually there for the project (it's the opposite of WP:SPA). They also argue that he's a proficient editor of the RU Wikipedia (I only see a few citation related edits that may not even require knowledge of the language, personally. I rarely but sometimes also edited in languages I didn't know in relation to sources. If it was something Hemiauchenia wanted to keep secret, why would they be doing it as the same account anyway? And to my knowledge, still not GSoW affiliated (I also am not). I'll stop there, it doesn't deserve more of my time (and I will not be watching video updates). —PaleoNeonate – 04:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Can confirm that I'm definitely not a Russian speaker. I've made a small number of edits to numerous wikis for which I don't speak the language, so picking my small number of contributions to ruwiki to conclude I speak Russian is odd, but I guess such unevidenced leaps of logic would be expected for UFO believers. Almost none of the regulars here (including me) have any connection to GSoW, as was demonstrated in the ArbCom case. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Break1

Hey so welcome to GSoW Louie! I just discovered these threads a few hours ago, and was just coming over here to notify everyone. The posts are amazing. They are going to hold off donating to Wikipedia, going to report Louie and GSoW, and many more things. I read a post somewhere in that mass of comments about who all are considered a part of the GSoW team (or cult as one person said). When I find it I'll add it here, they should know they have been found out and have not been showing up to meetings, or sending me their cut of Big NASA payments that cover up the existence of space aliens or something. This guy on X seems to be really excited to join GSoW and keeps posting how to get involved in my training.[32] Sgerbic (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding Westall UFO as apparently Louie "is a paid disinformation agent or he is doing an Oscar level impersonation of one". Sgerbic (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Well this guy on X is encouraging his followers to out Louie "And his ardent attack dog JoJo Anthrax"[33] He calls out "Psyops Susan Gough" who I have not heard of before, for a minute I thought he was just misspelling my last name. Apparently that is a real person who works with Kirkpatrick.Sgerbic (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
"Ardent attack dog?!" And here I was thinking that I was his sock. Or was he my sock? Or am I the Walrus? Coo Coo Ca Choo. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
I can't keep it straight either. One of the commenters on the UFO Reddit thread kept contacting me on Twitter a few years ago about wanting to edit the remote viewing Wikipedia page as he knows he can do it. I kept asking him to tell me what color my socks were, he didn't even try. I knew socks would be important eventually.
I can't find that post that lists all my GSoW team members according to the Reddit thread. I've given up, there is so much "out there" content I can't follow it. If someone does see it, please let these people know that we are going to have to change the secret handshake yet again and we are moving the meetings to Tuesdays and I'm sick of the potato salad that everyone keeps bringing to the meetings. Sgerbic (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
This section tying astronomy to a UFO sighting, cited to The DeBrief, the Guardian, and some journal paper, may be WP:OR, hard to tell. Cosmologist or astronomer needed to evaluate this claim. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Might also want to read "A glint in the eye: Photographic plate archive searches for non-terrestrial artefacts" by the VASCO project authors where i guess you could say they are a little more forthright as to what they are doing as opposed to the MNRAS article. Is Acta Astronautica really widely known as one of the top aerospace engineering journals? fiveby(zero) 19:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
The MNRAS source is about a 16th magnitude transient. This is not a naked-eye visible situation jps (talk) 12:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I've done some astronomy. What specific question are you asking? I'm new to this behind the scenes Wiki stuff so I don't get the jargon. AstroDoc (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@AstroDoc: Are the sources Astrorudolf is using in this edit: [34] enough to justify what they're adding to the article? Similar material is also present in the technosignature article. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 08:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Sorry that you're having to deal with these yoyo's, LuckyLouie. I've gone ahead and watchlisted your talk page so I can at least help there if they keep harassing you. SilverserenC 23:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

On the off chance that anyone is interested, some researcher named Heatherly will be exposing my GSoW group "with receipts" and a statement from Luz tonight in this interview on the Matt Ford show. I'm not planning on watching[35].Sgerbic (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Break2

"Disclosure" really has taken some weird turns! Dumuzid (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Are you sure this isn't a comic parody? The title is "UFO Coverup: The Wikipedia Secret Cabal". - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
You are welcome to watch and let me know what you think. But I'm pretty sure from what others have told me that this is a serious UFO believers channel and they plan on roasting me or attacking GSoW or something. Here is what they are writing "On today's Livestream with Dr. Michael Masters, we have a significant announcement regarding details of the organized cabal manipulating Wikipedia. We have the receipts the attorneys will want to see. More to come."[https://twitter.com/GoodTroubleShow/status/1749172454466199756?fbclid=IwAR1-Y7pvMcQJeYX1QGLtWNdpq6TMqnMjUvUwCaKjgAlv0BytK4Qa_JK_8-A] They even have a written statement they plan on reading by Luis Elizondo apparently they have the "goods" on me.Sgerbic (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Ugg there is the pinned tweet for the person they are interviewing tonight who will expose GSoW.[https://twitter.com/RobHeatherly1/status/1726806320295166442] "Yes, isn't that interesting. One editor archived their own Talk Page Nov. 10th. Wonder why? David's page was rolled into "David Grusch Claims" page by the same small half dirty dozen editors that actively monitor and control over 10k Wiki pages by page majority rule, including Lue Elizondo's page (I recognize the snark!), Ross Coulthart (stub, aweful attacks), Tim Burchett, Bob Lazar, Jacques Vallee, George Knapp, Chris Mellon, Garry Nolan, Jeremy Corbell, Hal Puthoff. **ALL UFO** related pages, other bunk, pseudo science, religion, conspiracy theories, paranormal, COVID-19, Covid Lab leak "bunk", scroll to the bottom of each page (mobile view works better than PC) and follow the edits, check Talk for each page, and each editor. Let's figure out who LuckyLouie is, shall we? And his ardent attack dog JoJo Anthrax. There are others, but these two... Perhaps he was already banned from the platform for previous sock puppetry? I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Court of public opinion will decide. There are around 5 others of particular interest, that combined have dominated entire genres on Wikipedia for over 17 years now." Looks like they are coming after all of us on FTN. Batten down the hatches, the storm is coming.Sgerbic (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
"I'd say Wiki has an infestation and liability issue on hand they need to sort out. I was suppressed on my attempt to set the record straight. Perhaps others will have better luck..." this is from that Heatherly character - I suppose he is admitting that he is trying to edit Wikipedia pages but got banned?Sgerbic (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
There I am again, an "ardent attack dog!" Oh mama, I made it! And I can't wait to participate in WP's liability issue.
If they only knew the TRUTH: I am actually a gray on a mission of disinformation to get people like this guy off our backs. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 07:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
If it was a Double Secret Cabal I might have been interested. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 08:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Triple Double Secret Cabals next up! I didn't watch the video interview last night, but others did and they shared screen shots with me. It went on for 3-hours and the comments were unreal. The guy they interviewed said he spent 60-hours last week going though my old videos on GSoW from back in 2013 even, he shared screen shots from FTN conversations (probably they are reading this now) they completely don't understand how Wikipedia works, thinks we work for the government who endorses us ... yet they think that we need to be reported to the government so we can be stopped. They 1,000% believe that Lucky Louie IS Mick West, I think at one point they were trying to geo-locate Louie. It didn't dawn on any of them that Louie's Wikipedia account has existed long before Mick was investigating UFO's and there could possibly be two different people working on two different things. They thought that JoJo and Louie having their own Wikipedia user pages was evidence of something nefarious. Edits to BLP pages were "systematic character assassinations" and they think we have committed crimes and should be arrested. They used A.I. with some posts written by Louie and comparing them to the writings of Mick West to see if they compared. They said on Reddit, "Wikipedia is a propaganda free for all" which my "informant" said makes no sense if it is a free for all, wouldn't using it for propaganda not be very efficient or useful? Oh and @Hob Gadling got mentioned “Hob Gadling is a GSoW editor they call in when they need the big guns. He’s like a drunken guy who walks in to command the room”. All the "information" they gave was public information, but the interviewer said he was "blown away" by all that was uncovered. Another comment "It's almost racist to call homeopathy quackery because there are MANY indigenous medicines that have been successfully proven to have medicinal properties".
Now that I've said all this, here is the good news ... I saw this happen on the Reddit thread, and heard this from someone who follows the UFO community. On the Reddit thread it took a while but after the first day there were UFO believers that are also Wikipedia editors and they were pushing back on what was being said. They could see clearly that the community of UFO believers they are associating with are "loose" with the "evidence" and that is going to make them question the other bits of evidence. Some of the comments about Wikipedia were waaaaay out there, these editors knew that. The other person I talked to who follows the community said that there are a lot of UFO believers that are very new to the topic and they aren't quite so invested in it. They are reading the Reddit comments and watching the video and then reading the UFO Wikipedia pages and are starting to understand that what the UFO community says isn't fitting with the sources on Wikipedia. And maybe they will start backing away from the true believers. So very interesting experience. The Susan Gerbic Wikipedia page got vandalized last night, added that I was an "American intelligence asset and propagandist" but then the IP self-reverted their edit 3-minutes after making it. Maybe they thought that the edit would track them or something. Sgerbic (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Maybe they were happy to have a screenshot they can post on various fora as proof of WP censorship. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I am GSoW too? Nice. I thought I had started wikiing six years before GSoW was born, but if UFO believers say it, those contribution histories must be fake.
there could possibly be two different people working on two different things They are probably not far away from the realization that all skeptics are the same person. After all, it is difficult to imagine for such people how even one person could disagree with them without being paid for it by someone. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Love! HR is upset you moved and didn't get your paperwork filed in time. Come to the meetings more often please, it's okay if you bring potato salad againSgerbic (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Maybe it's time to remind promoters about what Wikipedia is and isn't (WP:NOT). The harassment of specific editors because they are among patrollers or administrators is unfortunately not a new thing, but it is unlikely to succeed, the reason being that those regulars are there for the project, are familiar with its policies and are only some among many editors who are all expected to follow those policies. Biography subjects do not control the articles about them, just like those with a conflict of interest (WP:COI) cannot be allowed to use Wikipedia for their marketting. WP is also not about the promotion of particular or popular opinions, but reporting about them by representing what decent sources have reported. More useful links for reference: WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, WP:PSCI. For conspiracy theorists, everyone is trying to censor them and the cabals are everywhere, in government, on Wikipedia, etc. From Wikipedia's point of view (not only for LuckyLouie or GSoW, or FTN participants, but for all edit patrollers), when promoters try to get their way, there are pages to protect. Other than reverting and reporting edit warring and sockpuppets, pages that are a persistent target of WP:SPA sockpuppetry can be protected. That's all standard for WP... —PaleoNeonate – 00:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
    I think YOU should go on this interview show tonight and tell them this! Sgerbic (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
    Anyone who is threatening to "hold off" their financial contributions to the Wikimedia Foundation in an attempt to make our content more "fringe friendly" should be advised to "hold off" their donations until our sun, 93 million miles away, goes supernova. Cullen328 (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, too long. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
  • The idea that there is a cabal manipulating wikipedia is implausible. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
    Well these people think that aliens from other planets are walking among us, mutilating our cattle and hollowing the earth, a cabal manipulating Wikipedia is low-grade conspiracy to them. They probably believe there are multiple cabals fighting it out behind the scenes. Sgerbic (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Break3

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

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

jps (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

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

OK, I got fed up and joined the Reddit group.[36] This guy (llindstad) claims to be an experienced editor and Admin, but there's no account here with that name. I've challenged him to reveal this identity. "llindstad · I'll talk to other editors tomorrow and bring this user's history to their attention. It's our achilles heel, that we can't control bad faith actors from within our own ranks. But we'll see. One potential fix is to lock his page.

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

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

Special:Contributions/The real AG bragged on the X thread about their edit, the first in a couple of years. Hm, is this meatpuppetry? Doug Weller talk 20:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
New activity at Mick West [37] - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
What are the chances this new editor doesn't come from Reddit or the X thread? The editor at the BLPN discussion is upset about my comment. But how do we handle all this? Where can we go to discuss it as an issue? Doug Weller talk 08:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Also see this Reddit thread Doug Weller talk 09:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Break 4

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

Can you provide context? All I am seeing is West's tweet that just says "No". Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
It's in reply to the question "Is Mick West Lucky Louie?" Schazjmd (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm amazed they're still banging on this drum. It reminds me of when the UK press was obsessed with the idea that Philip Cross was really Oliver Kamm, something that was obviously false to basically anyone familiar with Wikipedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
I am he as you are he as you are me... JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought it came with the tweet to which West was responding. jps (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
The Earthlings have rumbled us. I think we should return to the home world. Bon courage (talk) 04:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
It is very strange to suddenly find oneself the object of jps-level notoriety on the interwebs. Oh well. I hope this doesn't discourage experienced editors from improving UFO related articles (shout out to User:Feoffer, who is currently improving many of these articles). - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Then there is this strangeness[https://twitter.com/SapphireBushman/status/1751769442697265229] Sgerbic (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the shoutout. It won't discourage me, Louie, and you know why? Cause "I don't have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you!" <grin>. Anybody shows up with pitchforks and torches outside my castle, I get to be like "Hey, I didn't wanna WP:ASSERT it was Mogul, the FTN gang forced my hand!" Seriously though, I'm not really sure what all this thread is talking about, but I'm really sorry it's happening to you. Thanks for all you do, couldn't imagine the project without ya'll. Feoffer (talk) 12:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
It's the latest manifestation of this.[38] Bon courage (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Anyone have a clue as to what this might be about?[39] You need to read the editor's talk page for context. User:Hob Gadling the editor says you were very helpful, as was User:Rp2006. Mick West was unblocked recently, there was socking but his appeal explains it well. Doug Weller talk 13:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Since most of what the user wrote is delusions, my and Rp2006's alleged helpfulness was probably also a mirage. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
That seemed pretty obvious. I can't figure out the post today about some Village Pump though. Doug Weller talk 14:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
My impression is that they meant the help desk. A good block in any case... —PaleoNeonate – 00:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Makes sense. Doug Weller talk 10:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Found my ID here... and I have absolutely NO idea what this statement is referring to. Can someone explain? Rp2006 (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Here[40]. I removed it. Doug Weller talk 18:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
OK... I STILL have no idea what that was about! I have not been involved in the kerfuffle I am reading about here, nor do I make it a special point to edit UFO related pages! I did make a comment on a talk page recently though, but I do not see the relevance to what's going on here! Rp2006 (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
You're one of the few confirmed members of GSoW, which the UFO fanatics have been spinning conspiracy theories about. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
How is it that I am "one of the few confirmed members of GSoW"? Confirmed how and where? And if I were a member of that group, how is someone making such a claim not doxing, and contrary to WP rules? Rp2006 (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
I seem to recall a brouhaha regarding your editing which sort of mutated into a discussion of GSoW. I am not sure if it was ever 'proven' that you were associated or if you 'admitted' it, but I can see how someone might come away with that impression. That said, it would be a bit of a deep cut, but I guess conspiracy types and ancient alien "theorists" are kind of used to deep cuts. Just a thought! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
That poster was just spouting nonsense, don’t look for meaning. Doug Weller talk 19:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Apparently @Rp2006 you have been really helpful! I think this was about the conspiracy theory that Louie had archived his talk page on November 12th as if there was something odd about that. They do know that editors often archive their talk pages, for no reason other than to keep it fresh and able to find things ... right? Kinda creepy that somewhere in Archangel1966's files is a stack of screenshots of Louie's talk page. Some people collect odd things ... whatever floats your boat. Sgerbic (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Again... I have not been involved with ANY of this, regarding a Talk page archive or otherwise, so I do not understand why my ID has come up. This is quite disturbing. Rp2006 (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Rp2006, those on the outside stirring this up are likely connecting you and others to GSoW because of the 2022 Arbitration case. 5Q5|✉ 13:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
That's the one I was thinking of above! Getting old is not fun, but I guess it beats the alternative. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
I believe that editor was referring to this Help Desk discussion. For some reason it did not get far. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Damn it's all about Louie .... Louie Louie Louie ... Louie gets all the credit and he has never seen the inside of The Secret Cabal, nor JoJo they can't get past the secret handshake. Sgerbic (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Disruption now at Sean M. Kirkpatrick [41]. I've reverted but there may be more to follow. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

SPA activity

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

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

I've been reviewing X notifications also, as the only editor in this mix that uses her real name, I'm under attack every hour. They are all over the map of reporting me to Wikipedia or the Govt or they are suing me or about to sue me or something. All this is of course ridiculous. But what is concerning is their constant threats to out the real life names of the GSoW team, apparently they will make those people accountable. Not sure what they plan on doing, but I'm sure it isn't to send them a bouquet of flowers. When we went though the ArbCom "trial" I raised my concerns about Wikipedia editors who attempted to make a list of my team members. It was strongly suggested that I should create that list myself and maintain an open editing project here on Wikipedia for those editors. The concerns for the safety of my editors should their real-life personas be revealed were poo-pooed and hand-waved away by Wikipedia editors. I ignored this and shut the group down further and it is impossible to know who and who is not GSoW.
Which leads to the next issue, all of you who have made an edit in support of the rules that rankles this UFO group are now considered a part of GSoW in their view. We are on week two of this mess and they have not let up on this piece of twine they think they have got their hands on, any moment in their minds they will pull on the thread and the whole conspiracy will be revealed. And when this finally dies down as jps states, in time it will revive within this community, or it will be another area of FRINGE that we might not even have on the radar right now.
Those of you who are saying that you are not a part of GSoW, these people don't believe you, of course you would say that. And while I have the floor I want to say that you should be proud to be affiliated with GSoW, these people make me proud every day and if you knew them you would say the same. BTW for those of you on the team, remember meetings are always the second Tuesday of the month when there is a full-moon and I wish people would stop bringing potato salad, potatoes are for French fries and salad is for a bowl with ranch dressing.
Buckle down editors, these people aren't going away, my psychic powers tell me that they are just now ramping up. Sgerbic (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
FYI "The page on the Pentagon UFO videos is officially locked by the Guerilla Skeptics." and SusanGerbic how about unlocking the page?" [https://twitter.com/StandForBetter/status/1753156374534467777] This is just a tiny percent of the flack I'm receiving every hour. Sgerbic (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
I responded. Doug Weller talk 19:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
LOL "She isn’t an Administrator and I didn’t lock the page, semi-protected from being edited by non auto-confirmed accounts. I can also block meatpuppets. ... I'm not a guerilla skepic". Thank you for trying Doug, I'm curious what that response will be but believe they won't understand what that means, nor believe you. The world of reliable sources and critical thinking alas is not in their world. Sgerbic (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Let me know if there is anything else I can do. Doug Weller talk 20:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Break 6

Thanks, Sgerbic. A few thoughts:
  1. If you wanted to organize a GSoW WProject, people could use their pseudonyms of course. But I understand where you are coming from in wanting to maintain secrecy.
  2. While there is almost certainly more bark here than bite, any kind of threat or harassment is simply unacceptable in my book. Please document harassment and share it with the WMF safety. They may not be able to do anything, but the paper trail is good to have.
  3. GSoW, for better or worse, serves as a kind of paranoid touchstone for the frustrations with Wikipedia that pseudoscience pushers of all stripes experience. Like Avi Loeb's magnet dragged along the seabed, GSoW serves as the attractor for the ire of these personalities. And you make a good point that because there is a lack of critical thinking essentially by definition in those whose ire is provoked, there isn't much in the way of disabusing them of their conspiracy theory about how the GSoW rules all Wikipedia pages. While I don't want to invite more harassment of you, there is a service being done by redirecting this kind of advocacy away from Wikipedia proper and onto metaconcerns about cabals and the like.
I'm going to go give you a barnstar now.
jps (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm really touched jps and Doug. Thank you both! Sgerbic (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Well it's still going on, now jps is being accused of ... something and a Xitter account who is knowledgeable about Wikipedia editing has joined the circus. Timothy Gallaudet has made quite an admission here [42]. Sgerbic (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The Timothy Gallaudet article certainly needs a lot of trimming, as much of it currently reads like a breathless, promotional press release. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 04:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Is that an admission of paid editing or just ZCOI? Doug Weller talk 07:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
I think this is as close as we're going to get that there was funny business going on in the writing of that article. It would be nice to try to pare it down to facts and clear notice by independent sources. I alerted WP:BLPN to the problem as well. jps (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
We do have at User_talk:LMG2000#February_2024 an editor's statement that Gallaudet is their father, so pretty clear COI. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and rewritten George Knapp (television journalist) because I felt it was a bit unbalanced. Knapp has this sort of odd duality of being a well-regarded local journalist in the Las Vegas area as well as being heavily involved in UFOlogy stuff, and it's important to properly represent both aspects of his career, though finding reliable sources for his local Las Vegas journalism has been challenging. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that bio was the target of two SPA's in January who piled on the MOS:PUFFERY and WP:RESUME rather thick. I noticed UFO enthusiasts often represent Knapp's journalistic awards as being for his UFO work, thanks for the rework to clarify that. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
A discussion about the Knapp article will be on Coast to Coast tonight [https://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2024-02-25-show] "Ali Duncan, who ran into difficulties when she tried to correct errors on George’s wiki page." Wonder if you fixed these "errors" in your rewrite? Sgerbic (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm interested in listening, but given that it starts as 6 AM UK time it's not exactly convenient hours. The problem with Duncan's edits is that a lot of them were based on less than ideal sources (one of them was literally an Amazon listing) and were arguably written in a somewhat promotional tone. I think much of the content that Duncan was seeking to include has been re-introduced in a more neutral and better sourced way. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Sgerbic, thanks for making improvements on 1984 Hudson Valley UFO sightings. Some recent SPA activity there, so I took the liberty of copyediting a bit while undoing various attempts at WP:GEVAL. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much, just saw those changes you made. It's like the elk who lay in the mud and some Bigfoot crew who were being filmed for a TV show, got all excited and made a cast of the elk print and the next thing you know it's some big piece of evidence and it has a Wikipedia page. OMG it's just a plaster cast of an elk laying in the mud, Skookum cast. Same with the 1984 sighting but in this case it was a hoax. Please people, just because I rewrote it, I have no feeling of ownership to it, make changes to improve it as needed. What I have been looking at and scratching my head over is this article, 1994 Michigan UFO event I've read these references and looked around and can't find meat to put on this bone. People saw strange lights over a frozen lake one night and called in and said "what are these strange lights over the frozen lake, they might be UFO's" and the answer was "gee that is strange I wonder what they are?" then MUFO gets involved and says "that is weird, we don't know what it is either but it might be UFO's". And that is that, the article is full of people from decades later talking about what they say in 1994. Heck, maybe aliens from another planet visited a Michigan frozen lake one night in 1994 and liked the way the lights (that look like Christmas tree lights) looked when "beamed" onto the surface of the ice and then buzzed off laughing that the humans are going to be all freaked out. I don't understand why this is a Wikipedia article, but there are citations from notable sources, so I guess it remains. But in essence it is probably the equivalent of an elk laying down in the mud. I would love to have some opinions on this. Sgerbic (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
You may be able to persuade User:Feoffer to help with the Michigan article, but you must do something about getting our Deep State/CIA/antitheist funded paychecks up to date, they are late again this month. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure what kind of source really helps an article like this, but you might try: McCann, Hugh (March 20, 1994). "Experts downplay UFO sightings over state". The Detroit News. fiveby(zero) 01:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Oh that is interesting fiveby and the article next to it on the religious aspect. Maybe, just maybe I might do something with this article tonight. If anyone finds something more can you please add it to the talk page? Louie I keep telling you that I've contacted HR about this multiple times, they keep saying that you told them to invest the money in bitcoin, so that's what they are doing. I'm not familiar with Feoffer but would welcome any help. But probably so as not to derail this conversation (too late) to have conversations on that talk page. Sgerbic (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the pings, I've tried to help out with both cases. Feoffer (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you - welcome to the Cabal - note: no more potato salad at the monthly meetings. I was sick for days after whatever it was that Louie brought. Sgerbic (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

And now heading to Coast2Coast

Just when you think it can't get more frenzied: [43]. jps (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I never thought the world would have me yearning for the days of Art Bell, and yet.... Dumuzid (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Break 7

Sceptics, prepare your cats.

Still more, lets call it press: George Knapp’s Bio on Wikipedia: A Guerrilla Skeptic Assault. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

No mention that his Emmys are Pacific Southwest Chapter awards. Doug Weller talk 16:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Have to admit I'm not too clear on what that means in this context. Are they not-Emmys or lesser-Emmys? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Much lesser, read his talk page where they are discussed. Doug Weller talk 17:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Craig Weiler has a long history of axe grinding against Wikipedia going back over a decade. His opinion has no real value as serious critique. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
I think Weiler is amazed that he is getting a new life, strange bedfellows with the UFO world. Sgerbic (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Neal D. Barnard

Diet guru, and the usual problem of whether everything they wrote gets listed in Wikipedia (regardless of whether it gets attention in RS). IP editor now at 4RR pushing this, and more eyes needed. More generally, I do think we need something - maybe in WP:FRINGE - about bibliographies. Bon courage (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the big list of publications was not due on this article.
To the general point, it seems like comprehensive bibliographies of publications with no secondary source coverage must be based on the publications themselves as primary sources, to which the following bit of WP:PRIMARY might apply: … be cautious about basing large passages on them.
I do think there are cases where a comprehensive bibliography is encyclopedic, such as for highly notable authors whose body of work as a whole is discussed by secondary sources, even if not every work receives secondary source coverage.
I’m not sure there’s anything specific to FRINGE subjects though - unduly self-serving bibliographies could be found on any bio. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
This is true. I actually think the yardstick should be whether a topic/person has received 'bibliographic' treatment in RS, but that's maybe too subtle a concept for Wikipedia. The usual compromise is to say 'selected works' may be listed where they have received at least some attention from WP:SECONDARY sources (more then just being cited, that is). Bon courage (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
We also need to bear in mind MOS:WORKS which says "Lists of published works should be included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists. The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles. Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged..." This applies equally to all authors; there are no separate guidelines for authors on fringe topics, although it isn't clear (to me, at least) how to interpret the phrase "...appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship..." --Gronk Oz (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
And also what is an 'author', especially when invoked alongside 'other artists'? James Joyce yes, but somebody who publishes journal articles or cook books is not an 'author' in that sense. Bon courage (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Agreed with both of you. And for journal publications that generally means listing only the works that are both highly-cited and have the subject as first or senior author. JoelleJay (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Mormon Fringe

Mormonism seems to be a hot topic at the moment. I happened across

Tell me, is there not a WP:FRINGE issue here? Is this article not pretty much en embodiment of WP:GEVAL? Bon courage (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The earliest versions of the article present differing views within Mormonism of the book origins. Mormon scholars disagree with other Mormon scholars; that's a pretty straightforward article. However over time non-Mormon sources were introduced, so the premise is flawed, i.e. religious claims and independent analysis being presented as equally valid. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Ain't great. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS). Levivich (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Brant Gardner

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brant Gardner. Please comment. jps (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Mount Judi

I’ve been busy removing Creationist sources from the article[44] most if not all added by User:Leo1pard. This included 8 external links, 3 to other languages, not sure why, and 5 Creationist sites. Leo1pard has added an EL and removed some text with the edit summary “ topic of Noah and his ark, which this mountain is connected to, isn't acceptable to atheists anyway. “ That of course isn’t true, what is true is that atheists and many Christians don’t believe it ever happened. Also it still discusses the Ark. Anyway, if others could take a look, maybe see if it could be improved, that would be great. Doug Weller talk 18:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

DougWeller Which Christians don't believe in the story of Noah and his ark? Now you're promoting a fringe theory, because all Abrahamic religions (including Islam and Christianity) affirm the story of Noah and his ark, and not just that, other religions like Hinduism have similar beliefs about a great flood! The only people whom I've seen denying the idea of a great flood are atheists or irreligious people, which basically means that the idea of a great flood itself isn't fringe, if not that those who deny it outright are themselves a fringe group! Leo1pard (talk) 04:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC); edited 05:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

American Christians don't believe in the story of Noah and his ark, by and large. Biblical inerrancy is a minority view among Christians in the US (25%) according to Gallup, Inc. polling [45], even among Evangelicals (40%). Levivich (talk) 05:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
So, a fringe group among Christians don't believe in the story of Noah and his ark! This is the first time in which I have heard of this, after all the literature (Christian, Islamic or otherwise) which I have come across regarding Noah and his ark! Leo1pard (talk) 05:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC); edited 05:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
The views of the country with the most Christians might be shared in other Christian countries. Levivich (talk) 05:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Might be, but still, Christians who don't believe in the story of Noah and his ark are a fringe group, so this discussion is hypocritical! Leo1pard (talk) 05:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 *hysterical Levivich (talk) 05:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Christians who don't believe in the story of Noah and his ark are a fringe group According to you. You will certainly need some reliable sources to support that novel claim, along with your desired content at Mount Judi. Really, click HERE and read the material therein, as it is a Wikipedia guideline that you need to understand and follow. And by the way, including an exclamation point at the end of every sentence you write does not strengthen your argument. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 09:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Per the links above, Christians who don't believe the bible is literally true make up a majority of those in the US; it can't be called fringe even among them. Of course, what we consider fringe depends on high-quality WP:RSes, which are even more critical, not on polling of the faithful, or on religious authorities or advocacy groups; but it can't reasonably be called a fringe view even among the Christian public. Catholic Answers, for instance, describes both a literal and non-literal interpretation of the event in question as acceptable even under Catholic teachings. It is possible that your perception otherwise may be affected by a no true Scotsman approach to Christianity; if you only consider those who believe in biblical inerrancy to be "true" Christians then naturally you could characterize any opposition as fringe within the faith. --Aquillion (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Whether a belief is fringe or not isn't determined by the number of people who believe in it, but by how it is assessed by reliable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 10:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Heyukaji and Iskandar323: For the first time in my life, after all the literature which I have read about Noah and his ark (Christian, Islamic or otherwise), somebody tells me that "many Christians" don't believe in the story of Noah and his ark, but the statistics given here (like that 25% of American Christians believe in Biblical inerrancy) demonstrate that this a fringe group! Leo1pard (talk) 07:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC); edited 07:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Someone who don't believe in Biblical inerrancy can still believe in Noa's Ark, right? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
And our guidance on fringe says ": To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. Additionally, in an article about the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be made clear." Doug Weller talk 09:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I think what @Gråbergs Gråa Sång is saying is that belief in Biblical inerrancy isn’t a neat proxy for belief in specific stories or parts of the Bible. But of course that doesn’t give us enough to go the other direction, as well. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång Exactly. JoJo Anthrax So you're saying that I need WP:RS to prove that Christians who don't believe in this topic, which is mainstream in Christianity and other Abrahamic religions, are not a fringe group. Well then, let me ask you, which RS do you have about Christians not believing in the story of Noah and his ark, which is mentioned in Christian and Abrahamic scriptures (namely the New Testament Bible, the Old Testament Bible, and the Quran), and has thus been covered extensively in Christian and Abrahamic literature (which at least means that any Christian denying this topic is not in the majority)? Leo1pard (talk) 12:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

It's the belief that is fringe, not the group. For instance, I wouldn't call the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints] fringe, but their beliefs obviously are fringe. Doug Weller talk 12:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Noah's flood is a myth. It did not happen. It contradicts lots of facts from geology. Therefore, even if every non-geologist in the world believed in it, it would be fringe. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field.
Mormon beliefs: LDS Church theology includes the belief in a Godhead composed of God the Father, his son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost as three separate persons who share a unity of purpose or will; however, they are viewed as three distinct beings. This is in contrast with the predominant Christian view, which holds that God is a Trinity of three distinct persons in one essence.
So Mormon beliefs, like regarding the nature of God, are WP:FRINGE among Christians, because they depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream views of Christians, but which WP:RS says that belief in Noah and his ark is fringe among Christians (who are the world's largest and most widespread religious community, with roughly 2.4 billion followers, comprising around 31.2% of the world population), not to mention that many other people also believe in the story of Noah and the Great Flood? Leo1pard (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC); edited 12:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
@Leo1pard Did I miss where our article on the main LDS church calls the church fringe? Again, it is ideas that are fringe. You can't be a fringe person but you can hold fringe beliefs. Doug Weller talk 13:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Unless people do answer to the point, which is: the Wiki definition for "fringe theories", the discussion lacks any relevance. Opinions and examples are not proper arguments if they diverge from the topic. Doug Weller has summed up what the Wiki definition is: unless you think he misquoted, or that scholars (anthropologists and geneticians, geologists, climatologists, geographers) believe in the biblical flood and Noah & sons as the sole survivors, this thread must be ended. It's an unwarranted nuisance for those who have this topic on their watchlist to be constantly notified, and find - nothing, really. The private talk can always be continued on user talk pages or project pages. Personally, I am interested in what people think, so putting those links back elsewhere under, say, "supporters of biblical inerrancy", would be of specific interest. But not here. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I landed here via Wikilink and thought I'm on the Mount Judi talk page. The idea remains the same, but part of what I wrote only belongs there, sorry. Arminden (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Belief in Noah's ark is fringe in the sense of being limited solely to individuals with few critical thinking skills. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Some details are disputed (like whether or not the flood was global), but a basic search through the internet (like 25,900,000 results on Google) shows that the very idea of Noah and his ark and the flood is quite the opposite of WP:FRINGE! Leo1pard (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Your Google search is irrelevant on Wikipedia. Quoting from WP:V "The University of California, Berkeley, library states: "Most pages found in general search engines for the web are self-published or published by businesses small and large with motives to get you to buy something or believe a point of view. Even within university and library web sites, there can be many pages that the institution does not try to oversee. Doug Weller talk 17:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
It's the view of there being a worldwide flood that's fringe. Other details (like that there was a flood at all), not really. Leo1pard (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
You need to start bringing sources. This should probably be hatted if you don't per WP:FORUM/ Doug Weller talk 17:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Here's a curious thing. Civilisations that arise on floodplains often have flood myths. Nobody has ever given an adequate explanation as to why. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I don’t have sources to hand… however, I am positive that an overwhelming majority of Christians DON’T believe that the biblical story of Noah’s Ark is factual. I suspect that the majority of Christians believe that it is a myth - At most a cultural memory of a much smaller (but locally devastating) flood that (possibly) occurred in the Tigris/Euphrates River system… and of an ancestor who survived by putting his family and farm animals on a raft. Most understand that the value of the biblical story isn’t its factual accuracy, but the allegorical lesson it teaches (God will stay true to you, as long as you stay true to God - even in adversity). Blueboar (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
@AndyTheGrump, Doug Weller, and Blueboar: Here's an interesting article by the National Geographic on the subject:
Noah’s Ark is among the best known and most captivating of all Old Testament stories: After creating humans, God became so displeased with them that he struck Earth with an all-encompassing flood to wipe them out—with one noteworthy (and seaworthy) exception: the biblical patriarch and his family, accompanied by pairs of each of the planet’s animals, who rode out the deluge in an enormous wooden vessel. ... Stories of destructive floods and those who survive them predate the Hebrew Bible, the oldest parts of which are thought to have been written in the 8th century B.C. ... Could these flood myths be based in fact? “There does seem to be geological evidence that there was a major flood in the Black Sea region about 7,500 years ago,” says National Geographic Explorer Eric Cline, an archaeologist at George Washington University. But scientists disagree on the extent of that event, just as historians of the era differ on whether writings about a deluge were inspired by real life. It seems likelier that floods were simply experienced in different places and at different times—and that those events naturally made their way into the world’s oral and written lore.
So basically, what is particularly controversial (hence WP:FRINGE) is the idea that there was a global flood which wiped out every creature, except for Noah, his family and the animals on board his ark. That a major flood happened at all, inspiring the story of Noah, Manu, Utnapishtim, Ziusudra, Atra-Hasis or Deucalion, cannot be scientifically disproved, because massive or catastrophic floods do happen. Leo1pard (talk) 04:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC); edited 04:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
What do you call a "come to Jesus moment" but when it's a scientific realization? "Come to Darwin"? Levivich (talk) 04:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Some people believe that there was a global flood which wiped out most creatures, that's the WP:FRINGE which doesn't have scientific evidence, not the basic idea of a man (like Noah, Manu, Utnapishtim, Ziusudra, Atra-Hasis or Deucalion) building a vessel to save himself from a natural disaster like a flood. Leo1pard (talk) 05:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Every time there's a flood anywhere, some bloke will get on a raft or floating object - that's not really a specific story. We have the page flood myth for the recurring theme. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
You keep talking about "a flood" when it is actually lots of floods, in places where floods are expeced to happen. Can you please stop using this page as a forum to argue the "you cannot prove I am wrong" canard? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
My friend, you just changed your argument. Earlier, you denied it, and now, you're talking of it as being one of many floods. Let's just agree here that the WP:FRINGE is not in the mere idea of a flood, or that a man built a vessel to protect himself from it, but the idea that there was a global flood which killed most creatures! Leo1pard (talk) 07:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Earlier, you denied it is true. I, along with all of science, deny there was such a thing as a world-wide flood survived by a guy named Noah.
now, you're talking of it as being one of many floods is untrue.
This is not Learn-how-to-be-a-lawyer, this is an encyclopedia. Stop the unconstructive disruption. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
This editor has been adding Creationist nonsense to articles for years.. Doug Weller talk 08:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Also getting into pretty clear WP:BATTLEGROUND territory at this point, I think perhaps we need to not humour this as much. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
WP:BLUDGEON also. Doug Weller talk 10:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
It's hard not to humor this when it's so entertaining. For example, earlier Leo referred to "whether or not the flood was global" as "some details" 😅 pretty sure whether or not the flood was global is the detail in that story.
But sadly you're right, this is all bludgeon, forum, and CIR, and Wikipedia is not here for my amusement.
("Some detail" though 🤣) Levivich (talk) 13:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm still hankeren for more details. Isaiah 11:12 'from the four corners of the earth’ presupposes a flat earth. How did them thair fludwhoretars stop from fallen offa the earth?Nishidani (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
@Nishidani: You just explained how the flood ended and you think it is evidence against the story? Zerotalk 01:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Umm, eh, well, what about this? Nishidani (talk) 10:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Where can I meet some of them fludwhoretars? I'll set 'em straight. Carlstak (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Well it all makes sense. It's easier to flood the earth if it's flat, you just pour the water on top. For a round earth, you have to do it twice to get both sides. Levivich (talk) 06:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)


Linguistics and the Book of Mormon

This looks like a collection of fringe linguistics. I suspect it needs heavy TNT Big Money Threepwood (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

There is some good stuff there, though some of it isn't "linguistics" but instead "word choice". I put a cleanup tag up and started the exhausting process of trying to see what to do about this. jps (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Black Legend

Please, can someone make sense of this? I'm pretty sure the Spanish Inquisition happened and was horrible. Compare Holocaust denial, I guess.

jps (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Not really a good comparison. Here's an encyclopedia definition:

The Black Legend (“La Leyenda Negra”) portrays the Spanish people as more cruel, greedy, and ignorant than other Europeans. A Spanish journalist, Julián Juderías, coined the term in 1912, but the literature on which it is based dates to the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. Spain was at that time Europe's greatest power. The Revolt of the Netherlands, Spain's war with England, and the Thirty Years' War provoked a flood of anti-Spanish propaganda, while Spain's commitment to the Counter-Reformation terrified European Protestants. For more than a century, Dutch, English, and French writers produced scores of books and pamphlets that tried to arouse popular sentiment against Spain and its people. Some of these works were pure fiction, but most drew their inspiration from reports of Spanish atrocities in the Netherlands or, above all, in the conquest of America.

— "Black Legend". The Oxford Companion to World Exploration.
But also here is Henry Kamen's opinion in The Spanish Inquisition :

The anti-Spanish attitudes are sometimes referred to as a “Black Legend,” but no such notion existed in the sixteenth century or even later. The term was invented in 1914 by a Castilian nationalist writer, Julián Juderías, who felt that Protestant foreigners and progressive Spaniards had systematically been defaming his country; in defense, he sought a label to pin on their attitudes. Persistent employment of the label for ideological ends in order to rebut any criticism of Spain’s imperial record has made it both unsuitable to use and inaccurate.

You've probably dug up quite a bit of work there in checking sources to make sure WP is not slipping into that mode of employment. A further problem tho is that the article should have never been split off to Black Legend (Spain). Black Legend as some kind of general "historiographical phenomenon" is from Elvira Roca Barea's Imperiofobia y Leyenda Negra. I haven't looked for any reviews, but this is almost certainly a minority definition in what is pretty extensive La Leyenda Negra literature. fiveby(zero) 01:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
After looking more at the articles, maybe the split is an opportunity to make some lemonade? Ignore the useless trash at Black Legend (Spain) and Black Legend of the Spanish Inquisition, confine Roca Barea's damn Imperiofobia to her own biography, then write a best sources article at Black legend. Think that would fly? fiveby(zero) 04:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
What are we going to do about this? AfD?
This is a lot thicker than most fringe problems I've encountered.
jps (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Given that @Boynamedsue: has spent a lot of time trying to clean up the Black Legend (Spain) article, I think asking them for their input on what to do with these articles is advisable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for tagging me Hemiauchenia. Black Legend (Spain) is the one I have had most contact with. It is really unwieldy and the sections on the "origin theories" are just crap, but it does need to exist. I personally share the view that the Spanish Black Legend is largely not a real thing, but the theory has been written about a lot by respectable historians of Latin America. I would argue for Roca Barea's inclusion in that article, due to her current prominence in Spain and the comparative quality of her critics. The fact that she damns herself with her arrant nonsense is actually quite useful for putting the whole thing in perspective.
Strangely enough, I had never seen Black Legend of the Spanish Inquisition. It's quite bad, seemingly taking the existence of the legend for granted.
I would tend to agree that splitting the articles was a mistake, I could even see the value of merging all three articles. Contrary to what I said about Black Legend (Spain), I think Roca Barea's theories are given far too much prominence in Black Legend. She is a published writer on history, but not an academic historian. Her theories are generally discussed by serious historians only with regard to Spain, and only critically. I have actually added quite a lot of criticism to the Spain page, but more has been published since then. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree that one article at Black Legend should exist, but also thinking there are maybe three major intertwined ways the term has been employed. Might call these 'Old World', 'New World' and 'Theory'. William S. Maltby provides the description for The Oxford Companion to World Exploration and i think this is an 'Old World' look, his The Black Legend in England, 1558-1660 was 1971. This is some support for Juderías' argument, all this polemical Reformation literature and Spanish stereotypes. The 'New World' look, in Latin American studies, dealing primarily with the record of conquest and with Las Casas as the focus. Hotly debated more than fifty years ago, with apologies, hagiographies, nationalist writings, revisionism, and 'White Legend'. This is important content tho it may look dated to us. Can you imagine an historian using 'legend' or a title containing "...Spanish Struggle for Justice in the Conquest of America" today in the context of colonialism?
The 'Theory', is seemingly that there is ...no consensus on whether the phenomenon persists in the present day. This looks to be the way the two split-off articles have been structured, making an argument and just using selected quotes in support. Did we expect to see a "consensus" among serious historians and those expounding the 'Theory'? I'm satisfied that there is not. fiveby(zero) 16:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Made a merge proposal, see Talk:Black_legend#Proposal_to_merge_Black_Legend_(Spain)_into_this_article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

National Geographic - a reliable source or fringe?

WP:RSNP says there is a consensus that it's reliable. However, it's on Headbombs list of unreliable and shows up that way with their script. Take a look at this YouTube video and others[46]. I think it has to go to RSN again maybe for deprecation. Doug Weller talk 07:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Deprecation would be overkill. NatGeo has gone down the toilet in recent years and no longer has any full time writers, but much of their historical written content is good. Anything covering fringe topics like crystal skulls, the illuminati, or ufos tends to be terrible though, both recent and historically. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
@Hemiauchenia Maybe. I was never sure about using them for DNA. In any case, RSNP needs to be changed, right? Doug Weller talk 11:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Are you asking about National Geographic (American TV channel) or National Geographic? fiveby(zero) 14:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
@Fiveby Both. I'm not sure when the magazine lost its credibility, maybe quite a long time ago, see National Geographic#Controversies. Doug Weller talk 15:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
A handful of incidents over 40 years doesn’t seem too damning. We should look at the normal indicators of reliability, like do they have editorial standards, or do they publish corrections, or do other reliable sources cite them. Their TV content is probably a distinct entity from their written magazine article content. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Since Disney took over, National Geographic has change. The print edition has been discontinued and there has been widespread staff layoffs. This certainly reflects a change in standards and reliability of which the video series can be used as an indication. The past cannot now be used as a indication of the present. The reliability of a source can change with time with their editorial policies. Paul H. (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
So have their editorial policies changed? Going online-only isn’t a sign of unreliability, and neither is laying off staff. Are there reliable sources which debunk National Geographic articles? I don’t know, I haven’t looked into it in detail, but I don’t think it follows logically that bad TV content automatically means the written content should be equally suspect. I do agree that reliability can change over time and that the RSP entry should be updated if a decline in standards can be demonstrated. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
@Barnards.tar.gz It is. Doug Weller talk 18:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Not if the scandals generally have nothing to do with reliability (dead thread I know) Dronebogus (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Along the lines of what others have said... There's the magazine, which should be considered generally reliable (doesn't mean always reliable, of course); there are the maps, which probably don't come up as sources often but I don't think I've seen any problem about them; there are the tv specials/films that were produced before or independently of the tv channel, which I think are as respected as their peers Nova, Nature, etc.; then there's the website and tv channel, both of which should probably be considered "yellow" at RSP for being popular science content that is at times too credulous of fringe ideas. A simple note at RSP that it's not a reliable source for fringe subjects might be sufficient? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites I think that needs a discussion at RSN. Doug Weller talk 15:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
@Doug Weller and others, I posted the following at Talk:Younger Dryas impact hypothesis § 2013 National Geographic Article - Quotes from Walter Broecker asking if specific direct quotes from the renowned climate scientist Wallace S. Broker could be used in the YDIH article. Please consider including this in the RSN discussion. Thank you. Dmcdysan (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
"However, it's on Headbombs list of unreliable and shows up that way with their script."
My script doesn't touch anything related to National Geographic. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
@Headbomb Apologies, I thought I saw it but unfortunately didn't come here with a link. Obviously I must have been wrong. Doug Weller talk 08:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
At least you've confirmed something I was thinking though - see Talk:Edward V of England#The Princes in the Tower by Philippa Langley. Deb (talk) 10:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Denis Rancourt

Deleting bad sources is "ideologically motivated" now. More eyes would be useful. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

This article reads like a list of bad actions, rather than a biography of the individual. Maybe it needs a change of scope, such as Denis Rancourt legal disputes. Otherwise, I think this needs WP:TNT and rebuilt from scratch. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree that this basically reads as a recount of his legal troubles rather than as a biography. Any fix won't be easy though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
But if he hasn’t done anything else notable, what else is there to say about him? Dronebogus (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
That's the problem. If the only notability is the controversies, then the article should be focused around the controversies. Not billed as a WP:BLP about the subject himself. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Problematic WP:FALSEBALANCE user does not want to listen to me. Seems to think that the low quality of sources is my WP:IDONTLIKEIT problem. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

He's edit warring too. 208.87.236.202 (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
And PG has shown up to spew his usual crap towards climate science. 208.87.236.202 (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Atlas Network

A sentence summarizing a number of RS articles on fossil fuel and tobacco causes promoted by the Atlas Network has been removed from the second paragraph of the article. Atlas Network has been mentioned in passing previously on this noticeboard. Cited RS describe Atlas as important in the climate denial movement. I began a talk page discussion here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llll5032 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Stephen Sinatra

This guy was an alternative medicine, low-carb influencer and cholesterol/statin denialist who wrote a bunch of pseudoscientific books. Article needs to be cleared up and fixed, any help appreciated. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Max Lugavere

Max Lugavere is a social media diet influencer similar to Steven Gundry who is known to promote pseudoscientific claims about supplements. An IP is repeatedly trying to remove this source from the article [47] Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

This is false, supplements are not core to Max Lugavere's message. Psychologist Guy appears to be biased (he edits vegan/vegetarian articles) and Max Lugavere routinely warns about the potential risks of veganism. Max is a regular guest on many mainstream TV outlets, has published books and scientific reviews, is generally credible as a health and science journalist, and does not sell supplements of his own unlike Steven Gundry. The editor is attempting to make this a top-line critic of Max's, which is inappropriate. The editor also removed edits that were pertinent to Max's biographical information for no apparent reason. 76.50.244.14 (talk) 04:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
While the CoI of promotion and selling supplements is a problem, it doesn't particularly matter in the end. Anyone claiming supplements do stuff for which there is insufficient evidence is likely to be criticised. A famous example of this is probably Linus Pauling. AFAIK, he never got particularly involved in selling supplements, but his promotion of them is quite rightfully called out extensively in our article as it's a commonly touched on a great deal in sources on Pauling. And Pauling also did a lot of other good and significant work which doesn't seem to be the case for Lugavere. Incidentally, I find it incredibly unlikely Lugavere has actually published any scientific reviews, at least in any credibly peer reviewed journal. Nil Einne (talk) 11:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Max Lugavere is not published in peer-review, so the claim that he has published "scientific reviews" is false. He has no medical or nutritional training. He is not a neurologist but makes many false claims about neurology and nutrition. If you check his YouTube channel he promotes the carnivore diet. For example only yesterday Shawn Baker was on his podcast [48]. Here is Mark Hyman on Max Lugavere's podcast [49] "How To REVERSE AGING, Prevent Disease & Live to 120+! YEARS OLD". Say no more. This is the sort of pseudoscience this guy promotes. The claim that he is a "credible" health science journalist is obviously not true. If you check other fad diet "influencers" he promotes on his podcast, it's is like a Who's Who of the low-carb pseudoscience world - Steven Gundry, Dave Asprey, William Davis, Mark Hyman, Jason Fung, Mark Sisson, David Perlmutter are all regular speakers [50] on his podcast which he hosts. Here is Max Lugavere promoting functional medicine [51], a well known pseudoscience. Let's not pretend this guy is promoting nutritional science, practically everything he says about nutrition is inaccurate or wrong. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
This is a highly biased take. Max having different voices on his podcast is not a damnation of his own recommendations, and his work has been evidence-based. He promotes omnivory, not a "high" meat diet, and does not sell supplements. Further, the claim that he has not published a scientific review is false, as you can see here: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-93497-6_14. Psychologist Guy is clearly emotionally triggered by Max, which simply should negate his ability to edit Max's Wikipedia page, if this is a site meant to share objective facts and truth. Max has also had many credible, evidence-based guests on his podcast - Alan Aragon (multiple times), Layne Norton, to name a few - and has contributed lots of good work into the field, including his scientific review, advocacy on TV and beyond. Further, a podcast is an entertainment platform, and should not ultimately lead to "guilt by association" for Max's apparent desire to have interesting conversations. 76.50.244.14 (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
I think you need to take most of this to the talk page and the IP user, who appears to be a single purpose account, needs to disclose any COIs if any exist and knock off the personal attacks. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
76.50.244.14 all misinformation. Max Lugavere is not "evidence-based". Here he is on Paul Saladino's podcast [52] promoting all kinds of nonsense. A book chapter is not a medical review. This IP should be blocked per WP:3RR per their own edit history [53], as they are still making the same reverts. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Please quote specific claims that Max makes that are not evidence based. The mere appearance on a fringe podcast is not sufficient to deem Max Lugavere is "not evidence based". Further, many of your links are multiple years old. The supplement claim link is 6 years old. The functional medicine link is 7 years old. Let's remain neutral and objective here. 76.50.244.14 (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Only yesterday Shawn Baker appeared on his podcast promoting the carnivore diet and Max agreed with it [54]. If he is evidence-based why is he enabling and promoting the carnivore diet? Pretty much everything he says is against the clinical and health guidelines of medical organizations. He often tells people there is no link between red meat and any negative effect [55]. For example, he claimed on Twitter "The evidence linking red meat to poor health is exceedingly weak" and often tells people to eat a steak everyday and organic meats [56]. Max also promotes the consumption of beef testicles [57]. The link between cancer and red meat is not weak, we have decades of research on this. All the leading cancer organizations world-wide tell people to limit red meat, not increase it.
We have an article on red meat. There is good evidence that high red meat intake increases bowel cancer risk. Here is the World Cancer Research Fund International, "There is strong evidence that consumption of either red or processed meat are both causes of colorectal cancer" [58] and the American Cancer Society, "evidence that red and processed meats increase cancer risk has existed for decades, and many health organizations recommend limiting or avoiding these foods" [59]. The World Health Organization have said the same.
Max Lugavere like other low-carb advocates also claims incorrectly that vegetable oils and seeds themselves are toxic for health [60], Joe Rogan & Max Lugavere discuss that SEEDS ARE A MAJOR PROBLEM [61]. This is typical misinformation found in the carnivore diet community. Neither seeds or vegetable oils are toxic or a "major problem". All health guidelines around the world recommend vegetable oils and seeds. There is no evidence they are bad for health. Here he claims rapeseed oil is a poison [62]. Rapeseed oil is far from poison, it's recommended by the American Heart Association. This guy is the opposite of evidence-based. He promotes all kinds of conspiracy theories about food. He believes he is correct and the entire medical community is wrong. He doesn't have one sensible suggestion. I have studied fad diet promoters for 20 years. I can tell you this guy ticks all the boxes. Let's not waste time discussing this anymore. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Max Lugavere now complaining on his talk-page [63] and on Twitter [64] Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

essays on Alternative Egyptology

ALTERNATIVE EGYPTOLOGY Critical essays on the relation between academic and alternative interpretations of ancient Egypt Edited by B.J.L. van den Bercken | 2024 free to read online at [65] Doug Weller talk 17:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Liverpolitan identity

I have created a new page called Liverpolitan identity. I would prefer to call it Liverpolitan but the page is currently the subject of an AFD as a candidate for deletion and I am not able to change the title. Could anyone please help if this is the right place to flag this article? Can it be flagged whilst it is under an AFD? I would like someone to determine whether this article is strictly a fringe subject. A few editors have suggested it might be. If that is the case, what is the best way to deal with its content. The article explains the history of the word 'Liverpolitan' and concludes with the modern interpretation that this words represents an identity within a wider Liverpool area. This has caused a few editors to suggest that this goes against the prevailing view and is not noteworthy enough for its own article. Happy to explain more for those not familiar. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's a fringe issue here, it's more that it's just an uncommon synonym for "Liverpudlian". There doesn't seem to be a real distinction. It should probably redirect to Liverpool, as for "Liverpudlian" and "Scouser", if it's needed at all. Brunton (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
It has caused a bit of a stir amongst a handful of editors. Unfortunately one editor has flagged it for deletion. I just need to know what to do and if there is an 'authority' on Wiki that can say definitively either way. Do you think the article is fair, well sourced and notable enough in its presentation? Are you suggesting a redirect and keep the page title as it is? Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 08:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
There is no 'authority' of that sort, decisions are taken by consensus and with reference to Wikipedia's policies etc. Many of the sources just seem to be about Liverpool generally, so it has issues with WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. If an article on the Liverpool cultural identity is to exist at all, it should be at Liverpudlian or Scouse identity, as these are the synonyms more often used. Brunton (talk) 09:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Many thanks, the reason I introduced this article is because as much as Scouser is more well known - Scouse is an accent and a dialect - which has its own separate page. The term Liverpolitan is much older and predates the Scouse identity by many decades according the sources. I didn't think it was fair to unfairly portray the Liverpolitan term as a synonym for Scouser since the term predates it. I think this is what has caused some confusion amongst editors. The article also explains how the term differs to 'Liverpudlian'. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 09:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
From the sources (and indeed the article) there doesn't seem to be any real distinction between "Liverpolitan" and "Liverpudlian", other than the former having apparently been used to refer to 'posher' Liverpudlians at some point in the past. If no such distinction can be made by reference to WP:RS then there shouldn't be a separate article.
As I said, I don't think there's a fringe issue here, but if there is then, per WP:FRINGE, the encyclopaedia should reflect the mainstream position, which is clearly that the commonly used terms are Liverpudlian and Scouser. Brunton (talk) 10:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
This aligns with my thinking Brunton (previously put on the deletion page). "Liverpolitan" on its own is a DICDEF. "Liverpolitan identity" as a subject lacks sufficient sourcing to give the name Liverpolitan primacy over more common terms of Liverpudlian or Scouser. Its only novelty is very recent attempts to use it as Demonym for the populace of the Liverpool City Region - but there's a dearth of sources actually supporting it, instead most articles being a rejection of it, or discussion of its historical origin. Koncorde (talk) 11:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
The article does portray the main demonym and makes that clear. I would like other people to contribute to it so it reaches consensus, not just a sole contribute. There are also differences between Scouser, Liverpudlian and Liverpolitan. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 12:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
This is a noticeboard. It is a board for posting notices. Sometimes discussions happen here too, but if there is no connection whatsoever between the discussion and the subject of the noticeboard, as in this case, the discussion does not belong here. Can you please continue somewhere else, preferably on the article Talk page? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
This is clear forum shopping. as this matter was addressed recently at AN/I I would suggest that Liverpolitan1980 should drop the WP:STICK. Simonm223 (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Massacre of the innocents

Massacre of the Innocents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

[66] I'm pretty sure we shouldn't be including biblical literalist commentary in any page on biblical scholarship. Please, someone explain why a Young Earth Creationist deserves to have his views detailed in long paragraph style as though they are "counterpoint". jps (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The murder of the innocents, so far I am aware, is a folklore trope. That our Wikipedia article has it as specific to solely one of its recyclings, and dallies with the idea that this one might be the Truth is classic WP:PROFRINGE, and editors rushing to defend wikivoiced sentences like this really make you wonder ...

However, while the author seemed to model the wording of the narrative on the story of Moses, this does not explain whether the Mosaic model was the origin of the episode, or a comment on a historical event.

Bon courage (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
In any case, I have a WP:WRONGVERSION version. [67] I thin it is far better than the one the editors are reverting back to while sticking their fingers in their ears about literalism. Would love any input on the matter on the talkpage or in the article history. Maybe you can crush it down better? jps (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Are they a noted expert, wait its not an SPS, maybe this needs to be at RSN, and not here. Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
They are a noted apologist. They are not a noted expert on the evidence for what parts of the bible are historical. They have an agenda as a biblical literalist to prove the entire bible is true. jps (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
They are an academic who was a professor of ancient history. That seems to me to be a pass, so take it to RSN. Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
You can have fringe professors (especially when they move outside their field). You can have fringe nobelists (as we know)! So this would seem to be a fringe question. Everybody is "reliable" for their pronouncements, but is it fringe/due? Bon courage (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Right, that's not at all rare. Carlo Rotella explained this well in "Pulp History". I wrote a brief synopsis for Wikipedia at WP:PULP. Someone's work in apologetics does not become reliable because of their work in a different field, Rjjiii (talk) 06:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry what? It only needs to go to RSN if the talk page discussion has been exhausted without reaching a consensus, this one literally just began. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Don't mind, Slatersteven. He approaches things in an idiosyncratic legalistic way that can often safely be ignored. He's much better at Wikipedia-ing than when he started years ago, but sometimes the old officiousness breaks through. :) We'll stay talking about it here, no problem. It's definitely a fringe matter. jps (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Slow-mo edit war continues: [68] Seems some people really want there to be a "yeahbut" about whether or not this thing happened. jps (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

RSN discussion on reliability of CNN for transgender medical topics

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_CNN_for_transgender_topics This discussion may be of interest. Partofthemachine (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

This feels wildly inappropriate to post here, to be perfectly honest. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
It's now been WP:SNOW closed. XOR'easter (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, just would like to also briefly chime in to say that I really don't see a fringe connection there. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_98&oldid=1219759043"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy