Jump to content

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 102

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 95←Archive 100Archive 101Archive 102

Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act, NPOV, FRINGE and UNDUE

Hello, I created the article Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act (UAPDA) and am struggling to figure out how to address concerns raised on the article talk page here by users User:ජපස and User:Allan Nonymous. I've gone over the recommended reading here several times to consider them again, including WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:PSCI.

The article is not about UFOs, aliens or "ufology", but about the law passed by the United States, called the Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act. The law spells out that if materials related to things like "UFO crash recoveries" and "non-human intelligence" exist, it must be processed per this law's requirements. This was passed into binding law by the United States Congress and President. It's a real thing and other parts of the government are already engaging in their legally required compliance. Whatever the beliefs or whatnot about aliens and UFOs and the paranormal we have, I simply wrote an article about a United States law.

The template on the article now (NPOV template) says that, "This article may present fringe theories, without giving appropriate weight to the mainstream view and explaining the responses to the fringe theories." On the talk page, the comments left were,

  1. "The fact that this stuff is so WP:FRINGE as to be eye-rolled at by the relevant scientific community is an important point to get across to readers and the article does not sufficiently do that. Please fix prior to removing the tag."
  2. "Added a fringe tag, to warn readers of the undue credence the article gives UFO rumors."
  3. "The fact the article takes at face value claims that the US government had in its possession alien material/technology."

I'm uncertain here how to modify this article, as there are seemingly no sources at all that get into criticism of this UAPDA law itself that get into critcisms of it related to the fact it... well, revolves around "UFOs" and "UAP". Any criticisms that I have found of the law are related to matters of how it is implemented and similar, such as the eminent domain topic associated with it. The article doesn't get into whether or not UFOs or aliens are real or not or their associated theories; I wrote about the law that was passed on December 22, 2023 by Joe Biden, it's main features as reported by reliable sources, and reactions to the law from elected officials and journalists. As far as I can tell, I've now completely exhausted all of the sourcing that exists outside of things like forums and message boards.

The more I read these policies, I worry we've fallen into some kind of catch-22 here. The law factually exists, does the stuff it says it does, is widely reported on by mainstream/major media, and is live and valid today in the United States Code of Law, passed as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024. How exactly would this be addressed if there is no secondary sourcing related to the UAPDA that gets into criticism or analysis of the various claims of the law related to things that would fall under WP:FRINGE? This isn't "Wikipedia" saying that "if UFO stuff exists, it must be handled this way," and us giving 'undue weight', it's the US Congress and President saying it in passed law, and the Wikipedia article Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act reporting on the law itself.

How should this be addressed? I'm stuck as the templates seem incorrect given there is no plausible solution to them? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Have relevant experts commented on the law? If not, then it may not belong in Wikipedia. jps (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
"Have relevant experts commented on the law?"
Relevant legal experts have been included as sources in the article on the law Pub. L. 118–31 (text) (PDF), yes! The Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act article seems to trivially meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, and as far as legal experts, as the article is about a law... we have extensive commentary from members of Congress who wrote, debated and passed the law. Then this from a major DC law firm advising government clients and related on full compliance; the authors of that piece are themselves notable legal experts including Stephanie Barna. Other sources from legal experts include this, then the same legal expert again.
How do we resolve the template that says X must be included when X doesn't seem to exist for a notable law? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
All kinds of strange laws exist, not all of them notable. I think that this particular law is borderline in its notability. One problem we have with fringe theories is that sometimes "News of the Weird" allows them to get undue attention in ways that don't quite align to what we would require for NPOV. Explicit experts on "biological material" or "non-human intelligence" are required when discussing such matters. It doesn't matter if the context is a law or anything else! jps (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Those are terms used in the law itself. I don't think it's reasonable to tag the article because no experts have opined yet that the law mentions stuff that doesn't exist. Schazjmd (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
What? If you have a law that uses terms which are not properly defined, how is Wikipedia supposed to discuss them? jps (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Isn't our job to report what seconday sources say? Why would 'we' discuss them in article space, which would be WP:OR? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
We can't report on secondary sources which do not exist. jps (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what the disconnect is here. What does is matter if a secondary source doesn't exist? We can only link and use sources that do exist. You said:
If you have a law that uses terms which are not properly defined, how is Wikipedia supposed to discuss them?
Do we have a policy requirement that impacts this, or is this your own personal preference? If the former, I need you to link the relevant policy so I can use it. Thank you. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
If secondary sources do not exist, then notability can be questioned per WP:NFRINGE. jps (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
The article is extensively sourced; and I want to do the 'good faith' thing, but I am suspecting you are dragging things out here for some end that I cannot see? If you have concerns on the notability please nominate it for deletion. At present I begin to grow concerned at the unwillingness to explicitly say what parts of the article are "NPOV" problems--a complaint has no validity unless it has merit, correct? Provide something actionable or do we remove the template for having been adding incorrectly? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
The article as written is a stalking horse for credulity about UFOs being evidence for aliens. It is, essentially, functioning as a WP:COATrack. It needs cleanup at least. We may decide to trash it, but I'm not quite convinced that this is the necessary remedy yet. jps (talk) 00:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Your comment here, to be honest, makes no sense. It's an article about a factually existing law, with 40-50+ sources (I could have gotten more if I wanted to 'pad' it, which I had no need to), discussed in multiple mainstream sources. The entire article is about the law.
Just because the law says something, do we have a policy-based reason to somehow or in some way 'challenge' the law? If so, I will need to see a direct URL to a specific section of a specific policy, because that seems... patently WP:OR as a concept? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 02:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
If you cannot see how this article is serving as a legitimation of the hyperbolic and farcical claims of the UFO cult, I'm not sure that you are duly prepared to work in this area. jps (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
The article reports on a law passed by Congress covered to where it easily meets WP:GNG or someone would have immediately given the passions some people have on this topic would have sent it to WP:AFD immediately, which I still invite if you or others think the law is not notable. If it's not sent to AFD, then it is notable. If anyone is performing legitimation, it's the United States government, which is not our job to challenge as editors here? As citizens, sure. But our job is to make an encyclopedia. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Not everybody is a citizen of that specific country, and although it is not our job to challenge the government of that country, neither is it our job to uncritically propagate any bullshit that government generates. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, but it is preposterous, being blunt, to equate Federal law to superstition. Especially a law that does not say there are aliens; the law says if such things exist and are found, they are now presumed public unless POTUS tells Congress why they cannot be, putting their existence still 'on the record', if they exist.
So the law is quite literally as written, "if such things are true, the public is now legally required to be informed," and that's it. The simple existence/reporting of such a law as an article, that trivially passes WP:GNG, is in no way is "uncritically" propogating "bullshit". If that is how this "FRINGE" lesser hieararchal guideline that is below our other rules interprets things, then the FRINGE guideline is a bit off-kilter, putting it mildly. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 14:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Why is it preposterous to equate Federal Law to superstition? There are plenty of laws the Federal Government has passed which are basically superstition.
It is nice that people are comforted by conditionals, but how does one determine if such things exist? What is the test by which identifying thing is supposed to be done?
Maligning WP:FRINGE as a guideline as though that will save WP:PROMO of this law is not a great look. jps (talk) 02:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
"bullshit"
Oh please.
Stop that kind of unjustified language.
That is your opinion;
other perfectly reasonable people have a different opinion . KHarbaugh (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
It is your opinion that those people are perfectly reasonable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
"The article as written
is a stalking horse
for credulity about UFOs being evidence for aliens."
That is reading way too much into the article.
The law is essentially an if-then proposition.
It certainly does not state the hypothesis is actually valid. KHarbaugh (talk) 08:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
I see no hypothesis that was even properly formed here. The problem is the thing is so messed up, we can't really say much about it. jps (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Can you please explain how Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act fails WP:GNG potentially given the sheer volume of coverage and reporting over time, detailed at UAPDA#References?
"Explicit experts on "biological material" or "non-human intelligence" are required when discussing such matters. It doesn't matter if the context is a law or anything else!"
The article isn't about "biological material" or "non-human intelligence". UAPDA is about a new President/Senate nominated committee that would review government records that may be excluded from declassification in violation of an Executive Order from President Obama in 2009, and what the law described as abuses of the USA classification/restricted data scheme under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to conceal data. What policy or guideline on Wikipedia requires inclusion of experts on topics on an otherwise notable article? I would need to read that in case I need to update my other articles on laws, Born secret and Invention Secrecy Act. Can you please link me? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
GNG is not a fait accompli. We can delete, merge, or redirect pages if the topic is fraught. That is allowed. jps (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining. Can you explain further how Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act may qualify for deletion and under what policy/guideline?
I would still need to know how to resolve the NPOV/FRINGE tag on the article and would like to request you like where I can read on that for what precise actions would be required. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Can you please address your other statement, User:ජපස? You seem to have said that experts are required to be cited in an article where a given subject is discussed, such as if a law covers "non-human intelligence" or any other thing? Would I need to find nuclear experts to cite to weigh in on the legal issues around Born secret or inventors to cite on Invention Secrecy Act? I can't find a rule/policy that seems to say that? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
This is the WP:FRINGE board. The relevant policy is WP:NFRINGE. And while, in your other examples, I'm not sure WP:FRINGE applies, the first few searches I did found inventors commenting on the Inventions Secrecy Act and nuclear scientists commenting on "born classified" matters. Were you concerned that such did not exist? jps (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
No, you explicitly stated:
Explicit experts on "biological material" or "non-human intelligence" are required when discussing such matters. It doesn't matter if the context is a law or anything else!
I am asking what guideline or policy says this is required because I need to read it. Will you please provide something supporting this? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
I have already told you that the guideline under discussion is WP:FRINGE. jps (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
This is non-productive presently. Please speak directly, as I am. You will need to link the specific section of WP:FRINGE that says experts of a certain 'sort' are 'required', as you intimated. Please reply with that once you have it. Thank you! -- Very Polite Person (talk) 00:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:NFRINGE jps (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
What part requires experts? I am asking you to link the section. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 00:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
You need people who understand the claims to characterize the claim. Necessarily experts. If the only people commenting on a fringe theory are adherents and non-experts, then there is no way for us to characterize the claim properly. For example, when someone claims to have a perpetual motion machine, the relevant sources to determine whether it is worthy of inclusion here are those who can evaluate the particular physical laws being violated. jps (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
The article is about a law, it's inception, it's structure and passage, and reactions. I have cited legal experts and similar. There is no issue there. This is not a science article; it's a *legal* article. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Legal experts are not routinely called upon to define terms "non-human intelligence" and "biological evidence" for such. If you know of any instance where that has been done, by all means let us know! jps (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
The only reference to biological now is a single quotation from the laws own verbiage. What policy says a derivative topic under the main topic of an article (a Federal law) has any need for exterpise to define that term? I know you linked "FRINGE" before, but be reasonable and cite the explicit "chapter and verse". I found, still, nothing like this. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Does this single quotation deserve inclusion? Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, but if we have no sources which identify what the hell a law means by a particular phrase, what are we supposed to do?
Take, for example, laws relating to Huldufólk. We have lots of sources which identify the obvious peculiarities of such. In this instance, it looks like there isn't much in terms of comments by WP:FRIND sources as to what we are supposed to assume the meaning behind certain phrases and words in this law are supposed to be.
This is a very interesting edge case, indeed, so it may be worth thinking carefully how to thread the needle. jps (talk) 12:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
it may not belong in Wikipedia I'm wondering the same thing. There doesn't seem to be much WP:FRIND attention, at least not yet, and so it isn't clear that WP:N is met. Should WP have an article on each of the hundreds of laws that are enacted by the US Congress every session? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 01:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
If we did, there would be a problem with many of the laws being poorly written as courts often determine after the fact. I have no real issue with identifying that a law exists. I have a much harder time when we go into details considering the way laws do or do not ultimately end up mattering. In this instance, we do have a few sources which have reported on the law, but none really have addressed certain fundamental points of fact with respect to the law itself. As it happens, I talked with Schumer's staff about the thing and the response was one of "no one really expects it to be strictly enforceable". Makes you wonder why they wasted their time with it, but I suppose lots of weirder stuff ends up becoming law, it's just not the subject of tabloid obsessions. jps (talk) 01:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
I am uncertain that a law's mere existence is sufficient to meet WP:N. Thousands of laws exist in hundreds of countries. So what? If there are any examples of this law actually being applied in an important/significant way (that is, if its application is reported by reliable, secondary sources), then fine, it might merit an article. But it sure looks like an example of WP:TOOSOON to me. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
"But it sure looks like an example of WP:TOOSOON to me."
Can we possibly not communicate by acronym? It seems unhelpful. How is the article "too soon", when I even went to my own trouble of specifically dating every single reference I added, and I have there from 2023-06-27 to 2024-06-12? Are 34 references spanning an entire calendar year from 29 or so unique sources WP:TOOSOON? I'm feeling like I'm answering every single 'notability' acronym you all are raising here, to where I'm wondering what the fuss is. It's notable. If not... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Is the explanation given at the link WP:TOOSOON insufficient? The number of references doesn't matter when they still don't demonstrate significant independent coverage of the topic—as opposed to primary documents and references for secondary claims that don't specifically mention the article topic at all. Remsense ‥ 论 02:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
The WP:TOOSOON explanation makes sense, but is not applicable to my what I see in the sourcing and coverage of the Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act. Would it be helpful if went through each source and specifically itemized how they are referencing the law and to what detail? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
That would seem difficult, as most were published years or decades before the subject of the article existed. Remsense ‥ 论 03:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
There are 34 references that span from June 2023 to June 2024. Have you clicked edit on UAPDA#References and looked? I took substantial care in even organizing them by date. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Those seem to be almost exclusively, if not entirely primary. I wasn't clear in that I was only considering secondary sources, sorry. Remsense ‥ 论 03:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Please see my response here. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
If there are notability concerns, perhaps we should get to the point and nominate it for deletion? Are you both looking at the same article, which has a huge number of unique sources from unique mainstream notable venues all talking about the law? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I've been dreading this, but we do at some point need to cover the fact that some pretty important people in the US government have started spreading unsubstantiated claims about 'objects in the sky where we don't know exactly what they are' and 'can't explain how they move'. One possibility is that it's just another Qanon, where high level government officials just start spouting fiction. Alternatively, they might just be talking about something non-fringe, either novel technology or natural phenomenon, and it's getting washed a way in the oceans of fringe fandom. I honestly don't know, I try to stick to the 1940 and 50s. It's a topic we should cover, but what a difficult needle to thread! Feoffer (talk) 03:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
    There's been an analogous position with climate denial and medical science for ages. Wikipedia can cope. Bon courage (talk) 03:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
    I am throroughly flummoxed as well. The UAPDA is law, it passed, it's on the books, and it is live. The National Archives and Records Administration is already complying substantially. As far as I can tell every provision except the UAP Review Board and it's subpoena powers and the eminent domain portion passed and is law effective January 1, 2024. This is not a controversial or divisive position, it's simply fact, like the Internal Revenue Code. The entire UAPDA was already re-introduced for the NDAA 2025 with the previously omitted portions, and it's not a valid article source, but digging around all over for assets for this article, I found plenty of remarks by involved politicians that this would be introduced repeatedly until all provisions were law, implying not just back to back years, but three in a row should it fail. Will we complain about the article when people are being nominated to the United States Senate for confirmation? I honestly and truly understand if the article needs adjusting--I've yanked out over 20k of material from my initial draft and another 14k and counting today. But I cannot find a single reasonable or logical way this fails to pass any notability metric we have. None! -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
    I think we're on the path to a fine article. "Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon" sounds very "X-Files" until you point out Chinese Spy Balloons are UAP, and then a light goes off and you realize it's not about Mulder and Scully, it's about Beijing. Feoffer (talk) 05:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
    Sounds good, except isn't this just WP:OR? Do sources link this to Chinese Spay Balloons? It seems the politicians introducing it are framing it as being about aliens.[21] Bon courage (talk) 05:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
    It's not OR that Pentagon UAP task force (which preceded the law) confirmed the spy balloons were classed UAPs and that led to a reporting delay. And then, in addition to that, we definitely have people talking decades old conspiracy theories. Feoffer (talk) 06:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
    But are sources saying this is the background? In my (admittedly non-exhaustive) look it seems they're all focussed on aliens too, just like the politicians. Bon courage (talk) 06:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

A lot of the same WP:PROMO and WP:FRINGE issues were evident at the Luis Elizondo article where WP:CRYBLP had been used to whitewash anything critical from cited sources. Mostly remedied now, but might be a good idea watchlist it for the near future. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you LL I hadn't heard of CRYBLP before. Lots for me to learn. Sgerbic (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
See also WP:CPUSH. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Ohhh that is very interesting. I have encountered this on paranormal related articles, I didn't know it was a "thing" I just assumed it was some new tactic that was being tried. Kind of "I was just asking questions" and "I'm hoping to understand better". Thanks. Sgerbic (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)


Yingling, Marissa E.; Yingling, Carlton W. (2024). "Academic freedom and the unknown: credibility, criticism, and inquiry among the professoriate" (PDF). Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 11. The study itself doesn't look very useful, but the section "What next?" beginning on p. 13 should be. Seems like this could be better presented to the reader in the Investigation_of_UFO_reports_by_the_United_States_government#U.S. government activity from 2017 to present section. Also why "a series of bills passed by the United States Congress and signed into law on December 22, 2023.", it was an amendment to the NDAA proposed by Schumer but diluted in committee. fiveby(zero) 17:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Another merge target would be National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024#Provisions#Unidentified flying objects (UFOs). Aside from other fringe concerns UAPDA was not passed nor signed into law, "H.R.2670 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 sections 1841, 1842, 1843, and 7343 are what was passed. fiveby(zero) 18:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
But the measure is far weaker than what Mr. Schumer and other lawmakers in both parties had sought. Mr. Schumer succeeded over the summer in attaching a bipartisan measure to the defense bill that would have established a presidential commission with broad power to declassify government records on U.F.O.s, modeled after the panel that reviewed and released documents related to President John F. Kennedy’s assassination...Unable to reconcile the two competing approaches, negotiators who hammered out a bipartisan compromise between the House and Senate on the defense policy bill ended up dropping both Mr. Schumer’s measure and Mr. Burchett’s. Guo, Kayla (December 14, 2023). "Congress Orders U.F.O. Records Released but Drops Bid for Broader Disclosure". New York Times. Why is WP saying Schumer's amendment was passed and signed into law? fiveby(zero) 18:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Redirected to the NDAA article. fiveby(zero) 18:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Eyes needed on Genesis creation narrative

There seems to be a fairly lengthy dispute on Genesis creation narrative based on the premise that that the article "contains bias towards critical scholarship"; the main objection seems to be to the fact that mainstream academics aren't being given even ground with evangelical views of Genesis. Either way, the article is getting fairly dramatic rewrites as a result of the back-and-forth. I don't have the time to pick over all of the discussions in detail right now, but it could probably use more eyes to make sure we're not falling into WP:FALSEBALANCE or giving academically-fringe views too much weight. --Aquillion (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The allergy to describing these stories as "myths" is still quite pervasive. I wish we could get over that. Identifying the stories as "myths" is not an insult to the stories! jps (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
That reminds me of the conversation between Leonard's father and Sheldon's mother in The Big Bang Theory, where the father says he studies creation myths and the mother replies "I don't have a myth, I have the unerring word of God". Schazjmd (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Mostly content that I have written, but also some of what @Joshua_Jonathan wrote, when we were deliberately trying to form a consensus, has been repeatedly deleted although I repeatedly requested discussion and argumentation before deletion, in line with WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, but to no avail. Violoncello10104 (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

A merge from framework interpretation was done over the weekend. On seeing it, I don't think this is a good idea and I suspect this is an attempt to provide false balance to fundamentalist Christian interpretations of the mythology. I have warned new user Violoncello10104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) about this. jps (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I actually stated my reasons for the merge in Talk:Genesis creation narrative. The framework interpretation article was only about an interpretation of the first creation narrative (Gen. 1:1-2:4a) which is a major topic of the Genesis creation narrative article. Therefore, the suspicion that this merge was an attempt at providing false balance was unfounded. Another more experienced editor agreed with me, with whom I had previously argued on that same talk page. Violoncello10104 (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
I am not sure Wikipedia needs a separate article on the framework interpretation, but your merge looks an awful lot like importing apologetics and not much else. The current article seems to identify the actual scholarship surrounding this mythology better than anything inserted over the weekend (and certainly better than the shoehorning in of unreliable apologetics sources). jps (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
A list of external links promoting a particular 'perspective' (which is all this is) is entirely unencyclopedic, and doesn't belong in an article at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
@Aquillion: you didn't consider to inform me or Violoncello10104? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
The focus isn't (or shouldn't be) on you, just on making sure that the article reflects modern mainstream academic perspectives rather than giving undue weight to views that are currently academically WP:FRINGE. I didn't even pay close attention to who the specific people involved were - it was just obviously eyebrow-raising to see a stable, reasonably high-quality article on a highly-controversial topic getting drastically rewritten so rapidly, so I thought it best to draw more attention to it. That's what centralized discussion forums like this are for. --Aquillion (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Alaska Triangle

New article about a superstition-related geometric shape. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm vaguely familiar with this and I don't think it's a superstition related geometric shape as much as a region of convenience to account for an unusually high number of missing persons within a geographical area. The reasoning behind it is generally "it's wooded, unpopulated, and not at all safe" rather than "this is where UFOs like to harvest their test subjects" or something like that. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
...That is one terribly written article. And seems to blame magnets. "Alaska Triangle disappearances theorists believe is due to unusual magnetic activities or other natural causes or large stretch of land with natural dangers." Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 13:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Not another one, I think AFD may be in order. Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree with AFD. This is another Bermuda Triangle wannabee clone. Paul H. (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Hob Gadling: yikes, deleted in 2008 and resurrected this week. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 13:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

LOL, its now a stub. Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I've neatened it up a bit. If it gets deleted, I'm fine with that, but I'd rather have it be in decent enough condition that if it is kept it's not embarrassing Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 12:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
It does seem to pass WP:GNG and frankly keeping a version of it up that isn't a fringe-y mess probably will help prevent people trying to write new huge dumps of fringe theory info into the article. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Tukdam (Buddhist post-mortem meditation)

The article on Tukdam cites plenty of sources, but it uses a framing that seems consistently odd. It's as if it is trying to remove the concept from Buddhism. For example, there is "However, these EEG studies have not detected any brain activity,1 leading to questions about the nature of consciousness and its possible dissociation from measurable brain functions.2" And neither the study [1] nor the interview [2] quite gives the vibe that sentence does. Reference 1 says, "No recognizable EEG waveforms were discernable in any of these tukdam cases, thus we failed to find support for the hypothesis of residual brain activity following the cessation of cardiorespiratory function in tukdam cases recorded beyond 26 h postmortem." Reference 2 says, "The basic paradigm and worldview of Western natural sciences investigating tukdam is so different from the Tibetan Buddhist worldview that bringing those two together is really challenging." Rjjiii (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the distinction being drawn here is that Tibetan Buddhism (and Buddhism more broadly) makes claims about consciousness independent of it being purely a function of brain activity, a hedge the papers seem like they're trying to recognize in the superimposition of a specific worldview onto a spiritual framework that exists independently of a Western academic tradition in light of the context of their field work. The edited in section seems to be alluding to, but I don't really think that people should be taking those hedges to make naturalistic arguments about theological worldviews. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia cannot claim that the corpses of certain Tibetan Buddhists that are good at meditating decompose more slowly than other corpses. That's pure balderdash. See WP:ECREE. Right now, it's not adequately couched as a belief. It's stated almost as fact in WPvoice. jps (talk) 11:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Let me rephrase the specific thing I'm reading in that: When researchers go in to work with minority communities around religious belief, it's generally considered extremely poor form to go "We measured it and the religion is fundamentally wrong". So what I'm reading in there is an acknowledgement that a lack of brain activity as the researchers see it does not necessarily carry weight as a theological argument, and shouldn't be treated or viewed as making such an argument to readers. This is extremely common language in religious studies.
Right now, it's not adequately couched as a belief.
Well, there is apparently enough evidence of a delayed onset of decay to justify some heavy-duty field work which could, of course, have a multitude of environmental factors behind it. But broadly I agree, I tried removing some of the links to Tricycle which is a Buddhist magazine. As a source Tricycle often points to academic secondary sources which'd have no problem with WP:RS but I don't think it should be the primary source for some more off-into-the-theological-weeds discussions. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Frontiers In? Seriously? We shouldn't use fringe journals to back up fringe claims. jps (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Writing about this topic properly is really challenging due to a lack of non-credulous non-Buddhist sources discussing the topic. I share jps concerns that Frontiers is a low quality journal publisher, particularly for medical-related claims like this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I’m a rock guy more than anything else, so by all means edit away at that article, I’ve already removed a lot of the explicitly Buddhist sources being used to discuss the underlying data collection. I’m not defending the state of the article by any means. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I have completed a cleanup of the article: [22]. There seemed to have been a lot of nonsense and the precise phrasing of a lot of the text was either absurdly precious or overly credulous. jps (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I actually think removing the entire section on academic study was a miss, here? Other than that looks a lot better. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
The citations to said "study" were pretty thin. I can't seem to find any lasting impact of this and, apparently, they couldn't get it published in high impact journals. WP:REDFLAG ought to be considered. jps (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
The citations to said "study" were pretty thin.
Frankly, I think that it's been studied by western academics should probably warrant a mention and I feel like this is playing a little fast and loose with WP:RS, but we should probably take this to the talk page. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
It's a bit misleading to claim it's been studied by "western academics". It's actually been studied by religious believers. This is usually disconfirming and is in this case as well... media hype and Dalai Lama funding notwithstanding. jps (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I've taken this to the article talk page and pinged you. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

On a closely related topic, how do you guys feel about how the controversy in Richard_Davidson#Research_with_the_Dalai_Lama is currently described? VdSV9•♫ 13:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not really considered controversial within the sciences? As the article points out, it was at first until it became clear that the topics of the meetings were genuinely about actual quantum mechanics and not quantum mysticism. Is there some specific point in the phrasing of that section you're concerned about I'm perhaps missing? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, but where does it say quantum anything? Are you reading the same article as me? About a neuroscientist? I have doubts, and am asking in a place where I know there are more experienced and knowledgeable editors. I am concerned, to a point, that maybe the comment about some of the researchers who signed the petition being Chinese is a bit of a red herring, but I am unsure about that. Also, the language in The controversy subsided quickly after most scientists attending the talk found it appropriate is not something I am getting from the Science reference used. Also, before the part about the conference, maybe there could be more about about him being too close to someone with an interest in the outcome of his research and how that can bias his research. Finally, if there is a good number of reliable sources about these issues, I think that could be more prominent in the article. VdSV9•♫ 13:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Whoops, 100% confused the efforts of Davidson and the Dalai Lama with the projects with Innsbruck and a few others, so yes, pretty busted there. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Edgar Cayce

Talk page has a new entry, a question on how to handle the tall tales in the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Major progress made and still being made. As a side note, "Looks like I picked the wrong week to edit the bio of an Appalachian folk magic practitioner who predicted changes to the earth's climate would cause western North Carolina to go underwater." Feoffer (talk) 07:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seed oil misinformation

Seed oil misinformation has been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seed oil misinformation. Please participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Frankism

Please see Talk:Frankism#2024 spike in interest. --Joy (talk) 04:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The spikes seem to have passed.[23] What is the WP:FRINGE aspect here? Bon courage (talk) 04:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
I have found this[24] which is textbook conspiracy-mongering (even if it was probably not intentional): SYNTH with the unrelated related topic of pedophiles evading justice (it's only related if you believe in the conspiracy theory), soapboxing (Youtube as source) and whitewashing ("Owens is very careful..."). –Austronesier (talk) 10:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, the question is how do we best handle this weird recent talking point in an article that seems to be about something from 150 years ago. The article's sources say e.g. there is evidence that the Frankists as a distinct social group existed at least until the 1880s, but there's no apparent connection between 19th-century Poland and whatever some American pundit is saying today. --Joy (talk) 11:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
I have cleaned up the pro-conspiracy POV, but the question is, can we mention the whole thing at all without producing WP:undue weight? –Austronesier (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Maybe if we have another existing article that mentions Icke's use of this term, these mentions of Owens' use of the terms can be moved there. The mention can then be reduced to a single sentence, in a separate section, with a link to an article that puts it in proper context. --Joy (talk) 07:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
A Wikipedia search brings up references to this stuff in:
To Eliminate the Opiate ... claims to trace the roots and offshoots of Sabbatean, Frankist, and Illuminati groups [...]
To Eliminate the Opiate reports many rare, obscure, or conspiracy theory type elements of Sabbatean and Frankist exploits.
Popular conspiracy theorist author David Icke's 2019 book about 9/11 "The Trigger," cites Antelman extensively in tracing the conspirators or antagonists that he calls "The Death Cult."
Stone blamed the world's current woes on "Sabbatian Zionist Lurian Kabbalists behind the veil," a formulation referring to followers of the 16th century Kabbalist Rabbi Isaac Luria and the 17th century mystic Shabtai Tzvi.
The likes of Shemirani, Stone and Icke tap into the 'cultic milieu' [...]
The Trigger: The Lie That Changed the World – Who Really Did It and Why (2019), Icke writes [...] "Zionist and ultra-Zionist organisations form a network across America and the world to manipulate and impose the will of ultra-Zionism and the Sabbatian-Frankist Death Cult [...]
The article about Sabbateans doesn't seem to mention any of this at all, so it makes sense that both have a similar kind of treatment of this matter. --Joy (talk) 07:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

2024-09 Yuri Bezmenov

Hello,

One week ago i improved the article on Yuri Bezmenov. Could you take a look? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The interview between Bezmenov and Griffin is currently used 12 times as a referece in the article. No red flag for you? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft about a fringe writer, not sure it can be saved

Draft:Randall_Carlson is interesting but the sources don't show notability. It may not be possible to do that, but just in case I've brought it here. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I am somewhat familiar with Carlson's crankery, and I agree that the sources provided don't demonstrate that he is wiki-notable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
For the record Wikidata has an item about him: wikidata:Q107206942 (created by @Aluxosm: several years ago). You may be able to mention those sources in the aforementioned item. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
@Visite fortuitement prolongée: I don't care to get into a discussion here regarding this article (as per my user page). However, if the intention is to submit the Wikidata item to an RFD, I would caution that the notability criteria over there are quite different from Wikipedia's; at least criteria 3 (fulfilling a structural need) would apply due to the links to his appearances elsewhere. If any of those sources can be mined for references to statements on his item, great! Aluxosm (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
«if the intention is to submit the Wikidata item to an RFD» => This has never crossed my mind and is not my goal. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 09:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Quirinius

This is about [25] and [26]. Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Seed oils

Is newly at AfD, which may interest members of this noticeboard. Note the AfD has been advertised in the 'StopEatingSeedOils' subreddit.[27] Bon courage (talk) 04:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

The AfD was closed as speedy keep. It's possible this means the article itself is now going to be the target of editing from the external attention although frankly there didn't seem to be any sign of much during the shortish time the AfD was open. Nil Einne (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately there is an anti-seed oil Reddit board with over 40K members, users over there will likely find the Wiki Page in the next 4 or 5 days. It's early days yet but there is likely to be trouble on this article. It might have to end up being protected like the carnivore diet article due to excess vandalism. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Isn't that the same Reddit board where the AfD was already posted? It seems to have "40,643 readers". I don't see why'd they suddenly discover the article in 4 to 5 days when they didn't already discover it via the above linked thread. I doubt it's the only thread where it was mentioned either e.g. [28]. From discussions in the threads, I get the feeling that enough of them think so little of Wikipedia that they're not interested in touching it which might be why there doesn't seem to have been much coming from those threads. Nil Einne (talk) 11:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Interesting that is all news to me. I wasn't aware of the AfD discussion. I have debated the creator of the StopEatingSeedOils in the past. He operates a crazy carnivore diet website claiming all plants are toxic/bad for health. The same grift has been taken up by many others in the anti-seed oil community. I do expect to see vandalism on that page, it's still early days yet. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Can anyone get Newspapers.com access restored to Wikimedia Library

Access has been down since early summer and it was spotty before that. It really impairs our ability to debunk things -- Edgar Cayce is just the lastest in many articles I can't improve because this access is down. Feoffer (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Feoffer, see https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T322916#10036209. Schazjmd (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you SOO much! The workaround (manually copy cookies across sessions) worked! Feoffer (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
I've had issues with Newspapers for the last couple years, it was spotty and sometimes I was unable to clip articles. Finally I just paid for a membership. If they ever finally catch up to 2024 and fix these issues, someone please remember that I've had to cut back on my pizza addiction in order to afford the website. Or maybe it's a good trade-off? Newspapers is clunky and hasn't expanded to the include some of the newspapers I would like, but I absolutely love having access to old newspapers. If you aren't using this, you might just love it as I do. Sgerbic (talk) 00:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
@Sgerbic and @Rjjiii The workaround described here works; you just have to copy two cookie fields across sessions and it works like a charm. Feoffer (talk) 11:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm technically approved from their new process, but some things still seem kind of broken. Rjjiii (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hypnotherapy: not very good or just misunderstood?

A new editor is proposing a radical change[29] to the article lede. Could use eyes. As, in general, could the content of this the article, and how it differs from Hypnosis. Bon courage (talk) 03:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

"Historical race concepts" sidebar

A new sidebar called "Historical race concepts", which does not make clear that such concepts are pseudoscientific and fringe, is being added to some articles about historical racist figures and works. Should it be removed and perhaps replaced with the existing Template:Historical definitions of race sidebar, and perhaps also the Racism topics sidebar? Llll5032 (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The "Historical race concepts" footer template also, naturally, "does not make clear that such concepts are pseudoscientific and fringe". Having a more condensed sidebar template corresponding to such a large footer is common practice. If any included entries are WP:FRINGE, you should make your case at the template's talk page, @Llll5032. Biohistorian15 (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
I have also commented at the "Historical race concepts" talk page, with a notification about the discussion here. The existing "Template:Historical definitions of race" footer at least has a prominent sub-heading with "Scientific racism", although perhaps it also perhaps could make clearer the pseudoscience of some listed works. Llll5032 (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
How does a footer/sidebar "make clear" something like this. They very much entail that the concepts included are of historical nature and no longer widely accepted. Biohistorian15 (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
For instance, it could add a "Pseudoscience" or "Fringe theories" label in sub-sections, in cases when academic reliable sources support such a label. Llll5032 (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't even know what this means. If you want to include "pseudoscientific" or similar as a prefix in all section titles, this totally bloats the template and is most definitely WP:UNDUE. Strange thread. Biohistorian15 (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
@Biohistorian15, it is not clear from the language that you currently use in the sidebar that the concepts are "no longer widely accepted". The word "Historical" does not necessarily entail this, so perhaps you could endeavor to make it clearer. Llll5032 (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Ah, you are referring to the "paradigms" section. If you have a reasonable alternative title, why not just add it yourself. If it is very objectionable, a last resort might be to just resolve it into the "Related topics". Biohistorian15 (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
I added language matching the other template. My opinion is still that this new sidebar is redundant and that the more longstanding template would benefit from more clarity about the pseudoscience. Llll5032 (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
I am also adding a "Pseudoscience" descriptor to both templates along the "Scientific racism" descriptor, to match the first sentence description in the "Scientific racism" article: "Scientific racism, sometimes termed biological racism, is the pseudoscientific belief that the human species is divided into biologically distinct taxa called "races"... I believe that this descriptor is an improvement, and I would welcome discussion about it. Llll5032 (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Further, I addded a link to Racism to both templates.[30][31] Llll5032 (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
The word "Historical" does not necessarily entail this How about "obsolete"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Obsolete does sound better, historical isn't quite right in this situation. These aren't just past ideas, but ideas that have been completely refuted. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
They're also idea that are still held by some, albeit fringe figures... So obsolete reads better than historical. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Since the template is not used by any article (Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Historical_race_concepts_sidebar), and since it contains just an arbitrary selection of the articles in Template:Historical definitions of race, I think it should be deleted. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I just changed the title of Template:Historical definitions of race to "Obsolete definitions of race". Rsk6400 (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Just started the deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 October 11. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Consciousness after death

Realted to other discussions hereabout, I notice we have

Which doesn't appear to have any reliable sources on the actual topic of "consciousness after death". Could there be some kind of merging between this and the fringe/science aspects of Tukdam? Bon courage (talk) 11:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

How is this separate foro life after death? Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
I suppose life after death is when a dead person is resurrected. Consciousness after death is the idea that the brain remains conscious (presumably in a way which can be measured with the correct brain monitoring equipment) in a corpse. I think, Bon courage (talk) 12:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
"The afterlife or life after death is a purported existence in which the essential part of an individual's stream of consciousness or identity continues to exist after the death of their physical body" vs "Consciousness after death is a common theme in society and culture, and the belief in some form of life after death is a feature of many religions. However, scientific research has established that the physiological functioning of the brain, the cessation of which defines brain death, is closely connected to mental states." seems to cover the same topic. Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
I suppose one is "a purported existence" (i.e. make-believe) whereas the other is making a science-y claim about brain activity. Bon courage (talk) 12:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
So a POV fork? Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Probably one of those cases where "afterlife" is essentially religious and so held to be not fringe, but consciousness after death involves electrodes, doctors in white coats and bleeping machines hooked up to dead bodies, so rather more fringe. I don't think the latter is a viable topic given the apparent dearth of RS. Bon courage (talk) 12:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I think Slatersteven is right. This is a WP:POVFORK. While I am certain that some of those arguing that, for example, near-death experiences are evidence of consciousness after death that is more respectable than the Long Island Medium's stories of how your grandma wants you to wear a certain outfit, I don't see any hefty sources which make a meaningful distinction between these approaches. jps (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Hell even I’m with you and Bon that this is a POV fork. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 22:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Now mentioned at AfD [32] Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paratoari

Fringe, not notable. Doug Weller talk 11:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Is a Qaballa "discovered" or "invented"?

Disagreement at English Qaballa, where some editors insist that the Qaballa is "discovered", not "invented", as if it was a real, pre-existing thing just waiting for someone to notice it. Fram (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Is this fringe? Either way, “discovered” isn’t appropriate in wikivoice. If it was an older faith tradition I’d probably discuss it as “emerging” at a certain date but we’re talking about the 70s, so invented is appropriate. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
The proponents of this system believe, in spite of a complete lack of evidence, that it is an empirical truth about the universe to the point that they think it is best described as "truth" or, as you may have seen on the talkpage like discovering a new drug. jps (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Let me rephrase: how is this not just a normal religious belief? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 00:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure whether "normal" religious beliefs make positivistic claims about material reality. I think that religious beliefs sometimes (often?) do, and, to that extent, those beliefs tend to fly in the face of the academic consensus that the world lacks a certain kind of enchantment. This is one of the WP:REDFLAGs that I use to decide when a claim is relevant for WP:FRINGE as opposed to being purely a religious consideration. jps (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
So do many faiths? I don’t think it’s making empirical claims beyond most faiths, unless I’m misunderstanding it? For all their other issues editing that article it does feel a bit out of line to call a religious belief disproven nonsense (per the talk page).
Then again the article is quite obtuse and I’m not 100% sure what it’s trying to say so perhaps I’m wildly off base here Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Let me just try to be clear here, then. When someone's faith compels them to make an empirical claim, it can be one of two kinds:
1) A claim that has a basis in reality. (E.g. Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate.)
2) Claims that are at odds with what is known about reality. (E.g. A global flood inundated the world causing most geological formations)
In instances where (2) happens, I argue (not without objection) that WP:FRINGE applies. I think we have that instance here. I encourage you to read some of the sources about what adherents claim to be able to do with this particular Qaballa. "Magick" is basically a precursor to things like the Law of Attraction, but with a bit more ritual.
jps (talk) 11:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Is this fringe? Yes. Yes it is. The fact the some empirical claim about reality is part of some religious tradition, whether one considers it "normal religious belief" or not, doesn't protect it from being considered fringe. This has been discussed to death. Trying to shield religious beliefs from criticism has always been a way to protect cranks and frauds When we try to shield religious beliefs from criticism, what we end up doing is we protect cranks and frauds. Especially so-called mediums and faith healers, just to scratch the surface. Just stop it. This is an encyclopedia, we should inform people to the best of our abilities, not protect the feelings of the credulous and the gullible. VdSV9•♫ 13:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
This is inappropriate. There’s a huge, ongoing discussion about FTN’s handling of religions at VPP and I’d very much appreciate you avoiding aspersions here. I was struggling to see the empirical claim, but as I said I was struggling to read the article in the first place. Asking if something is WP:FRINGE isn’t a call for accusing the person who asked of improper behaviour. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
I wasn't accusing you of anything. I was just pointing out the implications of your actions, not implying that was your intent. Sorry if it didn't come out as clear as it should have. VdSV9•♫ 13:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Religion isn’t fringe, it’s completely reasonable to ask if something is making the sort of claims that would make it fall under FTN’s umbrella, and there’s a bit of a track record here of open hostility to religion in editing that is best avoided. If you look at the bottom of this thread you’ll see me arguing that the consensus arrived at was too conciliatory to the in universe claims. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Open hostility to religion (an idea) is different than open hostility to religious identity (a protected class, at least in the US). I wish we could do better with this. If I deride a religion as being implausible, that is openly hostile to the idea in question, but it is not a violation of Wikipedia rules, as far as I can tell. jps (talk) 18:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Definitely not "discovered", which would be making a fringe claim in wiki-voice. Definitely not "invented", which would cast a non-neutral amount of doubt. Words like "described" or attribution with "said"/"wrote" would work. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree. This is something which is described or explained or WP:SAID. jps (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
'Described' seems fine to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
“Described” seems fair, but considering the edit warring its probably best we take this to the talk page and make sure @Skyerise is aware of the parallel discussion. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
'Described' is a fine compromise edit. I said so in an edit comment when I fixed it being misspelled as 'Derscribed'. Lol! I hope you're not planning on warning me for edit warring because I removed a spurious letter. Skyerise (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Should we worry about the "neutrality" of the term "invented", when the entire article uses Wikivoice to present an in-universe perspective entirely based on in-universe sources? Isn't that what Fandom is for? Pikachu does a better job.. Austronesier (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
"In-universe"? I get what you mean but that feels like the wrong phrasing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
“According to the internal historiography of a faith tradition” can get clunky, I think “in universe” is fine on talk pages as long as it’s not being used to directly denigrate someone’s faith. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
I mean, basically any believer will take offense at the use of "in universe" as a substitute for "emic". jps (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Other articles on this topic have used “formulated”, which I think is a little less passive than “described”. Are there any objections to that? @AndyTheGrump @Austronesier @Firefangledfeathers @Fram? (Sorry for the pings, I just figure changing it right after we have some kind of consensus here is better not done via WP:BEBOLD.) Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 00:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
If I dig deep for some connotation, it starts to give hints of "invented". I wouldn't object based on those hints, just noting them in case they resonate. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 11:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
I think it probably should be giving off hints of “invented” when the authorship is well within living memory and there’s no evidence of a prior existence. I just think “invented” itself is perhaps pointlessly indelicate when other words exist which capture the nuance better without causing as many objections. Something can be formulated from pre-existing material, so it’s both appropriate in wikivoice and not just being needlessly hostile to the underlying claims, but in context of being so decent a publication that an ISBN may exist I think the average reader wouldn’t struggle to read “formulated” as “this is who came up with it”, which is the correct wikivoice (imo). Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
In normal parlance, people are proud when they have invented something. If people are offended because they want to hide the fact that someone invented it, and pretend that they instead discovered it after some deity hid it, then that is their problem, not a problem of a science-based, fact-based encyclopedia. We say "Scientology is a set of beliefs and practices invented by the American author L. Ron Hubbard" and that doesn't seem to be a problem. Fram (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
I don’t disagree, but I don’t see how “formulated” is actually less in-universe than “described”, which is the language we use for discoveries. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
I think formulated is the best in this case. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Huh? We're talking about English Qaballa, right? That's a system very much developed, created, devised, formulated, pioneered, or conceived by James Lees. It wasn't discovered and it wasn't described, as though a bird by a naturalist. I mean it's not even a belief system unto itself, right? It's a numerological method to access additional pearls in Crowley's work. Implying that something which was created in fact existed before it was created is going to be a WP:FRINGE problem whether we're talking about esotericism or the way a musician "discovered" their newest album. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
I have to agree with this. We need to quit beating around the bush and say that this is something he created, because it's something he created. Mangoe (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Updated. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
I think the question is whether it is something that he created intentionally or whether it is something he created accidentally after, y'know, a wild night out or somesuch. Anyway, it doesn't much matter to the point of fact that he was the one describing the thing and he is the holder of the copyright, for example. jps (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia was covered in content treating the claims of Koko (gorilla) and other ape-human language experiments as successes despite widespread rejection by experts (outside of the primatologists who specifically study these apes and those uncritically citing them). I’ve pinged both the linguistics and primate wikiproject but frankly FTN may need an eye on it too before the effectively in-universe claims of some of these research groups percolate back into the articles, especially given the popularity of these specific apes, evidence-be-damned.

Most of the discussion is currently at the Great ape language talk page. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 00:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

...and for those who, like me, find this kinda stuff interesting; check out facilitated communication. Polygnotus (talk) 07:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Martin Gardner also wrote skeptical articles about that. Not sure primatologists are necessarily familiar with Clever Hans. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
The amount of people insisting that primatologists are a reliable source for “is this a language” coupled with how easy it is to demonstrate that domain experts widely reject any finding of language in these experiments is wild. I’ve not yet found a source that rises to an explicit WP:RS/AC (but it’s still easy to find sources discussing broad consensus against this among multiple SME disciplines, just not to the exacting standard of WP:RS/AC) but people do seem willing to just make arguments researchers themselves aren’t making (“they’re using a different definition of language”) or pick and choose which source lets them still believe there are great apes with language regardless of how qualified that source is to make the determination.
There’s a lot of people who really want these experiments to have demonstrated use of sign language, couple that with a very big popular “sexy” bit of science and the impulse here is to drag these articles away from the academic mainstream. There’s currently some disagreement that the belief that language was demonstrated is WP:PROFRINGE, so I’m hoping some other editors here are familiar with this topic. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Comment: A discussion about whether or not primatologists are considered a reliable source on questions of "what is a language" is up at WP:RSN and may be of interest to people here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Is this actually WP:FRINGE though? Isn't this just a legitimate dispute in its field? Or is there some RS saying the pro-language side are engaging in pseudoscience or crankery or are outcasts in their field? Bon courage (talk) 02:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
    Welcome to why this one is so tricky. There’s a spectrum within the research, and for certain the field itslef isn’t a mass of fringe, but the reports of successes are actually in a majority of cases (let’s leave Kanzi out of this, and there’s a few other places) fringe as hell
    is there some RS saying the pro-language side are engaging in pseudoscience or crankery or are outcasts in their field?
    Yes, and not even a small number of sources saying this. Patterson (Koko’s trainer) has been referred to as an ape-stealing quack for her research in an RS, there’s statements by Thomas Sebeok, an American semiotician specialized in nonhuman communication systems:

    In my opinion, the alleged language experiments with apes divide into three groups: one, outright fraud; two, self-deception; three, those conducted by Terrace. The largest class by far is the middle one.[1]

    ”Terrace” here is Herbert S. Terrace, P.I. For Nim Chimpsky (widely regarded as the most rigorous of these experiments until Kanzi). In the aftermath of Nim Terrace became one of the most vocal critics of claims of success in this research, I’m going to cite his wiki page but these aren’t my edits (and they’re cited):

    While Nim was in New York, Terrace believed he was learning sign language. But in reviewing the data, Terrace came to a conclusion that surprised most everyone involved: Nim, he said, was not using language at all. … Controversy erupted over the fact that Terrace did not restrict his analysis to Nim. He claimed that other apes in other sign language research projects—most notably, Washoe and gorilla Koko—were mere mimmicks as well.

    There’s an ocean of sources saying similar things for all of the other great ape language experiments (again, except Nim and Kanzi). Essentially it’s erroneous to make this out to be primatologists vs linguists, it’s a small, small subset of primatologists vs everyone else. A lot of people (I’m assuming including some FTN readers) were under the impression that these results were a lot more robust, and so we have a generation of both academics and lay people who believe these experiments demonstrated language and cite the studies while being unfamiliar with the rigorous academic debate behind it that has been damning to the research. Keep in mind that the great ape language groups are generally more eager to contact the media with their findings than actually publishing them, which I’m sure is a pattern we’ve all seen before at FTN and the typical response to valid criticism has been either “nuh uh” or as hominem.
    So you, that’s why actually getting Wikipedia to reflect the actual scientific understanding on this is a complete nightmare. It’s big, “sexy” science backed by a media blitz. That’s why in the threads mentioned above I’ve repeatedly been invoking WP:ECREE and WP:PARITY, but I think a lot of people see my stance as unreasonable rigid dogmatism and not the actual WP:RS/AC on this topic from people who aren’t so far down the rabbit hole of being invested in these studies being real that they lose objectivity. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
    As an addendum, @Polygnotus above linked the technique that’s been used in most of these studies, which is straight pseudoscience. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
    Right so it's a field of apparently legitimate enquiry with, it is said, some bad research and good research (as is quite common). Relevant in WP:FRINGE is

    Poorly conducted research, research fraud and other types of bad science are not necessarily pseudoscientific – refer to reliable sources to find the appropriate characterisation.

    As usual, WP:RS/AC is a red herring except in the rare cases where a field is described literally and specifically by sources as having positions subject to "consensus". Like (say) zinc and the common cold Wikipedia would emphasize the WP:BESTSOURCES which would happen to have unsurprising, unexceptional findings while contextualizing and downplaying lesser sources. But that's not necessarilly a WP:FRINGE issue. Bon courage (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
    ight so it's a field of apparently legitimate enquiry
    I’m sure this is accurate, teaching human language to apes is not viewed as legitimate at this point, even within primatology. Teaching advanced communication, sometimes with signs humans recognize from ASL, is. Sometimes research groups do both, but facilitated communication is pseudoscientific when done with humans, let alone nonhuman primates. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
    As Bon courage says, primatology studies aren't pseudoscientific crankery. The primatology studies are very well-published in reliable journals. And critiqued, of course. They're controversial, but they're not going around making nonsense claims. The language abilities of Kanzi are not explained by the Clever Hans effect. Frankly, that just suggests that someone hasn't reviewed the research at all. Andre🚐 05:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
    They're controversial, but they're not going around making nonsense claims
    They often, in fact, are. It’s no different from the engineers and physicists who try to publish studies discrediting anthropogenic global warming using the skills they have: it gets published and through peer review, but eviscerated by those with full expert knowledge on the specific topic. Academic training is not some universal badge of knowledge. I don’t know how many times I need to say I’m not dismissing the entire field of research as WP:FRINGE but merely certain specific claims which you’ve already stated you accept as credible, personally. This is why I’ve asked for any WP:RS from within a SME discipline (which the primatologists are not. No amount of primatological training is sufficient to make fundamental claims about language comprehension and use, especially when there’s overwhelming consensus in pertinent disciplines rejecting these findings.) supporting these claims. As for Kanzi, well, I’d highly recommend reading what you replied to :) Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
    I did read it. And if you specifically except Nim and Kanzi then you aren't rejecting all primate language study evidence, since they contain it. And your idea that "in the specific field" means linguistics is doing a lot of lifting. See the study I linked by a cognitive scientist below, an expert on human brain evolution and the nature of language. Andre🚐 19:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
    Neither Nim nor Kanzi have made claims of language to my knowledge. Koko, on the other hand, did. I am trying to tread very carefully with what’s WP:FRINGE here but you yourself called the difference between disjointed signs and sign language “splitting hairs” (not an exact quote, I believe, sorry) which… kind of tells me you lack familiarity with this, and I don’t mean that as a personal attack at all. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
    I gave a study below which clearly says, Ape language acquisition studies have demonstrated that apes can learn arbitrary mappings between different auditory or visual patterns and concepts, satisfying the definition of symbol use Andre🚐 19:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
    This isn’t even vaguely WP:FRINGE, though, which is one of the reasons I keep raising the specific nuance around language vs communication. Symbol use has been noted in more than great apes I believe, it is just not language. Again, if primatologists are using their own definition of language I’d appreciate a source saying that, I know of one primatologist who argues that a different definition should apply, but he explicitly acknowledges he’s against the mainstream in advocating that stance. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
    Nicholas Wade is not among the most solid people to quote. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
The quote is attributed to Thomas Sebeok, in an article by Wade, published in Science, in 1980. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Wade, N. (1980). "Does man alone have language? Apes reply in riddles, and a horse says neigh". Science. Vol. 208. pp. 1349–1351.
And then filtered through Wade, who is notorious for smelling fraud in every scientific study. He is a taint, cannot be trusted and should be avoided. If Sebeok is quoted by someone serious too, the quote is useable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I think it's silly and petty to disregard everything previously published by Wade in top publications (e.g. Science, Nature, the New York Times). We don't need to quote as facts his popular science books that misrepresent human genetics, but for science reporting I'd trust the editorial staff of these publications, decades ago, over Wikipedia editors who now have a strong dislike of Wade (especially since COVID). Wikipedians thinking they know better than those dumb old reliable sources is a constant source of amusement. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
It's irrelevant anyway. Something from 1980 can't know about more recent research. Andre🚐 19:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Good reasoning. Has been ignored by your opponents because they believe that what I say below is easier to handle. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Wade was incompetent long before COVID, and it is normal to reevaluate earlier works of incompetents after they have been shown to be incompetent. Sometimes what they write slips through although it should not. Just do not use that guy. When others agree with him, one can use those others. When he is the only one who says something, it's not worth quoting.
Wikipedians thinking they know better than those dumb old reliable sources This is projection. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Just do not use that guy. When others agree with him, one can use those others. We can, in fact, continue using him here in this cite, and I suspect we’ll continue to do so. @Animalparty is right, here, and I think you’re perhaps unintentionally misrepresenting a personal preference as an editing standard. It’s not a reasonable request as it’s phrased, and it’s a perfectly valid and useful source in the context it’s being used, and you should probably be a little cautious making statements like this in a place where less informed editors may think you’re describing policy and not a vibe check. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Would you say the same thing if Wade were on the opposite side of you? (He is on the same side as me in this question, BTW.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Hob, you can’t invent caveats to WP:RS due to personal preference. It’s one thing to suggest a different source be found, it’s another to dismiss a perfectly reasonable source in context and insist that we can’t use a perfectly fine quote without a different source because of unrelated comments about a wholly different topic when the source in question is just fine by basically any WP:RS standards.
Stating an opinion is fine, admonishing editors for not acting on your opinion isn’t. We see that a bit too much in here with journals people dislike (like trying to ban all Frontiers on RS grounds when the issues with Frontiers are pretty situational and per-journal). Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
If you look back on the discussion, you will not find me admonishing editors for not acting. Instead, you will find Animalparty misrepresenting, mocking and dismissing me for warning about a specific source that has written several dubious things.
We are not required to always quote every source that is formally reliable. It is not, as you seem to suggest, against the rules to pick the best ones. Otherwise, some articles would have hundreads of pages of footnotes. I am fisished here. You can go on misrepresenting WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
I mean I provided WP:RS/AC-passing sources that these studies are universally rejected within entire domain expert fields. If people want to advocate that these studies aren’t just a load of delusional bull they’re free to cite a single person with expertise on the actual question being looked at stating that the results are valid, as opposed to someone whose expertise is the primates themselves. See also: ape-stealing quack. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
You certainly did not provide a source which explicitly states that the studies are rejected, let alone universally. You simply provided a source for linguists' definition of language, then you SYNTHetically argued on your own logical foundation absent an explicit source, that the studies didn't conform with said definition. Consider [33]: sing a randomization study it is shown here that his performance actually vastly exceeds random chance, supporting the contention that he does in fact understand word order grammatical rules in English. This of course represents only one aspect of English grammar, and does not suggest he has completely human grammatical abilities. However, it does show that he understands one of the arbitrary grammatical devices used in many languages that is evidence for language, not proof but evidence. You claimed that there is a consensus that there is no evidence, which is untrue, and unattested. Andre🚐 18:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
When I asked if you’d have accepted “no compelling evidence”, acknowledging the imprecision in my initial statement, you said “of course not”. I, again, disagree that “if X were true it would upend the academic consensus, so X cannot be true” is WP:SYNTH but rather a mere statement of fact regarding the academic consensus, any more than we can rely on the academic consensus of the Copenhagen Interpretation to reject countering theories. WP:RS/AC doesn’t require a direct statement that a specific consensus-breaking theory is false for all possible theories, and we’ve seen those arguments time and time again in FTN. If there was compelling evidence the academic consensus wouldn’t be the academic consensus. You’ve acknowledged that WP:ECREE applies but seem loath to apply the actual evidentiary standards of WP:ECREE:

Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living and recently dead people.

while there wasn’t consensus, WP:RSN wasn’t exactly warm on primatologists being sufficient sources themselves when the relevant community disagrees. Again, I have repeatedly asked for a single solid and accepted citation from one of the primatologists themselves that they are using a distinct definition of language, rather than some nebulous allowance for primatologists to be qualified to upend the study of language. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
"No compelling evidence" is also not stated explicitly in any source. Andre🚐 19:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Yeah this argument is common on fringe topics. I don’t think that’s your intent here, but we can accept an academic consensus of one thing as a demonstration that compelling evidence against the academic consensus hasn’t been forthcoming. It’s not like there’s a shortage of sources directly saying that some of these findings are junk science, you just want a WP:RS/AC source that directly states that “The academic consensus is X. Y arguments against the academic consensus have not been accepted.” which isn’t necessary when WP:ECREE applies, which by your own admission it does.
Notice that I’m no longer actively taking a heavy handed role in editing the articles in question, and if we’re going to get into specific content disputes around the articles then we should continue that on the talk page. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
No, that's not what WP:RS/AC says. It says you need to explicitly cite a source that states what it means about the academic consensus. This was told to you by SunRise at the WP:RSN discussion but you still WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Andre🚐 19:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I absolutely did hear it and have explicitly acknowledged that there wasn’t consensus at WP:RSN. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Fine, I'd actually say there was almost a consensus at RSN that you were misinterpreting RS/AC. ECREE doesn't weigh in here. ECREE just means that the sources must be high-quality, which they generally are. Nobody is inserting bad sources. Andre🚐 19:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Would you consider a physics journal, publishing a paper by a physicist, which attempts to discredit anthropological global warming, as sufficient to warrant inclusion in an article about global warming if only climatologists disagreed with it? Because this is a similar situation as far as I see it and this specific example is definitely a thing. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The Gospel of Afranius

This is a content dispute about a novel, not empirical claims of historical fact. WP:FTN is the wrong venue.

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

A self-published Russian work containing a novelistic treatment of the resurrection of Jesus as a fraud, recently translated to English. Getting some pumping due to a sidebar review/essay in Nature (journal) but ultimately still one guy's fringe idea. Mangoe (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

This isn’t fringe, it’s a novel. Please raise this at WP:NPOVN. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hmm, i once took objection to politics on this board, and some plot of an anti-abortion film (and got stomped on by jps for my trouble). What happened after that? A bunch of editors came along and started trying to insert content in the article which was squarely addressed by the fringe guideline. It's editors that are the problem, not topics, and i was evaluating based on an abstract evaluation of the topic and failing to take into account the issues involved with protecting content from fringe editors. Don't know if there is an issue here, but no harm at all in taking a look or watch-listing. fiveby(zero) 16:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for stomping on you, but, yeah, generally I think we do too much gatekeeping at Wikipedia generally. Let discussions happen, is my motto. jps (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

See WP:RSN#Are these sources acceptable for The Gospel of Afranius?. Doug Weller talk 13:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Should this noticeboard be disbanded, deprecated, or merged?

Copied from talk page:

Wikipedia:Fringe theories has an RfC

Wikipedia:Fringe theories has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. (Note: from continuation of ongoing discussion at Village Pump (policy).) SamuelRiv (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 02:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Shoot, snow closed. I was going to suggest kicking all the UFO threads over to NPOVN cause they are so damn boring. fiveby(zero) 12:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Stanford prison experiment

I've noticed that looking at the edit history that the Stanford prison experiment article has massively shifted from December 2020 [34] to now, seemingly largely under the influence of IPs and SPAs. As far as I can tell, it seems to have softened criticism of the experiment, which has been heavily criticised from a scientific and ethical perspective, but I wanted to get second opinions from editors more familiar with the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Philip Zimbardo's death may bring some new coverage in the news, and some new viewers of our articles. Donald Albury 12:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Black Jews in New York City

Black Jews in New York City seems to conflate Black Hebrew Israelites (not Jews; fringe) with Black Jews (Jews) . ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

It's really an article about three or four different populations that should be WP:SPLIT up or separated into sections differently. The chronological ordering is logical enough but it jumps back and forth from group to group and isn't cohesive. Black Sephardic Jews, who date to colonial times and are connected to the Sephardim in the slave trade and freed former slaves; converted or adopted or otherwise black Jews that aren't part of the Sephardic group, which could be Reform Jews or Orthodox Jews but is definitely at least another if not several distinct groups; Ethiopian Jews, who are their own ancient group that exists mainly from Ethiopia and Israel; and finally the BHI who are not considered Jewish by mainstream Jewish groups, but form a distinct population of self-described Jews who practice certain Jewish traditions, some sects but not all of which are antisemitic. I agree it's a bit "in-universe" right now but it's not too terrible and doesn't seem intentionally such. I think someone who didn't really know much about the BHI wrote it based on the sources, and not an intentional promotion of fringe ideas. Andre🚐 08:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree it doesn't seem to be a deliberate POV-push of BHI ideology, but as it stands it isn't acceptable. And I agree that the lumping of Ethiopians with black Spharadim with any sort of African-American who is Jewish seems tenuous to me—do sources really refer to these all as one "black Jews"? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
BHI shouldn’t even get a passing mention, see also:, or any other acknowledgment in an article about black Jewish people anymore than Raël should have a discussion in List of French astronauts. Just because a religious group makes a claim doesn’t mean it has bearing on reality. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I tend to agree with that Andre🚐 18:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I’ve removed all the BHI content, the remaining article probably just needs to be merged with African-American Jews. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Proposed the merge, discussion is here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Am I the first person to notice that the wikilinked article Black Jews is a disambiguation page which does still include the BHI which an IP has been unsuccessfully trying to remove? Nil Einne (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

IP source misattribution at Mami Wata

Over at Mami Wata, essentially a mermaid entity from the folklore of parts of Africa, we've seen various IPs come by and modify the text in a manner that wrongly attributes claims to reliable sources. We could use more eyes there. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Alonso Sánchez

Claim that this guy visited America before Columbus. Quite a mess. This source might help.[35] Doug Weller talk 14:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Yehuda Schoenfeld Article

Hello! I am currently going through and tagging intentional citations of retracted papers. While doing this for Yehuda Shoenfeld's article i noticed the page discuss his anti-vax advocacy and publications in a neutral way that did not seem in compliance with WP:FRINGE or WP:DUE. I am posting this here to get input from those more versed on the topic and subject as to whether the page is in compliance or how it could be improved. Relm (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

MEDRS evaluation template

I have created a template at {{MEDRS evaluation}}, and I would appreciate it if a few of you would try it out and tell me if you think it's missing key points. I expect this to get used mostly for straight-up medical content instead of FRINGE content, but it might be useful here, as well. For example, here's what it says about a source that was mentioned here a few months ago:

Evaluation of qualities in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine):


You have to fill in the blanks, but it recognizes some responses and reacts to them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. One thing it's missing is that the journal itself isn't the only determiner of reliability; sometimes a reliable journal publishes an article that isn't suited as a source for a particular claim. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree that there are multiple factors. For example, Wakefield's famous fraud looks like this:
Evaluation of qualities in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine):
This is a way of organizing the points you'd want to evaluate in a source, rather than a machine that spits out the answer. (Also, it doesn't play well with the Reply tool, because I set it to default to block formatting. I should probably change that.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Aquatic Ape annual incident

A new editor has shown up at the article with a username matching that of Elaine Morgan's son. No comment on what that might or might not mean, but there is something WP:LTA-ish about their interactions so far e.g. An admin, as well as users more generally, might want to take a look. Bon courage (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Is Josh Gates fringe?

I assume so but the article doesn’t suggest it. Doug Weller talk 09:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I would be hesitant to label a person as “fringe”. He is a TV presenter (ie an actor) who hosts TV shows. Those TV shows cover fringe topics. The place for the label would be in our articles on those TV shows and their topics. Blueboar (talk) 11:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
No He is not, his ideas are. Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
The TV shows cover junk but that doesn't necessarily mean he himself is fringe. Although wording like The cast is on display at Expedition Everest, a Himalayan-themed, high-speed, coaster-like attraction where guests come face-to-face with a Yeti. is just promo. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Thread at ANI discussing FTN

WP:ANI#WP:ASPERSIONS, @SMcCandlish and a mess of a VPP thread. Doug Weller talk 08:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Advised that getting FTN involve might derail the discussion which is really about the VPP. Doug Weller talk 10:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Seems a MESS ALREADY, AND THOSE WALLS OF TEXT...Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

List of West Virginia cryptids

caught my attention because the first entry is Bat Boy (character). I'm not super impressed but lack the time or energy to think harder about it; perhaps someone here would like to. --JBL (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of West Virginia cryptids. fiveby(zero) 22:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
I’m tickled that Bat Boy has been recast as a cryptid. It’s of no value to WP whatsoever but I chuckled when I read this. So, thanks for that :) --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

They live among us

Despite the grandiose title, this mainly seems like OR spun around the idea that UFOs come from underground so their crew can mingle with earthlings. Anybody know more? Bon courage (talk) 10:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I think an article on this actually can be written, I have seen secondary sources discussing this, but as it was the article was a disaster and would need to be nuked anyway to improve it, so for now it is for the best until someone wants to write an article that doesn't suck. It's related but distinct from the hollow earth stuff. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
It's been on my list of things I need to get around to. It's an important topic in a folkloric sense. Very influential in its day. But yeah, agree with nuke and redirect for now. Feoffer (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
@Feoffer If you ever get around to that, could you ping me? I would like to help to some degree. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Feel free to peek in at User:Feoffer/sandbox Cryptoterrestrial hypothesis, not really much to look at, I'm still just reading and taking notes. Feoffer (talk) 04:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
I remain to be convinced that "Cryptoterrestrial hypothesis" is a concept that exists in decent sources, or that decent sources are using "Cryptoterrestrial" as an organizing umbrella tern. Either/both of these would need to be true for there to be evidence there was an actual topic here. Bon courage (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
'Cryptoterrestrial' may or may not be COMMONNAME, but the basic idea dates back to the 1940s, and there's just gobs of high quality folkloric FRIND sources that covers it. The article we just nuked was very problematic, and made it appear there might be reason to believe the so called 'hypothesis' is linked to any scientific opinion. For example, there's been recent mention in the media of the "cryptoterrestrial solution' being supported by Harvard researchers -- that's undo and fringe, doesn't belong here.
We don't need to be sourcing ANY fringe UFO authors. A good article on this, which I hope to help write, would cover it like the famous folkloric tale "The babysitter and the man upstairs". That's all it is -- it's "The flying saucers were coming from inside the house" story that first went viral in the 40s. We don't need to go to any UFO sources for this one, Barkun alone has filled whole books about the subject, and he's one of many. Feoffer (talk) 05:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
If there are good sources that consider these things as a group, that's fine. If it's Wikipedia editors assembling them into a group, that's not. Bon courage (talk) 06:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, the current article is total OR/SYNTH and we're all quite right to redirect it. As I mention below, it was all over the place, even getting it the Midrash, lol. Feoffer (talk) 06:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
The article has many issues in the way that sources are presented. The UFO concept is not presented as original research but as the work of several authors. This much is basically a laundry list. Few items on the list speak directly about the article title. Consequently the title depends primarily on two sources, Mac_Tonnies#Cryptoterrestrial_hypothesis, and a paper "from Harvard" which explicitly states that is it not from Harvard. The latter paper was picked up multiple media sites which would counts for some notability.
Nothing in the article directly claims the concept is true, the tone is much like a book report. The article did not promote a fringe theory, just reported on it. It was just a poorly written article. I don't understand why it is even listed on this Noticeboard.
The article passed AfC less than a month ago and the editors are likely still around. I think the best course of action would be to tag the article and ask those interested in the topic to improve it. There is no harm in trying that path in hopes of ultimately having both a better article and more effective editors. Redirecting without engaging these editors alienates contributors.
Hollow Earth is a historical concept that was adopted in some scifi works. The Cryptoterrestrial hypothesis, or "they live among us" is not the same thing. However these topics don't have enough secondary references to stand alone. The topic should be covered under a different name and include hollow earth in its history section. For this purpose the title Cryptoterrestrial hypothesis might be a good one. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand why it is even listed on this Noticeboard ← The idea "that unidentified flying objects are a sign of a technologically advanced population living on Earth alongside humans" is a WP:FRINGE one, is why. Bon courage (talk) 05:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Ok, but I can't see how this lead is significantly different from the leads on Space animal hypothesis, Time-traveler hypothesis, Interdimensional hypothesis, Psychosocial hypothesis, Extraterrestrial hypothesis. They all seem to start with a definition of the idea; they are all wack-a-doodle ideas. Most of these of similar quality level to the one that was removed. They all make Hollow Earth look pretty good. What about these articles makes them keepers when Cryptoterrestrial_hypothesis is not? Johnjbarton (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Unfamiliar with those; anyone could WP:BLAR where appropriate. Bon courage (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
It's a good topic for an article, but the most recent version isn't really ready for going live just yet. It's a bit of a coatrack at present -- we've got space animals, USOs, Ultraterrestrials, Nazi UFOs, Breakaway civilizations, Hollow Earth, the Jewish Midrash, and a partridge in a pear tree. Feoffer (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree with you that when mainstream media is running headlines about the "cryptoterrestrial hypothesis", we really should have an article on it for folks to read. Life would be simpler of CTH were the same thing as Hollow Earth, but it's not -- since the 1970s the cryptoterrestrials have mostly been living in the oceans ("The Abyss"), Dulce Mesa ("Mirage Men") and 'haunted ranches'. If only we could keep them confined to the Earth's Core! lol. But as I say above, good call on the redirect for now. Feoffer (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

new article claiming that "Further genetic analysis on Easter Island indigenous population showed about 10% of the genome to be of Native American origin."

See [36] - a bit astounding, I presume an RS? Doug Weller talk 08:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Nature sometimes publishes this "sizzling new claim" stuff. RS, but from reading it it seems like they have some caveats that should probably be mentioned. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus not sure what they are. There is also this "https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-02620-1" which I can't download, which seems to support it. Doug Weller talk 12:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Nature is available thru wplibrary. "Rapa Nui’s population history rewritten using ancient DNA". Let me know if that doesn't work. fiveby(zero) 15:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
@Fiveby Odd, I failed to find it there, thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Searching at the top of WikiLibrary doesn't work. You have to go to the Nature page under WL and search there. I've run into that with other journals, as well. Donald Albury 18:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
In some ways, not a total surprise, considering Sweet potato cultivation in Polynesia. Donald Albury 14:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Indeed. And there is other evidence suggesting that pre-Columbian contact may have occurred between Amerindian and Polynesian populations. I really don't see how this could be described as 'fringe' at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. There are numerous converging lines of evidence here. We don't know how the contact happened but it's pretty clear that it did. Super interesting paper though! Thanks for bringing it to our attention, Doug. Generalrelative (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
@Generalrelative Yes, I agree now, not fringe. Doug Weller talk 17:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
I was fairly certain that a study came up recently used in support of or on alongside a fringe contact theory. It may have been a study of DNA in Amerindian populations tho. fiveby(zero) 17:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
But not yet time to say that Heyerdahl has been vindicated. Donald Albury 18:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Cognitive Warfare

I'd like a vibe check on this new article Cognitive Warfare because I'm definitely not qualified to evaluate military-related subjects, but this is pinging my fringe detector. Or am I just getting distracted by the highly unencyclopaedic tone? — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 04:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Also not my discipline, but from the looks of it, this might be a real thing. References 1 and 3 (by same author) seem legitimate but I can't access either one. The article, however...soooo much SYNTH, soooo many non-RS (most of the citations are to YouTube). I doubt the subject of the article is fringe, but the article itself looks like the work of someone with a fringe-adjacent mindset. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
The article relies heavily on books by Gary Bonick Jr. (#1, 4, 34), all of which are self-published, and I cannot find any independent indication that Bonick is a SME. Schazjmd (talk) 13:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
This maybe help? I don't see the two top sources it cites providing definitions: (Backes & Swab, 2019) and (Bernal et al., 2020) neither of which i see cited within the article. The alter cognitive brain function in the lead differing from those two definitions looks like a big red flag. The NATO report states that the real difference between this and Information Warfare is that its target is the civilian population and the 2019 definition from Backes & Swab: "Cognitive Warfare is a strategy that focuses on altering how a target population thinks – and through that how it acts." was intentionally vague. It looks to me like that vagueness is being taken advantage of in the article. fiveby(zero) 20:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Fiveby and others, thanks for digging further. My main initial concern was that I couldn't make head nor tail out of the article and that the woolly language might be covering up a whole lot of nothing. Looks like I might have been right to sound the alarm. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 23:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Reality Shifting

Just a heads up in the event that there is some promotion of reality shifting, How should i write about Reality Shifting/Online communities? CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Just took a look at the article and my initial reaction was "The human brain is so weird sometimes". I'm pretty sure no other animal has to deal with the possibility of being so bored that their brain literally manifests a perceivable hallucination to entertain itself. Sirocco745 (talk) 04:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Anti-Russian violence in Chechnya AfD

So, since this was restored back in December 2021, it seems like there's been quite a bit of back and forth on the talk page of the article, about 25 kB by my estimate. Someone's now listed the page at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Russian violence in Chechnya (1991–1994)), and since it's a fringe topic I figured people here might be interested in weighing in and maybe more or less settling things, instead of leaving it to people who are already aware of the article. I'm not too familiar with the topic area so I don't think I'd be much help any time soon, but I might drop a comment in a few weeks if I get the time to review it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Brainspotting

This has been briefly discussed here when it was still in Draft space. But, after it was published, it has recently been edited in a way that removed all criticism and added a lot of puffery and appeals to authority - mostly by WP:SPA Traumapsychscholar (talk · contribs · block user) and I feel tempted to revert the page to a version before they touched it. TBH, I think it would be better to summarize the whole thing and merge it into EMDR as a variation of it. Thoughts? VdSV9•♫ 14:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I thought PenguinyPenguiny did a creditable job on the draft, but they haven't been around in over a year. fiveby(zero) 14:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
I've reverted to the version before Traumapsychscholar started mucking with it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, haven't really been around--thanks for keeping an eye on this. I still think Brainspotting should be its own article rather than as a subset of EMDR because at least EMDR has an evidence base and is conditionally recommended as an evidence-based PTSD treatment in the APA Clinical Practice Guideline for the Treatment of PTSD. There are similarities between EMDR and Brainspotting in terms of the use of eye movements--especially since the development of Brainspotting was influenced by EMDR--though it's unclear if the eye movements themselves actually do anything in EMDR or if the main mechanism is exposure. There's not an exposure part in Brainspotting, only eye movements, and the eye movements take a bit of a different emphasis than in EMDR. PenguinyPenguiny (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Robert R. Redfield

One of those COVID-19 cranks; an IP insists they know better than reliable sources do. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Crusading at Arian controversy

Self-proclaimed expert using his own site/research to push that the orthodox perspective on this is Wrong. There's already been a trip to AN/I. Mangoe (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I would just take him to ANI againHemiauchenia (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Done. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#AndriesvN_and_Christian_theology_articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm sympathetic to his argument, in his own Talk Page, that the Wikipedia pages on the Arian Controversy are edited not by the world's leading scholars but primarily by people intending to defend the Church. The consensus of modern scholars and the consensus of the church are very different. However, I don't even know who the leading scholars in this are, and would take me a long time to try and figure out if this argument really has any weight to it. Having said that, I'm really surprised at how long this has been going on. Guy keeps referencing his own blog and ignoring policy, no matter how many times people explain to him he's not supposed to. Pretty obvious WP:NOTHERE in my book and should just get an indef block. He has been given enough chances. VdSV9•♫ 12:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Oxford Bibliographies entry "Son of God: The Nicene Era" has:
  • Hanson, R. P. C. (1988). The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318–381. A long treatment of 4th-century Christology that reads like a sustained commentary on the major texts and issues of the Arian controversy. Masterful, balanced assessment of this crucial phase of the “Son of God” in Christian doctrine.
  • Gregg, Robert C.; Groh, Dennis E. (1981). Early Arianism: A View of Salvation. A significant minority view on the Arian controversy, which argues that it was not so much a Christological controversy as a soteriological one...
if i'm reading the issue correctly. Neither currently cited. Like your looking for "leading scholars". fiveby(zero) 13:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy needs some input from other editors

There have been multiple lengthy discussions of the content in this article, and now an IP user involved since last year is suggesting use of information from a, and I quote, "TECHNICALLU UNPUBLISHED SOURCE". The arguments on that talk page are giving me a headache even thinking about it. Sirocco745 (talk) 05:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

adding to my watchlist EvergreenFir (talk) 05:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
ubpubliahed source ? I took ans cropped the image from the "source" that's all SamuelRoth79 (talk) 06:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
https://osf.io/ecwf3/download/?format=pdf
That is the source SamuelRoth79 (talk) 06:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
So what's wrong with that "source" ? SamuelRoth79 (talk) 06:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Look, as it stands, I myself am still collecting information on the reliability of Soy Keita in the field of Egyptology. Until that is determined, the reliability of the source cannot fully be ascertained. Confirming the reliability of a source or the source's author is an incredibly time consuming process, so much so that I don't even really know where to start here. Sirocco745 (talk) 07:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
He is an anthropologist and even he is sited in the article. Just not the picture of the data. The information YES SamuelRoth79 (talk) 07:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
just read about him in the article, I will copy and paste what is written for you. SamuelRoth79 (talk) 07:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
n 2010 Hawass et al. undertook detailed anthropological, radiological, and genetic studies as part of the King Tutankhamun Family Project. The objectives included attempting to determine familial relationships among 11 royal mummies of the New Kingdom, as well to research for pathological features including potential inherited disorders and infectious diseases. In 2022, S.O.Y. Keita analysed 8 Short Tandem loci (STR) data published as part of these studies by Hawass et al., using an algorithm that only has three choices: Eurasians, sub-Saharan Africans, and East Asians. Using these three options, Keita concluded that the majority of the samples, which included the genetic remains of Tutankhamun, showed a population "affinity with "sub-Saharan" Africans in one affinity analysis". However, Keita cautioned that this does not mean that the royal mummies "lacked other affiliations" which he argued had been obscured in typological thinking. Keita further added that different "data and algorithms might give different results" which reflects the complexity of biological heritage and the associated interpretation.
According to historian William Stiebling and archaeologist Susan N. Helft, conflicting DNA analysis conducted by different research teams on ancient Egyptians such as the Amarna royal mummies, which included the remains of Tutankhamun, has led to a lack of consensus on the genetic makeup of the ancient Egyptians and their geographic origins.
Cleopatra SamuelRoth79 (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Okay, can you please explain why the screenshot of the table should be included? I am satisfied with Keita's reliability, but per WP:ONUS, "while information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."

You have yet to provide a coherent reason for why adding this table is a constructive edit. This whole discussion is a pain in the butt for me to understand because I do not understand your angle here. You have presented an edit you want to make, but you have not presented a reason. As such, I cannot assess the value you perceive in the table against Wikipedia's interpretation of value.

In short, my brain hurts trying to understand all of this qwq Sirocco745 (talk) 07:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
okay, my argument is that including the table isn't a constructive edit. my reasons why are because:
- it disrupts the flow of the article
- the information found in the table has already been put into the article
- unpublished studies cannot be used as a source
What is your argument? Sirocco745 (talk) 07:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
I would additionally like to add that the spreadsheet SamuelRoth79 wants included, is completely unprofessional and made in Microsoft Excel, unlike the other data charts/diagrams from studies that are incorporated into the article. The others included are professional genetics models on ADMIXTURE, PCA, FST ...etc and these illustrations are actually published in authentic scientific journals dealing with ancient DNA. This obscure table should be completely excluded, on top of it being highly questionable by not being peer reviewed via actual or other scientists/geneticists involved in Paleogenomics & Archaeogenetics. Neo the Enlightened One (talk) 08:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
becauae you have all the data of the 2017 Egyptians were whiter than today. Due to the "slave trade". The one that never happened through Egypt. SamuelRoth79 (talk) 10:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
That isn't exactly a reason. What value does the table add to the Wikipedia article from a content perspective? Sirocco745 (talk) 10:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
An admin needs to handle this case ASAP: we're not obliged to host them babbling about people groups getting "whiter" amid other nonsense. Remsense ‥ 论 10:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
The only good reason this discussion has gone on this long is because SamuelRoh79 never made any sort of point before their last few edits. No point means nothing to understand, and you can't make a case against something without understanding the other side. Truth be told, I still don't understand Samuel's point. Sirocco745 (talk) 10:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Forgive me, I'm new to technology. Editing internet encyclopedia is a new interest. I should have put all the information in on the picture I added. SamuelRoth79 (talk) 10:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
The anonymous IP user has been spamming many Talk pages with the same fringe DNA Tribes material, and the unpublished/not peer reviewed data from PopAffiliator. They were attempting to push a POV here: Talk:Bantu peoples#We've Gotten It All Wrong, the individual is also likely involved on this other page on multiple topics: Talk:Genetic history of Egypt#Inclusion Of The Study By DNA Tribes, it's obvious this is the same person. Neo the Enlightened One (talk) 06:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
no. This is not DNA tribes. This is a published peer reviewed article article using the data from the JAMA article on the Amarna mummies and Ramses III. This photo will get published. I guarantee you. Even if I have to fight tooth and nail SamuelRoth79 (talk) 06:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
and NO I am not the same person. I am white rich JEW SamuelRoth79 (talk) 07:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Any administrators handy? We have an editor walking around here with a sign that says “Please block me” in big bright letters. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 08:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
I would ask a reliable/respected Wikipedian for a neutral third party perspective take on this mess, but I don't think I have enough experience or credit to my name for that. Worth a shot though. @Dr vulpes, would it be alright if you gave this a quick peek? Sirocco745 (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
No it was not reviewed by professional geneticists and published authentically, the print originally comes from here: https://osf.io/preprints/osf/ecwf3, with the picture you screenshotted being from a Google Docs https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yhTOR3PZm4v-dr5ODtv28i-Ry25GFVEvrLRuVTG0IGE/edit?gid=1243251660#gid=1243251660 Neo the Enlightened One (talk) 08:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
you already have this information on your article. You know that right? It's just the picture SamuelRoth79 (talk) 09:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
What's on the article actually comes from a review of material in 2022, not from that so called "source" above, as it did not meet Wikipedia's criteria.
Here's where: Page 108, 'IDEAS ABOUT “RACE” IN NILE VALLEY HISTORIES: A CONSIDERATION OF “RACIAL” PARADIGMS IN RECENT PRESENTATIONS ON NILE VALLEY AFRICA, FROM “BLACK PHARAOHS” TO MUMMY GENOMES '
"Analysis of the short tandem repeat (STR) data published on Ramesses III and the Amarna ancient royal family (including Tutankhamun) showed a majority to have an affinity with “sub-Saharan” Africans in one affinity analysis,[102] which does not mean that they lacked other affiliations-an important point that typological thinking obscures. (Also, different data and algorithms might give different results, which would illustrate the complexity of biological heritage and its interpretation.) This analysis was performed using an available algorithm[103] that unfortunately only has three choices: Eurasians, sub-Saharan Africans, and East Asians-the best-known received racial schema by another name, but it still gets used; this is problematic when it is local populations that constitute the historical reality of interactions. One can imagine a database with numerous global local populations.“
https://egyptianexpedition.org/articles/ideas-about-race-in-nile-valley-histories-a-consideration-of-racial-paradigms-in-recent-presentations-on-nile-valley-africa-from-black-pharaohs/
SOY Keita in the above, makes clarifications on the unpublished report about the affinity analysis, and he references a 2011 publication by the PopAffiliator algorithm creator (Luisa Pereira) showing what regions are in the PopAffiliator program, and what it actually does, and the number of loci needed, that's why its so fringey, you can't just use 8 STR and it excludes important regions: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00414-010-0472-2 Neo the Enlightened One (talk) 10:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Please see this on PopAffiliator's geographic regions, 'Eurasians' is only meaning Europeans, while 'sub-Saharan Africans' and 'East Asians' incorporates multiple human population groups whom are unrelated to each other, but the important local populations as SOY Keita was saying are not included, and thus he rightfully deemed it problematic: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/PopAffiliator_geographic_regions.jpg Neo the Enlightened One (talk) 10:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Clearing things up

Since the above messages are an absolute mess to read through, I'm going to summarize what's happened in the past 24 hours for anyone still scratching their heads. @SamuelRoth79 has been trying to add a table displaying genetic distribution for Amarna mummies to the Ancient Egyptian race controversy page. The information comes from a DNA Tribes report, a source which the community has deemed unreliable. See this Archive thread for more information. SamuelRoth79 got this information from this POV-pusher IP editor, who has made multiple attempts to dispute mainstream consensus on a variety of race-related articles with DNA Tribes-sourced material. Upon seeing the image added to the article, I took a fringe theories approach and removed it. SamuelRoth79 then proceeded to call me racist, which genuinely surprised me and made me do a bit of a double take. After that, I added this current topic to the noticeboard to draw more attention from more experienced editors than myself to the situation because I was unsure on how to proceed.

The above thread can be summed up as "a few editors dissect the source while SamuelRoth79 makes nonsensical statements with big time gaps." I still believe they made their edits in good faith and thought they were genuinely trying to improve the article, so I must emphasize this is not an attack thread. However @SamuelRoth79, I do have some words of wisdom for you. Articles related to racial heritage and genetics are often designated as contenious topics, and all content that goes against mainstream consensus is to be treated as fringe theories. Please read up on Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, it is invaluable to know even the gist of them.

Lastly, while not required, an apology for calling me a racist would be greatly appreciated. Reading that almost gave me a heart attack (figuratively) because I could not tell if the comment was a simple attack or your genuine belief. Sirocco745 (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

If you took it that I called you a racist. Than I didn't mean it. Obviously I don't even know you. But you probably don't even know much about this polémique. That has been an intellectual debate for 200 years now. And now with DNA. We have people who are purposefully using DNA samples from a random cemetery in northern Egypt and saying this represents all of Egypt, whe. We already have the DNA samples of the 18th dynasty. So if you are new to this s debate. Than I would hope you would understand why this information is critical. Black people, at least in my country go ballistic every time a cop accidentally kills a black man. They start tearing down statues, which they would have NEVER DONE in Ancient Egypt, destroying public property was the death penalty and history to them really mattered. So I think if their self esteem was raised a little bit. By the knowledge that they were the Ancient Egyptians, maybe not by ethnicity but by appearances and haplogroup matchs. They would behave a little differently. This DNA was NOT taken from DNA tribes. You keep saying that, are you not hearing me?? Thus data was taken by SOY Keita himself and run through his samples and it came back 93 percent sub Saharan African. The 18th dynasty, the RICH ONES , AND Ramses III. It is just a picture. It's not like I put a Hypnotic spell on it. SamuelRoth79 (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Look, I understand where you are coming from, but it's still not acceptable from a Wikipedia perspective. The lede of the article establishes immediately that:

Mainstream scholars reject the notion that Egypt was a "white" or "black" civilization; they maintain that applying modern notions of black or white races to ancient Egypt is anachronistic. In addition, scholars reject the notion – implicit in a black or white Egypt hypothesis – that ancient Egypt was racially homogeneous; instead, skin colour varied between the peoples of Lower Egypt, Upper Egypt, and Nubia, who rose to power in various eras of ancient Egypt.

WP:WEIGHT states that "mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."
The genetics table you are trying to add supports the idea that those at the very top of the Ancient Egyptian social hierarchy were predominantly African. Since this perspective does not align with Egyptology's mainstream consensus, adding the genetics table to the article would be to give undue importance to a "fringe theory", and I'm pretty sure we're both tired of hearing that term by now. Sirocco745 (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
that is the point. It's not a fringe theory. Do you really believe that? So do you believe they painted TutAnchAmun pitch black to represent the soil,? Do you not belong even your own eyes? SamuelRoth79 (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

ANI

I've made a post at ANI Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#SamuelRoth79_disruptive_editing_at_Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked as NOTHERE basically. Doug Weller talk 08:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

AFD Sonoran University of Health Sciences

The naturopathic school Sonoran University of Health Sciences is formerly Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine & Health Sciences. The school's article was heavily edited by an employee and sourced to the school. This alt med school and others (National University of Natural Medicine, other naturopathic schools, Life University, Life Chiropractic College West) have few independent and reliable sources. @Jdcooper has nominated the Sonoran article for deletion. A recent article documents the high debt to earnings ratios of graduates of naturopathic, chiropractic, and Chinese medicine schools. Opinions are welcome on the AFD. ScienceFlyer (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Younger Dryas impact hypothesis again

A new editor has complained that the YDIH article is not objective at all, there isn't any semblance of an attempt to be objective either and is adding content claiming that people have used "unethical language" against YDIH proponents [37]. Additional eyes would be welcomed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

An article opposing YDIH is cited in the wiki page about YDIH twenty four times, including the first sentence and majority of the first two paragraphs, while an article in support of YDIH from the same journal is relegated to the "Further reading" section without being mentioned in the body of the article. In fact, I found two Wikipedia:RS listed in Further Reading and Bibliography but not used to write the article.
That's in addition to the article having Wikipedia:WEASEL (2 examples: 1. calling a geologist a "YDIH proponent" without any source attribution for it right before presenting the geologist's view, but the same is not done for YDIH opponents; 2. article describes the "black mat" as claimed evidence of ancient forest fires, yet the cited source never uses the words "forest fires" but describes the black mats as something wholly different) and MOS:CONFUSE like choosing to use the words "extraterrestrial event" rather than "cosmic event" even though the latter term appears more frequently in the cited source.
I am happy to go into more details and come up with more examples, if need be. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

I've taken this to WP:NPOVN#How do we handle Pubpeer comments? The article seems fringe to me. Doug Weller talk 13:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Also just noticed the use of this paper at Scientific method#Relationship with statistics where it seems accepted. "This is described in a popular 2005 scientific paper "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" by John Ioannidis, which is considered foundational to the field of metascience. " Doug Weller talk 13:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism (disambiguation)

There is discussion about the recently created disambiguation page for Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and Marxist cultural analysis that may be of interest to this noticeboard. See the disambiguation talk page for details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Precambrian chitons and another reports by Mark McMenamin

@Zhenghecaris: (contribs) is recently trying to create articles and add information from taxa described in "Deep Time Analysis: A Coherent View of the History of Life."[38] written by researcher Mark McMenamin. In this book, he claimed that there are Ediacaran fossils from Mexican site Clemente Formation, includes some surprising findings such as stem-chiton, aculiferan (Clementechiton and Korifogrammia), and trilobite-like organism (Palankiras). However, even through such finding should be important for evolutionary biology, searching google scholar about those findings only results researches by Mark McMenamin himself and almost no other studies. McMenamin himself is known from fringe therory such as the Triassic Kraken (hypothetical giant cephalopod around 30 m which hunted giant ichthyosaurs), and Near Eastern discovery of the New world before Columbus. In fact, there is no research other than McMenamin's own research regarding the occurrence of fossils from the Clemente Formation, and this may not be accepted by other researchers. However, I haven't found much concrete rebuttal to these studies, except that a 1999 study states that it is doubtful of biological origin and is much older than other Ediacaran Biota.[39] Zhenghecaris still adding information about Clemente Formation and taxa from there to articles like Kimberella, Chiton, and article of Clemente Formation itself. Also, this user doesn't seem to understand what sources are available, just that I told him like "I'm suspicious because this study was done by a researcher known for Triassic Kraken.", this user added about that to article even no sources claim like that. What especially problematic is claim in Evolution of the eye. McMenamin claimed that Clementechiton was the earliest animal with eyes, and in February User:Earthjewels830 (contribs) who seems to be a sockpuppet of McMemanin himself, added information about that even no other researchers accept. I deleted that cleim but Zhenghecaris reverted that, and this still remains in article. Zhenghecaris have some other problematic behaviors such as uploading copyvio images in Wikimedia Commons (see Commons:User_talk:Zhenghecaris), edit someone's image roughly to make it like what they claim (Commons:File:Zhenghecaris_with_setal_blades.jpg), and Complain rudely about a user's art style. I feel that something needs to be done about this user, but how should Wikipedia actually respond to these studies by McMenamin? (See also:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology#McMenamin's_taxa) Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I concur that McMenamin, despite being an employed professor, has crank tendencies and his research should be ignored unless cited by other researchers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
There are also similar examples I can provide. Muhammad Sadiq Malkani describes fossil taxa like dinosaurs from Pakistan, in the predatory journal SCIRP. Those are not considered as valid and article created are deleted, or redirected to List of informally named dinosaurs. Michael Wachtler[40] described things like Permian angiosperms in self-published books. Those are also not considered valid in Wikipedia. Now, all the taxa that McMenamin described from the Clemente Formation were described from the book he wrote. If you look at other chapters of the book (which is accessible via Wikipedia Library), you'll see unlikely things like a reconstruction of a slug-like creature with a crystal on its back... Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Publishing research in a book is unusual for Ediacaran paleontology. SO I think we should wait for confirmation from independent researchers before using those publications. This shows the risk of using primary research. Perhaps I wasted my time tracking down this book! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
I get the impression that McMenamin's research is largely ignored by other Ediacaran researchers looking at scholar citations. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
I also agree. First, largely unconvincing interpretations and arguments that nobody takes seriously are often going to judged too trivial to either spend time responding to and have a hard time getting judged worthwhile to print by reviewers, publishers, or both. Finally, if the researcher(s) making them are well repected, I suspect that many colleauges will also ignore them to avoid embarrassing the researcher by calling he or she a crank. The result is that many faultly and unconvincing interpretations and arguments die from being ignored instead of being refuted in print. This causes problems as there is no paper trail left explaining why they were judged to be bad and faulty by independent researchers. This can be seen in conference abstracts where interpretations and arguments appear never to be seen of heard from again. I understand this is one reason why "primary research" and conference abstracts are not used Wikipedia. Paul H. (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
User:Circulationsys (contribs) seems reverted addition of claim from 1999 study doubted affinity of Clemente fauna as "Inaccurate statement". As Earthjewels830, this user can be sockpuppet of Mark McMenamin himself as seeing their contributions. To be honest if that claim is inaccurate, I would like to see recent researches that supports biota from Clemente Formation (not by McMemanin himself, of course), rather than removing the existing claim... This user also added information about Clemente Formation in Shuram excursion. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Shouldn't this also be at RSN? Doug Weller talk 09:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Okay I will not add information on taxa described by McMenamin. Zhenghecaris (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

A new Eugenics sidebar

A Eugenics sidebar was created recently and may be of interest to editors here. Llll5032 (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  • I recommend that clear inclusion criteria be worked out on the template talk page. One general problem with sidebars structured like this, with several subtopics and controversial aspects, is that without well-defined and agreed upon inclusion/exclusion criteria, they tend to continually attract tangential cruft with questionable relevance to other distantly related articles, and become overly conspicuous when applied to such tangential articles. Then, other well-intentioned editors slap them on every article or section mentioning Eugenics (or whatever the navbox/sidebar subject is), which further distorts with undue visual/thematic emphasis, with little regards to WP:NAVBOX and WP:NAV guidelines. I note for instance the article Henry Fairfield Osborn is both in and bares the template: but is notably (thankfully) not in {{Paleontology}}. This could be construed as saying eugenics was a more significant aspect of his life and career paleontology, even though it only has a single paragraph in his article. And Charles Davenport now has two conspicuous sidebars about Eugenics, which looks rather clunky. I hate to image a future where every article is cluttered with a dozen sidebars each competing for the reader's limited attention. {{Alternative medicine sidebar}} is an example of one of the most egregious garbage bins of mish mash that users seem to relish stuffing and slapping on to any biography associated with any one of the dregs of detritus therein, almost as a badge of shame. Note how {{History of baseball}} is not tagged onto every person who has played baseball, nor is {{Evolution sidebar}} slapped on every evolutionary biologist biography. {{Alt-right footer}} is another controversial grab bag with nebulous to nil inclusion criteria, but at least it is less conspicuous as a collapsible footer. In general, with navboxes, fewer, tightly-interlinked subjects are preferable.--Animalparty! (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
    I wouldn't necessarily take the length of coverage on Wikipedia as indicative of whether a certain aspect particularly significant in regards to a person's life. Henry Fairfield Osborn has a complex legacy both inside and outside paleontology. Henry Fairfield Osborn: Race and the Search for the Origins of Man is a book basically entirely dedicated to his views about race and related topics, rather than about his palaeontological contributions (that said, I don't think that eugenics was the overridingly important aspect of Osborn's life, with another book An Agenda for Antiquity: Henry Fairfield Osborn and Vertebrate Palaeontology at the American Museum of Natural History, 1890-1935 about his work at the AMNH). Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for the suggestion, @Animalparty. I agree in the case of Osborn and have removed the template. Besides, including him might have readers click the hyperlink while confusing its target with Frederick Osborn. Biohistorian15 (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Lumping in, say, preimplantation genetic diagnosis with racial policy of Nazi Germany seems likely to lead to POV issues, and this is even before we get into BLPs getting roped in. I don't think we need this and that it can be deleted. Crossroads -talk- 21:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
I agree. Seems likely to generate more heat than light. Generalrelative (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Please click on the link to see that this is no longer being done at all. The sidebar has been reduced to its bare essentials. Biohistorian15 (talk) 11:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Climate stuff

Possibly readers of this board may want to weigh in on two discussions at Talk:William Happer. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Kanawha people

As far as I can tell Kanawha people is not a real topic that archaeologists write about. The idea that they represent the ancestors to Native Americans appears to be made up. (Kanawha is a valley and as far as I am aware their is no modern ethnic group by that name) As such I've nominated the article for deletion. Please participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Stephen B. Levine

There have recently been two edits to this article recently which I believe are in violation of WP:FRINGE and would like to get input on.

  • An SPA, in their only edit, replaced the text known for advocating the fringe view that gender dysphoria and being transgender are often caused by psychological issues that should be treated psycho-analytically as opposed to with gender-affirming care with known for his thesis that ...[41] despite many of the sources noting he's fringe and the statement being obviously fringe
Various sources
    • When I asked him about his status as an outsider in his professional community, Levine grew animated. I had it the wrong way around. The mainstream medical establishment, not he, had moved to the fringe. Groups that have endorsed the standards, such as the American Psychiatric Association, did so “on the basis of civil rights” rather than scientific evidence, he said[42]
    • advocated treating trans identity as mental illness with associated conversion therapy-style “cures,” SOC-7 and what followed with the DSM-5 in 2015 represented professional blows to both their research agendas and to their business practices.[43]
    • For years, these experts have struggled to establish their credibility in court. Judges have found their testimony to be “biased,” “illogical,” “conspiratorial” or based on fabrication, or tossed their testimony in its entirety for having no basis in research. ... Hruz is part of a small but prolific roster of expert witnesses who crisscross the country to testify in defense of anti-trans laws and policies facing a legal challenge. Pulling ideas from the fringes of medicine, their purpose is to convince judges that gender-affirming care is scientifically controversial, unnecessary and dangerous ... Besides Hruz, the core group of experts includes James Cantor, a Canadian psychologist; Stephen Levine, a clinical psychiatrist whom prisons often enlist when they are facing pressure to provide gender-affirming care; ... Levine has had parts of his testimony struck several times, including for relying on a fabricated anecdote.[44]
    • Other vestigial scientists actively support SAFE and similar GAC bans with outdated pathological theories. Stephen Levine is a psychiatry professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, founder of the school's gender identity clinic, and served as chair of the fifth edition of the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association Standards of Care (now known as WPATH) in 1998 (Caraballo, 2023). Today, Levine testifies frequently as an expert witness for states seeking to ban GAC for minors and to deny GAC to incarcerated adults (Stahl, 2021). Particularly notable is Levine's (2013) theory that trans individuals are commonly pathologically narcissistic. ... Beyond bans for minors, agents of scientific uncertainty have supported limits on adult GAC. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis's Medicaid ban on GAC coverage was defended by a familiar cast including Van Mol, Van Meter, Lappert, Cantor, Laidlaw, Levine, ... Although most medical and mental health associations oppose GAC bans, some fringe medical associations support SAFE and similar bans. Many of these fringe associations are small and share leaders. Most are composed of vestigial scientists as well as clinicians who publish statements, commentaries, and studies in their own scientific journals and websites. The following describes several anti-GAC fringe medical associations;[45]
    • Dr. Levine, whose conversion therapy practice contradicts mainstream medical opinion should not be used by states in court to justify anti-trans policies.[46]
  • Another editor removed the text The Southern Poverty Law Center described Levine as part of an "old guard that advocated treating trans identity as mental illness with associated conversion therapy-style “cures”" whose activism began in response to changes in the DSM-5 and WPATH SOC 7 which represented a threat to their business practices and research agendas. stating Not appropriate for biography of a living person. Partisan statements and contentious tone[47] - this whitewashing is more obviously in blatant disregard of WP:NPOV and WP:SPLC

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

There is a discussion going on as to whether advocacy groups like the SPLC are SPS, as technically the way SPS is written right now they are self published sources and therefore unusable on BLPs. The discussion is ongoing, but if it comes to the consensus that such groups are SPS, the removal of the latter is justified. No comment otherwise. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
As a courtesy link, the discussion in question is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Grey Literature. As noted there, the language by which the SPLC is a SPS is an essay, WP:USESPS, not actual policy. I'll note that the the majority of votes say this is obviously too strict a definition of SPS and either voted that way or called it a bad RFC on those grounds. As it stands, the WP:SPLC are WP:GREL, and we shouldn't pre-emptively/speculatively downgrade RS. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
I can't see any consensus in that discussion either way, and our current definition in policy outside the essay is vague enough it could apply. SPLC being an SPS is not a new accusation, but we've never come to any real conclusion on it. And the question of whether SPLC is reliable is related to but separate from whether it is an SPS - if it is an SPS per policy it is unusable for BLPs always. Some people in that discussion (not me) were opposed to using advocacy group sources in BLPs at all, so until this is settled it should be treated cautiously, especially when it's very contentious allegations as it is here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Why start a discussion here if there isn't a talk page discussion at the article? Given the contentious nature of the allegation removal seems appropriate but that really is a talk page discussion point vs a FRINGE question. Springee (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
I suggest that we move all those "this discussion should not be on WP:FTN" complaints to Wikipedia talk:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard from now on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
I suspect you are aware that typically a concern would be raised at the article's talk page first and with involved editors first. Springee (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Intuitive Interspecies Communication (IIC)

Has anyone else ever heard of Intuitive Interspecies Communication? On looking into one of the authors of a paper quoted above, I found out about this topic: [48]

  • IIC presents as a detailed, non-verbal and non-physical form of communication between humans and other animals. Drawing on a diversity of intuitive capacities, IIC includes the mutual exchange of visceral feelings, emotions, mental impressions and thoughts, embodied sensations of touch, smell, taste, sound, as well as visuals in the mind’s eye. While these exchanges can occur while in direct physical proximity to the animal, they can also occur over great distances and without the need for visual, auditory, olfactory, voice or other cues that humans normally associate with direct interactive communication...At this time, we are focusing on animal-human IIC, but the phenomenon is also known to be linked to interactions with plants and other beings of the land, water and skies.

It basically looks like a rebranding of extrasensory perception and mediumship but for animals and with an "indigenous" coat of paint, and in any case flies in the face of mainstream zoology and cognitive science (and, well, physics). There was even a virtual symposium (probably small) and they managed to get a grant from the Canadian government (in social sciences and humanities).

I searched Wikipedia for the term and found it appeared in Animal communication. I removed it there, along with some neighboring poorly sourced material. The IIC stuff seems to have been added in fall 2023 by a student editor in an English class. [49][50]

I bring this up here because the Animal communication article may need more work or watching and also I think more awareness of this (newish?) flavor of fringe might be good. Has anyone else heard of this before, and has it ever been covered by skeptic sites or other sources? I could not find any. Crossroads -talk- 03:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

No, but thanks for bringing it to our attention and making those edits. The laundering of science denialism by applying social-justice buzzwords like "traditional", "indigenous", and "decolonization" is a massive thorn in my side, so I'm going to keep an eye out. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Timeline of UFO investigations and public disclosure

Timeline of UFO investigations and public disclosure (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Also a question from Gronk Oz here about lists of articles for watch-listing. fiveby(zero) 13:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a timeline of civilian and governmental efforts in investigating and disclosing the nature and presence of unidentified flying objects (UFOs), also known as unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAPs). It includes important publications and public events and also institutional countermeasures against the UFO disclosure process. For starters, the lead pushes a conspiratorial viewpoint in Wikipedia's voice. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
The title is problematic, inviting editors to freely mix real-world things with fringelore. Timeline of UFOlogy might stand a chance of being notable. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
thanks for bringing this to our attention.Sgerbic (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
What is the inclusion criteria for items on this list? Seems very arbitrary at present, e.g. whatever the article creator thinks is relevant. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I WP:BOLDly moved it to Timeline of UFOs. We may need to think about how it might work with the already extant List of UFO sightings. jps (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The List of UFO sightings is a timeline. What is the case for needing both articles? Sgerbic (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Ahhh I see, the Timeline of UFO's includes whatever the editor who wrote this thinks is important to UFO history, heavy on the Elizondo mentions. I'm not so sure about this, but leave this to you as I have pizza to eat. Sgerbic (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
This is stopgap meant to address the WP:PROFRINGE implications of the previous title. I *might* be able to see a case for having a separate timeline given that there have been some remarkably interesting points of heady interest, lack of interest, alien autopsy videos promoted, and the like, but am not quite convinced yet. jps (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Any day now Sgerbic (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
You said it. There is room for a competent academic to write the definitive history on this subject, but it hasn't happened yet. Probably because the endeavor is so exhausting. jps (talk) 13:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

The article arbitrarily combines non-notable books and films with content contained in List of reported UFO sightings, UFO conspiracy theories, and Investigation of UFO reports by the United States government. I'm not sure what this article accomplishes other than to be a WP:POVFORK of existing content. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm done with my pizza and am taking another look as the editor keeps beefing up the article with more and more dates. What I'm concerned with is this arbitrary submission of non-notable events based on the unknown criteria of this specific editor. For example this one "2024 October - The first Global Disclosure Day event was launched by the New Paradigm Institute" what is notable about this? Global Disclosure Day isn't notable, the New Paradigm Institute isn't notable and the citation is leading to a website for this Paradigm Institute, which isn't notable. So who is responsible for including these dates? Okay, let me go look at the talk page for this article, we should be having this conversation there. Sgerbic (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
There was no talk page - creating it now. Sgerbic (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
I have posted on that brand new talk page my concerns. I respectfully suggest that any future conversations about the article be taken to that talk page. Sgerbic (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Could use somebody who's more experienced with identifying good sources vs bad within this topic. Paging @User:Feoffer. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Oh no not the Brit! They spell everything wrong! Sgerbic (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
I wonder if this was based on that timeline that has been circulating for a while and Michael Shellenberger included as an annex in his "testimony" (page 36 onwards on the pdf) to the US Congress this wednesday. Maybe it's a coincidence. VdSV9•♫ 13:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Not related, but that's an incredible timeline. Most of the entries may never make it to Wikipedia because of the policies here. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
If by "incredible timeline" you mean, "halfwitted timeline". jps (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
The congress will decide on that, I'm in no position.. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
The congress will decode on that, .. Biting tongue. Donald Albury 14:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timeline_of_UFOs - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see there is both off-wiki and on-wiki WP:CANVASSING [51], [[52]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you think they'll create another change.org petition against us? lol Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Pseudoarchaeology on Rogan

Joe Rogan posted a podcast episode today with Jimmy Corsetti and Dan Richards. Dan Richards has been very critical of Hoopes editing on Wikipedia, and used the podcast to attack him, starting here, and specifically mentioned the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, Graham Hancock and pseudoarchaeology. I didn't listen much past that (bits here and there) so I'm not sure if they also mentioned other articles.

It probably wouldn't hurt to keep an eye on those, given Rogan's reach. Guettarda (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning this. A brief clip of the Joe Rogan podcast episode, but not the bit about Wikipedia, was tweeted by Elon Musk this morning. That has helped the podcast to go viral, with over a million views so far. I do not know whether this will have any effect on the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis article, but what is not discussed in the podcast is that the principal complaints about "my" editing pertain to an issue in discussion in a note at the top of Talk:Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis about WP:COI editing by members of the Comet Research Group. I think this issue, in particular, will require some vigilance. Hoopes (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_102&oldid=1262683084"