Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

Skip to TOC
Skip to bottom

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 WP:FTN WP:FT/N
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

10 Mar 2022 – NewsFront (website) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by HouseOfChange (t · c); see discussion

Categories for discussion

19 Jan 2022 – Category:Classical mystics (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Marcocapelle (t · c); see discussion

Good article nominees

01 Mar 2022 – Pentagon Pedophile Task Force (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by AFreshStart (t · c); start discussion
16 Feb 2022 – Pastel QAnon (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by AFreshStart (t · c); see discussion
09 Feb 2022 – Illusion of explanatory depth (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by I'ma editor2022 (t · c); start discussion
27 Dec 2021 – Warsaw concentration camp (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Szmenderowiecki (t · c); start discussion

Pilates lede[edit]

Pilates (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

An editor (Finell) is trying to establish a new lede for this article with a take of its health "benefits" which seems at odds with what is cited in the article body. Edit warring too. More eyes could help broaden consensus. Alexbrn (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

... Ah. Not Pilate. Then "health benefits" make more sense. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I copyedited the lede here. I challenge Alexbrn, or anyone, to show where I added FRINGE content. I did straighten out some convoluted sentences and made the lede more concise. Furthermore, Alexbrn reverted my entire edit twice, including my addition of the first name of the author of a cited New York Times article and language improvements. It was Alexbrn who recently added the woo woo idea that Pilates is a mind-body thing [here]. Before he came along, the article said that it was a physical exercise system. That, in fact, is what brought me to the Pilates article. At age 75, I am looking for exercise that will improve my flexibility, core strength, and balance.

In addition, no one is more anti-FRINGE than I am. Years ago, when several editors were working to restore Speed of light to FA status (we succeeded), 2 relativity deniers were trying to push their POV into the article. An admin began an arbitration because of the 2 tendentious editors. Science won. FRINGE lost.—Finell 01:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See no problem with Finell's proposed. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is changing the text so is fails WP:V. Saying in Wikipedia's voice only that Pilates merely isn't effective for treating "disease", when the source (and Wikipedia) before referred more broadly to "any medical condition" is not good. More broadly, repeatedly trying to force an edit with snarky edit summaries is bad behaviour. Maybe Finell could try BRD in future? In general, performing composite edits which mix up gnoming with substantial POV changes is not a good idea. Alexbrn (talk) 06:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Problem solved: I changed disease to medical condition. And for this you post {Template:Uw-ew} on my Talk page[1] (even though you are involved in the war) and you warn me about discretionary sanctions involving complementary and alternative medicine.[[2]] I have never heard any say that Pilates exercise is any kind of medicine, including my wife, who is an exercise fanatic. As for "snarky edit summaries":

Finell diff1: Wikify, copy edit, NPOV

Alexbrn diff1: Not a summary and insufficient WP:V

Finell diff2: My copy editing did not add unverified content, but did add clarity is more concise

Alexbrn diff2: Inaccurate - better take it to talk rather than reverting

Finell diff3: Better take it to talk rather than reverting

Is Alexbrn an admin???—Finell 06:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No but what's that to do with anything? Nil Einne (talk) 08:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finell has resumed edit warring without discussion. Pilates is a type of "mind-body intervention", which places it firmly in the category of alternative medicine. Calling it blandly a "a method of physical exercise" as well as being imprecise, unduly legitimizes it by placing it in the realm of "normal" regular interventions. Finell's lede (which they have at least modified to correct one of the WP:V mistakes they made) essentially said Pilates is a form of exercise with proven health benefits. Not quite right and the continued mashing of the revert key is deplorable. No, I am not an admin but an admin may be needed soon if the edit-warring without discussion continues. Alexbrn (talk) 09:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have quite a bit of experience with Pilates. For me it is definitely a type of physical exercise. Some practitioners might add some Mind–body interventions. It is undoubtedly an excellent way to improve one's flexibility, core strength, and balance. I have Parkinson's and it is highly recommended, see [3] which says " Pilates exercises are often used in physiotherapy centres to help rehabilitate people after injury or manage the physical problems experienced by people with long-term conditions such as Parkinson's". Also[4] and[5]. Every doctor and Parkinson's nurse I've spoken to about it has encouraged it. Doug Weller talk 15:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience is much more of a physical exercise now, rather than a mind body intervention. Yoga and martial arts like Tai Chi are similar as well, in that the practice has generally migrated over time to a purely physical exercise. I'm pretty sure the elderly at the local Tai Chi classes at the elder recreation center aren't practicing to focus their chi so they can do Jedi tricks, they're just looking for low impact exercise that keeps them active. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unusually, there's actually a systematic review of how Pilates is defined: PMID:22579438. Alexbrn (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's 2012, h ow it was defined a decade ago. views may have changed. A 2014 article.[6]. Lots of studies on its use with back pain which treat it as a physical exercise. Doug Weller talk 17:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They may have changed. The 2012 review seemed to find the mind/body aspect de-emphasized for back pain usage and I imagine it also varies between countries. A bit of Googling shows Pilates is much marketed as "mind/body" today, and Pilates gets featured prominently in the Mind-body intervention article here. A good modern overview source would be ideal. Alexbrn (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if this 2018 systematic review has been discussed already, but a quick search revealed: [7]. There could certainly be a conversation about how the journal and/or methodology factor into the source's reliability here, but it is a secondary source and the findings appear to be significant. Generalrelative (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing the above source to this 2015 review from Cochrane [8] reveals that the two describe similar conclusions. The Cochrane review emphasizes the dearth of high-quality studies but does note that there is some evidence for the effectiveness of Pilates for low back pain. They just want to emphasize as well that more high-quality research would be beneficial, and that as yet there is no conclusive evidence that [Pilates] is superior to other forms of exercises. That sounds like a thoroughly NPOV statement to me. Generalrelative (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it's better than doing no exercise for sure, which is also true of yoga or other forms of exercise. As the Cochrane review says "The decision to use Pilates for low back pain may be based on the patient's or care provider's preferences, and costs". I suppose an interesting question is that if you're "just" doing exercises for core strength, suppleness, balance etc. without the Pilates secret sauce (the contrology aspect promised "complete coordination of body, mind, and spirit") is it still actually Pilates that you're doing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbrn (talk • contribs) 18:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, the authors of all these studies use the term so why wouldn't we? I'm unfamiliar with this topic area so this is not a rhetorical question. Is there a policy-based reason why not? Generalrelative (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This 2019 review and meta-analysis about the effectiveness of Pilates for patients with multiple sclerosis is interesting too: [9]. And its findings appear to be entirely consistent with the Cochrane review: Pilates is a feasible therapy for people with MS though potential beneficial effects of Pilates are not significantly greater than those derived from the performance of other physical therapies. And of course, more high-quality studies would be beneficial. Generalrelative (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that the Cochrane review was independently replicated, which is always a good sign: [10]. Their take-away: There is low- to moderate-quality evidence that Pilates is more effective than minimal intervention with most of the effect sizes being considered medium. However, there is no conclusive evidence that Pilates is superior to other forms of exercises.. Generalrelative (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m guessing there may be two strands of Pilates. Doug Weller talk 18:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. But are those described in the sources? Or could it perhaps be that encouraging people to establish a mind-body connection when they exercise is actually pretty standard for athletic pursuits of all kinds? From my own personal experience, I cannot think of an example of a sport or exercise program I was involved in where some kind of mind-body connection wasn't explicitly encouraged. It's a huge topic for weight lifters too, for example. Though I sense that I may be stepping into a hot topic for fringe watchers here, I'm happy to play devil's advocate for a moment. Generalrelative (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Pilates Foundation hints (bottom of this page) there are two varieties, the trad version and a modern more anatomically-focused one. Alexbrn (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, thanks. I wouldn't object at all to something like that appearing in the article, though of course a secondary source would be stronger. Generalrelative (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You know,I think that’s likely. That there’s a connection between the mind and the body isn’t fringe. Doug Weller talk 19:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Depends how it's couched. In Rolfing for example it is posited that physical manipulation can release repressed memories or effect personality change. Anyway, I digress. This (totally unsuitable) source[11] seems to suggest a Pilates "split". I wonder if this is mirrored in suitable sources ... Alexbrn (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean it’s mainstream, you can find a lot of sources like this.one Doug Weller talk 19:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If so I would definitely support inclusion. On a more meta level, I think the issue here is that an encyclopedia works by sorting phenomena into categories, so anything that's really more of a spectrum will inevitably give rise to hard cases. And it seems to be that mind-body intervention is just such a spectrum, with woo on the one hand and uncontroversial best practices on the other. Clearly most Pilates instruction falls somewhere along that spectrum, with significant outliers on both sides (including the practice's founder, who evidently did fall on the woo side of things). I'd say that the current version of the article does an okay job of conveying this, but more nuance would indeed be helpful. And of course frivolous / outlandish claims of extreme advocates need to be guarded against, as with all topics that border on fringe. Generalrelative (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing what fringe perspective is being advanced here; the two versions seem very similar. Comparing this, with the revised proposal version second:
- "mind-body exercise" vs. "physical exercise"; this seems like something that could reasonably be described either way, since the former is a subset of the latter and there is sufficient sourcing for either (but honestly in a quick search it seems like most sources just refer to it as "exercise".) The other changes to the first paragraph are just rewordings.
- There is however only limited evidence to support the use of Pilates to alleviate problems such as lower back pain vs. There is limited evidence that the Pilates method can alleviate such problems such as low back pain- both of these seem reasonable; they cautiously note one area where there is some weak evidence of effectiveness per the source. The "however only limited evidence" wording honestly reads to me as slightly less neutral (it sort of feels like it is pushing the reader towards a conclusion of "it's not really good for back pain" whereas the source is closer to thus, while there is some evidence for the effectiveness of Pilates for low back pain, there is no conclusive evidence that it is superior to other forms of exercise - the latter part of that statement, note, is probably more important and is in neither version.
- Evidence from studies show that while Pilates improves balance, it has not been shown to be an effective treatment for any medical condition other than evidence that regular Pilates sessions can help muscle conditioning in healthy adults, when compared to doing no exercise. vs Studies show that the Pilates method improves balance and muscle conditioning in healthy adults, but it is not effective to treat any medical condition. Both the things the rewrite says there is evidence for were already in the original. The one thing that caught my eye here is that the rewrite omits "compared to doing no exercise", which is important because the sources emphasize that there's no evidence Pilates has any advantages over any other form of exercise. So I would include that in some form; it's important to be clear that the advantages described here are just the standard advantages of doing any sort of physical exercise.

Aside from that tweak I feel the rewrites are fine from a WP:FRINGE perspective; they don't actually change very much anyway. As far as the definition goes, I think that we could reasonably describe it as a "physical exercise", a "mind-body exercise", or just as a form of exercise in the lead without violating fringe - even the main source being used for "mind-body exercise", by my reading, emphasizes the fact that it is discussed in many different ways. I don't know which we should use - it's more a matter of WP:DUE and what the sources say - but at the very least I don't think it reaches the point of being fringe to treat Pilates as a form of physical exercise without focusing on the mind-body aspect. If anything, if it is true (as seems possible from some of the discussions above) that Pilates has both a "regular mainstream exercise" strand and a more woo-woo "alternative mind-body exercise" strand, WP:FRINGE would somewhat encourage us to focus on the more mainstream strand (while noting the existence of both.) But that would depend on what sources exist. --Aquillion (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pilates is "just exercise" exactly as much as Yoga is "just exercise". There are many practitioners that don't get deep into the woo bits - more so in Pilates than in Yoga -, but the foundational ideology is there and that is how it should be defined. One can practice Yoga or Tai Chi or whatever and say "for me, it is just exercise", I surely do. The place I go to is full of Joseph Pilates's quotes about "body and spirit" this and "breathing and posture" that on the walls. Exercising has health benefits, not surprising. Light exercise and stretching help with balance and flexibility, whoopity doo. Strengthening back muscles help with back pain, quelle surprise. None of this is particular to Pilates. VdSV9•♫ 22:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really saying that "breathing and posture" are woo-woo? See[12][13][14]. Your argument that anything called Pilates is always tainted by its Joseph Pilates's ideas of "contrology" isn't logical. Where it just involves exercise (not that light at times if you do it fast), stretching, balance, flexibility, it isn't fringe. Other types are. Doug Weller talk 08:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller I'm saying a lot of Joe's claims about "breathing and posture" are woo. Breathing and posture are fine and dandy, but most of the things he says are caused by poor breathing and bad posture have nothing to do with either. Example: "it is tragically deplorable to contemplate the millions and millions who have never learned to master the art of correct breathing. One often wonders how so many millions continue to live as long as they do under this tremendous handicap to longevity. Lazy breathing; converts the lungs, figuratively speaking, into a cemetery for the deposition of diseased, dying, and dead germs as well as supplying an ideal haven for the multiplication of other harmful germs. ..."[15]. It's like I'm calling BS on the people who say one should drink five liters of water every day in order to be healthy and you respond with "are you saying that drinking water is not important? links about the importance of water and hydration" .VdSV9•♫ 21:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19[edit]

Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Since the article's creation it has remained a dead stub so I would have slowly expanded this article. But as soon as I started, using a review in The Guardian, I was accused of advocacy. It is itself an advocacy book pushing for views that have no scientific consensus (and discredited speculation like about RaTG13, or that preadaptation to humans and the furin cleavage site are suspect, etc.) Consequently I thought this would be the right place to post a notice, in case someone else familiar with the politics/science dichotomy on the topic would like to work on the article (I'm no longer interested). —Paleo Neonate – 13:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry your edits got deleted, I know how that feels bro. 2600:8804:6600:45:94CC:820C:AF4C:F1E8 (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't, unlike this... —Paleo Neonate – 16:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comet fringe being added to Hopewell tradition, sadly from WAPO[edit]

Sources were [16] and [17] although the original source is here. The lack of understanding is shown by this comment by a co-author. "It looks like this event was very injurious to agriculture. People didn't have good ways to store corn for a long period of time. Losing a crop or two would have caused widespread suffering." The artifacts studied in the paper are said to date from "252–383 CE". But the Hopewell weren't eating much maize at all until about 600 years later.[18]

The claim is that a comet burst set fire to a number of habitation sites simultaneously, but there's no evidence that they were contemporaneous or even habitation sites instead of ceremonial sites with the burning episodes being intentional anthropogenic ceremonial fires.

It gets worse. The main author is Kenneth Tankersley[19]. Most of the others seem to be grad students. We use him in several articles including Massacre at Ywahoo Falls. Also at Sheriden Cave and others. He used to claim he was Cherokee[20] (note his claim for ancestry from Red Bird) but when the Cherokee Nation denied that he later change to being a member of the Alabama recognized Piqua Shawnee tribe.[21] which of course is not an RS but is interesting. He is used as a source for Red Bird River Petroglyphs and Chief Red Bird but his claims have been rejected. [22][23]

On the other hand, he definitely has his supporters. And no surprise, he's a member of the Comet Group. Doug Weller talk 13:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The regular participants in this noticeboard should be aware of pretendian. The Indigenous Peoples of North America WikiProject is also working on some guidelines on the topic. Montanabw^(talk) 16:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the last paragraph of Red Bird River Petroglyphs article states:

"A sign adjacent to the relocated stone in Manchester states that "At least 8 Old World alphabets are engraved on it. These alphabets were extinct when Columbus arrived in the New World in 1492. The alphabets are first century Greek and Hebrew, Old Libyan, Old Arabic and Iberian-Punic which probably dates from the 9th century B.C. Ogam, Germanic runes and Tiffinag-Numidian are also on this stone." [4]"

This is really awful psuedoarchaeology and the source of it is a web site featuring original research by a Young Earth creationist. Should the whole paragraph be deleted? Paul H. (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I useed the Chrome extension Who Wrote That" and found that about half of the article was written by this guy whose hobby was pseudoarchaeology.[24] He was an editor here.[25]. Doug Weller talk 07:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should distinguish the claims made by the sign vs the claim about the sign. The statement about the sign is apparently true [26] [27] [28]. IMO ideally we should mention the sign with proper context. This would include details like how it came about, it doesn't sound to me like any of S8Int or Joe Kuz or BereanBelievers.org are the originators of the sign so I don't think the above claim is accurate. It may be someone with similar YEC thinking or it could be something else completely. Proper context would also include discussion about how what the sign says is surely nonsense. Sadly I guess because the artefact is of limited interest and there is a lot of nonsense out there, the best I could find is Bill Thayer's site which I'm not sure is an RS and only provides limited context. In that case, it might be best if we just remove mention of the sign but we have to accept that what our article says is factual, the sign is apparently there. Nil Einne (talk) 11:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sign certainly may be there, but we do have sources that say there are no ancient languages on the stone. The Red Bird River Shelter (15CY52) Revisited: The Archaeology of the Cherokee Syllabary and of Sequoyah in Kentucky and [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-antiquity/article/abs/there-is-no-cherokee-syllabary-at-red-bird-river-shelter-15cy52-reply-to-tankersley-and-weeks/3871ABA366083A1E0C8D2F6F901A8122 There Is No Cherokee Syllabary at Red Bird River Shelter (15CY52): Reply to Tankersley and Weeks Doug Weller talk 12:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to find time this week to add them. Doug Weller talk 12:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While looking at "Rock Art of Kentucky," 1999, by Fred E. Coy, et al., I realized that the Red Bird River petroglyph site (15CY51) and the Red Bird River shelter petroglyph site (15CY52) are two different archaeological sites. I was confused by the similarity in names, so others might be careful about this situation. Hopefully, I apologize if I have mislead others. Paul H. (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul H.: so have I as I realised last night as shown by my post above about the languages on the stone and my source which is about the other site also. Doug Weller talk 09:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also see this by Jason Colavito. Doug Weller talk 11:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And this Did a comet airburst destroy the Hopewell? Comment on The Hopewell Airburst Event, 1699-1567 Years Ago (252-383 CE), by Tankersley et al. (2022).] written by a Canadian archaeologist. Doug Weller talk 08:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And this. [29] It's a blog however, not an RS. Doug Weller talk 14:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reliable source from a couple of days ago.[30] Doug Weller talk 17:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Rife[edit]

Lot of new demands on the Talk page to turn the article more friendly to his ideas, citing unreliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Royal_Rife&type=revision&diff=1071695794&oldid=1070701328&diffmode=source -- Valjean (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Pulsed radiofrequency#Therapeutic uses, 100% Rife according to Talk:Royal Rife. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have had to revert recent changes. More eyes needed. -- Valjean (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just hatted that discussion. Now a block is needed. -- Valjean (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now there is edit warring, so I have started a new section below. -- Valjean (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hempsell and Alan Bond's Köfels impact theory[edit]

--Hob Gadling (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hempsell and Bond's views are just fringe, shouldn't be in other articles. Tollmann's bolide hypothesis does a good job on the fringe nonsense. Doug Weller talk 08:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1951 Pont-Saint-Esprit mass poisoning[edit]

1951 Pont-Saint-Esprit mass poisoning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The claim that the CIA secretly dosed a French town with LSD cannot be labeled as a claim or a conspiracy theory? Serious question. - - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's this article from France 24, which refers to it as a conspiracy theory. --RaiderAspect (talk) 04:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mauro Biglino[edit]

I never can remember, is their guidance on how many published works we list? He’s an ancient astronauts writer among other things. Doug Weller talk 21:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should generally be roughly proportional to article size. A stub with dozens publications is called a CV. That article is an eyesore regardless of the field or status of the subject: a main stream entomologist or art historian would be equally out of place. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to have something guideline-ish to point to for sections like Robin_Williams_(writer)#Bibliography. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An amazing source someone tried to add[edit]

It[31] seems to be from a reliable journal, but besides being a literalist view of the Bible, it says:

A biological study conducted by Clyde Winters (2010:296, 298) proved that about 5000 years ago there was a migration of Kushites (from Africa) to Eurasia. Linguistics and DNA studies proved that Abraham's ancestors were part of the Kushites who migrated from East Africa to Asia (Linsley 2010). Abraham's ancestors more specifically moved from the Upper Nile Valley and the Horn of Africa to the coastal areas of Arabia. There they established themselves in separate territories. The name of Terah (Abraham's father) was associated with the Nilotic Ainu, originating from the Upper Nile Valley. The Ainu migrated from East Africa eastward, as far as Japan and north to Southern Siberia (Linsley 2010). These rather astounding facts link Africa even closer to the Jews and therefore to Christianity. In fact, the believers in Christ's teachings who migrated to Alexandria were actually just moving back to the land from which their ancestors had come". Winters is way fring.[32]. And we use him ate Islam in Nigeria I see. I was tempted to go to RSN but doubt anyone would care, and it may be generally reliable. Doug Weller talk 15:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot, there's a pdf at Commons.[33]. Doug Weller talk 16:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If that publication accepted that paper with those footnotes to those sources, it's not an WP:RS. QED. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We use the journal for several articles, RSN? Doug Weller talk 20:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's used at least here. Keep in mind, it could be a failure of peer review for that paper only, but it's worth checking the rest of it to confirm. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the journal is reliable, the claim is so unique that I would question inclusion as UNDUE Blueboar (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor quickly deleted it. Doug Weller talk 20:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Verbum et Ecclesia is a theology journal that "[...] encourages research that challenges traditional discourses within and between the fields of biblical, religious, social and human sciences as well as the constructive engagement with the natural sciences." [34]. Sounds quite like a pro-fringe scope to me. Certainly should be dismissed when it goes outside the theology field and starts making claims about what has been "proved" in historical or other natural sciences. VdSV9•♫ 20:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Myth[edit]

A student editor plans to edit this article and like most new editors may need help. See Talk:Myth#Planning changes to this article (I added the section heading). It looks as though the page could use a rewrite and it’s good someone is planning to do some. Doug Weller talk 19:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Are myths considered fringe or mainstream nowadays? --Animalparty! (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's all about context. Doug Weller talk 09:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creation myth titles[edit]

Relatedly, maybe it's time to revisit the question of whether Wikipedia should properly title the myths from the Book of Genesis as Genesis creation myth and Genesis flood myth?— Preceding unsigned comment added by ජපස (talk • contribs) 16:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless one is entirely detached from reality, those are clearly mythology (with the first one being a very specific and clear instance of a creation myth. Anyway this is not the place to discuss article titles. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except that conversations in the past were filibustered by fringe theory activists who believe that these stories are literally true. They have stymied our attempts to rename these articles in spite of these myths being so identified in the most reliable sources about the subjects. You can check the archives of this noticeboard for more. jps (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent one is from 5 years ago; and the other ones seem to be mostly from a period around 2010-2012 (which, as far as modern practice on Wikipedia is concerned, is about antiquity or thereabouts). Anyways, if you wish to suggest moves on those pages, this isn't the proper venue, so you should go to the affected pages directly. And if there are people who deliberately disrupt the encyclopedia, then hopefully the existing processes will be able to deal with the issue. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

mostly from a period around 2010-2012 (which, as far as modern practice on Wikipedia is concerned, is about antiquity or thereabouts) We could call those "antediluvian". --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have found it is important to take the temperature for these kinds of *disruptive* discussions prior to starting them lest we waste everyone's time. That's how we finally were able to consign the original research that was the "List of scientists who don't believe in global warming" to the dustbin of Wikipedia's memory hole. I also object generally to the attempts to police what is and is not discussed at noticeboards. Don't get me wrong, there are some conversations that do not belong here, but, as you might imagine since I brought this one up, I think this topic is one that is directly relevant to our work here. YMMV, but I'd appreciate if we could let others opine so I might see what the FTN regulars think of revisiting this subject. jps (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a long time since I was an FTN regular but my tuppence-worth is that while the stories in Genesis etc. are myths they are also stories and narratives. Myth is a subset of narrative. I don't think there is anything odd from an academic social science viewpoint with the existing titles. The status of each story as myth should be discussed at length in the article, and there are more than enough good sources for that to be done well. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once a regular, always a regular! The argument, to be sure, is that it is best for the title of an article to be as specific as possible. As you seemingly imply, all myths are a kind of narrative and story, but the most specific overarching category for the narrative and story in question is creation myth and flood myth. We have plenty of other examples on Wikipedia that use that particular term for other cultures; Genesis stands out as the one we treat with kid gloves. Specificity is helpful and the word "narrative" here does not inform the reader as to the correct genre of this literature/cultural artifact. jps (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just chiming in with my experience: Emic viewpoints attempting to push away etic-minded coverage can certainly lead to some nasty confrontations, and even threats to those who dare (for a related but comparatively quite minor example, some of you may remember when I was publicly "cursed" here a few years back, but via private messages, I have received a few more serious threats and a few very ill-considered attempts at outing). Fortunately for the project, Wikipedia isn't censored, and in my opinion we should be a lot more aggressive in ensuring that emic perspectives are not driving our coverage of folklore topics like myth, which can be incredibly important to people and lead to major cultural ramifications. At the very least, it's worth keeping a close eye on our myth article to ensure that it remains as high quality as possible. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure why we would need to be more specific than what is needed for precision and disambiguation. Regardless, I do think there is reason to beat this particular dead horse, I don't think the way the policies apply is particularly straightforward here. Whether or not using "myth" is the way forward (it probably is), it could also be that there are better compromises than this one. --Xurizuri (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency is another good argument for renaming, I think. When you have a bunch of creation myths and flood myths called that on their respective pages, it seems like we should probably follow the pattern rather than breaking it. Should it be Chinese creation narratives or Sumerian creation narrative instead of Chinese creation myths or Sumerian creation myth? jps (talk) 13:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting from an NPOV viewpoint. Doug Weller talk 14:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly I would describe it as non-neutral to only allow biblical creationism to use "narrative". There is no more validity between it and any others that are currently widely believed, and I could easily mount an argument that the only reason it's treated differently is because of the systemic bias. In a move where I'm partially kneecapping my own argument, a lot of the articles about myths (see the category for creation myths and the category for flood myths actually don't use "myth" in the title. --Xurizuri (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For years, the article was called Creation according to Genesis which is also problematic because it makes it seem like Gensis is a person like Garp. And at one time, I suggested redirecting Genesis flood narrative to Noah's Ark which is the common name for that tale, but apparently the Wikipedians want two articles on this topic rather than one. jps (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be against renaming all the relevant articles to ensure consistency and avoid systemic bias. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also support to use the term "myth" in the title articles that have a myth narrative as primary topic. User:Bloodofox has made a strong point that our strictly etic coverage should not be blurred by letting the emic POV to speak in Wikivoice. And having "narrative" in place of "myth" for selected articles is like slapping the emic POV right into the reader's face.

As for the argument voiced above by User:Xurizuri: many articles in Category:Creation myths and Category:Flood myths are about texts that contain multiple topoi (creation myths, genealogies etc.), e.g. Popol Vuh or La Galigo, or that describe concrete protagonists, e.g. Adam and Eve or Enlil and Ninlil. So lack of the word "myth" in the title of such articles is due to their topic which allows us to have a concise and non-classifying title, and not because of an inconsistent naming convention. –Austronesier (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That does clear up that issue, thanks. However, I don't think "myth" should be added to titles that don't need it, because of naming policies WP:PRECISION and WP:CONCISION - e.g., Noah's Ark vs Noah's Ark myth. Myth (or narrative, or whatever) should only really be used when it's needed to identify the topic. But yeah, being WP:CONSISTENT (naming policy) in which term is used when needed would be ideal. --Xurizuri (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to me, Genesis creation sounds like it would be an article about who wrote the Book of Genesis and Genesis flood is easily confused with the book that kickstarted flood geology. If there are other terms that we could use that satisfied everyone, I'd be thrilled. jps (talk) 01:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a good book on myths and geology from 2007. Geological Society, London, Special Publications Volume 273, 2007 Myth and Geology individual chapters are available here.[35] And since they are, and it's in the Internet archive[36] I hope this is legal, it's the whole book from z-lib.[37] Doug Weller talk 14:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#RfC: MOS:LABEL is relevant as it mentions the use of the word "myth". Doug Weller talk 14:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this use of Colin Humphreys fringe?[edit]

Here.[38] Doug Weller talk 19:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes EvergreenFir (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dowsing[edit]

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

A section of modern-day devices that have been compared to or identified as dowsing devices was completely removed even though multiple editors pointed out that the comparisons are verified and due. Talk:Dowsing#Explosive Detectors, previously discussed here at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_82#Dowsing.

I'm concerned that Dowsing#Scientific_reception isn't given the prominence (currently the last prose section) and presentation (currently a very restrained use of Wikipedia's voice) that a serious encyclopedia article should, and for some reason Dowsing#Studies is a separate section presented earlier in the article. --Hipal (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I for one certainly would expect a more detailed discussion of the ideomotor effect, at the very least. By the way, Dowsing#Postulated mechanisms also has some of the "Scientific reception". It's meant to be the "history" part, but it's not clear enough about that, so it just reads as a discussion of the mechanisms, which is a problem when its listing "clairvoyance" as one of the possible mechanisms. --Xurizuri (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Woodley, paranormalist?[edit]

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

I was taking a look through the history of this bio on a minor race-and-intelligence researcher and saw that a brief section was added back in August about Woodley's work attempting to prove the existence of paranormal psychic phenomena [39]. This content appears to have been deleted because the account which added it, Woodley Meanie, was an obvious impersonation and thus a username violation. However the material seems to have been correctly framed and verifiable, based on Woodley's 2020 publication "Anomalous information reception by mediums: A meta-analysis of the scientific evidence" [40]. I did a bit of googling and found an even more recent one, "Genetics of psychic ability –– A pilot case-control exome sequencing study" from 2021 [41]. The latter is discussed in this post on the website of the PROFRINGE organization Institute of Noetic Sciences: "Paper Published! Do Psychic Abilities Run in Families?": [42] That post does seem to imply that the authors of the paper worked in conjunction with the organization, so it is not really an independent secondary source, and it certainly wouldn't count as WP:FRIND. Thoughts about whether this merits inclusion in the article? And does anyone know of independent secondary sources discussing it? Generalrelative (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this biography is very marginal. I'm not seeing much in the way of attestations to notability here and WP:BLPFRINGE makes me worried that a lot of fringe sources are being used to artificially inflate the profile. The search through the sources seemed to me to indicate that there just isn't that much interest in this person. He's entirely obscure if, perhaps, a darling of various fringe causes. Delete? jps (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note it was recreated after being deleted in 2017. jps (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would support deletion. He's definitely widely cited on far-right blogs, but significant mainstream coverage is quite thin. From what I've seen, it's mostly limited to media coverage of his 2013 study purporting to refute the Flynn effect. His entry in the Springer Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science (ref #1) is co-authored by his frequent collaborator Matthew Sarraf, so not an independent source. And this article on cryptozoology in Scientific American devotes a paragraph to him but its author also collaborated with Woodley on a paper (see [43]). On the other hand, this goes into some depth on Woodley's cryptozoology, and does appear to be independent. Combine that with passing mentions here, here and here in conjunction with race-and-intelligence fringe and I wonder if others might object. Thoughts? Generalrelative (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is psychic ability correlated with race and intelligence too? Nil Einne (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because they are both correlated with the ability to believe in Loch Ness Monsters! [44] Generalrelative (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a relationship between mental health and belief in superpowers and grandiose conspiracy theories (beyond ideology)... —Paleo Neonate – 15:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After hunting around a bit more (at times wondering if I was searching for an elusive Sasquatch myself), I found what appears to be a WP:FRIND source discussing Woodley's paranormal investigations: this brief write-up in the The Sunday Post: [45]. Thoughts on whether this is substantial enough to merit a brief mention in the BLP? Generalrelative (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That Sunday Post article looks like WP:SENSATION at best and payola at worst. jps (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be right. I'll leave it out unless I find something better. There are a number of overtly FRINGE sources like this reporting on the same paper but nothing else even remotely mainstream that I've been able to find. Generalrelative (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: a separate item from this BLP, referring to Woodley's membership in the far-right Unz Foundation (an organization that supports, among other things, Holocaust denial) is now underway at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Michael Woodley. Not forum shopping here; I was given an aggressive BLP warning by DGG in relation to this content. But it clearly relates to FRINGE as well since the warning appears to imply that we shouldn't mention membership in such organizations. Generalrelative (talk) 12:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfD[edit]

I have decided to nominate the page for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Woodley (2nd nomination). jps (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Various journal cites RS?[edit]

Ran across this paragraph in ufology:

Multiple studies that investigate the subject or related topics in a serious manner have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.^[1]^[2]^[3]

References

^ Nolan, Garry P.; Vallee, Jacques F.; Jiang, Sizun; Lemke, Larry G. (1 January 2022). "Improved instrumental techniques, including isotopic analysis, applicable to the characterization of unusual materials with potential relevance to aerospace forensics". Progress in Aerospace Sciences. 128: 100788. Bibcode:2022PrAeS.12800788N. doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2021.100788. ISSN 0376-0421.
^ Knuth, Kevin H.; Powell, Robert M.; Reali, Peter A. (October 2019). "Estimating Flight Characteristics of Anomalous Unidentified Aerial Vehicles". Entropy. 21 (10): 939. doi:10.3390/e21100939.
^ Knuth, Kevin H.; Powell, Robert M.; Reali, and Peter A. (2019). "Estimating Flight Characteristics of Anomalous Unidentified Aerial Vehicles in the 2004 Nimitz Encounter". Proceedings. 33 (1): 26. doi:10.3390/proceedings2019033026.

I'm not familiar with those journals and wonder if they are considered fringe or RS for this text? - - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neither; MDPI is considered to be a somewhat low-quality publication though and I can't help but notice that these particular MDPI imprints have a somewhat overinclusive scope judging by their articles. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MDPI will publish more or less anything. They were the publisher that got themselves removed from Beall's List by putting pressure on Beall's employer. Also, those two Knuth cites are the same thing. One is conference proceedings and the other is a special issue of Entropy presenting the stuff from the same conference. MrOllie (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I’d seen the Knuth paper around before, but didn’t recognize these unfamiliar imprints. - - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Knuth is an editor of Entropy. I'm just saying. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And Entropy sponsored the conference. MrOllie (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EmDrive again[edit]

This addition to the article is disputed. Tajmar et al measured zero thrust. Shawyer keeps claiming everyone else must do it wrong. Should we discuss this claim in the article? --mfb (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

McCulloch's research is still being funded by DARPA even after they reviewed Tajmar. Both Popular Mechanics and Forbes wrote articles on Shawyer's response to Dresden. Seems notable. A one paragraph mention shouldn't damage an article on a "fringe" topic that already exists on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subuey (talk • contribs) 18:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage of the Dresden work in the lede seems undue, especially the quote, though there should be some mention in the lede.

We should avoid the (typical) claims that others must be doing it wrong, unless covered by a clearly reliable and independent source. --Hipal (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hipal Should there be a mention of the current funding for McChulloch's work? Subuey (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Without diving into the article history, I'll just repeat that it would depend on the quality of the references verifying that information. In cases like this, if the references don't give context on the importance of the funding sources, then it probably would be UNDUE. --Hipal (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it did mention that it was significant the support was continued. Subuey (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Authored by a contributor to Forbes, so probably not per the WP:RSP summary. --Hipal (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I don't see Popular Mechanics on the list, I can assume because it is a very good RS? Subuey (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all: https://www.popularmechanics.com/ufo-central/ MrOllie (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no RSP entry about PM it's just that it hasn't been noticed yet as discussed enough at RSN over the years to have an entry. I agree that it's rarely a good source, they're indeed notable for promoting clickbait topics like UFOs. —Paleo Neonate – 17:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Their own Wikipedia page shows they have awards and numerous nominations. A mainstream outlet. Perhaps some shoddy reporting. Many of the UFO articles are from government sources though. Subuey (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quality levels have risen and fallen quite a lot over the 120 years they've been around. MrOllie (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just sayin' Subuey (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. There are still perfectly fine articles in PM about topics like power tools and building your own chicken coops. But as a source of encyclopedia content, their promotion of fringe woo seems to disqualify them as reliable. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The most recent discussion of Popular Mechanics at the Reliable Sources noticeboard was not particularly enthusiastic. XOR'easter (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring to promote Rife's fringe theories[edit]

This continues a section about Rife above.

A cherry-picked attempt has been made to squeeze a recommendation for Rife machines out of a comment from Cancer Research UK (CRUK) by the inclusion of this comment in our Royal Rife article:

"Recently, some studies were made in laboratory with pulsed radiofrequency machines that work in the same way as Rife machines: researchers found that low frequency waves affected cancer cells, but did not affect normal cells."

The "recently" and "pulsed radiofrequency machines" are OR. The comment by CRUK, in its entirety, includes a more specific explanation which revealed the machines didn't even use the same frequencies as Rife machines, ergo the content isn't even relevant for the Rife article and it fails MEDRS.

Here is the comment from CRUK in their section labeled Research into Rife machines as a cancer treatment:

The Rife machine hasn't been through the usual process of scientific testing. There are studies that looked at low energy waves as a treatment for cancer. They used machines that work in the same way as the Rife machine. Some of these studies were in the laboratory.
One study was on a small number of people with advanced cancer. They had a type of liver cancer called hepatocellular carcinoma. Researchers found that the low frequency waves affected cancer cells. It did not affect normal cells. But this research is still at an experimental stage, and it’s not clear exactly how it could work. And importantly the electromagnetic frequencies used in this research were not the same as those of Rife machines.

I reverted the cherry-picked content and left this edit summary: "Totally fails MEDRS (note "one" small study using frequencies that are "not the same as those of Rife machines."): "One study was on a small number of people with advanced cancer. They had a type of liver cancer called hepatocellular carcinoma. Researchers found that the low frequency waves affected cancer cells. It did not affect normal cells. But this research is still at an experimental stage, and it’s not clear exactly how it could work. And importantly the electromagnetic frequencies used in this research were not the same as those of Rife machines."

I was reverted with this nasty edit summary: "Enough bullying... Your bias is anti-scientific. You have demonstrated it many times. Stop your useless editing wars."

These attempts to legitimize and promote fringe therapies fail for at least five reasons:

The CRUK article is filled with negative things to say about Rife and his machines. It makes it clear they are unproven.
OR and SYNTH are being used.
The content isn't even relevant for the Rife article as they are not Rife machines and don't use the same frequencies.
It fails MEDRS as it's vague and is only specific about one little study. MEDRS demands we use reviews and meta-analyses of MANY studies of good quality. We have to be able to link to them, not quote some mention that such studies might exist.
The personal attacks don't help.

I'm not going to edit war over this, so I invite others to check out the situation. We also need admins who can take action. -- Valjean (talk) 02:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An edit warring case has been opened here. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The disruptive editor has been indefinitely blocked. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Woodley at BLPN[edit]

WP:BLPN#Michael Woodley. Doug Weller talk 16:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With all mention of his involvement with the London Conference on Intelligence now removed, although that isn't the consensus at BLPN as I see it. Doug Weller talk 08:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now at afd [46] Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Skeptical Inquirer[edit]

In the aftermath of the ArbCom/GSoW case, there is an RfC on this publication at WP:RSN#RfC: Skeptical Inquirer. Fringe-savvy editors will will likely find this of interest. Alexbrn (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sex[edit]

Our artcle about Sex (not the act, which is covered at Sexual intercourse) has doubled in size over the last year xtools, almost entirely due to the contributions of CycoMa1, an editor who has just been topic banned at ANI from medical topics for CIR issues. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Medical_articles_topic_ban_for_CycoMa1. The whole article really needs to be checked over for neutrality, and possibly just wholesale removing their contributions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia: it seems at the very least that Crossroads and a few other editors have been keeping a close eye on the article, so I don't think wholesale removing their contributions is called for

-- TNT (talk • she/her) 21:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wholesale removal is up for discussion at the article talk, so I encourage anyone with an opinion to chime in. I think it's likely that we'll settle on a more moderate approach. Many editors (including me) have indeed kept an eye on it, but consensus-development at Talk:Sex has been sub-par for a while, and I would not assume that content in the article has any implicit consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 22:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Republic of Romania[edit]

Transylvania1916 claims that Ion Iliescu was the president of the Socialist Republic of Romania, and Petre Roman its prime-minister, which I have never heard before and seems wholly WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was only for 1 day, but it still happened technically. Iliescu & Roman assumed office on 26 December, and the Socialist Republic was abolished on the following day. What on Earth is so hard to understand? I removed the sources from the infobox because they were cluttering it, and added relevant paragraph at the end of the Revolution sub-section. Transylvania1916 (talk) 12:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, Iliescu was coup leader, not president.

Your edit is WP:FRINGE and unverifiable in sources given. Completely made up original research. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I bet you didn't even read the sources... Transylvania1916 (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books shows that page, there is no mention that Iliescu has ever called himself president of SRR. The other is a compendium of legislation, does not mention that, either.

Reply to Yeah, no, you revert my sourced edit, you come up with actual arguments: your edit isn't sourced in the meaning of WP:PAGs. It is your own original synthesis of two different sources, one of them being a WP:PRIMARY source.

Nicolae Ceausescu was the last president of SRR. Iliescu called himself president of the Council of the National Salvation Front. See WP:1DAY. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a fringe theory? My apologies, but I'm not clearly understanding how it is relevant to this board. It seems more like a dispute over terminology, but this looks more like David Rice Atchison trivia (if I may use a somewhat similar example from my home country). jps (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ජපස: They claim it's sourced, but they have provided absolutely no source which mentions it as a real fact. They have just applied their own logic unto sources. If anything, it is doubtful that SRR existed on 26 December 1989, and certainly there was no president of SRR. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it is just an idea that a user has, it's not quite a fringe theory. Especially if there is no source. You're right that this is some real throwback stuff to WP:1DAY. WP:FRINGE content tends to be a bit more organized and more muddled. This looks straightforward. jps (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ජපස: Same as merely because we can write "the king of France" it does not follow that France does have a king. If it were trivia, a historian should have made the claim before. I lived for many years in Romania, and while I heard claims that Iliescu were neo-Communist, I have never heard the claim that he were president of SRR. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Debatable whether this is fringe, but from the perspective of improving Wikipedia, I think you both have something to offer here. The best way to address this type of controversial information, rather than reverting it entirely, is to retain some form of the content in a more correct form. The current article lacks any description of what came immediately after Ceaușescu's downfall. It goes straight from their execution to a new section talking about the abivalent interpretation of Iliescu's NSF actions, without ever saying what these actions were. A sentence at the end of the execution paragraph saying something like 'On December 25, Ion Iliescu proclaimed himself president of the Council of the National Salvation Front, and the following day they formally abolised the Socialist Republic of Romania' (or whatever the accurate description would be) would benefit the article without pushing the controversial claim that Iliescu was ever president of SRR, and would likely be something both of you would accept. Agricolae (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How much does WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE affect fringe BLPs?[edit]

I ask because it's being used to justify removing material from the Woodley article mentioned above. It says "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution (see § Using the subject as a self-published source, above). Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures." There's an explanatory note explaining who isn't well known at Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual. Doug Weller talk 14:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't dug (do you get that one?) too deeply into the article history. That said, I note one of the introductory sentences from here: Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. Publishing books, publishing articles, speaking at conferences, and giving interviews - all of which are supported in the article by RS and all of which, I assume, were intentional acts on the part of Woodley - define him as a public figure, and can be objectively interpreted as active efforts to achieve, among other things, media attention. If RS support this notable, "not low-profile" public figure's association with any group, claims that such content constitute defamation (i.e., damage to a person's reputation without justification) seem reckless and false. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with JoJo on this one. Woodley has thrust himself into the public eye and availed himself of public fora. He's abandoned any claim not to be a public figure. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that everyone who has written a book, or spoken at a Zoo is necessarily a public figure. Looking at Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual, and after conducting literal minutes of painstaking research, I think there's an argument to be made either way on this person. The interview with Maisonneuve was a small part of a much larger article, and being a speaker at a Zoological Society of London talk on cryptozoology isn't really high profile, especially as the sourcing we're using for it is a blog post by one of the speakers. Not exactly Has appeared as a featured performer or speaker for a publicly advertised event at which admission was collected and/or which garnered significant independent, non-local coverage. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I wasn't even thinking of Woodley but raised this as a general issue. Doug Weller talk 16:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, I actually think the Wikipedia guidelines (and general outlines presented by Orange Mike and ScottishFinnishRadish above) do a pretty good job of structuring the answer to this question, but it is entirely possible I am missing something. I don't mean to be a bother, but perhaps you could rephrase your question or specify a bit? Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am basically asking if this makes it more difficult to show that little known but notable figures are fringe. Doug Weller talk 17:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I was missing something, and I see it now. I think the answer to this has to be "yes." I don't think it's a terribly satisfying answer, but the policy is cautious by design. So if you had, say, a person who published a website dedicated to a square-shaped time object who was deemed notable, but not public, including direct criticisms might be tricky from a reputational standpoint. One strategy I think that might be deployed is side-by-side facts, such as "Mr. Fringe says the moon is made of cheese and is fourteen miles from Earth. According to NASA, the moon is made of rock and is 239,000 miles from Earth." This can also go overboard, however. Definitely worthy food for thought. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Side by side counters by referencing sources that don't mention the subject would be WP:SYNTH. I have seen too many abuses of this at the BLPN by people who don't understand that it was OR that try to right great wrongs. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGEBLP tries to make it clear that fringe beliefs of people should not be coatracked onto Wikipedia. For what it's worth, I think it's probably better if Wikipedia errs on the side of exclusion when it comes to fringe content simply because it is so hard to properly contextualize by its very nature. So if someone is notable but believes in goblins, Wikipedia may not include that obscure factoid on the basis of WP:UNDUE, for example. When someone wants to know whether notable person is a goblin-believer but doesn't find it on Wikipedia, that's okay. We should have very good sourcing (of the sort that makes it clear that goblins don't exist, for example) to say that. Otherwise, leave that sort of investigative journalist games to others. On the other hand, there are some people who derive notoriety from their fringe beliefs. In that case, it is not Wikipedia's job to refuse to reference criticism of those beliefs, for example. If notable goblin believer goes on Joe Rogan's show and then a bunch of articles are written about his goblin beliefs and there is a professional folklorist who publishes a blog explaining what is wrong with that position, it is perfectly fine, in my estimation, to use the folklorist's words (properly attributed) as a way to achieve proper contextualization and, dare I say?, WP:NPOV. jps (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much agree with this, but would go slightly farther. In general, when a notable person just so happens to hold a fringe belief that receives little media attention (passing mention, or none), it would be out of WP:PROPORTION to put it in an article along with the requisite WP:FRINGE balance. Even for some clearly-public figures, like the former US congressman who wrote (or drew, I don't remember which) Bigfoot material, it just seems no more relevant than mentioning they collect stamps, have a pet African hedgehog, or are a fuitarian. If it receives significant coverage in media, then yes, but I would say that the same applies if they use their notability to promote their fringe. If a notable actress goes on Joe Rogan to talk about vaccines causing autism, or how putting a polished rock in your . . . (never mind), then it becomes fair game. Agricolae (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And "According to NASA" could simply be presented as an unattributed fact per WP:YESPOV, —Paleo Neonate – 18:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this may be more of a flaw of allowing the various SNG to overcome GNG like NPROF. If someone is only notable because of their fringe work but not well known, shouldn't there be high quality RS that report that the person is fringe? Does this person need or qualify for a standalone article if not? Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there is notability due to "fringe work", essentially by definition the source that confers such notability has to acknowledge that the work is fringe per WP:FRIND. Otherwise, I would argue, the fringe work is not notable. jps (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)As a general principle, I tend to lean towards assuming a person is not a public figure in borderline cases. This includes cases that would otherwise check-off boxes for items at WP:LOWPROFILE. For example, small-town politicians who serve on some local planning board, and may give an interview to a small-town newspaper, or perhaps academics for whom part of their job is to publish papers are not "seeking out media attention". We should not be looking for reasons to publish articles on marginally notable people, rather the opposite. --Jayron 32 17:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the sourcing we're using for it is a blog post by one of the speakers. True that, but a referenced post by the noted palaeontologist and author Darren Naish under the imprimatur of Scientific American isn't exactly chopped liver. The subject has authored/co-authored several published books, and in their professional capacity they agreed to be interviewed and quoted about cryptozoology. Sure, this person isn't exactly Elton John, or even Darren Naish for that matter. But IMO their activities have made them a "not low profile" public figure, and by extension reliably sourced information about their affiliation with a disgusting group is not defamatory. I certainly won't be losing any sleep, however, when the AfD results in article deletion. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that it is difficult to use that source to show someone is high profile when the only coverage of the talk was by another person who was a speaker. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on in-text attribution[edit]

There is currently an RfC at WT:W2W (section link here) about requiring in-text attribution in articles. This is similar topic to the previous discussions establishing that the terms "pseudoscience" and "conspiracy theor(y/ist)" can be used without attribution, conclusions which are not being disputed here, but related terms such as "denialist" are under discussion. As such, it may be of interest to this noticeboard. Sunrise (talk) 05:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eduard Shifrin[edit]

Eduard Shifrin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Kabbalah, quantum physics, information theory... this looks worth keeping an eye on. XOR'easter (talk) 04:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

if a person has received coverage for their writing, even if it's fringe, it's entirely okay to mention it in their own article. Be a wrench, not an axe, and tweak the coverage to summarize without endorsing views. No one will die because Wikipedia says (gasp!) someone wrote something that deals with an area that irks some Wikipedians. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is already being discussed on Talk:Eduard Shifrin. Let's keep the conversation focused, please. XOR'easter (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Darvill and Stonehenge as a Mediterranean solar calendar[edit]

See [47] byJason Colavito and also his Twitter feed[48]. Darvill's article is here. Doug Weller talk 14:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent human evolution[edit]

The whole Recent human evolution article seems like its purpose is to exaggerate recent human evolutionary rates beyond the scholarly consensus. Some things that really stand out on a cursory reading are numerous references to the work of the science journalist Nicholas Wade, the author of the widely criticsed A Troublesome Inheritance which was criticsed by scientists in an open letter for its exaggeration of recent human evolutionary rates, as well as citations of things like this BBC article from 2007, which is based on the claims of anthropologist Henry Harpending, who believed that black people were naturally more aggressive due to their genetics. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ffs, it cites phys.org too. XOR'easter (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I saw a documentary called X-men, and it seems humans are evolving very quickly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is Gadianton robbers notable?[edit]

It’s about some sort of criminal organisation in the fictional Mormon ancient America. Only BOM sources. Someone has tagged it for notability but I’m thinking AfD. Doug Weller talk 20:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, the article needs some proper etic framing. It looks like Mormons sometimes make reference to this for various purposes. Here is a reliable independent source which might provide some context. There's a reference to them from some folklore accounts in Utah. They're mentioned on p. 73 of this book I do not have access to.

I do think it's worth having mention in Wikipedia, but WP:TNT seems like a possible avenue here. Redirect might be an option if they're mentioned elsewhere.

jps (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned quite a bit actually.[49]. A very interesting mention is in Secret combination (Latter Day Saints) which says "The most notable example of a secret combination is the Gadianton robbers, a conspiracy throughout much of the narrative of the Book of Mormon." I didn't do my due diligence, there are academic sources discussing them, eg Making Space on the Western Frontier Mormons, Miners, and Southern Paiutes

By W. Paul Reeve[50] and Terrible Revolution Latter-Day Saints and the American Apocalypse by Christopher James Blythe · 2020[51] both of which are university press book, the latter OUP. Doug Weller talk 11:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also by the former author: "As Ugly as Evil" and "as Wicked as Hell": Gadianton Robbers and the Legend Process among the Mormons, a very readable (admittedly not-quite etic) secondary source about the Gadianton Robbers narrative itself, but also about its impact on early Mormon society. Based on such sources, a standalone article looks retainable. –Austronesier (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decipherment of rongorongo, a 2009 FA article[edit]

Yesterday I was removing some stuff sources to Andis Kaulins[52] who self-published this book claiming "that many ancient megalithic sites are not tombs, but are remnants of ancient local, regional and perhaps even larger Neolithic surveys of the Earth by Stone Age astronomy, with gigantic stones being placed as immovable survey markers."[53]. I found this article which had a note saying "Besides Fedorova and Fischer, who are discussed here, these include José Imbelloni, Barry Fell, Egbert Richter-Ushanas, Andis Kaulins, Michael H. Dietrich, Lorena Bettocchi, and Sergei V. Rjabchikov." I didn't see the point of mentioning all these fringe authors so I deleted it. I also added an OR tag as I consider a lot of the notes to be pure original research. I was reverted by User:Kwamikagami who says on my talk page "The article passed FA with that info included. No OR problems then. What we have here is an insistence of TRUTH, as with other fields rife with pseudoscholarship. One linguist here on WP likened the author at issue (Dietrich) to reading von Däniken." But that was in 2009. So I have three issues. Is there justification for mentioning the fringe authors? Are many of the notes OR? Does this still meet our FA standard? Rongorongo also has some notes that appear to me to be original research, some clearly not sourced IMHO. Doug Weller talk 09:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like there is a lot of activity on the article talkpage that is vaguely relevant but perhaps missing the obvious solution that is to remove references to WP:SELFPUB. jps (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the other editors who have been active on the article and talk page in the last few months. @Austronesier, Bigdan201, Skyerise, and Eirikr:. I'm wondering if an FA review would clear this up. But both articles are at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/2004–2009 so I guess one would have to do what is called for at Wikipedia:Featured article review. As I've never been involved in an FA I'm probably not qualified to do it. Doug Weller talk 15:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize this was an independent objection; I assumed it was in response to BigDan/Xcalibur pushing TRUTH, or at least removing anything that would deny the TRUTH. I'd have to check how many mentioned in the fn are SELFPUB. Deletion may indeed be the way to go. The reason for mentioning those authors, though, was that they may be mentioned in popular accounts of rongorongo, so readers may wonder about them if there's no mention at all. Certainly we cleared out a lot of garbage about them when we prepared the article for FA, with Bettocchi and Rjabchikov fighting to keep it and insisting that we give them the coverage that they deserved. Imbelloni was published in Man, and his claims sparked an expedition to Easter Island. His claim that rongorongo was related to the Indus Valley script is still repeated, despite being published in the 1920s and repeatedly debunked. Fell is well-known as FRINGE, though his claims about rongorongo are incidental to what he's best known for.

As for FA review, there's been little change to the articles since FA, with Austronesier and me mostly keeping any fringy cruft from building up again. — kwami (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But our expectations/standards have changed a lot in the last 13 or 14 years. I doubt it would pass now. Doug Weller talk 09:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised jps's obivous point about WP:SELFPUB on several occasions (and not just about Dietrich). Dietrich is considered by one involved party to be a notable subject-matter expert based one (!) review in a peer-reviewed journal and an article about Dietrich in Die Zeit. My reply to this still holds: if that's notability for inclusion, then Wikipedia is doomed. –Austronesier (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never pushed TRUTH. I never even claimed that Dietrich is correct! It's simply an interesting theory that could be added, that's all. Kwami has made a baseless appeal to authority, by claiming that accredited rongorongo experts were involved in FA review back in 09, yet there's no RS for this, and all the edits are by his account, including the footnote (as I proved on the talk page). As for that note, some of those names can certainly be labelled pseudoscience (eg Barry Fell), but not necessarily all. No researcher should be dismissed as pseudoscience unless the RS support this, otherwise you're venturing into LIBEL territory.

Dietrich is not self-published, I never claimed that he's a notable expert, and not on the basis of 2 sources. Please stop spouting nonsense, it's counter-productive.

The main issue I had with kwami is that I don't see any reason not to include Dietrich, except for gatekeeping and IDONTLIKEIT. I even offered a much reduced version as a compromise, to no avail. The objections boil down to kwami's personal belief that it's incorrect, even though his objections have been shown to be fallacious and often based on flat-out misunderstandings of the text.

I'm fine with removing self-published work. The main reason I tried to include a summary of De Laat is because they have secondary reviews, and I didn't want another editor's substantial content to go to waste.

Another FA review may be worthwhile, especially if there's a possibility that it could alter the current baseless consensus against my contributions. Xcalibur (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Astrologers complain that they're shut out of WP too, because of the "baseless consensus" against their contributions. Sorry, but pseudoscience only belongs on WP if it's treated as pseudoscience. For a contribution, you need RS's on the subject, and you've never provided any, only one non-expert asking the experts to take a look to see if there might be anything to it. They have, and there isn't. The fact that they don't want to waste their lives debunking garbage doesn't mean that the garbage is gold. — kwami (talk) 05:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Astrology is covered here, albeit with the disclaimer that it's not accepted by modern science. Moreover, it's not equivalent -- context matters here, and rongorongo is an unsolved mystery. This means that one guess is as good as another, as long as there are RS, which I provided. Esen-Baur is an expert, and it is in fact a review (you would know this if you read it properly, which you did not); the fact that she asked more experts to weigh in doesn't negate this. Besides, that's far from the only RS/source. They have, and there isn't No, the experts haven't weighed in (except for Esen-Baur). You haven't provided a single RS (or any source) refuting this. Xcalibur (talk) 08:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)\[reply]

Repeating something does not make it true. Esen-Baur is not an expert, by her own admission. She asks the experts to take a look, because she does not have the knowledge to evaluate it. She brought Dietrich to wider attention so that they might evaluate it, not realizing that some of them already had. She does not review Dietrich, she summarizes -- there's a difference. You keep saying I must not have read her properly because I disagree with you, a common claim with those pushing pseudoscience. — kwami (talk) 09:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating something does not make it true. That much we can agree on. And repeating that "wikipedia is doomed" is no less an obnoxious, disingenuous comment than it was the first time. This is especially so when rongorongo studies seem to be moribund -- you yourself said that the Y! study group is inactive. When I say you didn't read, it's not sophistry on my part, it's an honest response to all these misunderstandings. Yes it is a review, and Esen-Baur does have relevant expertise, especially since (assuming the Dietrich theory is true) rongorongo is not even a script, but a notation system! Anyway, if any of the experts you accept have evaluated Dietrich, I'd be interested in a link. For my part, here's the Esen-Baur review, a significant source, but not the only one: [54] Xcalibur (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm at it -- while Dietrich is certainly not notable enough to warrant his own article, I think the sources ARE sufficient for adding a section. Especially if the existing sections have a paucity of sources, which may well be the case (I haven't checked yet). As for kwami, I don't expect to see any sources for these appeals to the authority of Guy, Sproat et al, so that's a moot point. Xcalibur (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said before, I was happy to accept Dietrich, as it was nice to have a treatment of RR as something other than a script. There's an inherent bias in a decipherment article, as it needs to be a script to be deciphered. I only changed my mind when I belatedly realized that he'd already been debunked by the RR group, which included some of the very ppl that Esen-Baur had named as experts. De Laat was part of that group later on, and he's giving his own opinion on the RR talk page: that Dietrich is nonsense, but also that he doesn't want his book summarized on WP because after feedback from the RR group he realized that he needed to rework the whole thing.

If you believe that EB is a RS, then let's accept what she says: that she's not an expert, and that Dietrich requires expert review. Until she gets her wish, there's nothing for WP to cover.

So you have zero sources that D is notable, and zero sources that he's credible, but the evaluation of one of the authors that you wanted to include in the article, De Laat, that D is nonsense. So why are you fighting to add nonsense to WP? — kwami (talk) 07:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories#Proposed addition: Relationship of WP:FRINGE to other policies and guidelines[edit]

Mentioning it here as I'm guessing not everyone watches that page. Doug Weller talk 11:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Mew concerns about COI and FRINGE[edit]

I came across the John Mew article as it had a cite error. Looking at the most recent changes it looks like it's being edited by the subject, or someone close to him. As he has some "interesting" ideas about dentistry I thought I'd drop a note here. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 21:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times profile is wild! jps (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[10.1016/j.paerosci.2021.100788-1] Nolan, Garry P.; Vallee, Jacques F.; Jiang, Sizun; Lemke, Larry G. (1 January 2022). "Improved instrumental techniques, including isotopic analysis, applicable to the characterization of unusual materials with potential relevance to aerospace forensics". Progress in Aerospace Sciences. 128: 100788. Bibcode:2022PrAeS.12800788N. doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2021.100788. ISSN 0376-0421.

[2] Knuth, Kevin H.; Powell, Robert M.; Reali, Peter A. (October 2019). "Estimating Flight Characteristics of Anomalous Unidentified Aerial Vehicles". Entropy. 21 (10): 939. doi:10.3390/e21100939.

[3] Knuth, Kevin H.; Powell, Robert M.; Reali, and Peter A. (2019). "Estimating Flight Characteristics of Anomalous Unidentified Aerial Vehicles in the 2004 Nimitz Encounter". Proceedings. 33 (1): 26. doi:10.3390/proceedings2019033026.

[1]

[2]

[3]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators main incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights questions on media problems Current events Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Reliable sources Resource requests Spam blacklist whitelist Scalable vector graphics Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Discretionary sanctions Sockpuppets Usernames Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard requests enforcement Edit filters requested false positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump policy technical proposals idea lab WMF miscellaneous WikiProject proposals
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards