Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

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

Additional notes:

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

Article alerts


Did you know

Articles for deletion

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Requests for comments

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split


Organic farming – "health" benefits?[edit]

The Organic farming farming article strikes me as problematic. In particular, this sentence in the lead, "Organic farming advocates claim advantages in sustainability, openness, self-sufficiency, autonomy and independence, health, food security, and food safety." There is no counterpoint to these claims in the lead. Isn't it a violation of WP:FRINGE (or at the very least NPOV) to prominently feature rhetoric claiming that organic food has health benefits over non-organic food? The other purported benefits also strike me as dubious and poorly substantiated. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Ivermectin was removed as an allowed parasiticide for organic livestock in the U.S. in 2018. fiveby(zero) 02:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Just looked there. You're probably right. I also reverted this removal. As a review article, it is a top quality secondary academic source and should be covered. Crossroads -talk- 04:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]
A few weeks ago I noticed that the article appeared overly promotional, but have only added that to my endless notes, —PaleoNeonate – 05:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]
But organic farming 'advocates' actually do claim those things. Why does there need to be a counterpoint to those claims? The claims are what they are. The lead presents them as claims, not facts in Wikipedia's voice. All of those claims are believed by the large population who create a demand for organic products by buying them. Farmers, on the other hand, would say that organic farming is more lucrative (larger profit margins) due to that demand, provided you get past the approvals, which a few organic farmers have told me is easier to do outside of California than within it. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Why does there need to be a counterpoint to those claims? Per WP:FRINGE. Imagine if the homeopathy article or its lead just said the claims of proponents - attributed as claims, mind you - and left off all criticism. That would be a huge problem. Now, organic farming isn't as fringe as homeopathy, but the point stands. Crossroads -talk- 05:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The lead section is supposed to provide an overview of the body text. A counterpoint would be a summary of the "issues" section of the article. WP:SOFIXIT. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]
It would probably be best to find a reliable secondary source that reports what advocates claim and see what qualifications there are. There should also be clarification of who these advocates are. I haven't seen any organic producers that claim their products are healthier for example. If you provide a claim that hasn't been made then rebut it, it's a strawman argument. TFD (talk) 05:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The two sources given: "Only 60 Years of Farming Left If Soil Degradation Continues" and The New Organic Grower do not support the claims at all. fiveby(zero) 13:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]
More important than what advocates say is what consumers think about the product they are buying. It's the proximate cause that makes an industry large. Could be that consumers got their view that "organic is better" from advocates, could be that they came up with that on their own, got the view from their circle of friends, or wherever. When advocates say this product is better for this and that reason, as long as consumers don't believe them it doesn't really matter. --Distelfinck (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Snooganssnoogans, I think you might be reading that sentence loosely. Organic farming does improve health – the health of the farm workers who would otherwise be exposed to pesticides, and the health of the local ecological web that would otherwise have fewer insects, birds, frogs, and fish. The sentence doesn't actually claim that eating organic food confers benefits on consumers.
To put it another way, Wikipedia can't say out of one side of its mouth that methyl bromide is incredibly dangerous to basically every living organism and deserves a place in the List of highly toxic gases, and then say out of the other side of its mouth that organic strawberry farming (which doesn't use it, unlike basically the entire rest of the strawberry industry) has no health benefits for anyone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Yeah though some "organic" practices complicate the picture rather. Alexbrn (talk) 06:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Definitely. The problem is that the term "organic farming" is very poorly defined. It does not mean not using pesticides, for example! Nor does it necessarily mean "ecologically friendly". jps (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Some pesticides (be they synthetic or "organic") are incredibly dangerous. Yet, just like everything else, there are safe levels of exposure, there is a right was to use them that makes it essentially harmless to farmers, consumers, and the surrounding environment. The fact that a strawberry was grown without one particular synthetic pesticide doesn't actually mean it is healthier than a strawberry that was grown with it. The dose makes the poison. VdSV9•♫ 18:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
There is not always a "safe" level of exposure. Sometimes there are only levels likely to cause measurable damage in an individual (e.g., toddlers with > 50 ng/mL lead poisoning) and levels that are likely to cause measurable damage to a statistical population (e.g., toddlers with 10 to 50 ng/mL lead in a blood test). When it comes to ozone depleters, such as methyl bromide, the "safe" level of exposure is "none per atmosphere". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Ann Coulter[edit]

Discussion about how to handle articles about intelligent design fans. Should it be called a pseudoscience or not? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]

This seems more like a MOS type question. I don't think anyone in that discussion is questioning that ID is supported by any type of science. I think all would agree that it's often an attempt to rectify religion to the evidence of evolution. Part of the dispute at that article can be generalized as should we point out as much every time the topic is mentioned in any article where it is even briefly mentioned. That seems to the be crux of the dispute. For example, if Mr Smith's article says, "Smith is a believer in astrology[source]" should we instead say "Smith is a believer in astrology, a pseudoscience [source]" or "Smith is a believer in astrology, a pseudoscience that claims X [source]". Would the answer change depending on the [source]? For example, if the source specifically says astrology is a psuedoscience vs if it only says he believes in it? Springee (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The Nancy Reagan page has about a dozen references to astrology and how it ran the US White House, but none of them contain any additional word like "pseudoscience". Nancy is dead and there is no political value in trashing her, but Coulter is involved in contentious current politics so she gets the shaft at multiple points in her article. Sesquivalent (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Agree with Springee, it is not about the FRINGE or pseudoscience status of intelligent design, which everyone currently involved in that discussion seems to agree on. Other than some stuff that is specific to Coulter, the discussion is about whether references to FRINGE material require mandatory warning labels --- as the initiator of the discussion I argued that this practice is gratuitous, patronizing to the reader, and in Coulter's case, politicized. These are MOS or NPOV issues, FRINGE does not come into play since the particulars of the fringe viewpoint are not being presented, only the fact of Coulter having some connection to it. Sesquivalent (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The people here know how to handle articles that are related to fringe subjects. Now they already know about the subject, so it is pointless to try to keep it from them by claiming it is not related to FRINGE.
Whether the particulars of the fringe viewpoint are not being presented is one of the questions here, not a fact. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
What does try to keep it from them mean? Keep what from whom??
Does writing the words "X advocates intelligent design", with the link, as the sole description of X's connection to ID, constitute a presentation of the fringe viewpoint? Nobody at the Coulter talk discussion has claimed that, but if that's part of what you think is being debated, please say so. In the generality that you have framed this ("intelligent design fans"), we aren't just talking about the Coulter article specifically, where there is some (unrebutted) presentation of her closely related views on evolution, and what is said about ID immediately after could be seen as part of that. The more general framing seems to be (the ID special case of) the same question I raised, about negative labels on references to fringe material. Sesquivalent (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
WP:FRINGE covers all treatments of fringe topics on Wikipedia, not just those that go into detail. Indeed, a significant part of that guideline is advice on when and how to go into detail. So, it doesn't matter if particulars of the fringe viewpoint are not being presented. XOR'easter (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Which passage of FRINGE applies to this case? I share TFD's concern that the disparaging tone isn't helpful. It also, importantly, isn't encyclopedic. If simply calling it ID isn't sufficient perhaps calling it the creationist belief of intelligent design. That description makes it clear this is a subset of creationism while avoiding beating the reader over the head with the fact that it doesn't pass the scientific sniff test.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Springee (talk • contribs) 02:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
You've assumed the conclusion, that merely mentioning Mr X subscribes to fringe thingy Y requires an attached denunciation of Y (or X, which is often what it amounts to either way). As pointed out at the Coulter article talk page, this is not the case for Y = astrology, Nazism, John Birch Society (re conspiracy theories). Other examples are anti-Semitism and scientific racism; generally when they appear as part of someone's bio we do not attach descriptors like "the discredited 19th century ideology". Maybe some of these things are considered well known enough to be out-of-mainstream that it's de minimis but this "denounce on sight" rule seems not even to be applied for cold fusion. Like Springee, I did not see any such principle in the FRINGE guideline, which I have read many times by now. Can you point to some particular part of the text?Sesquivalent (talk) 08:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I would leave it out. It sounds overly disparaging and as jargon we would have to explain it. Disparaging writing actually creates doubt in readers' minds. They say, "This article is obviously intended to disparage Coulter, so why should I believe anything it says?" TFD (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I rather suspect that people who are eager to leap to that conclusion will do so regardless of whether we include a few particular words or not. XOR'easter (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
+1 to this. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. We should not be tiptoeing around the subject of fringe in order to cater to the potential pearl clutching of partisan readers. If they don't like what reliable sources say about the subject, they have safe spaces on the internet they can go to such as Conservapedia. Generalrelative (talk) 00:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
While that may be what you suspect, lecturing and patronizing people often turns them off. People don't like to be told what to think. That's one of the reasons the COVID-19 vaccination rate in the U.S. is so low. Of course it's easier to blame listeners for not being persuaded. TFD (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
No one is blaming listeners for not being persuaded. And yes, lecturing and patronizing people often turns them off. Generalrelative (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Yes, few people like the feeling of being lectured at. But Coulter's fans will regard Wikipedia as a hotbed of cultural Marxism, critical race theory, and general leftist moral degeneracy no matter what adjectives we insert or remove. (Which is pretty funny, because our gold standard for news sourcing is The New York Times, a publication whose editorial practices please roughly zero leftists. But I digress.) There's no pleasing the mentality that regards the tamest, purely factional description as a slanderous subversion of real American values. There's such a thing as spending too much time trying to satisfy the unsatisfiable. I think Generalrelative's suggested phrasing below does a good job of being clear and direct without coming across as overly forceful. XOR'easter (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Presumably at least some readers come to the article because they want to know about the topic and aren't confirmed fans. Consider a reasonable person who has seen her once or twice on a couple of topics. If it is clear to them that the authors of her Wikipedia article dislike her then they will question the accuracy of the article. Ironically, the article reads like something Ann Coulter would write. TFD (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

A good rule of thumb in these scenarios is, does it help to explain the prose? Good to look at what we're actually considering here. As of this timestamp, prose reads as follows:

So, does the word "pseudoscientific" add to the prose here? I think it does, but I can see why others might think it is brow-beating. I find it a bit weirder that the text avoids the obvious reference to creationist here which is the umbrella term that, granted, a lot of ID proponents balk at due to believing in their own sophistication but was identified in the most famous court case on the subject to be just that. Well, that's maybe beside the point. The fact that Coulter advocates for intelligent design means that she positions herself in opposition to mainstream science. That is pretty remarkable for any pundit. How we indicate this is a good question, but I do think it reasonable to say we should try to do more than just assume that the reader will click on the relevant wikilink and that we should shrinkwrap our sentence to something like "Coulter advocates intelligent design. End paragraph."

jps (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Other pages use phrasings like "the pseudoscientific argument of intelligent design" (here) or "the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design" (here) or "a pseudoscientific creationist argument" (here). The phrasing in the Ann Coulter article is in line with community practice in this regard, though doubtless it could be tweaked. XOR'easter (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I prefer "the pseudoscience called intelligent design". Use of adjectives (like "pseudoscientific") give the impression of being inherently POV. It's a noun: pseudoscience. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
(ec) I agree with you both. The current language needs tweaking. How about: "Coulter advocates for creationism, the pseudoscientific belief that the theory of evolution is bogus science. In her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism, contrasted her beliefs to what she described as the left's "obsession with Darwinism and the Darwinian view of the world, which replaces sanctification of life with sanctification of sex and death."? Generalrelative (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Not bad. XOR'easter (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks. I was actually about to go back and change out creationism for intelligent design since the latter is actually what Coulter seems to be arguing for and is more unambiguously associated with pseudoscience. So my suggested text would now be: Coulter advocates for intelligent design, the pseudoscientific belief that the theory of evolution is bogus science. In her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism, she contrasted her beliefs with what she described as the left's "obsession with Darwinism and the Darwinian view of the world, which replaces sanctification of life with sanctification of sex and death." Generalrelative (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The word "bogus" sounds a little informal. Maybe just "bad science"? I'd be happy enough with your suggested sentences, though. XOR'easter (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Good point. We could even go so far as to say the pseudoscientific belief that the theory of evolution is unsupported by or at variance with existing evidence. Generalrelative (talk) 01:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I like that a little more. But perhaps "unsupported by or at variance with" is a more elaborate construction than we need. What about just "disproved by"? XOR'easter (talk) 02:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
That phrasing is much better in terms of using impartial language but wouldn't it be better to say a bit more about what it is vs isn't? To be honest I confused Theistic Evolution with ID. I guess as someone who has spent most of my life avoiding religion it's easy to confuse various religious based beliefs. Still, based on these descriptions I'm not sure how I would see ID as different from Theistic Evolution or simply creationism. I guess creationism is meant to be accepted purely on faith while ID tries to rationalize. Would "a rationalized version of creationism" be just as informative. I would hope any reader who sees "creationism" would understand that is a religious based explanation vs one based on science. Springee (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Springee: I agree, it's a bit tricky to unpack. I wasn't at all clear on the distinction until reading the articles Creationism and Intelligent design in response to this discussion. This board in particular is such a great place to come to be challenged to learn more. Generalrelative (talk) 03:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@XOR'easter: That would work. Or perhaps just "incompatible with"?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalrelative (talk • contribs) 03:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
"Disproven" and derivatives of the word "proof" are words to avoid, in my book, when talking about science just from the epistemology of the subject. If this were pseudomathematics instead of pseudoscince, then maybe "disproven" is okay, but the formal term for proof confuses people into not understanding the way in which pseudoscience is at odds with science in the proper context. Better to get across the idea of "lacks empirical evidence" or "at variance with known scientific facts" and simple, clear alternatives to that.
In terms of the confusion of ID with evolutionary creationism, theistic evolution, and so forth, this is (excuse the pun) by design. The group of people in the mid-nineties who put their heads together to think about what could be done about Edwards v. Aguillard thought that because there is difficulty in solving the demarcation problem as it pertains to anti-evolutionism and people's personal beliefs, they could come up with a vaguely named concept like "intelligent design" which would capture the confusion and predilections of many religious believers with respect to the subject while maintaining some sort of plausible deniability as to the identity of any "designer". The problem, of course, was that the arguments themselves were all just repackaged from the creation science of the 1960s, 70s, and 80s with, perhaps, a few of the more ludicrous proposals quietly abandoned (ID proponents rarely argue that the Kelvin-Helmholtz time scale for the Sun is evidence of a "young Earth", for example). The fact that you confused ID with TE is exactly what this Center for Science and Culture group was hoping would happen, so this explains a bit why being a little clearer about what Coulter is specifically aligning herself with is so important. The task is not easy, so it's good to think carefully about the best wording granting that there actually may not be a "best wording" owing to this political and rhetorical mess created, again, by design.
jps (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
For those arguing that calling pseudoscience what it is disparages or patronizes, the WP:PSCI policy says that it must clearly be described as such. The reason why ID is pseudoscientific, while also creationism and religious apologetics, is that it attempts to pass as science. A history of it is outside the scope of this discussion, but in brief, it's an adaptation of Creation Science with the name of denomiations and deities gradually removed with more pseudoscientific arguments added that attempt to discredit important findings of science including discoveries and conclusions in geology and biology supported by overwhelming evidence. A main goal was to insert it in classrooms in the US as an alternative to standard biology curricula with the excuse that "students need to be informed and make their own decision". It's textbook pseudoscience and described as such by most reliable independent sources that discuss it. A valid policy-based argument in this case could be WP:SYNTH if the sources that talk about Coulter don't mention that it's not science but attempts to pass as such (or is pseudoscientific). Some current sources appear to be close and a minimum of synthesis may be acceptable for facts like that the sky is blue (and that ID is pseudoscientific)... Pseudoscience is not just a label but an accurate and useful description. —PaleoNeonate – 20:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Are there objections to my proposed language? Coulter advocates for intelligent design, the pseudoscientific belief that the theory of evolution is incompatible with existing evidence. In her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism, she contrasted her beliefs with what she described as the left's "obsession with Darwinism and the Darwinian view of the world, which replaces sanctification of life with sanctification of sex and death." Generalrelative (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I'd be happy with that. XOR'easter (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Generalrelative, that really is an improvement. One of my original concerns was the article simply said ID is pseudoscience but really nothing more. I suspect that is why a number of us felt it was a dismissive label rather than actually telling the reader what we are dealing with. Your revised sentence is both more informative and impartial. It doesn't read as if we are applying a dismissive label but are afraid to explain the details. Instead it say, it hits a critical point, these people think the theory of evolution doesn't fit the evidence. They might be wrong but it's hardly the same thing as claiming the whole thing came from an Arkleseizure. It also provides some context for why she brings this up and why it's relevant to the article by putting the ID before the mention of evolution etc, vs after where it seems like it was mentioned as an after thought. Springee (talk) 03:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I've been following the discussion but haven't weighed in. This wording looks good to me as well. –dlthewave ☎ 04:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I do have some comments (or objections if you must).
1. I wish that edit suggestions for this one article would go in that article's Talk page, and more general FRINGE matters here, so we don't have two edit discussions in two places at once and double the size of this here thread.
2. I obtained a copy of Coulter's book and read the last three chapters, which are the part about evolution. (I think many things in this book would interest you, given your interests in articles on scientific racism and fascism -- she provides some information and references not currently in Wikipedia). Although she cribs anti-evolution arguments from IDers, and a few of her every-fourth-sentence snarky comments are about evolution comparing unfavorably to intelligent design in some way, it turns out that she is not arguing for ID in the book, or even that evolution must be wrong (though she vituperates it at great length). The first sentence about this in the current article, that she argues against evolution, is a better summary than the above, and having read the thing I would leave out any claim that the book argues for ID.
3. If there is to be any use of "pseudo" it should not be implied that Coulter herself is engaging in pseudoscience, i.e., non-science presented as science. She does not claim to be a scientist, to be publishing a work of science, and nearly all her sources are from popular books and articles, not scientific papers (even ones from intelligent design journals). She does not cite most of these things as works of science, but as case studies in how evolution is presented, used politically and so on. The criticisms of evolution are ammunition in the overall argument of the book (which is not about evolution) and her thesis does not stand or fall on whether Darwinian evolution is totally wrong, totally correct, or anything in between. Sesquivalent (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Problem: ID is not the pseudoscientific belief that the theory of evolution is incompatible with existing evidence. Creationists of all stripes believe that, not only ID proponents. We don't even know if those people really believe that, we only know that they write that it is so. And I am not sure a belief can be pseudoscientific: it is just the motivation behind pseudoscience and its result.
Why do we have to reinvent the wheel for this one article? Our Intelligent design article says it is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God. We can use that, and the reader who wants to know more can look up the details in the ID article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Sesquivalent, do you think your review of the primary source aligns with this source [1]? If so it would suggest that RSs disagree if coulter actually supports/advocates ID. As such we shouldn't claim she believes/advocates for it in the wiki article. That of course is independent of how we describe ID in the article. If sources disagree then I would suggest just removing the single mention of ID since it's a minor part of the whole article even if all sources agreed. Springee (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I have to agree with Springee on this. For all that she is a controversial figure, Coulter is not primarily known as a proponent of ID. The entire mention strikes me as UNDUE. I would just omit the entire thing. Blueboar (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Well, she's written 12 books and the text about ID is relevant to one in particular. Now, if all her books should be weighted the same in her bio (not sure that's true, but let's start there), I guess I would say no one book should take up more than ~10% of the text on her literary career. I count prose about Godless: The Church of Liberalism as taking up about 20% of the discussion (of which about 1/3 is devoted to anti-evolution arguments), so, maybe you could argue it's overweighted. (It's not particularly surprising because the book was well-timed to poke the bear of New Atheists who were somewhat ascendent back in 2006 and fairly active at this website trying to fix coverage of ID. Maybe that's the holdover, I'm not sure.) But I don't think excising discussion of her attachment to this ideology and tutelage by DI mucky-mucks entirely is necessarily justified. Perhaps someone can think more carefully about how to summarize the text about the book and see if ID makes the cut that way. jps (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Exact proportionality by word count seems a not-so-illuminating standard, in my view. She's also written other things attacking evolution (I linked a few below that turned up in an easy search), so it wasn't just a tirade confined to one book. I'd say that given the length of the article, a line or two would be due weight, but I wouldn't spend more time on it than that. The suggestion by Generalrelative was on the upper edge of what I think would be worthwhile. XOR'easter (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
That source looks like a parody of the evolution sections of Coulter's book. It is saying, for example, that she is hypercritical on evolution but gullible toward ID. Which is true but beside the point she is arguing. The book is not in any direct way, an argument for belief in God, the existence of God, creationism, Christianity or ID. It is certainly saying that a Godless society with a secularized pseudo- or anti-Christianity (liberal Satanism as it were, though she doesn't use that idea) is prone to following bad paths, which is an indirect form of classical religious apologetics. But the book is exactly what it pretends to be: an analysis and indictment of American liberalism as secularized atheistic small-c christian theocracy. A Taliban without a God (or more precisely, with a number of secular not-supernatural but equally mysterious functional god-equivalents) Sesquivalent (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The LiveScience.com blog post is an obvious joke, saying that Coulter's book is satire because it's too absurd to be taken seriously. Her own writings promote creationism unambiguously and unabashedly. [2][3][4][5]. XOR'easter (talk) 23:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Agreed. This is obvious satire. The author is going along with the premises that Coulter is "an intelligent and well-educated person" and that the right is characterized by "normally rational standards" and reading the book through that lens, concluding that it must be a Sokal-like hoax. It's actually a pretty brilliant piece. Generalrelative (talk) 23:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
"Her own writings promote creationism unambiguously and unabashedly" is not what a reading of her words shows. She is unambiguously and unabashedly an evolution critic, who uses ID tropes and (as I wrote above) makes favorable comparisons here and there of ID to evolution -- one line from the column you linked. The other link is her praising Gelertner who likewise attacks evolution but says he cannot swallow ID. It does not appear that she has undertaken to argue for ID, creationism, or God as propositions in themselves, other than announcing constantly that she happens to hold certain Christian beliefs. Just arguments against evolution, logrolling toward IDers (Behe, Dembski, Berlinski) and other antievolutionists (Gelernter), and certainly being friendly toward the idea and conclusions. But not actually arguing for them as such. To repeat from the Coulter talk page thread, her relationship to ID is a couple of step removed from being a literal IDer, and is more like "promotes the legitimacy of ID proponents". Sesquivalent (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
This sounds to me like a distinction without a difference. Generalrelative (talk) 02:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Since various comments above, including yours, are premised on their being some difference between anti-evolution, creationism, and intelligent design, it makes sense to actually be specific about it. If one form puts words in her mouth and the other accurately describes her position why not use the correct one? Since you take the distinction of ID, promoting ID, and promoting ID's proponents to be inconsequential, why would it matter to you which such phrase is used? We can easily please everyone by doing it right. Sesquivalent (talk) 03:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
We can easily please everyone by doing it right. Lol, I see. If only I'd realized that the solution was to do it right. Sarcasm aside, the reason we don't fill our encyclopedia with meaningless distinctions is that it gets in the way of parsimony and ultimately serves to obscure what could easily be stated clearly. Generalrelative (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Some of us think "not putting words in subject's mouth" is distinctly more important than "use marginally shorter description". The difference between saying that Coulter (e.g.) writes approvingly of intelligent design and the same with ID proponents is one word, 10 letters, 3 syllables, and it also allows the possibility of listing some of those people by name, which could be useful.
Most long BLP's, this one included, can be edited to be substantially shorter with no loss of encyclopedia value. Sentences about FRINGE in BLPs are probably the last place one would want to economize on words at the expense of accuracy, since that can effectively imply that someone is a kook, or more of a kook than the record warrants. Sesquivalent (talk) 04:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
That's the thing about a distinction without a difference: one does not sacrifice accuracy by leaving it out. And nobody here has suggested putting words in anyone's mouth. So at least we agree on that. Generalrelative (talk) 05:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
There are at least two big differences involved. One is that we have no direct objective way, by reading her words, to conclude that she argues for an Intelligent Designer, which would seem to be the sine qua non of promoting the "fringe theory of ID" (note the word theory, i.e., the ideas, not the enterprise, movement, people, and institutions). The other is that in the absence of decisive evidence, everyone here who insists on tying her to ID is doing it by SYNTH that combines other facts about her, speculations about her degree of connection to institutional IDers, interpretation of her jokes, and general patterns about other people (creationists). Sources, including Coulter herself, are unanimous that she opposes evolution, but only some associate her arguments with ID at all. I haven't attempted an enumeration to judge whether it's a large or small proportion of sources, but given the other problems with this inference, it is probably best to either call her an evolution opponent only, or someone who attacks evolution using arguments much the same as intelligent design (but no explicit argument for a Designer, creation, or God)". Sesquivalent (talk) 08:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Arguing for an "intelligent designer" is not the sine qua non of ID advocacy. It is often the unspoken insinuation and with intentionally prevaricating winks and nods about religions beliefs (or lack thereof). But what makes intelligent design fringe theory an argument is a (re)packaging of neocreationism along the lines of Paley's watchmaker argument (without necessarily reproducing the entire claim). Coulter aligns herself with that rhetoric completely. jps (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
By the way, speaking of parsimony and readability, the clunkiness of multi-word denunciations about ID being pseudoscientific, rather than just saying "intelligent design" (resp. anti-evolution), was one of the reasons this now incredibly long discussion came up in the first place. Is there any passage in FRINGE that actually requires this kind of language whenever any reference to such topic appears, e.g., "Mr X has been known to rely on astrologers"? This has been asked repeatedly above. Sesquivalent (talk) 04:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
My understanding was that there is rough consensus on the need to provide some kind of explanatory gloss after stating that Coulter is a proponent of intelligent design. My proposed language and that of others above are attempts to work out the most accurate and parsimonious way to provide that. There is apparently a longstanding consensus to describe intelligent design as pseudoscience (see Talk:Intelligent design/FAQ if you haven't already). Whether it is best to include that term in this instance is up for debate, which is precisely the point of this noticeboard and the conversation we are currently having. But I'm unaware of any definitive, policy-based rationale either for including or excluding it here. That said, I really don't see why we wouldn't. Generalrelative (talk) 05:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Before we discuss “the need to provide an explanatory gloss after stating that Coulter is a proponent of Intelligent Design”, we need to discuss whether Coulter actually IS a proponent - and whether there is a need to mention it. After all, If you don’t mention ID in the first place then there is no need to explain what it is. Blueboar (talk) 12:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

She adopts ID arguments and was tutored by ID proponents whom she defends at length while attacking those scientists who spend their time carefully laying out the empirical evidence for evolution. She unapologetically uses the term "Intelligent Designer" in arguing that there is evidence for such while also adopting the argument that such evidence (specifically, the arguments of famed IDer Behe) is being ignored by scientists: [6] I have a hard time accepting that after all this she really isn't a proponent of ID. jps (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

There's no other way to slice it: she is a proponent of ID. She said over and over again that ID arguments are good and evolution is bad. There's not even a hair to split here. XOR'easter (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
No. ID is (1) anti-evolution arguments + (2) a plausibility argument that, if evolution doesn't work, some Designer must have done it. Behe and IDers use "irreducible complexity" for both purposes, Coulter only endorses it as (together with all the other anti-evolution arguments) a disproof of evolution. The whole point of the "irreducible complex" blahblah is to suggest that something must have been designed, as it's a complex watch- or eye-like mechanism, etc. Other than ambiguous and plausibly-deniable snark and jokes here and there, Coulter sidesteps this, the defining feature of ID, entirely. What she does directly say is how great the ID people are and so forth -- approval of the proponents rather than the theory.
So one could say that Coulter "uses arguments from" intelligent design to attack evolution but it is a misrepresentation, or at best SYNTH, to say that she is a proponent of ID-as-a-theory when she fails to endorse or seriously comment on its central argument. Sesquivalent (talk) 05:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Whaaaat? This is an interpretation that requires mental gymnastics of which I am not capable. How can someone support the people, the arguments, and oppose the opponents but not support "the theory"? I think this is bending over backwards for no good reason except for editorial reticence. jps (talk) 13:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
No gymnastics needed. Once she is, for whatever reasons and based on whatever arguments, positioned against evolution, IDers are her allies and ID opponents her enemies, whether or not she goes as far as ID does in her public statements. She does not "support ... the arguments" in toto, at least not in print; that is precisely the point.
The gymnastics I don't understand are how to define someone who does not argue for an intelligent designer as a purveyor of ID. Again, merely making moves that are favorable to ID in the political battle-space can make one an ally of the IDers, but being a warm friend and ally of something does not necessarily mean espousing that thing. Speculative SYNTH on this is both forbidden in the article and somewhat pointless, as the evidence is ambiguous. Sesquivalent (talk) 07:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I cannot even begin to understand the hairs you are splitting here. She does not "support ... the arguments" in toto, at least not in print I have yet to see any evidence of that. What, do you need some sort of banner waving statement of the sort, "I SUPPORT IN TOTO THE ARGUMENTS OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN". I feel a bit like I'm arguing with someone who has a complete inability to concede the point. She has argued in favor of intelligent design. I cannot see how any other conclusion is possible on the basis of our sources including her own writing. jps (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Now we are getting somewhere. What do you need (to classify an antievolutionist as also an IDer) is precisely the question. Assuming it is done on the basis of clear statements and not parsing their jokes, the bare minimum would seem to be an assertion that if Bayesian confidence in evolution goes down, confidence in design or a designer must go up. What else could it possibly mean to argue ID? Since this discussion has gone fractal, and this is no longer a question of Coulter but about how to draw the boundary, it could make sense as a new and more focused thread. Sesquivalent (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
If you wish for no parsing of "jokes", Coulter is impenetrable. That's the only way she engages. jps (talk) 12:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Well, if the jokes are clear then parse away. Hers are strategically ambiguous, as we saw above. I think that the high IQ, high status, cosmopolitan friends of ID like Coulter and Gelertner know that logically proving a God exists is not only impossible but so well known to be impossible as to be declasse in their social circles, thus a morass they make a point of avoiding. Sniping at evolution (or particular presentations of evolution) is safer. Sesquivalent (talk) 09:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The point really is that it is the very same kind of strategic ambiguity that is a hallmark of ID arguments. jps (talk) 11:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
FRINGE applies to theories, ideas. Accordingly we judge Coulter's position on the science/pseudoscience spectrum based on what she says rather than how she is situated in the creation/evolution political battle-space. With what she says (and in this case, does not say) about the science carrying more weight than what she says in relation to the battle-space. That her book must have made IDers happy, a battle-space outcome, does not mean her book is a work of ID, i.e., argues for an intelligent designer.
"Tutored" makes her sound like a protege, for which there is no evidence, rather than the more mundane relationship of a writer who picked up the phone to get advice from someone with a massive incentive to give it. She "unapologetically uses the term Intelligent Designer" ... as part of a joke. If there are un-ironic uses of Designer, God etc that would be more to the point. Sesquivalent (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Huh? Ann Coulter herself says she was tutored by Behe, Berlinski, and Dembski: [7]. The substance of the joke requires that you accept that "Intelligent Designer" is the thing that must exist. Coulter's style is dripping sarcasm and snark, but the joke is not to pretend that *wink, wink* this idea is not one I endorse. Quite the opposite.
If I stretch my WP:AGF chops as far as I can here, I would say you just haven't researched this closely enough.
jps (talk) 13:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I am well aware that Coulter was in frequent contact with the IDers when writing her book --- I had specifically checked the Acknowledgements section of the book, which is where that quotation comes from, in order to confirm the presumption that this was the case. I did not remember that she used the word "tutored" for this, which explains your phrasing, but I also don't see how that contradicts or responds to my point. In saying she was tutored, Coulter did not apparently imply that she was a protege or puppet of the IDers, or anything beyond my description of how a professor would react when a famous author consults them about having their work appear in an upcoming bestseller (hint: it would involve tutoring to whatever extent needed). People are describing her as a stalking horse for them, based on all kinds of assumptions about her religious position, the meaning of her ambiguous jokes and the general sociology of the anti-evolution space. My understanding of FRINGE is that we give primacy to what people actually say and do without too much reading of other stuff into it, even if the Bayesian likelihood seems high, especially in a BLP. Her actions are simply "used ID's arguments to argue against evolution (but not for an intelligent designer)". The latter part seems to in and of itself disqualify her from being called an IDer even if, e.g., she would be totally happy to see ID replace evolution in schools. Sesquivalent (talk) 06:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
By the way, if we are parsing her word choices, notice that she describes the tutoring as being about evolution, not intelligent design. Sesquivalent (talk) 07:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Why do you think she doesn't argue for an intelligent designer? Is there some sort of quote that indicates that? jps (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
A few nights ago I searched for sources and various about the Godless book mention Dembski and Irreducible Complexity arguments, which is part of ID, at least... The DI website also has a rant about "Coulterian Contempt". —PaleoNeonate – 04:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The lack of clear statements saying that a designer must exist (given the arguments against evolution) or that if you don't believe evolution could have done it, design is the only alternative. The sources people are citing don't contain that and are a mixed bag as to whether they claim she is ID or only (what they all assert) antievolution. In the absence of consensus in the source, to classify her as an IDer we would need to find things she does say, not infer it from pattern matching a resemblance to some things that other people who are undoubtably creationist also say in this arena. Who her friends and enemies are on the political battlefield does not substitute for what she herself says and does (or doesn't). Sesquivalent (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
How is this kind of circumlocution different than any other intelligent design proponent? They all quibble whenever asked directly about the identity of an intelligent designer or whether one exists at all. That's the entire point. We have plenty of sources which identify her as adopting ID as an ideology. That's more than enough for our purposes. jps (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Sesquivalent: I note a comment you made on the talkpge: Whether she was making the stronger assertion, that these are winning arguments against evolution or a proof that an intelligent creator must exist --- or something weaker like "evolution is far from proven scientifically but is nonetheless used as a religious dogma by the Left" --- isn't clear without looking at the book again more closely. which to me indicates that you think it is possible to adhere to a position that "evolution is far from proven scientifically" independent of adherence to/advocacy of creationism in these contexts. This was an argument that Ben Stein made on his tour junket for the "documentary" he produced as was all the rage when ID was having its moment in the sun right before it all came crashing down in the Dover trial. I just want to clarify that this is actually your contention. Because, if so, I think you definitely need to do some research about this subject more broadly. Briefly, there are absolutely no critiques of evolutionary synthesis in this fashion which are not ideologically creationist and pseudoscientific. jps (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

With a good starting point evidence of common descent and its sources, —PaleoNeonate – 14:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
If Stein, Gelertner and Coulter all use ID arguments to dispute evolution but decline to use it to argue ID (or a Creator, God, etc) itself, that would suggest that this position is not an impossibility; that there exists a slightly different, more modest and less assailable species of argument than ID, that recurs in this arena. If you mean that there are no known atheists who make this ID-adjacent argument, that may well be true, but I could certainly imagine that the wide circulation of these polemics has convinced some people who have no particular interest in religion and a resistance to supernatural explanations, that there are gaps in the standard evolutionary account, which could presumably be filled by some means other than God (new discoveries or whatever).
In fact, there are gaps in the usual account, i.e., the narrative typically told in schools, and the God-less way to fill them in is to give a better account of the same material. The evidence of common descent page doesn't quite do this --- even the lede has cringe-worthy material touting the supposed predictive triumphs of evolution, that is susceptible to the (largely correct) argument, which Coulter gives at length, that "prediction" has been redefined so that the house always wins. This gap in explanation can be overcome, the problem is expository not scientific, but it does not serve the Cause of Science to paper over that by tossing around the word pseudoscience like candy and dismissing the critics as deluded fundie idiots.
To avoid some likely misunderstandings about this: all I'm saying here about the science is that this is one of many cases of "theory and evidence correct, exposition flawed". IDers are kept in business by this discrepancy, as they can (basically correctly) attack flaws in the exposition and then (incorrectly) claim to have demolished the theory. It doesn't help that the expositions retain misleading phrases like "the theory of" evolution that enable this confusion. Sesquivalent (talk) 05:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Nothing much wrong with "exposition" either. "Theory of evolution" is fine, and Stephen Jay Gould explained why in his essay Evolution as fact and theory. Science is difficult, and creationists of all stripes will always find ways to misunderstand it no matter how it presented. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
This is getting off topic, but the typical exposition is wrong to use "prediction" to mean "unfalsifiable, house-always-wins prediction" (while using vocabulary like "testable" implying the ordinary falsifiable sort of prediction), and evolution is not a theory. It is a constraint on the allowed theories, just as Lorentz invariance and locality are constraints on what we consider as usable theories in fundamental physics. The "theory" in evolution is whatever the current account is of how the tree of life is connected and came to be, and the principle of evolution plays a big role in that but isn't the "theory" that is the thing supportable or refutable by evidence. We simply choose, based on thought experiments and observation, to make it basic to the narrative; it is not the theory itself. So the creationists have it backwards when they insist evolution is "just a theory". Sesquivalent (talk) 18:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The "typical exposition" does not do that. Creationists just claim that it does. Maybe you should have a look at the talk.origins archive and its list of hundreds of creationist arguments with refutations. Been there, done that for about thirty years now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The claim that lack of evidence is what keeps creationist apologetics in business is misleading (vs motivated reasoning, ignorance and confusion because of misleading literature, etc). Predictive power is also indeed important for scientific theories, in the case of evolution an example is evaluating where more transitional fossils would be found despite their rarity, etc. Eventually DNA was discovered and this has confirmed and corrected what was already known, at the same time opening more related fields of knowledge and investigation (then there is consilience, the evidence is supported by a number of scientific disciplines). While this noticeboard is more open to discussion than article talk pages, I think that all this argumentation is excessive... I also see arguments that we should present the material as directly interpreted by the author, when by policy we should instead present the evaluation and conclusions of independent sources. —PaleoNeonate – 21:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
To say I'm gobsmacked here would be an understatement. Others have done justice to this, but apologias for creationism like this are things I haven't seen on Wikipedia for nearly a decade. Suffice to say, we don't suffer this kind of circumlocutions of rhetoric kindly here. This is all reminiscent of old timey Evolution is just a theory-type arguments. Here endeth the lesson. jps (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I've humored your postings above (stretching the AGF chops, as you put it) and this is not the place to debate the science, but apologias for creationism got my attention. I suggest you run my statement about Lorentz invariance by a theoretical physicist or two, and then figure out that it's exactly the same with evolution, i.e., neither one is (in effect) "the theory" within the scientific framework where it appears, even if textbooks happen to lazily use that term. That does not imply any denial of relativity or evolution. If your position is that not only the science of evolution is correct (we agree on that) but that the exposition is incontestible and logically gapless, you must not have seen a textbook in the past few decades. Certainly a number of Wikipedia pages on this have the problems I described. If you have further complaints please post them at a more relevant talk page. Sesquivalent (talk) 09:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Your problem is that you sound like a creationist sometimes, even if you aren't one. For example, dismissing the critics as deluded fundie idiots is not a real thing. There are no such "critics". The ones who are dismissed in that way are either really deluded fundie idiots or they just repeat what they heard somewhere without checking it. A real critic, someone who knows what he is talking about, someone who points at flawed reasoning, like Stephen Jay Gould has always done, will be taken seriously. (Most of the time. Scientists are humans.) Yes, displaying the horse ancestors in a straight line and omitting the side branches gives a false picture, for instance. But when something like that happens, the thing to do is replacing the picture by a better one, not making a lot of noise pointing out scientists are DOING IT RONG. The creationist clowns have taken that horse picture thing, rolled it around in brain rot and half-truths until the fact that it is a minor correction gets lost, and presented it as an example of how evolutionists are faking it all.
Those who have fought that off for decades, which included most of the people you are talking to in this section, are familiar with lots of red flags. "Lack of transitional fossils" is one of them, "redefining prediction" is another, "just a theory" is a third. Each of them is just another hoof in the Gish gallop. Each of them is a false rumor spread by creationists, and echoing them is indeed an "apologia for creationism".
Do Not Believe Anything Creationists Write. It Is Tainted. It Is Based On Out-Of-Context Quotes, Bad Logic And Cherry Picking. Always. If May Sound Plausible To You, But That Is Because It Was Manufactured To Sound Plausible To People Who Do Not Check The Original Source.
Do not repeat creationist propaganda here. We already know it. And the refutations to it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I have to agree with Hob here. Whether you intend to or not, your rhetoric is plainly falling in the universe of a Teach the controversy style of argument. I understand that the toxic nature of the subject causes problems for discourse at the level of philosophy, for example, but we aren't here to fix that. What you have essentially done here is moved to accommodate creationism in a way that has been carefully and exhaustively identified as a problematic conceit in sources published by groups such as NCSE. And whether you intended it or not, your suggestion that I should "run my statement about Lorentz invariance by a theoretical physicist or two" is borderline insulting. jps (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I also see the standard "there are unresolved details so maybe alternative explanations are right" kind of narrative above, however this is ridiculous considering how other models fail to provide better explanations or to correspond to what was discovered about the natural world. As I previously noted, if the goal is to get lost in extreme relativism with metaphysical philosophical arguments, it's not productive to improve the encyclopedia, since its contents must take in consideration the descriptions of the real world as reported by reputable sources (admitedly a type of appeal to authority, but there's no other method to get somewhere efficiently in a collaborative encyclopedia)... —PaleoNeonate – 22:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Maybe a last word from me: if the argument is exclusion of the fact from the BLP, I think it's DUE, considering that a book from Coulter that was apparently a best-seller was mostly on this topic. As for belief vs promotion, it's always difficult to know what someone really believes, but I've seen at least one source where she was asked if she really believed it, and claimed to.[1] It may not be that relevant.[2][3] —PaleoNeonate – 23:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

References

  1. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20061017024044/http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/06/coulter-911/
  2. ^ https://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-21/
  3. ^ https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/coulter-crap-don-t-ignore-it-expose-it/

Thunderbirds[edit]

Any thoughts on this edit and sourcing edits to this author Paulette Steeves? Heiro 21:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Was the edit in "Supermarionation"? -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF
I don't see anything wrong with the source or the author. This is apparently the author's area of expertise "Steeves research focuses on the Pleistocene history of the Americas". Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
That is what her Wikipedia article says. It also says she is the Canada Research Chair in Healing and Reconciliation, which does not sound like a branch of paleontology or paleoanthropology. And you can "focus on" things outside your expertise. That's where many fringe ideas come from. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Reading the citation on her article, it seems like the grant is in fact for research and truth as it pertains to the First Peoples of Canada and their history here on Turtle Island, the funding coming from a Canadian initiative supporting Truth, Healing and Reconciliation with indigenous Canadians. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I'm iffy on this. Teratorns have likely been extinct for on the order of ten millenia, cultural memory generally doesn't go back that far. Some native american groups believe they have always had horses as that's been true as far as cultural memory goes, but horses were only re-introduced to the Americas 500 years ago. It's similar to the claims that the bunyip represents the cultural memory of the giant marsupial Diprotodon, despite it being extinct for probably 40,000 years, which also gets breathlessly repeated in layman sources without much critical examination, as it's essentially an unfalsifiable claim. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
From what I see she has her own pet theories that may possibly be presented as opinions if it's notable (i.e. has been discussed enough by independent sources that put them in context). The current text is at least WP:ATTRIBUTEd, that is consistent with presenting opinions. —PaleoNeonate – 23:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks everyone. Her pet theories seem pretty WP:FRINGE from the academic mainstream (such as "Indigenous people were in North America more than 130,000 years ago") and I was just wondering if we should be using it at all, especially without some kind of disclaimer. But if everyone else is sure it's ok. Heiro 00:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I removed this mention (and the duplicate one at Teratornis). The IP has visited my user talk page and isn't super happy about it. Hasn't used the article talk page(s) yet, though. - MrOllie (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Superdeterminism proven?[edit]

Some sockpuppet accounts are pushing the idea that Superdeterminism has been proven. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Johnbannan/Archive and recent IP editing. Affected articles include Superdeterminism, Quantum entanglement, Copenhagen interpretation, Determinism, Predestination, and Free will. Those of you who embody the proper collection of quantum states will be compelled to watchlist these articles shortly. - MrOllie (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)‎[]

Spoiled my fun, I really wished that Superdeterminism were proven. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • @Tgeorgescu: I think you were joking, but in fact I would not expect a solution any time soon, in either direction. Of course things can change within the next decade, given the multiplicity of the issues involved, but logically speaking neither a proof nor a rejection is likely. A key confounding variable that affects the solution, but is not usually mentioned, is the budget at CERN. And as of now, that is far from being deterministic with all that is going on. Ode+Joy (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Seems to be the same self-published book previously promoted by Special:Contributions/Groguyoda —PaleoNeonate – 13:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Sodom and Gomorrah[edit]

A new article in Scientific Reports suggests that city destruction was wrought by a meteorite.[8] This has found its way into this article as asserted fact. But is it fringe? Alexbrn (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

jps (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I'm okay with Sci Rep when it comes to paleontology related topics, where it usually publishes reliable low-impact descriptive work. However, in other topics I find that Sci Rep has low standards and tends to publish low quality work, and the fact that a spectacular claim such as this hasn't been published in a more prestigious journal indicates to me that the evidence is not high quality. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Its biggest problem is that it tries to be all things to all disciplines and thus has an editorial board that numbers in the hundreds. If we wanted, we could probably track down which editor it was who passed this dreck by looking for associates of the articles I link above, but I'm kinda tired of playing these games, TBH. jps (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I think for something that amounts to personal speculation published in such a journal (which though they maintain scientific rigor tend to have have relaxed standards of what is noteworthy enough to publish), we should err on the side of caution and wait for it to be repeated in a secondary source before even considering whether it is noteworthy speculation. To quote WP:UNDUE, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Agricolae (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    In my field (condensed matter physics / nanophysics) Sci. Rep. is a low impact but generally reliable journal. They claim that validity of the publihed material is the only criterion (which does not seem to be the case though since they sometimes reject clearly valid articles). I do not publish there myself, but some of my colleagues do.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Apart from the creationists, the rest of the authors of the paper are associated with the Comet Research Group, an odd group with a history of pushing fringe views related to the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis.[10] Before this they published another paper about another comet wiping out another prehistoric settlement. That was also in Scientific Reports... I wonder if they have a sympathetic ear or two on the editorial board. – Joe (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Oh, gee. It's an unholy alliance that reminds me of how the creationists got really excited about Velikovsky back in the 1960s and 70s. Sigh. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coherent catastrophism comes to mind. jps (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Apologies for bearing the bad news, but it looks like this is getting more mainstream pickup then I expected or than (in my opinion) it deserves: see this article at The Daily Beast [11]. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • It has at least been completely torn apart on Twitter already: the dubious background of the authors;[12][13][14] there are plenty of other explanations for "melted crap";[15][16][17][18] astronomically implausible;[19] incompetent excavation;[20] bad chronology;[21][22][23] bad osteoarchaeology.[24] Hopefully a published rebuttal will follow before too long... maybe even a retraction, if we're lucky. – Joe (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • This has been nominated for ITN: Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Tall_el-Hammam_and_Jericho_destruction_by_an_impact_event. – Joe (talk) 12:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Rejected. See these also about earlier claims and Allen West.[25] and this about earlier claims.[26] Doug Weller talk 15:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • And the published rebuttals start, ironically, with other biblical literalists: [27]. – Joe (talk) 09:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Shanks and BAR[edit]

The deletion bombardment directed at Shanks and his works displays a lack of familiarity with him and them. BAR was (and I imagine is) a perfectly straightforward piece of popularization which at times attacked popular fringe ideas: in one notorious case, a Franklin-Mint-ish statuette of a very white Nefertiti set off a letter battle which culminated in an article discussing the matter pretty much along the same lines as this Wash. Post article on the matter. I agree that we don't need every one of these articles, but assuming that they are fringe is a major failure of WP:BEFORE. Mangoe (talk) 04:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I mean, the problem is the way they were being pushed at this website. Maybe there is a way to frame them such that we indicate that in the past the society, its publications, etc. functioned as a popularization rather than a fringe promotion, but the way these articles are sourced doesn't indicate to me much more than that they push certain fringe theories about biblical archaeology. If there are good sources (other than the NYTimes obit), I was unable to find them. The WaPo article is interesting, but it doesn't quite strike me as a justification for an article. But maybe there are third party sources out there which can provide proper contextualization. WP:FRIND is the name of the game I think. Anyway, if we do decide to merge into one or two articles with good sourcing, that would be a wonderful outcome of the AfD storm, IMHO. jps (talk) 11:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
BAS is an important outlet for popularizing archaeology. It has some religious conservative bias, though, despite the religious beliefs of its owner. It is not 100% fringe, it does feature many mainstream archaeologists and mainstream Bible scholars. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Interesting. What sources do we have that say this sort of thing which would be much more useful to describe in our article than what we currently (don't) tell readers. jps (talk) 18:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

If we only go by https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/hebrew-bible/free-hebrew-bible-course-with-shaye-cohen/ it is not fringe. Cohen is a conservative believing Jew, but that has more to do with his private life than with what he teaches at Harvard (he teaches mainstream Bible scholarship). tgeorgescu (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Okay. But is that discussed elsewhere? jps (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Break (Sodom and Gomorrah)[edit]

  • I'm wondering what the response would be like if the paper had not mentioned Sodom. I'm sure it wouldn't have been so hysterical, and poorly-qualified "experts" like Mark Boslough (cited here multiple times) would not have been able to use mockery in lieu of arguments. Or Michael Press, whose expertise is irrelevant to the subject. If there had been a city in the path of the Tunguska event, it would have been destroyed, so there is nothing intrinsically implausible about a comet zapping a city. The question is how well the evidence stacks up scientifically, nothing else. Some of the lead author's previous related papers were in prestigious journals like PNAS and The Journal of Geology, and they led to useful reactions. That's what is needed here, not blah-blah on twitter. Finally, Shanks is not an author; why does he keep getting brought up here? Zerotalk 10:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • If there had been a city in the path of the Tunguska event, it would have been destroyed, so there is nothing intrinsically implausible about a comet zapping a city. Except that the rarity of such events points to the likelihood of hitting the bullseye something of an ECREE situation. I find your attempt to pooh-pooh skeptics a bit remarkable (Mark Boslough is not "poorly-qualified"). Mockery is about what should be expected here because the evidence for a meteor strike is pretty poor and there is a long history of claiming meteor strikes where the evidence is scant. jps (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Finally, Shanks is not an author; why does he keep getting brought up here? Because he founded BAS which the co-director and lead author of the Sci Rep paper seem to have been able to manipulate into supporting these rather fantastical positions. It is unclear whether this group still wields influence at BAS or not, but they might. Sourcing is horrible for those related articles and it looks to me, at least, like there may be a concerted effort on Wikipedia to provide more coverage than reliable sources do for the associated group of (amateurish) Biblical archaeologists and catastrophists. Shanks seems to have been on the up-and-up for the most part with his popularizations of Biblical archaeology, but the group pushing this new claim (and others from the last few years) seems firmly WP:FRINGE as far as I can tell. Sourcing for articles other than Shanks is atrocious and connecting the dots is nigh on impossible for me, at least. jps (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The Tunguska event "flattened an estimated 80 million trees over an area of 2,150 km2 (830 sq mi) of forest", so no bullseye was required and none is proposed in the article anyway. I am very doubtful of the claim, but refutation does not consist of first impressions by tweeters who seem to mostly be qualified in the wrong subjects. I will withhold my judgement until more worthy responses are available; you can choose differently. Zerotalk 13:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The Earth is far bigger than two thousand square kilometers. That's the proper comparison (not to the area of the city). The tweeters are absolutely qualified in the right subjects. That's because they have experience debunking the comet research group (Boslough) and debunking the claims of charlatans in archaeology (Press). Your vain attempts to argue that their expertise isn't well-positioned looks to me like you haven't seen how a lot of this fringe stuff typically plays out. jps (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
By this reasoning, nobody wins the lottery because one person is far far smaller than the human population. Zerotalk 13:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Sorry but no. In order for this analogy to hold the entire surface of the earth would have to be covered by cities (or I suppose much of it, since sometimes no one wins a given lottery). If we're contemplating the odds of an ancient city being destroyed by a meteorite impact we'd be talking about vanishingly slim odds, as jps has pointed out. Generalrelative (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Probability theory of exceptional occurrences is one of my professional specialties. You show the problem with your argument by writing specific meteor, when that is not part of the claim. It could have been any old meteor. How many meteors strike the earth over a couple of thousand years; I don't know but you have to allow for all of them and not just one. If it could have been any old city as well, your argument would be in even more trouble. I think it is very suspicious that the city just happens to be the one that some people identify as Sodom and for that reason it may not be any-city any-meteor but rather this-city any-meteor that we have to consider. The difference is huge but needs some mind-reading to assess. Zerotalk 16:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Ha! You took out the word "specific" during an edit-conflict, good for you. Zerotalk 16:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Yeah I took the word "specific" out because I saw that it might be a source of quibbling, but either way the point stands. I'm not trying to cast aspersions on your professional competence here, but your By this reasoning, nobody wins the lottery argument is transparently specious. I imagine I was the only one to respond because others just threw up their hands. But in any case, I'm not interested in pursuing this line of debate further. If you don't see why it was specious at this point I'm probably not going to be able to convince you. Generalrelative (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I'm wondering what the response would be like if the paper had not mentioned Sodom. Imagine what the response had been if it had been a completely different paper!
    Such counterfactuals are not helpful. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
But it does mention Sodom, most of the ridicule directly derived from the fact that it mentioned Sodom, and most of the embarrassing press nonsense we are going to be subject to in the near future will only exist because it mentions Sodom. As proof that I am on target, note that the previous similar claim about Abu Hureyra that makes no suggestion at all of a biblical connection received little or none of this type of reaction. Zerotalk 04:46, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Yeah. Write stupid stuff and people say you wrote stupid stuff. Do not write stupid stuff and people do not say you wrote stupid stuff. What's your point? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Zero0000: the previous similar claim about Abu Hureyra that makes no suggestion at all of a biblical connection received little or none of this type of reaction Depends where you mean, really. Reactions in the media, twitter, etc., no, because unfortunately the Neolithic doesn't have the widespread same appeal as "bible times". But amongst people who actually study Neolithic Southwest Asia, I can assure you that it's been alternately a source of despair and the butt of jokes for years. – Joe (talk) 09:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Joe Roe: On the balance of probabilities, the jokes were justified. And yet (sorry, can't resist) the idea that the dinosaurs were zapped by a meteor was also the butt of jokes for quite a few years until it gradually became a mainstream theory. My only real point here is that science progresses by scientific study and scientific debate. It doesn't progress by sideshows like mockery on twitter or fatuous arguments like "it cited a creationist so it must be entirely wrong". Zerotalk 11:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
That's the Galileo gambit you are using here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
And it is also a fallacy that matching something to a named type makes it incorrect. Zerotalk 15:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
If it bothers you that fallacies have names, I can instead refute your reasoning by saying: You cannot find the correct answer to a question such as "does this creationist paper have a valid point?" by looking at very superficially similar questions like "did an asteroid (not a meteor, BTW) kill the dinosaurs?" (the main similarity being that they once were answered "no" by the establishment too), then transplanting the answer "yes" from that question to the first one. That is a pathetic technique only used by completely helpless people who have no idea how else to approach scientific problems.
Same answer as before, just more detailed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I made the mistake of swinging by just now and the bigger mistake of reading your offensive and stupid "reply". You put words into my mouth and then "refuted" them with insults. You don't have a fucking clue where I come from or what I believe. Zerotalk 11:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Don't worry, the science is happening. But for our purposes—judging what should be included in an encyclopaedia written from a neutral point of view—I think the fact that the paper cites (and is written by) creationists, and that experts in the field have severely criticised it on Twitter, are both very useful pieces of information. – Joe (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I'm not putting it in any articles and I haven't argued for that. The fact is that I have very low confidence in this paper and I came to that conclusion after reading it on the day it came out. I'll be delighted to see either a serious refutation or serious independent support, but I've seen neither. I just don't like seeing fallacious arguments being put forward as proof. For anything. Incidentally, has your claim "written by creationists" been established here? I tried to establish this about the lead author Ted Bunch who has come at this via the Younger Dryas stuff [28] (108 citations) but I didn't succeed. It is easy to prove that none of the authors of this paper (assuming they believe what is written in it) are "young-earth creationists" since it states as a fact that something happened 12,800 years ago, which young-earth creationists believe is older than the age of the earth. Anyone who believes in the Younger Dryas stuff, and many of these authors even published papers supporting it, is definitely not a young-earth creationist. That leaves "old-earth creationist" which mostly refers to not believing in stuff like evolution. It isn't a correct name for people who "just" believe that the bible is a history book. But I can't prove that Ted Bunch is one of them either, can you? Zerotalk 15:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Obviously I'm not talking about Ted Bunch... the last author, Silvia is a student of Steven Collins (archaeologist) and works for Veritas International University. I don't know or care what exact subspecies of inerrancy the Tall el-Hammam Project subscribes to. Wikipedia isn't the place to look for "serious refutation", but if you care to look at the tweet threads I've linked above, there are plenty of subject-matter experts pointing out substantial flaws in the evidence and reasoning. But if you also don't believe their claims, and don't think we should put in an article, what exactly is your problem with us talking about the background of the authors? We do that all the time when assessing the reliability of a source. – Joe (talk) 08:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • By this reasoning, nobody wins the lottery because one person is far far smaller than the human population. Not at all. Someone might win the lottery, but identifying some specific person as a lottery winner without doing a systematic search of all lottery players is far more likely to result in a false positive than a correct attribution. That's just the way Bayes' Theorem works. jps (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Just thought I should point out that Elizabeth Bik has now involved herself, in this tweet and at the linked page: [29]. Not suggesting these are good bases for an article, but interesting information for those of us following along. Cheers, all, and happy Friday-eve. Dumuzid (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • West has now admitted to doctoring the photographs: [30]. jps (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Multiple chemical sensitivity etc[edit]

A WP:SPA, Silliestchris is making multiple edits across these pages, apparently in an attempt to de-stubify stubs and create more articles in this messy, fringe, topic space. A new article, Environmental sensitivity (illness) is proposed by them. More eyes/input would be helpful. Alexbrn (talk) 07:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I too, would appreciate more input, I invite randoms to review my input on talk pages in particular. The multiple chemical sensitivity page in particular gets frequent reversions to anyone trying to add information that does not conform to the Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance hypothesis. This disease is highly controversial and poorly understood, I am mainly trying to constructively add properly cited information. Thank you for your very helpful discussions today, Alexbrn.Silliestchris (talk) 07:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Update: blocked by Bbb23 for now, —PaleoNeonate – 21:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Didn't know that. Stff still happening at MCS page though. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 21:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
RFP request pending, —PaleoNeonate – 22:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I fully agree with User:Silliestchris: Well-documented sections will be removed for no reason as they do not reflect the opinion of individual authors. It would be nicer if they incorporate their counter-arguments into the article and provided them with suitable sources. -- Brackenheim (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Do you not think it a problem that the version of the article being reverted in the edit you linked, failed to mention that MCS can be triggered in people irrespective of whether or not "chemicals" are present? Alexbrn (talk) 01:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I have never claimed that my version / editing is the only correct one or that it is complete. The disease is a complex area that has several sides or is very multifaceted. I myself have only dealt with one side so far. Since many, it seems, are more familiar with the other side, I still ask that this aspect be supplemented and, above all, supported by studies. But in this context they don’t seem to use any scientific standards here on Wikipedia. For example, this edit was undone – it were peer-reviewed journals with an impact factor of 4.4 - 5.4! -- Brackenheim (talk) 08:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Just now found this. I am an interested party on MCS. I am the author of a heretical hypothesis about how MCS works which is irrelevant to Wikipedia. I have stated on the talk page that the article as written is not Wikipedia:Neutral point of view because it is designed to leave a reader with the impression that MCS is always psychological. That was the PR message of the chemical industry litigation defense effort 25 years ago, and the choice has been made not to balance it against reports of the experience of people with MCS, such as Claudia Miller et al's TILT work and Ann Steinemann's work. I have in the broader MCS community for over 5 years defended the presence of this one sided presentation of MCS in the Wikipedia article as "the Wikipedia editors are doing what they're supposed to do" "peer reviewed science literature is the definition of fact for Wikipedia and it is not allowed to put opinion on a page" and "we just have to focus on getting peer reviewed science literature before anything will change".
As best I can tell, as a neophyte editor, the only reason for this lack of balance is that MCS as a whole is viewed as fringe, which is a very good reason for Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to not apply. How can I find out if there is a consensus to this effect?
Lastly, it is my opinion based on the facts I have that Silliestchris was not acting as WP:SPA before he was banned, but rather as an interested party trying to correct what he knew to be errors of fact in the page, without a real understanding of how encyclopedia editing works.
Fstevenchalmers (talk) 04:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
It is then possible that you have a conflict of interest (WP:COI) in relation to the article (if so, per policy that should be made clear). Fringe topics are subject to WP policy including WP:FRINGE, WP:FRIND, WP:PSCI and in this case since it also touches medical topics, the WP:MEDRS guideline for reliable sources about biomedical claims. As far as I know, the scientific consensus is that when it is not misdiagnosed (usually self-diagnosed and a proper diagnosis would show an actual pollutant or poisoning if relevant), it is considered a type of anxiety about potential pollutants in the environment. That studies have demonstrated that sufferers could display stress symptoms in the absence of actual chemical stimuli, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 06:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you for engaging, Paleoneonate. I have reviewed the COI criteria and believe that I am an interested party, not COI, so long as I do nothing to advocate my heretical hypothesis here, which would be utterly inappropriate. To elaborate, I am a retired computer designer, with no path to profit personally or professionally in this context. I am much more the parents in "Lorenzo's Oil" style, noting that my kids grew up and Lorenzo didn't, and they found a cure and I didn't.
Thank you for the policy pointers. It was utterly foreign to me that secondary sources would be preferred over primary. This is starting to help me understand how sourcing on a medical topic is different. This means the survey paper out of Italy a few years ago is very important, but the more recent primary sources will not be given weight. Interesting.
I have a much wider range of information, but with less academic rigor, than you do and believe (1) there is no consensus (2) special interests continue to drive an illusion of consensus for their own purposes (3) the actual definition of MCS best used is probably the 1999 consensus as published (4) there is no operational definition of MCS in mainstream medicine and doctors are strongly discouraged from diagnosing it except as mental illness
That means MCS is a disability which the medical profession has been strongly discouraged from accepting, understanding, researching, or trying to treat. I cannot figure out how to apply the policies correctly in these circumstances.
Are you willing to spend a few more minutes reading a few paragraphs of non-rigorous background (which will help you understand why people with MCS are so apoplectic about the article as it's stood for over a decade) and help me think through what are appropriate and inappropriate ways to approach evolving the article? Thank you, just for reading this, even if not.
Fstevenchalmers (talk) 09:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
It is not Wikipedia's job to placate "apoplectic" advocates, but neutrally to reflect accepted knowledge as (generally) published in reliable, independent, third party-sources. So far as I can see, these say that over the years there have been been multiple proposed causes for MCS, with the evidence strongly pointing to it being unrelated to any direct "chemical" effect. The problem we seem to have is editors with an avowed agenda, and an apparent wish to stigmatize mental health problems as somehow "not real", who want to skew the article so it falsely appears that everybody agrees that "chemicals" directly cause MCS. This is over-layered with conspiracy theories about how the Truth™ is being suppressed by shadowy organizations and by a cabal of Wikipedia editors. Meanwhile, sourcing has always been thin and even the small bubble of interest around the turn of the century seems to have deflated. There is a decent overview from Science-Based Medicine[31] which is at least from this century. Alexbrn (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I see you're a skeptic, Alexbrn
Sounds like you've been burned by advocates in the past
I think reference [30] in the article, the 2017 Rossi and Pitidis survey paper on MCS, is a far more credible and objective source of information than an anti alternative medicine site.
The job of Wikipedia editors is to see to it that articles are fact based, well sourced, neutral, etc. I want nothing else. There is no cabal of Wikipedia editors. There are no shadowy organizations. Everything is "just business".
The agenda of Ron Gots, the primary author of source #4, at the time source #4 was written, was heading the Washington DC organization ESRI, which was funded by the chemical industry to advance its litigation defense effort by creating consensus that MCS is always psychological, so that the chemical industry could go to court with expert witnesses who said MCS was psychological, and that expert witnesses who said it was real were excluded under the rules of evidence as "fringe". That source would not be considered credible by a truly neutral and knowledgeable editor.
The emotional appeal in your post above reflects exactly the PR message Ron Gots placed in media, in policymakers' ears, in grant funders' ears, and yes, in the science literature of that era. He was successful. I do not understand why a neutral Wikipedia editor would support a special interest position like that with such vehemence.
MCS is not hard. Claudia Miller explains it as TILT more clearly than she explained it in "Chemical Exposures: Low Levels and High Stakes" so many years ago. In my words not hers, person gets poisoned, person wakes up unable to fully function (or function at all) in the presence of multiple everyday substances seemingly unrelated to the original poisoning. Person goes to medical profession for help, but is met with a blank wall because the medical profession has been told that this can't occur so they shouldn't try to help. Person ends up partially or fully disabled, but the social safety net is denied. The thing which poisoned the person can originate in nature or be manmade, but if it's manmade the people who made it have complete immunity from product liability suits. Which was the point of Gots' work. It was "just business" in the rough and tumble world of Washington DC advocacy.
I have to live with the science literature distorted by selective funding and PR framing the problem and therefore framing the research in a non fact based way from that era. Wikipedia editors' role is to treat quality peer reviewed science literature as the gold standard, and facts not present in that literature as nonexistent (premature to include in an encyclopedia). So the gold standard literature from that era will continue to dictate what Wikipedia writes. I get that. I have to live with it.
Happy to discuss this in a setting where we will not disturb others. I post under my real name and have nothing to hide.
Fstevenchalmers (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Wikipedia is always under threat of being "burned by advocates", on this and countless other topics. The fact that people with MCS have been preyed upon by altmed charlatans is an important part of the topic, no? Unsourced conspiracism about somebody called "Ron Gots" (crazy name? crazy guy?) looks like part of the advocacy problem. Alexbrn (talk) 12:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
For reference, I looked up Ron Gots and found a couple links about him. On Sourcewatch and on ICTM, which seems to be his company.VdSV9•♫ 13:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I haven't looked for sources, but I think there's a chance that he'd be notable. I don't think we have a category similar to Category:HIV/AIDS denialists for scientists who claim Passive smoking isn't harmful, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Gots is the primary author of source #4 in the published article, cited in the introduction, Alexbrn. There is a contemporary source for the what I describe in a 2001 article, but it's not in a journal of any respect at all.
Environmental medicine can actually help maybe half the people who get MCS. But yes, it's expensive. I don't patronize them. Discussing them is irrelevant to the task at hand, which is editing a neutral voice Wikipedia article on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.
There is no conspiracy here, it's just business.
Fstevenchalmers (talk) 13:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
You seem to be confused about what neutrality means on Wikipedia. It does not mean that the article should take no stand on factual questions at all (that is, it does not mean a balance between opposing views), it means that the tone of the article should match the preponderance of sources. In this case, since most reliable sources take the position that MCS has a psychological basis, so too will the Wikipedia article. - MrOllie (talk) 13:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you for coaching, and yes I am a neophyte. But in this case I have studied the policy in depth. It is and remains my judgment that the balance of the article leaves a reader new to the topic with the perception that MCS is always psychological, which is appropriate to the balance of the literature 10 years ago but not to the balance of the literature over the last 5 years. The best example I have is source [30] in the article as published today, where the conclusion of a very thorough lit review is written leaving both physical and psychological (or both) in a balance inconsistent with that of the Wikipedia MCS article as written today. Open to coaching. Fstevenchalmers (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Please share the direct link to the recent, high quality, secondary source you feel isn't being taken into account. Without one there's nothing to really change in the article. I'd also suggest you read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Your quarrel seems to be with the medical establishment. Change their views, and those of Wikipedia will follow, not vice versa. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Bakkster Man I believe the conclusion of the 2018 survey paper by Rossi and Pitidis "Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: Review of the State of the Art in Epidemiology, Diagnosis, and Future Perspectives which is reference 25 on the MCS article is a fair and balanced presentation (might be psychological, might be physical, might be some of both, let the workers avoid). My belief is that a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view article on MCS would have that balance, not the balance of the article we have which leaves a new observer with the perception that MCS is always psychological. I am here on this page trying to learn if there is a consensus that MCS as a whole is fringe in the community, which would justify the current tone, but as yet have found no such consensus. I brought that paper to a relevant Talk page in 2019. So I am proceeding, cautiously, on the assumption that the current balance of the article reflects the science consensus at some point prior to the publication of that paper, and that I still have a lot to learn. Fstevenchalmers (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@MrOllie and @Bakkster Man, if our article appears to say that MCS is psychological in nature, then I suggest that the source not being used adequately is the medical school textbook (ISBN 978-0-07-180816-3) that is already cited more than any other source in the article. Perhaps what we need is to remove outdated sources that contradict the current mainstream viewpoint. We can generally rely upon medical school textbooks to represent the current mainstream medical viewpoint, and that one in particular made Doody's list as a "Core Title", which means it is one of the best medical textbooks.
If you're interested in the question of etiology, it would be useful to have a solid history in the article of all the purported causes. There was a new claim of its cause about every 15 years (just like there have been multiple claims about what causes influenza over time – you may be aware that its name is a reference to an early belief that influenza was caused by astrology). Perhaps if people can see that the cause has blamed on whatever is trendy in science (allergies when allergies were a new concept, immune system dysfunction when AIDS was in the news, etc.), then they might have an easier time grasping that we actually don't know what causes this, that we're just testing ideas to see if any of them work, and that our incomplete information doesn't mean that it's not "real" – just like influenza, when we were completely wrong, multiple times, about its cause. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The recent Quebec report mentioned hereabout[32] has a run down of all the hypotheses over time, so should be useful for this. Alexbrn (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Fstevenchalmers: I have reviewed the COI criteria and believe that I am an interested party, not COI, so long as I do nothing to advocate my heretical hypothesis here, which would be utterly inappropriate. I'd recommend you reread WP:COI, most notably: Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgement about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith... Editors with a COI are sometimes unaware of whether or how much it has influenced their editing. Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. In other words, it's not wrong or bad or a judgment on you if you have a potential COI. Only that it's worth recognizing (and disclosing) if one exists. And, whether or not your outside writings rise to the level of COI, it's worth asking yourself whether you can set aside that personal belief in order to build a neutral encyclopedia. Especially if it means working to the contrary of your personal beliefs. While it doesn't appear you're exhibiting any off the behaviors of WP:NOTHERE, that's the broad concern others have in these kinds of situations (which, as I'm sure you'll believe, we've seen repeated many times before). Bakkster Man (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Bakkster Man Thank you for taking time to coach this neophyte. The reason I keep disclosing my interest in this topic, once in each conversation, is so that the other editors in the conversation can form their own opinions. I am very very concerned about any appearance that I am promoting my heretical hypothesis, the discussion of which has no place anywhere near Wikipedia. After over 5 years paying attention to this page, and two years since appearing in talk, I am still very much learning what it means to correctly edit an encyclopedia, and in particular edit an encyclopedia around a contentious topic. I welcome your coaching, and in particular if you see I need to tweak disclosure up or down I'm all ears. I also have to pay close attention to RGW, since I have that role in a very focused way out in the real world. But that attitude is counterproductive here at Wikipedia, and you don't know how many people I've coached out on social media that it is not appropriate to just come edit the page with their opinions, but rather to stop and listen and learn and understand the rules before even considering making even the smallest edit. Again, thank you for your coaching. Fstevenchalmers (talk) 10:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Fstevenchalmers: Your efforts to keep things WP:PAG-based are appreciated. What is always good to bear in mind for topics in which one is interested, is that Wikipedia is only meant to be a dumb summary of the views expressed in the WP:BESTSOURCES, as decided by its own criteria. Thus, if ones disagrees with those sources, one will also disagree with Wikipedia. I find editing is always at its most interesting when editing "against the grain" of ones own bias. Alexbrn (talk) 11:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Side note: There has been a big shift in mainstream medical views of Multiple chemical sensitivity during the last five years or so. If your mental model is still stuck in "In the previous century, Ronald Gots said it wasn't real", then I encourage to you find some recent sources, such as medical textbooks. There is some reason now to believe that MCS is primarily a neurological condition (not psychological – think "physical brain damage") that manifests in autonomic dysregulation. It's still not necessarily caused by any of the previously alleged causes, but the science has moved on from "it's not real". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
If I have understood it correctly, the problem is that I used Huber’s book too often as a source for the pathomechanism (draft: User:Brackenheim/MCS). If I now find other primary sources or studies for his statements and insert them as sources, it should fit. I’m right? -- Brackenheim (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The article must be based on secondary sources. It's in a mess overall, but should really be updated with sources preferably from the last 5 years for anything bio/medical, such as pmid:29111991. Alexbrn (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Brackenheim, Huber's book is too old (2008 = 13 years old) and from a somewhat disreputable publisher. I think you should consider using other sources. A review article from a reputable journal could be a good source. Alex has linked one here from a reputable journal. One approach that can be helpful as a starting point is finding a good source and seeing how much of what you've already written could be cited to that better source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I know that the book is unfortunately quite old, but the fundamentals of the pathomechanism are the same today. My plan was first to bring the basics of the disease up to the state of 2008 and then gradually supplement it with newer findings. However, I can understand the point of criticism well and will try to find newer evidence and gradually remove Huber’s book as a source. Of course, everyone is welcome to help me with this. Since MCS is not the focus of research, this might not be that easy - but it is certainly feasible. -- Brackenheim (talk) 05:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I don't think the Huber source is usable at all. But (as mentioned on the MCS Talk) page, we're in luck! A June 2021 comprehensive review has been published[33] by the Institut national de santé publique du Québec. This should be a good basis for reforming the article. (I haven't read it yet, and will need to brush off my French). Alexbrn (talk) 07:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Alex, I started reading in French, then realised that there is an English version too!! -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 07:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Its key point: all is consistent with symptoms resulting from chronic anxiety and the conclusion invalidates the hypothesis that the toxicity of chemicals at their normal levels is the cause. Yet it remains a serious health issue considering the debilitating symptoms and supportive treatment/medical support is recommended. —PaleoNeonate – 08:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Hmm, I read the same short source (in English), and I didn't see anything that says the symptoms results from chronic anxiety. Consider this bullet point:
  • Over the long term, the nearly unavoidable recurrence of these acute stress episodes in these individuals leads them to develop neuroinflammation, oxidative stress, and, inevitably, chronic anxiety.
Does that sound to you like "MCS is caused by chronic anxiety"? It sounds to me like this sentence says "repeated acute stress episodes causes chronic anxiety".
(For clarity: I read the bullet points on the initial webpage, not the four-page PDF, which I'll get back to later.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
If I understand the complex physical symptoms are assessed to derive from anxiety and over time resulting oxydative damage could result in the chronic form ("cascade of reactions triggers and perpetuates biological changes in the normal functioning of the individuals’ immune, endocrine, and nervous systems", "the observed alterations explain the chronic and polysymptomatic experience reported by those suffering from MCS"), but it's my layman's understanding of a short summary. My "consistent with anxiety" is also derived from it ("Chronic anxiety helps explain all of the symptoms of SCM syndrome", "rebut the hypothesis that there is a relationship between MCS and the toxicity of chemicals present at normal concentrations")... Also interesting is how odors can trigger episodes for many, they also stress that it's an actual condition with potentially serious symptoms, recommend treatment etc. —PaleoNeonate – 21:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@PaleoNeonate, I don't think you've got it quite right. If we look at the simplified disease model:
  • Cause → disease → symptom → secondary symptoms
then we would get statements like these:
  • Smoking → lung cancer → chronic cough → soreness
  • Virus → chickenpox → fever and rash → itching and scratching
The relevant statement for MCS, according to this source, is approximately this:
  • Unknown → MCS → chronic anxiety → symptoms of anxiety
The question is what causes that "cascade of reactions" that produces "the observed alterations"? It doesn't cause itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I see what you mean... if trying to fit in this model from the summary I have the impression that it means (1) anxiety -> interpretations and symptoms -> goto 1; or neurology/genetic anxiety disorder -> interpretations and symptoms, etc... (considering that there appears to be a frequency/family relationship with some anxiety disorders and neurology is taken in consideration, I remember you also mentioned neurology). From the summary's introduction I also see (my own translation): "Since the 2000s, advances in neuroscience, bio parameter measurement and functional cerebral imagery, helped to better understand physiopathological mechanisms of SCM. These confirm that the psychological is indissociable from the biological and the social." Then another part describes how severe anxiety (persistant concern and danger anticipation) affects neurotransmitters, the prefontal cortex, can cause potential neuroinflammation with time, immunological and other body effects. For susceptibility, it remains vague mentioning possible factors like personality temperament, personal antecedents, psychosocial factors... But I can't really see a precise claim about an initial causal neurological condition there (I could try to check all mentions of "neuro" in the longer document). —PaleoNeonate – 21:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
There isn't a precise claim about an initial cause because nobody knows what it is. There are a few hypotheses being tried out (e.g., brain damage caused by chemical exposure vs by physical trauma – one of the famous index cases was a man who was injured during an industrial chemical explosion, which has the possibility of at least neurotoxic chemical exposure, traumatic brain injury, and PTSD in one event). However, beyond an agreement that it is multifactorial, nobody knows what the cause is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
agree w/ WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I didn't reply yet as I had nothing to object, it seems that other than anxiety there's no well understood cause, —PaleoNeonate – 19:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
That's not accurate. It's not true that "other than anxiety there no well understood cause". What's true is that there is no known cause, full stop. Anxiety is not the cause. People do not start off being anxious and end up with MCS symptoms. They first start off being normal, then get some stressful symptoms, and last develop chronic anxiety. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Wolfgang Huber‎[edit]

Related to the above, I notice there have been repeated attempts to cite this gentleman's (likely non-WP:MEDRS) work in the MCS article, and the above article was created last month, with a high proportion of unsourced biographical detail. Is Huber notable? Alexbrn (talk) 03:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Yes, see WP:BIO. -- Brackenheim (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Which makes me think no. A minor academic failing WP:PROF surely? And (as creator of the article) could you say how the unsourced material got there? (Like, when he finished his studies?) Is there a WP:COI here? Alexbrn (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times; or" (WP:BIO):  Yes
  • "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." (WP:PROF):  Yes
  • "The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association [...] or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor [...]" (WP:PROF):  Yes
  • "The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon." (WP:PROF):  Yes -- Brackenheim (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
If you don't think so, feel free to start a deletion discussion. -- Brackenheim (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
No evidence any of these are so. And you didn't answer about WP:COI. Alexbrn (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Well, that’s very simple: Huber does not belong to family, friends, customers (nor am I his), is not my employer, and there are no financial or other relationships. I didn’t even study in Heidelberg.
How did I find him? I was looking for special immunological tests (BDT and LTT). I found some Information about him during a presentation in a special immunological laboratory in Berlin. I’ve listened to a few of his lectures and found his work very interesting. Since he didn’t have a Wikipedia article yet, I contacted him and asked for information about him/his life. Since he is a bit older, he sent me a nice letter with the requested documents. So he got the article and I got the info.
I also found out about the MCS through the laboratory. I think the disease really exciting because it is very extensive and multifaceted. So I once decided to expand the associated articles over the next few years. For this I received his book from Mr. Huber, payed by WMDE, which summarizes the previous studies. I supplemented this with further studies. There are of course many more, but it takes time to work your way through.
And what about you? You seem to have a downright personal interest in the fact that none of these studies appear in Wikipedia. Are you really sure you are not biased? -- Brackenheim (talk) 15:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Right, so this was your fan page for him based largely on private correspondence added without heed for WP:V, a core policy. Since you ask, I do have a bias against inclusion of unreliable and unverified material in Wikipedia. It still seems Huber is not notable, and your assertion that (e.g.) he holds a "named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment" is still unevidenced. Alexbrn (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Fan page? For real? Sure, and everyone who wrote about Adolf Hitler is sure to be a Nazi. Otherwise one would certainly not write about him ...
What kind of sources would you like then? You do not accept studies or other primary sources, newspapers, databases and books. Then what kind of sources should I search for? -- Brackenheim (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
It's all gone a bit Godwin. Sources should be reliable and content should meet WP:V at a minimum. We can't just have WP:BLPs with completely unsourced content, nor can we base notability on apparently false assertions about holding a "named chair or distinguished professor appointment". What is going on here? Alexbrn (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@Alexbrn, you blanked a fairly large part of that article, and I think that the line in WP:CHALLENGE might have some relevant advice:

"Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[1] When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source and the material therefore may not be verifiable.[2] If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it."

  1. ^ It may be that the article contains so few citations it is impractical to add specific citation needed tags. Consider then tagging a section with {{unreferenced section}}, or the article with the applicable of either {{unreferenced}} or {{more citations needed}}. For a disputed category or on a disambiguation page, consider asking for a citation on the talk page.
  2. ^ When tagging or removing such material, please keep in mind such edits can easily be misunderstood. Some editors object to others' making chronic, frequent, and large-scale deletions of unsourced information, especially if unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material. Do not concentrate only on material of a particular point of view, as that may appear to be a contravention of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Also check to see whether the material is sourced to a citation elsewhere on the page. For all these reasons, it is advisable to communicate clearly that you have a considered reason to believe the material in question cannot be verified.

It seems to me that it would be easy for an editor to misunderstand your blanking as indicating "chronic, frequent, and large-scale deletions" that are "unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material" while you "concentrate only on material of a particular point of view".

Also, do you actually have any rational "concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source" for all of what you blanked? Most of what you removed was basic education and work history, such as where he went to medical school. That's not usually at high risk for being unverifiable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@WhatamIdoing: Given that I'm drawing a blank looking for sources on Huber, it looks like verifiability could be a problem. I notice BTW, this appears to be a translation of the article on German Wikipedia (also lacking sources). Alexbrn (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Did you try looking at the website in ==External links==? It is absolutely standard for such basic information to be taken from self-published, non-independent sources, especially for articles about academics. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I glanced at it but did not consider an archived copy of what looked like personal pages to be great. I see now it links off to an archived cv - but using such sources for a fairly large part of the article could be problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I might think that relying on self-published, non-independent sources for such content is problematic, but I assure you that repeated discussions about WP:NPROF have convinced me that other editors believe entire BLP articles can and should be sourced exclusively to such material. I therefore cannot say that there is any consensus for claiming that such a source is unreliable for such uncontentious material. You might self-revert (if you haven't already) and spam in a few {{citation needed}} tags. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Hmmm, for this kind of stuff there comes a point where WP:BLPSELFPUB#5 would come into play, which is hard policy. Alexbrn (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
A good deal of articles about modern academics simply do not comply with that rule. Look at the sources in an article such as John Armour or Andrew Murray (physiologist) or Keith Ward. These are all in Category:Fellows of Trinity Hall, Cambridge; if any deserving academic could attract attention from independent sources, it's folks like these. And yet most of the sources are self-published and non-independent, especially if you look at the sources for statements about the person (e.g., schools attended and positions held). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
In which case it might not just be the sources but the actual practice of allowing such articles to stand on such poor sources which is problematic. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Well, we're veering off-topic but much of Wikipedia is non-encyclopedic and should be deleted, either because it's too low-level (factoids) or too thoughtful (ersatz secondary source syndrome). But it's mostly harmless so who cares. The exception is medical misinformation, where Wikipedia's place in the world is A Problem To Be Managed. Alexbrn (talk) 03:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The community's everyday practice is its most effective and true expression of its policies. If what you write on a page that says "policy" at the top isn't what experienced are doing, your policy is no different from the tax levies issued on purple vellum with gold ink during the late Roman empire: all show and no substance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Sound like an argument for socking and UPE Face-smile.svg Alexbrn (talk) 15:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Nah, with socking and COIs we at least claim to be upset about it when we discover it. In the PROF case, we have experienced editors insisting that self-published, COI-ridden sources are actually an appropriate way to handle the subject area (because the practical alternative is no article, and nearly all principles must give way rather than having no separate article). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Alexbrn: No problem, I’ll find the necessary sources and add them. My question about the sources you didn’t accept (primary sources, newspapers, databases and books) also referred to the section above on MCS. You had undone my edit as „fringe“, even though I had provided the section with a source. A review in the AFP should actually be citable ... -- Brackenheim (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
It's a very old source (1998) but the biggest problem was that it was misrepresented to imply this was a list of chemical causing MCS, when the source itself made clear it was more the belief of exposure to such chemicals which was to blame. Copying large parts of unsuitable-licensed sources into Wikipedia is also not a good idea. Alexbrn (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Okay, you are right. I missed that. However, it would have helped me more if you had corrected that in the text directly.
Of course it is clear to me that you can’t just copy and paste large sections of text into Wikipedia. According to German law, however, such a simple list does not have a height of creation ("Schöpfungshöhe") and I tacitly assumed that this is the same on en.wiki. -- Brackenheim (talk) 06:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
He looks about 5ft 11inches to me. WP:CIR. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 18:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
AIUI simple lists are not protected as copyrightable under US law, either. I don't know whether this list would have been considered "simple".
However, I suspect that Alex's concern is that the list was provided with an unclear title ("the following chemicals can precipitate symptoms"). I believe he is concerned that someone might misunderstand "can precipitate symptoms" as meaning "is the original pathophysiological cause of MCS". The case is closer to "Once you already have MCS, then those stinky dryer sheets could trigger problems" WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I had many concerns, and put them all in the edit summary[34] "Undue/copyvio & outdated/fringe". Maybe this was too cryptic? But it would have been better for Brackenheim to have engaged with it rather than mashing the revert key. Alexbrn (talk) 03:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Tall el-Hammam and Steven Collins (archaeologist)[edit]

Article uses the Creationist archaeologist Collins as a main source, describing him as a professor at two universities (although further down it mentions that one of them is Creationist). It also mentions the claims discussed above of a Tonguska event. I'm generally unhappy with using sources so recent that haven't yet been discussed in the professional literature. Doug Weller talk 11:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

See #Sodom and Gomorrah. jps (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@ජපස: that's what I meant as "the claims discussed above". Doug Weller talk 13:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Gotcha. Sorry if I came across as well-actuallying. jps (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
No problem. Doug Weller talk 14:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
As someone who watched a LOT of Discovery Channel in the 90's, I can assure you both that this is totally, completely, and 100% legit. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Dumuzid: Collins is a Creationist and a literalist. He's constrained in his analyses by his religious beliefs, thus he is not a reliable source. We need clearly reliable secondary sources. Doug Weller talk 15:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I thought my Discovery Channel reference would make my intent clear, but alas I forget that such views actually exist. Suffice it to say my tongue was firmly planted in my cheek for that comment. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Dumuzid: thanks, that's a real relief. I was wondering what had happened to you! Doug Weller talk 15:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Collins (archaeologist). XOR'easter (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Changed the wikilink in the heading. Different Steven Collins. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Fun new AfD for you to consider:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trinity Southwest University.

jps (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I have been thinking about this issue and it seems to me that what we have here is a WP:SENSATION situation. Does this warrant an article about the controversy? I would say so. Something like Controversial archaeological claims about Tall el-Hamman. You know, not that, but that. This would remove some of the problems of writing articles about obscure unaccredited universities or shoehorning fringe material into mainstream articles. jps (talk) 15:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

That sounds like a reasonable idea. I'm not sure what the best title would be for it, though. XOR'easter (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Honestly jps, I've been on that page for a while, but you keep nominating the potential dump-articles for deletion :)
During all of this I learned that the first archaeologist to properly look at Tell el-Hammam was Alexis Mallon, almost a century ago. He excavated another site (Teleilat el Ghassul) that by coincidence was also touted as Sodom by popular media. And ironically, despite being a Jesuit priest, he thought this was rubbish, and generally didn't hold with "bible and spade" type research.
Anyway, it made me realise that there's actually quite a long history of dubious claims to have found Sodom/Gomorrah. So maybe the article you're talking about could be Historicity of Sodom and Gomorrah (or just Sodom and Gomorrah#Historicity). – Joe (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
That also makes sense. XOR'easter (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
[Edit Conflict] I quite like this idea; no offense to jps, but I haven't seen enough coverage of the controversy qua controversy to make me think an article would be appropriate, but I am also wrong and don't read every last bit of news. But a history of claims sounds promising to me. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
No offense taken! I also hate "controversy" articles. I think Joe's is an excellent idea. And I see that most of the citations that people want to use mention this claim explicitly, so let's just push everything there. Fantastic! jps (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Chiropractic[edit]

Someone wants to happily promote bogus treatments in a Wikipedia article by removing the risks of death and stroke from it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Which edit is the concern? I am not seeing any recent edits that reflect your statement? Slywriter (talk) 03:54, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Seems to be some WP:PROFRINGE manoeuvring on the article's Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 03:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Brigham Young University[edit]

Brigham Young University is about to be stricken by a new wave of fideism. What do you think about [35]? tgeorgescu (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

So this "retrenchment" is being called for by Jeffrey Holland and others, and Holland is a Mormon big shot? Seems like a fine addition to me. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Why did you add "a new wave of fideism is preparing to wreak havoc at the university"? Was that a quote from somewhere? I think the way you had it before that was better without that additional bit. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
It's not verbatim inside the text, but, yes, that's what the text says BYU professors expect to be happening soon. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Okay. For what it's worth, I think without quotation marks, it might look like Wikipedia's voice is saying "preparing to wreak havoc", which isn't quite right, don't you think? I'll watch the page and defend the original addition, though. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The article describes that havoc has been produced two times before by similar fideism waves, but it was short-lived. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The edit in question is more about a characteristic type of bad writing in WP than it is about the subject matter. I'm hard-nosed about WP:NOTNEWS and therefore tend to oppose writing about ongoing events until the dust has had a chance to settle, but at any rate, in a section that's supposed to be a summary of the issue over time, news-reporting a SLT article isn't appropriate. It lacks context and strictly speaking, we would be looking for a third party reporting on the article's publication. In the context of the statement, the article is a primary source. There's also an element of WP:CRYSTAL going on when this new fideism hasn't happened yet.
The section as a whole could probably do with some rewriting, but just plunking this statement in is not a good approach. Mangoe (talk) 01:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
My impression is that if it's kept some details should be restored like evolution, race, LGBT; as someone who isn't very familiar with Mormon culture I otherwise find the paragraph unclear. On the other hand, considering that the source is itself a Mormon-focused publication, I agree that it appears to be a primary source. It potentially could still be used, but more independent sources would indeed be ideal. —PaleoNeonate – 01:31, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
As Bible scholars say, the criterion of embarrassment points that the source is particularly reliable (since it reports against its vested interests). tgeorgescu (talk) 08:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that while Deseret News is under editorial control of the LDS church, Salt Lake Tribune, though owned by big-names in Mormonism, has (relative) editorial independence. jps (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

When I read the source I noticed that they also attribute their points, meaning that the claims are not primarily theirs, and it's not polemical, other than the possible affiliations (ex-Mormons?) I didn't find obvious problems with the text. —PaleoNeonate – 21:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

FLCCC - another one for your watchlist[edit]

Another article about COVID quacks, now approaching 1000/views day as the World continues to go crazy, and also attracting drive-by disruption. Like other similar articles probably needs some form of protection. Alexbrn (talk) 12:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@Alexbrn: Thanks for notifying. I've taken care of the latest batch, and asked at RfPP. Feel free to report again if there's further silliness. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Yosef Ben-Jochannan[edit]

Eyes needed for event edits. Doug Weller talk 17:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

DISC assessment (again)[edit]

DISC assessment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) It looks like editors associated with the vendor of this pseudoscientific psychological assessment model have been making this article increasingly promotional. I've attempted to cut back some of the advertising content and put the fact that it is pseudoscientific up front. I would appreciate extra eyes on this article. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Somatic experiencing[edit]

Has seen significant expansion in recent months and seems distinctly WP:PROFRINGE. May need attention. Alexbrn (talk) 16:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

"Mainstream Science on Intelligence"[edit]

In response to points raised by Sesquivalent, I've tried to improve the lead of the article "Mainstream Science on Intelligence", which describes a 1994 letter published in the Wall Street Journal defending the controversial book The Bell Curve. More eyes on this would perhaps be helpful. Generalrelative (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Why not post a link to the actual points raised?
The more eyes the better, but I am curious what the relevance of FTN is here. On the one hand that page is already extensively monitored by race and intelligence guardsmen familiar with the whole story and context of the Gottfredson letter and associated sources. On the other, the letter itself has never had the odor of fringe (in 2009 Steven Pinker called it literally "the mainstream" in the New York Times) and it seems that all your edits are trying to tar it as fringe-by-iterated-association with a liberal dose of SYNTH. That's far beyond any Wikipedia RfC's, however those may be interpreted. Sesquivalent (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
This is an article about a controversial letter published in support of a well known WP:PROFRINGE book, so its relevance to this noticeboard should be clear. You are of course free to cite Pinker in the "Response and criticism" section, and to point out any instances of WP:SYNTH that you've found. But characterizing what you believe my edits are trying to do will get you nowhere. Just imagine if the same standard were applied to you. Generalrelative (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Obviously, we can all discuss particular edits over at the article Talk page, regardless of whether or not this is FTN related. However, "defending ... The Bell Curve" and "in support of PROFRINGE" (and thus a link to FTN) are assumptions, or SYNTH. It's a not-uncommon claim, but the letter and Gottfredson's article on this say different, and (even excluding all 20 Pioneer Fund affiliates) the lion's share of respondents who expressed an opinion on the content of the letter agreed with it, which seems hard to arrange for a fringe position. There is at least as much evidence that the motivation for the author and most of those who agreed with her had to do not with embracing Murray and Herrnstein but frantically separating psychometrics and its funding from the scourge of public association with that one famous sentence in the Bell Curve. Much like the population geneticists after Nicholas Wade's book. (Pinker reference is https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/books/review/Letters-t-LETSGOTOTHET_LETTERS.html ) Sesquivalent (talk) 22:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
"defending ... The Bell Curve" and "in support of PROFRINGE" (and thus a link to FTN) are assumptions, or SYNTH. Goodness no. I've even supplied a couple of sources to support the existing language in the article's first paragraph, which state explicitly that the letter in question was a defense of The Bell Curve. One is a scientific journal: [36]. And please note that SYNTH is something we're not permitted to do in article text. Of course we're meant to use our capacity for putting 2 and 2 together when discussing what belongs in articles and how to apply guidelines like WP:FRINGE. I hope that clears things up.
And thanks by the way for the link to the exchange between Gladwell and Pinker. I'm not a huge Gladwell fan but it was fun to see him get the better of a Harvard prof, whom he clearly caught out relying on garbage sources. It should be abundantly clear, however, that that passing and rhetorical mention doesn't count for much as far as sourcing goes. Especially when compared with the litany of criticism discussed in the "Response and criticism" section of the article. Generalrelative (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Yes, SYNTH is fine on talk pages -- I've posted the same remark myself several times recently. I was using the Wikipedia term of art in a less formal sense to mean that the idea Gottfredson and supporters (again, excluding the 20 Pioneers) were defending the Bell Curve, rather than trying to avoid fallout from it, is something for which there is as much negative as positive evidence, and AFAIK no direct evidence to contradict Gottfredson's account, so is being constructed from speculation at various points. I cannot access the JSTOR link at the moment but (as I said) the existence of sources that merely call the letter a defense of the Bell Curve is not in question. The issue is whether that is likely to actually have been the reason. [Update: no, that journal article does not say the letter is a defense of the Bell Curve. Not literally, not in substance, no indication whether the author thinks so. Merely "supportive" if all commentaries are dichotomized into supportive or critical.]
The Pinker link, which comes from his bio page here, is provided for local comic relief. I haven't thought about it in connection with the article proper. Their exchange immortalized the unfortunate term "Igon Value" in online STEM and quant circles. Sesquivalent (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
no, that journal article does not say the letter is a defense of the Bell Curve. What?? Just like in the above discussion of Ann Coulter, you are advancing a distinction without a difference. The McInerney article is very clear about what is meant by "commentaries that are supportive". No one who has read the article could possibly interpret it otherwise. Saying no indication whether the author thinks so. Merely "supportive" if all commentaries are dichotomized into supportive or critical is utterly baffling since the author explicitly discusses Gottfredson's letter as a defense of both the The Bell Curve's evidentiary basis (p.85) and its pretension to inform public policy (p.91), and in the latter discussion holds it up as a paradigmatic example. But in any case, it's immaterial whether you agree on this since you've conceded that there are numerous other sources we can use which say the same thing. So let's both move on to other things now. You can go on doubting whether Gottfredson and her co-signers meant to defend The Bell Curve, and we will continue to abide by what reliable secondary sources say. Generalrelative (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Telling people what they can go do, and speaking in the majestic plural --- are those recommendations from MOS or something? I must have forgotten.
Searching the paper for all appearances of "Gottfredson", "Mainstream" and "1994b" gives an exhaustive idea of what the McInerney article says about this, which does not much resemble what you are saying. I am sure Murray was happy to read the Wall Street Journal the day the letter appeared but that is neither here nor there. (Come to think of it, even that might not be true. The letter could be seen as hanging him out to dry on the critical point of genetic differences, by showing that even right-wing psychologists were not willing to go as far as he and Herrnstein did.) You seem to have deduced some of this yourself though a few hours too late to modulate your tone above. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence&type=revision&diff=1047303881&oldid=1047302591 ).
In any case, you sent out the bat signal here and the effect over there was an edit ever so slightly in the direction I suggested on the talk page re Campbell. All good! Sesquivalent (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Just imagine if the same standard were applied to you. Using Steven Pinker as a touchstone is prima facie evidence of an ideological WP:POVPUSH in my opinion. jps (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Pinker is the quintessential example of an academic who is very careful to maintain his cultural and intellectual standing, and thus the last person to say something in the New York Times that would mark him as an outlier or give his enemies ammunition. So if he quotes from the Gottfredson letter that's a pretty good sign he sees no risk in treating it as mainstream or at least as a serious document. How does my thinking this and citing Pinker establish an ideology?
As to the standard, a well known guy around these parts cited NOFUCKINGNAZIS and threatened to have his admin friends eject me from the site (spoiler: that's not how the movie ended), GeneralRelative has at least twice vaguely hinted that I should be banned (spoiler: nobody took up the cause), and a certain Talk page buddy of his and yours has poured lots of similar passive-aggressive speculation and insinuations in my direction. So I don't have to imagine what it would be like, it's been a parade of vitriol from the day I posted on a talk page about their pet issues. Sesquivalent (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
If you think that because Pinker is IDW that's why he should be trusted, I think we're done here. Crow all you want. Accounts that adopt the self-satisfied and cynical right-wing rhetorical arguments of which you are fond do not last. jps (talk) 01:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
IDW?? Trusting Pinker??? Who mentioned that? I only think what I stated, that because Pinker is embedded in some very sweet high status gigs that he likes to keep, and because I have some other reasons to be confident in my suspicion that he works hard to stay respectable, him citing something isn't an indicator it's correct, but it is a great indicator that it's not fringe. All the more so when he riffs on it calling itself "the mainstream". Shoot First, Read Later doesn't work well online --- at least those IDW dorks preach epistemic humility. Sesquivalent (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
That's some pretty strong contortionist logic there. It is, at least, consistent with the alternative fact that Pinker or other "IDW dorks" are humble. jps (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Counterpoint: “Rationality is uncool,” he laments. It isn’t seen as “dope, phat, chill, fly, sick or da bomb.” As evidence for its diminished status, he quotes celebrations of nonsense by the Talking Heads and Zorba the Greek. (Pinker is also vexed by the line “Let’s go crazy,” which he says was “adjured” by “the Artist Formerly Known as Prince.”) [37]
In any case, the relevance of FTN is pretty obvious; editors familiar with racist pseudoscience and its history on Wikipedia hang out here, so this is a better place than most to solicit informed opinions. XOR'easter (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I don't know how much you follow the Racist Pseudoscience topics here, but the editors concerned with fighting that battle are already patrolling and in some cases strictly OWNing a large group of articles including the one in question. If you think of those articles as topically organized in concentric circles (like Dante's Hell) centered on race and intelligence, the difficulty of making an edit without approval from this group is inversely proportional to distance from the center. The same editors summon each other on their user talk pages and posting here looked (to me) like the same sort of bat signal. The effect of posting at FTN in such cases seems to be a few fresh eyes from the FTN crowd that might edit independently of the collective, but also a signal to the latter that enforcement is desired. Both happened here as far as I can tell. Either way I don't think the question was an empty one considering all this. Sesquivalent (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I've followed those topics for a good long while, and I don't think your assessment is accurate. Also, WP:AGF. XOR'easter (talk) 03:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I hope you're right, but: when I detailed the OWNership situation of R&I on its talk page in a discussion with the alleged OWNer and her supporters, nobody disputed it, including the 850 talk page watchers, and the only meek response was 3 of her talk page friends saying that (be the OWNership as it may) they like the resulting edits. One of those friends posted this thread and shortly afterward the alleged R&I OWNer went over to argue at the very article talk page discussion it points to. So I'm not exactly seeing the error of a model in which a clique of like-minded editors control edits on a large number of interrelated pages. And R&I isn't even the page where ownership is most apparent.
I do AGF and the comment on the effect of an FTN posting does not require any assumption about the motive for the post. Sesquivalent (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Pinker has his share of interesting work and controversial claims. Evolutionary psychology is not an easy field and some hypotheses are useful, others very tentative or contested. In any case, he's notable and because of that, secondary sources will often report about his ideas or positions. When so, it may be DUE on a case by case basis. Then on fringe topics there's WP:PARITY, where a lower standard is acceptable when it's to cite someone who reminds of the scientific consensus, or that a particular idea is either nonsense or has not gained traction... Then there's CONSENSUS. But how is it possible to really understand what the exact request is, when instead of concise suggestions what we read are confused rants? Why not attempt WP:BOLD and WP:BRD? —PaleoNeonate – 06:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
WP:BRD is broken on the patrolled pages. "R" is almost guaranteed for edits toward neutrality, so changes have to start from "D" at the talk page. Talk page discussions of such edits or proposed edits lead to a lot of... talk... but no change to the article, for the same reason BOLD editing does not work. The upshot is that not only does the process have to start from a talk page but the "D"iscussion needs to be structured as some sort of legal brief.
The thread at Talk:Mainstream Science on Intelligence that led to this FTN notice is one example, another is my recent post at Talk:Noah Carl. They don't look like "confused rants" to me, and caused a lot of edits on the articles, generally in the direction if not the extent that I suggested. Does that mean the system is working? Not exactly: for every slanted source or statement removed, several new ones are added on the occasion. The overall trend is therefore to skew the articles further, with the BRD and Talk pages serving as "fight harder" instructions to the POVFIGHTERS. Sesquivalent (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
"R" is almost guaranteed for edits toward neutrality This assumes that the "B" was "toward neutrality", which begs the question. Whether the changes were neutral is exactly what is to be discussed during the "D" part. It seems you want to skip the "R" and "D" parts because you already know which "D" result you would like. That is exactly the reason why we have BRD. It is not "broken". --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
"Neutrality" was correct. Like its sketchy cousin "consensus", NPOV is a relatively objective assessment of other people's expressed opinions and can be assessed independent of one's own views. Nor do the edit histories follow a Neutrality or a Consensus Maintenance pattern. Under either of those (in, e.g., the very commonly occurring case of a subject where views tend to fall along a left/right spectrum) there would be many successful edits that make small movements in both directions, that on the whole tend to cancel each other out POVwise, or maybe a slow drift over a period of years (Wikipedia swims slowly, but it only swims left), with the (N)POV enforced by a broad set of contributors. Under an OWNership and takeover model, one sees instead: a relatively fast phase transition in the article's POV within weeks when the group or individual takes over; motion almost exclusively in one direction, with exceptions of the "one step back, 3 steps forward" variety; a high proportion of reversions on edits in the other direction, always by the same watcher or two or three.
And while neutrality is in fact the right concept, if you replace "edits toward neutrality" by "edits directionally against the POV of the OWNers" then it is not subject to your objection and amounts to the same thing as a breakdown of WP:BRD. Maybe in some lucky cases the group controlling the page has a near neutral POV but that's not something to rely on and not what can be observed. Sesquivalent (talk) 09:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
WP:NPOV includes WP:GEVAL warning against there would be many successful edits that make small movements in both directions, that on the whole tend to cancel each other out POVwise [...] —PaleoNeonate – 19:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
PaleoNeonate, i think that is the wrong part of WP:PARITY you are looking at, and should focus on the first paragraph. The last thing the topic area needs is a lower standard of sourcing. Consider this discussion. Trying to use a minor paper from Warne spirals into this. What a waste of time. A minor paper criticizing something that is widely used within introductory textbooks? WP:PARITY certainly applies, but you are highlighting the wrong side i think. Since that fringe RfC there have been many arguments to redefine "reliable" based on POV. Redefining in the way WP:MEDRS does, might provide a more streamlined and longer lasting improvement. fiveby(zero) 15:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
You're right, my comment was more intended as a summary and not to suggest that this was a particular case, thanks for noticing. —PaleoNeonate – 01:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]

John Ernst Worrell Keely, Godfrey Higgins etc.[edit]

May be worth watching. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • It is not worth watching. This user needs to be stopped from doing damage, because every edit they have made has been negative. I left a message on User_talk:Orangemike#Reference Removal. Someone with authority needs to take a step. Ode+Joy (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Crop circle and others[edit]

Does this need so many weird See-alsos? The same question applies to other articles from here: Will-SeymoreIII (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

It was bloated, but there were two links to articles I did not know about and would like to draw the attention of this board to:
jps (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I may have fixed the lot. On the balance, Will-SeymoreIII (talk · contribs) has done us a favor by highlighting some see also sections that deserved to be eliminated. jps (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
It is often that way. People make an article temporarily worse and eventually better. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Wang Sichao[edit]

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

Whaddya think about that last section?

jps (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I think it was sourced by the CCP's media outlet and poorly written. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association for Transpersonal Psychology[edit]

This discussion may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Kalergi Plan[edit]

~Kalergi Plan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User just does not get it. I am done with reverting, and I cannot think of anything at the moment. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I have brought up the issue at WP:ANI. Bangalamania (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The article is an invitation to endless edit wars, due to a lack of usable sources explaining what the Kalergi Plan theory is (it's not derived from just the one quotation given) and why it's false (Kalergi's lack of connection to European migration policy). The slight amount of material is suitable as a section of the bio page on Kalergi but there is not enough for an article of its own. Otherwise it will continue having edit battles every time someone rediscovers what else Kalergi wrote.Sesquivalent (talk) 04:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Irene Hughes[edit]

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

I deleted the bulk of the content because it was totally unreferenced and attempted to add credibility to her alleged precognitive powers. The remaining content is solely obituary, which cannot be used to prove WP:NBIO. Not taking to AfD yet in absence of WP:BEFORE. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I'm not sure deleting all that content was the right choice. You can add CN tags or find sources. Nothing about her bio seems to indicate WP:PROFRINGE to me, as she was clearly a novelty act "celebrity", and her notability is independent from whether or not her "abilities" were real, no different than Miss Cleo or whoever else. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I get that the kids like to legend trip, or whatever, but junk like this is pretty PROFRINGE:
Good to remove that.
jps (talk) 01:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
That's fine, and I'm not sure what you meant by the "legend tripping" thing, but the editor was arguing that the bio itself does not meet notability, and is pro fringe. The fact that she claims she has magic powers is beyond the point. Her notability is based on her celebrity status. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 04:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Notability is often judged (incorrectly) by the substance in an article. Insinuating that a psychic correctly predicted the outcome of the 1968 Democratic US Presidential Primaries is a pretty remarkable claim that demands a source and not just a "CN" tag. There has been a long history of users arguing that claims to superpowers of this sort are enough to establish notability, too. WP has not established whether every guest of The Merv Griffin Show is notable enough for an article, for example. "Celebrity psychics" are important edge cases and it would be better if we didn't let the sensation of their claims or supposed "correct predictions" cloud our judgement in the determination. jps (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Specific psychic predictions are unencyclopedic enough to merit deletion instead of tagging. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

User:Apostle_JP_M_Dinayen[edit]

User:Apostle_JP_M_Dinayen - First time I have seen anything like this. A user page that looks like an article. I have no idea where to go. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Hob Gadling: I've deleted it and left him a welcome message and an explanation based on Wikipedia:User pages. Doug Weller talk 12:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
In case it can be useful for the future, with such self-promotion cases the WP:NOTWEBHOST CSD criteria fits (WP:U5), after evaluating notability and that the user meets "has made few or no edits outside of user pages". Or sometimes WP:G11 (for obvious spam), —PaleoNeonate – 21:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Scott Minnich[edit]

I just did a trimming of this page on WP:NOTCV and WP:UNDUE grounds (seriously, no one cares about signing "dissent from Darwinism" open letters, and they've been a joke for over a decade). I'm not convinced that the subject is wiki-notable. He wrote some papers, signed a thing, was part of a thing... There's just not a lot there. Previously discussed at FTN here. XOR'easter (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Does not appear to meet WP:N for academics. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Now at AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Minnich. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories[edit]

BrandonTRA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is arguing that a book by conspiracy theorist and holocaust denier James Fetzer is a reliable source for claims related to the John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. It's already cited in the article for Fetzer's POV, but not in wikivoice. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I see they have a 48 hour block for editwarring. Looking at the article, Headbomb's unreliable sources checker[38] which everyone should have brings up a book by Oakcliff Press - which has only published one book[39], two from Consortium News which has been discussed at RSN and is fringe/unreliable, this group[40], history.com, this YouTube video[41], this self-published book[42], and this. Doug Weller talk 13:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I've added Consortium News to WP:RSP as generally unreliable linking all those RSN discussions, and removed content sourced to it or Robert Parry from the JFK conspiracies article. There's a lot of cleanup needed here, but particularly quite a few problematic WP:HOWEVER statements sourced to non-RSes. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Adding 24.234.77.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for reference, —PaleoNeonate – 14:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

IP edits need checking[edit]

38.126.71.24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was banned for long-term insertion unsourced or material not in sources provided or undue conspiracy theories (eg Woodstock was plan by the government and AIDs doesn't exist). Several have been reverted but there a number of fringe edits by them that may need a check (the field is a bit out of personal wheelhouse) 2001:8003:38C0:900:9:D148:4A30:DF5B (talk) 00:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I have to admit: the conspiracy theory that the Woodstock Music Festival was a nefarious government plot is a new one for me. I guess that's some real throwback John Birch Society propaganda. Give me that old time religion! jps (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
While checking this user's contributions, I came across their additions to Hepatitis B (diff), and I found out that the included information is mostly identical to this article on "Opera news" (apparently an African portal). I'm assuming for now that the IP and the author of the article, "ProfFrancisT", are likely the same person. A couple of possible counterfactuals: the OperaNews article includes a couple of the previous paragraphs, but the majority of it is what 38... added to HepB. And the additions to the HepB article were in November 2020, while the article says it was posted "6 months ago", but that might be rounded down and those were simultaneous. I can't find the actual date of the article. Thoughts? VdSV9•♫ 17:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Past life memory[edit]

New article with pretty much one author. Stubby, some dubious sources, probably redundant with something else too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I cama across this by chance, so I will just comment and move on. Given that I do not personally believe in reincarnation I was surprised to see that the University of Virginia School of Medicine has a group working on past memories and the page on Ian Stevenson is in effect a review of the field. Jim B. Tucker also has a detailed page, and the letters MD after his name. So:

  • The article is an absolute disaster, full of factual errors but has a few valid references.
  • The topic is notable, given the many references in the medical literature.
  • I am not sure if the issue is fringe, or a small group idea. This needs more research, but not for me to do.

I do not know the past memory field and will not be able to work on the article. My edits would be half baked, at best. As a final note I should say that Ian Stevenson was sloppy as they say in his article, given his attempt at a Popper type empirical falsification test. To test past memories, he left a combination lock at the department, and said he would try to give the combination to a department member after his death. This would of course not test "memory" but communication. So his work can not be taken seriously. The article will survive an Afd attempt, so someone with knowledge of the topic should try and fix it. Ode+Joy (talk) 09:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Just one aside: "Fringe" does not mean "small group". See WP:FRINGE. The operational part in departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field is "in its particular field". --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • So I should have said "minority view" vs "majority view" to avoid the term mainstream, given its ambiguity. Now, let me ask, what happens when there is no majority view on a subject, and scientists oscillate between 40-60% and 60-40% from year to year? How is WP:Fringe interpreted in that case? A good example is, of course, the definition of mass in the E=MC2 equation. A readable explanation of the problem is in Physics Today Vol 42, No 6, by Lev Okun, of Hadron fame. But let me note that I do not agree with his selection of item 1 as a solution in that paper and I just mentioned that paper because it is readable. In this type of case is there any theory which is considered a fringe, given that there is no majority view? Thanks. Ode+Joy (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    You have to differentiate between the popualtion at large and the relevant scientific community. Climate change denial is a good example for a fringe theory: there are just a handful of climatologists who hold that view, and they have practically no effect on the published science because the facts are not on their side. But in the general population, ignorant as it is, deniers are definitely not a "small group".
    Minority views (minority of scientists) are something completely different. Being in a minority does not make something fringe.
    Past life memory being real is clearly fringe. Psychology can explain it without any fantasy elements, and it plays a role only in those journals which do not care about the quality of studies. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The user has also worked on Shandong Yinfeng Life Science Research Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This is an article that might benefit from some consideration of capable noticeboard watchers. jps (talk) 11:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • What you did not want to say is that the user seems to be living in outer space. While that may be true or not, it should not affect notability, etc. I don't see the article on the institute as harmful and confusing, unlike the other one which needs more urgent attention. Ode+Joy (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Seyyed Hossein Nasr[edit]

Has a section "The theory of evolution" which is probably 100% bollocks. And lots of other stuff likely needs cutting down. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This is a pretty cringe-y job. It would be good to find some critical sources, but I think they may not actually exist because who cares what an Islamic Traditionalist thinks of scientific discoveries? jps (talk) 13:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I did some clean-up work, but it could do with some attempts to actually see which of Nasr's ideas have been noticed by, y'know, actual experts, and which are just promoted by his students and disciples. jps (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
There has been a little bit of pushback from the authors on the talkpage. Some misunderstanding about what the role of Wikipedia is, some confusion about what would constitute good sourcing. I think I'm okay for now, but getting some others to contribute to the discussion would be good. And if you are really up for it, the article is still very full of exposition that is heavily based on primary sources rather than sources which properly contextualize their importance. Reminds me a bit of how William Lane Craig used to read. jps (talk) 12:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Blue zones[edit]

Came across this recent article on SBM, and then noticed we have a substantial article on this topic already (~700 views/day). Reading it, it seems a bit ... credulous. As Doc James noted[43] back in 2018: "The article basically takes the word of the people who own this trademark without critical analysis. This article needs independent sourcing". Alexbrn (talk) 07:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I noticed it also. A good deal could be done by summarizing the "Characteristics" section, much of which is trying to summarize one particular pOV on many complicated issues of human health the basis of consumer publications. . DGG ( talk ) 20:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I note that many of the sources fail WP:MEDRS, and the overall concept of "blue zones" seems to be based entirely on Dan Buettner's claims. –dlthewave ☎ 02:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Looking closer, Buettner didn't invent the concept, but I was able to trim a large amount that was based on his book. –dlthewave ☎ 04:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Chiropractic[edit]

SPA wants to delete the risks of stroke and death because some chiropractic somehow managed to get a whitewashing study published. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Creationist cosmologies[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creationist cosmologies (2nd nomination) and share your thoughts.

jps (talk) 01:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=1049940375"