Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

"WP:FTN" redirects here. For nominations of featured topics, see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates.

Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
Before posting, make sure you understand this short summary of relevant policies and advice and particularly the guideline on treating fringe theories. Also, check the archives for similar discussions. We can help determine whether the topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately and impartially. Our purpose is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but to describe them properly. Never present fringe theories as fact. If you mention specific editors, you should notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so. Deploy {{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion. Please also notify any relevant Wikiprojects to encourage an increased visibility for the discussion.
Search this noticeboard & archives Lowercase sigmabot III will archive sections older than 20 days Additional notes: Discussion of fringe theories will only depend on coverage in reliable sources. Medicine-related claims must comply with more stringent sourcing requirements, but we also generally prefer academic sources. We are not a forum to discuss fringe theories as such. Our goal is to improve articles about them, or create new ones if needed. For concerns about neutrality in articles not about fringe theories, use the neutral point of view noticeboard. Report article content that appears to violate the no original research rule at this noticeboard. Paste {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section when your concern was addressed.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Article alerts

Articles for deletion

• 18 Sep 2024 – Steuart Campbell (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Namiba (t · c) was closed as keep by Liz (t · c) on 25 Sep 2024; see discussion (5 participants)
• 14 Sep 2024 – Rumpology (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Piotrus (t · c) was closed as delete by Liz (t · c) on 23 Sep 2024; see discussion (1 participant; relisted)

Categories for discussion

• 21 Sep 2024 – Category:Fictional witches (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Marcocapelle (t · c); see discussion

Redirects for discussion

• 27 Sep 2024 – Hanyō (talk · edit · hist) →Yōkai was RfDed by 59.149.117.119 (t · c); see discussion
• 26 Sep 2024 – Hanyo (talk · edit · hist) →Yōkai was RfDed by 1234qwer1234qwer4 (t · c); see discussion
• 19 Sep 2024 – Big Yud (talk · edit · hist) →Eliezer Yudkowsky was RfDed by Utopes (t · c); see discussion
• 16 Sep 2024 – Template:MBTI Archetypes (talk · edit · hist) →Myers–Briggs Type Indicator was RfDed by Steel1943 (t · c)
• 16 Sep 2024 – Template:MBTI Cognitive Functions (talk · edit · hist) →Myers–Briggs Type Indicator was RfDed by Steel1943 (t · c)
• 16 Sep 2024 – Template:Mtbi instrument (talk · edit · hist) →Myers–Briggs Type Indicator was RfDed by Steel1943 (t · c)
• 29 Aug 2024 – Template:MBTI Instrument (talk · edit · hist) →Myers–Briggs Type Indicator was RfDed by Paradoctor (t · c)

Good article nominees

• 23 Aug 2024 – Epistemology (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Phlsph7 (t · c); start discussion
• 10 Mar 2024 – Roswell incident (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Feoffer (t · c); start discussion

Requests for comments

• 22 Sep 2024 – Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by Vells (t · c); see discussion
• 19 Sep 2024 – Sahaja Yoga (talk · edit · hist) RfC by Hire power (t · c) was closed; see discussion

Articles to be merged

• 14 Aug 2024 – Occultism in Nazism (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Esoteric Neo-Nazism by Piotrus (t · c); see discussion
• 13 Jul 2024 – Peter A. Levine (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Somatic experiencing by Klbrain (t · c); see discussion
• 23 May 2024 – Thirteenth floor (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Triskaidekaphobia by Awesome Aasim (t · c); see discussion

Articles to be split

• 08 Jul 2024 – List of common misconceptions (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by WhatamIdoing (t · c); see discussion
• 23 Sep 2023 – Witchcraft (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Skyerise (t · c); see discussion

Triggernometry

• Triggernometry (podcast) (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

This came to my attention because an editor keeps adding stuff in about Sam Harris which looks rather COATRACK-y. However, more generally there was an AfD on this article which was closed with a redirect, which has not happened. In my understanding this podcast is pretty much a platform for all things fringe and culture wars, but I don't think it's received much attention from good sources. More eyes welcome. Bon courage (talk) 12:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Bon courage: There was also a deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 March 22#Triggernometry (podcast). The outcome was to allow recreation... —Alalch E. 01:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh yes, "... subject to a possible reexamination at AfD". Did that ever happen? Whatever, we we ended up with was poor with bad sourcing, OR and COATRACKING. As suggested in that review the way to proceed now is to follow WP:SPLIT if there's enough material in the Kisin article to merit that, Bon courage (talk) 01:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

If the content beneath the redirect is restored (yet) again we need to allow for another AfD (i.e. start one), unless all of the changes that introduce new sourcing relative to the originally AfDd version are subject to being reverted for some serious reason (then the version of the article would be pared back to something (near-)identical to the version discussed in the AfD, so it would make no sense to AfD the same version of the same article twice). I don't think that anyone ever will propose a split, realistically. —Alalch E. 02:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, let's see what happens and if/how the re-merge gets un-merged. Bon courage (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oh well, the full puffery/OR version has been restored with an accusation of bad faith (baked into the edit summary no less).[1]. The article is already getting over 300/views/day and promises to be a WP:FRINGE locus. More eyes probably helpful. Bon courage (talk) 11:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I read your most recent comment here and went over to the article. I also noticed the arguing, which I read only enough to realize that it would never resolve. So I tackled the article on my own as a new viewer (not having noticed it had had a prior AfD, LOL) and cut cut cut some junk, until I gave up and wrote instead my evaluation on the talk page (which is when I noticed the prior AfD). So if the editor who un-redirected it doesn't re-redirect it himself, I'm happy enough to submit to AfD myself. I'll give him either a day or two, or until he notices my eval and writes something that tells me he isn't going to re-redirect it.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• I've just noticed there is an article on the co-host, Francis Foster (comedian), which has similar issues. Bon courage (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  I’ve went ahead and started a deletion discussion. Fermiboson (talk) 11:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Galactic Federation (ufology)

Galactic Federation (ufology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Found this article because I'm working on Scientology topics and the page creator mistakenly tied together Scientology and... what is this stuff. The topic seems to have been discussed back in 2020 at FTN Archive 76, but that was before this article was created. I have no clue about this topic but it sure looks hokum FRINGE to me.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. AfD just filed. Utter nonsense with no place on WP. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

And while we're on the subject, Ground Crew Project needs the attention of someone with a chainsaw. It's a credulous play-by-play summary of a crazy UFO religion that may just satisfy the letter of WP:FRINGE but has massive NPOV issues and is basically a platform for deranged nutbaggery. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 03:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Ground Crew Project has excellent WP:FRIND sources, something you don't often see in these kinds of articles. From what I've read, the few instances of credulous prose may have been unintentional. I copyedited the lead accordingly. The body may be a bit bloated and could use some copyediting tweaks, but it is solidly referenced. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The AfD just closed as merge to Ground Crew Project. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Anthroposophy#Religious nature

Anthroposophy could not be a revival of the Gnosis for example, as the Gnosis was strictly guarded in hidden and ancient mysteries. (emphasis mine). There is no evidence that the Gnosis was strictly guarded. There are Gnostic gospels which spell it all out, including passwords for passing by the Archons. The OP conflates Gnosticism with mystery religions. Very much not the same thing. Rudolf Steiner does not pass for a legitimate scholar of Gnosticism. He passes for a neognostic cult leader.

So, even if Steiner claimed that the Gnosis was strictly guarded, he is not a WP:RS for such claim, nor are Anthroposophists who take his claim at face value. Since he did claim that, he was either an ignoramus or a liar.

Version available at [2]. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes thank you this certainly is an interesting question - has the Gnosis ever truly been published though? For example, would it have ever been published on paper in the Gnostic gospels? As I understand, the Gnosis as it was known was generally only selectively passed on in ancient times in select private in-person ceremonies, with great penalties for transmitting it beyond those closed circles etc hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended content

Hi, SamwiseGSix. Provide evidence for your claim. Searching by gnosis great penalties secret at Google Books (without the quote marks) found nothing. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC) Yes it is an interesting question and I will be looking for additional sources here - perhaps you could also look for sources demonstrating where the Gnosis of ancient times has been publicly published? Seeking to find and publish such esoteric mysteries in the past did quite consistently result in real danger and persecution though right, found these so far for example: [i] Ambelain, Robert. "Modern Martinism." Martinism History and Doctrine. Trans. Piers Vaughan. Paris, 1946. [ii] Falasca, Sefania. "What I Would Have Said at the Consistory." 30Giorni. 1 Nov. 2007. Web. 30 Sept. 2015. SamwiseGSix (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC) Hi, SamwiseGSix. You conflate between Gnosticism and mystery religions. Don't beat around the bush, but do provide evidence for your claim. Your two sources do not amount to WP:SCHOLARSHIP. It is a claim made by Blavatsky, Steiner, and their believers. It is not a claim made by respectable scholars of religion. So, there are no WP:RS about it: if a source endorses such claim, it is not a reliable source. Where was Gnosis published? See List of Gnostic texts. Of course, Christian Orthodox heresy hunters were hunting down Gnostic books. But the Gnostics weren't hunting down Gnostic books, out of fear of revealing their secrets. The Orthodox were angry at those books being public, not the Gnostics. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC) Coming back to the purpose of FTN, I think whitewashing is going on at Anthroposophy. Or, if it isn't whitewashing, they are at least POV-pushing a non-mainstream POV. More eyes needed. Reason? Many of the sources employed by my opponent seem subpar (fail WP:FRIND). tgeorgescu (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC) ..it appears its just me rolling through - I had noticed some concerning NPOV issues on the article (some editors were asking if the founder was a Nazi for example, so I added an Independant.co.uk article demonstrating that Adolf Hitler himself personally commanded his Nazi followers to wage "war against Steiner") NPOV issues which I believe I've now gone ahead and fixed.. I am quite content with the article as it is now and don't feel the need to make further adjustments at this point, although it does appear someone may have just recently added 11 (yes, 11 lol) citations in the second sentence of the article (perhaps we could narrow this to a more reasonable 3-5, moving the others further down?) of some interesting scholars going out of their way to seek to tie the philosophical movement to neo-Gnosticism hehe which the source documents expressly deny, a scholarly and theological move somewhat reminiscent actually of the Italy of the late 1910's and early 1920's hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC) What I have shown: scholars from various POVs (mainstream academic, traditional Catholic, conservative Evangelical, and New Age) agree that Anthroposophy is Gnosticism or neognosticism. What you have shown: Steiner and his believers reject this label for spurious reasons. So, you have a sect which rejects this label for bogus reasons, I have WP:SCHOLARSHIP which shows that the label does apply. And, of course, there is a huge difference between emic and etic. Wikipedia takes an etic approach, not an emic approach. Fact is that the adjunct Fuhrer and many other high-placed Nazis were supporters of Anthroposophy. Nazism was not an ideologically monolithic party, but grouped many different factions. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Hm - according to the Independent.co.uk article and Walter Stein et al the Nazis actually saw the Anthroposophists as a chief enemy early on in their rise and quickly drove Steiner and friends out of Germany in the early 1920's to Switzerland, who never set foot in Germany again. Steiner soon died. Many years after his death, some Nazi officials attempted to leverage some of Steiner's works/insights including around farming; although the Swiss, British, French, and American branches etc of the Anthroposophical Society had long broken off in a significant schism with the small number of controlled/organized Anthroposophists remaining in Germany, from whose ranks a significant number had in the '30s and '40s been sent to the concentration camps - this information is quite handily retrievable from the significant number of books written on the subject.. Although a number of the scholars you cite seek to claim 'Anthroposophy is Gnosticism' as you put it - the original source texts for Anthroposophy do clearly state Anthroposophy cannot be a revival of 'the Gnosis', as the Gnosis was a closely guarded secret of ancient times.. Are you claiming that 'the Gnosis' of ancient times has indeed been published in one of your cited journals, or here on Wikipedia - please do prove this claim if so, as it appears there are a range of reasons to be quite skeptical of the assertion hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 02:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Not my task to prove anything. I simply WP:CITE WP:RS. Wikipedia is simply a website for churning WP:RS, according to an agreed methodology (WP:RULES). ... and you have violated WP:PSCI. WP:AE is just around the corner. According to Hitler (de:Aktion gegen Geheimlehren und sogenannte Geheimwissenschaften), all esotericists were manipulated by Jews, and their place was the concentration camp. From a Nazi POV, it would have seemed more "logical" to spare the Ariosophists and doom the Anthroposophists, but the opposite has happened. Yup, they were extremely lucky. Staudenmaier's book says that the Nazis were not quarreling among themselves if the philosophies of Nazism and Anthroposophy do overlap, but they were quarreling if such overlap is "good" or "bad". He also points out that the Anthroposophists from some cities were discretely investigated by the Gestapo, and their conclusion was that the Anthroposophists were trustworthy citizens of the Third Reich (i.e. neither leftists, nor controlled by Jews). You have offered absolutely no WP:RS which WP:V the claim "the Gnosis was strictly guarded in hidden and ancient mysteries." It is not my task to prove that such WP:CB does not appear in any WP:RS. You simply have to WP:CITE two or three WP:RS in order to prove me wrong; I don't have to prove a negative. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Tangent before I dive into this, @SamwiseGSix what does "hm" mean you insert it very often in text but I'm only familiar with its mean as "hmm", is there some other meaning being implied here? —DIYeditor (talk) 06:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Thank you @DIYeditor and helpful survey of sources below - they should be able to handily help outline the secret and esoteric nature of the early Gnostic groups, and by 'hm' I just mean 'hmm' heh yes The sources currently linked at the top of the Wikipedia page also quite rarely mention 'the Gnosis' and when doing so the term appears to be quite subjective. For example, would 'the Gnosis' of certain Theosophists in the 1880's be the same as 'the Gnosis' of earlier eras? It appears not - the Theosophists for example attempted to publicly present a young Jiddu Krishnamurti literally as the reincarnated Maitreya Buddha, which he himself promptly offered was obviously nonsense - also adding a few additional sources which I hope could help demonstrate the guarded and secretive nature of the early mysteries: https://books.google.com/books?id=SNbaDwAAQBAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_shttps://books.google.com/books?id=ZSMtAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttps://academic.oup.com/book/8519/chapter-abstract/154365661?redirectedFrom=fulltext Although some modern scholars may seek to tie Anthroposophy with labels of the common 'Gnosticism' and yet more common 'neo-Gnosticism' broadly washing around in circulation these days, the original source texts clearly state that Anthroposophy cannot be a revival of 'the Gnosis' as it was a guarded and hidden secret - is it then really so fair to have many links of scholars attempting to apply the 'neo-Gnosticism' label in the very first sentence of the Wikipedia article as it is now written? This seems somewhat unfair and heavy handed - if some scholars want to go out of their way to seek to make such connections and claims of 'neo-Gnosticism' etc based on some surface level similarities or appearances, and we in the community want to bring a truly Neutral Point of View here, then most of those links should arguably be featured in sentences and paragraphs at least somewhat further back in the article right, hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Adolf Hitler himself personally commanded By the same reasoning, Ernst Röhm was not a Nazi either. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC) My opponent recommended me Pagels' book. There are two quotes which remotely WP:V his claim: And that, Marcus adds, is how "the naked Truth" came to him in a woman's form, disclosing her secrets to him. Marcus expects, in turn, that everyone whom he initiates into gnosis will also receive such experiences. In the initiation ritual, after invoking the spirit, he commands the candidate to speak in prophecy,81 to demonstrate that the person has received direct contact with the divine. But much of gnostic teaching on spiritual discipline remained, on principle, unwritten. For anyone can read what is written down—even those who are not "mature." Gnostic teachers usually reserved their secret instruction, sharing it only verbally, to ensure each candidate's suitability to receive it. Such instruction required each teacher to take responsibility for highly select, individualized attention to each candidate. And it required the candidate, in turn, to devote energy and time—often years—to the process. Tertullian sarcastically compares Valentinian initiation to that of the Eleusinian mysteries, which 'first beset all access to their group with tormenting conditions; and they require a long initiation before they enroll their members, even instruction for five years for their adept students, so that they may educate their opinions by this suspension of full knowledge, and, apparently, raise the value of their mysteries in proportion to the longing for them which they have created. Then follows the duty of silence . . .'103 As you see, the link between Gnosticism and mystery religions is just sarcasm. If you ask me "secret teachings" played two roles: (i) sales pitch; (ii) heresy hunters were out there, so of course Gnostics had to keep their mouths shut. The confusion is due to the fact that "secret teachings" are mysteria in their language. In support of my view: Although secrecy is a rare practice in esotericism (for this reason Faivre excluded it from his analysis), as a “dialectic between the hidden and the revealed” it occupies an important position in esoteric discourses. From Haven, Alexander van der (2008). "Kocku Von Stuckrad, . Western Esotericism: A Brief History of Secret Knowledge. Translated by Nicholas Goodrick‐Clarke. London and Oakville, CT: Equinox, 2005. xii+167 pp. $115.00 (cloth); $34.95 (paper)". The Journal of Religion. 88 (1). University of Chicago Press: 133–134. doi:10.1086/526381. ISSN 0022-4189. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Yes, very good - and thank you dear Doctor G, I do like to think of folks not necessarily as opponents, but rather fellow travelers on the good 'spaceship earth' when possible hehe, frail as she may be in these turbulent times.. So I do wonder then, with these new additional insights, how we might go about adjusting the article accordingly? Might I draft up a new proposal for revision? If there are any remaining or further concerns, perhaps we could also continue this discussion directly on the 'talk' page of the article as well. Very curious to hear your thoughts on best possible ways forward, please do keep us updated here. Best, -GS SamwiseGSix (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Please see my reply in the section below. A. Parrot (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Survey of sources relating Anthroposophy and Gnosticism Starting from scratch, I found these which are widely cited and mention both anthroposophy and gnosticism (and "secret"): Rudolf Steiner. Anthroposophical Leading Thoughts. Gedaliahu A. Guy Stroumsa. Hidden Wisdom: Esoteric Traditions And The Roots Of Christian Mysticism. C. J. Jung. The Spiritual Problem of Modern Man. P. Bruce Uhrmacher. Uncommon Schooling: A Historical Look at Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy, and Waldorf Education. Erik Hornung. The Secret Lore of Egypt: Its Impact on the West. Dan Merkur. Gnosis: An Esoteric Tradition of Mystical Visions and Unions. Gedaliahu A. Guy Stroumsa. Another Seed: Studies in Gnostic Mythology. Peter Staudenmaier. Between Occultism and Nazism: Anthroposophy and the Politics of Race in the Fascist Era. Florian Ebeling. The Secret History of Hermes Trismegistus: Hermeticism from Ancient to Modern Times. Peter Staudenmaier. Race and Redemption: Racial and Ethnic Evolution in Rudolf Steiner's Anthroposophy. Stephan A. Hoeller. Jung and the Lost Gospels: Insights into the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Library. Does anyone care to go through these and say which are citable as scholarly opinions for this article and which might be fringe or irrelevant? —DIYeditor (talk) 06:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Steiner evidently wrote a letter titled "Gnosis and Anthroposophy". I haven't beenable to find an accessible copy online, but this page of this Anthroposophist book summarizes it. It seems like Steiner was describing a broader "Gnostic" tradition that he thought had existed for millennia, of which ancient Christian Gnosticism was a particular form. Jung calls Theosophy and Anthroposophy "pure Gnosticism in Hindu dress", but he is not an RS for present-day understandings of Gnosticism. Stroumsa only mentions Anthroposophy in passing on page 1: "Modern esotericism, however, has little to do with secret doctrines and practices in ancient religions. It refers, rather, to a pot-pourri of various elements in European trends since the early modern period, such as Renaissance Hermetism, Rosicrucians, 'Illuminés', Freemason, Tarot, the Theosophical Society, and the Anthroposophists." Hornung discusses Gnosticism and Anthroposophy in different chapters of the book, connecting them only once on page 148: "[Steiner's] doctrine of humankind's sinking ever more deeply into matter until a new ascent from it began with Christ sounds Gnostic, especially when Steiner stresses that humankind will be led back up into the spiritual realm…" Merkur is a difficult one because it uses "Gnosis" in a broad sense to refer to mysticism of many kinds. The book description says it "traces the use of powerful gnostic visionary techniques from Hellenistic Gnosticism and Jewish merkabah mysticism, through Muhammad, the Ismaeilis, and theosophical Sufism to medieval neoplatonism, and renaissance alchemy." The passages that actually discuss Anthroposophy are mostly not accessible to me via Google Books, and it's not clear if they actually connect Anthroposophy with ancient Gnosticism. Ebeling only mentions Anthroposophy once, without any reference to Gnosticism. The first Staudenmaier source only mentions Anthroposophy and Gnosticism together when quoting Hitler describing Steiner as a "Gnostic". The second Staudenmaier source doesn't actually mention Gnosticism at all, only "prognostications". Hoeller mentions Anthroposophy only once: "It was largely the result of the highest and most unbiased insight of modern depth psychology that many contemporary scholars began to recognize that these [ancient Gnostic] cosmic images, which reappear in kindred form in neo-Gnostic systems such as Theosophy and Anthroposophy, might in fact be primal patterns perceived as the result of direct visionary and intuitive experience." The major problem here is that "gnostic" is an ambiguous term. In the broadest sense, it can refer to any mystical, secret knowledge, and thus be a virtual synonym for esotericism. It's more usually used to refer to specific varieties of ancient Christianity, and sometimes to non-Christian schools of thought in the ancient world that seem to resemble the Christian Gnostics. But that narrower use of the term is itself very variable in its scope, and has often been used haphazardly by scholars of ancient religion. I know of two scholarly books arguing that the term should be disused entirely: Rethinking Gnosticism (1996) by Michael Williams and What Is Gnosticism? (2003) by Karen King. The strongest rebuttal of their arguments that I'm aware of is The Gnostics (2010) by David Brakke, which argues that the term should be restricted to the particular Christian group known as the Sethians. The upshot is that we can't simply apply the label "Gnostic" without explaining what exactly that means. As far as I can tell, Hornung is the only one of these sources to highlight a specific similarity between Anthroposophy and the ancient Christian sects that are generally labeled "Gnostic". So WP can mention that specific connection, but in the absence of further sources, I don't think it can do more than that. A. Parrot (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Again, the sources are: Robertson, David G. (2021). Gnosticism and the History of Religions. Scientific Studies of Religion: Inquiry and Explanation. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 57. ISBN 978-1-350-13770-7. Retrieved 3 January 2023. Theosophy, together with its continental sister, Anthroposophy... are pure Gnosticism in Hindu dress... Gilmer, Jane (2021). The Alchemical Actor. Consciousness, Literature and the Arts. Brill. p. 41. ISBN 978-90-04-44942-8. Retrieved 3 January 2023. Jung and Steiner were both versed in ancient gnosis and both envisioned a paradigmatic shift in the way it was delivered. Quispel, Gilles (1980). Layton, Bentley (ed.). The Rediscovery of Gnosticism: The school of Valentinus. Studies in the history of religions : Supplements to Numen. E.J. Brill. p. 123. ISBN 978-90-04-06176-7. Retrieved 3 January 2023. After all, Theosophy is a pagan, Anthroposophy a Christian form of modern Gnosis. Quispel, Gilles; van Oort, Johannes (2008). Gnostica, Judaica, Catholica. Collected Essays of Gilles Quispel. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies. Brill. p. 370. ISBN 978-90-474-4182-3. Retrieved 3 January 2023. Carlson, Maria (2018). "Petersburg and Modern Occultism". In Livak, Leonid (ed.). A Reader's Guide to Andrei Bely's "petersburg. University of Wisconsin Press. p. 58. ISBN 978-0-299-31930-4. Retrieved 3 January 2023. Theosophy and Anthroposophy are fundamentally Gnostic systems in that they posit the dualism of Spirit and Matter. McL. Wilson, Robert (1993). "Gnosticism". In Metzger, Burce M.; Coogan, Michael D. (eds.). The Oxford Companion to the Bible. Oxford Companions. Oxford University Press. p. 256. ISBN 978-0-19-974391-9. Retrieved 3 January 2023. Gnosticism has often been regarded as bizarre and outlandish, and certainly it is not easily understood until it is examined in its contemporary setting. It was, however, no mere playing with words and ideas, but a serious attempt to resolve real problems: the nature and destiny of the human race, the problem of *evil, the human predicament. To a gnostic it brought a release and joy and hope, as if awakening from a nightmare. One later offshoot, Manicheism, became for a time a world religion, reaching as far as China, and there are at least elements of gnosticism in such medieval movements as those of the Bogomiles and the Cathari. Gnostic influence has been seen in various works of modern literature, such as those of William Blake and W. B. Yeats, and is also to be found in the Theosophy of Madame Blavatsky and the Anthroposophy of Rudolph Steiner. Gnosticism was of lifelong interest to the psychologist C. G. *Jung, and one of the Nag Hammadi codices (the Jung Codex) was for a time in the Jung Institute in Zurich. Diener, Astrid; Hipolito, Jane (2013) [2002]. The Role of Imagination in Culture and Society: Owen Barfield's Early Work. Wipf and Stock Publishers. p. 77. ISBN 978-1-7252-3320-1. Retrieved 6 March 2023. a neognostic heresy Ellwood, Robert; Partin, Harry (2016) [1988, 1973]. Religious and Spiritual Groups in Modern America (2nd ed.). Taylor & Francis. p. unpaginated. ISBN 978-1-315-50723-1. Retrieved 6 March 2023. its recovery of the Gnostic and Hermetic heritage. [...] several Neo-Gnostic and Neo-Rosicrucian groups Winker, Eldon K. (1994). The New Age is Lying to You. Concordia scholarship today. Concordia Publishing House. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-570-04637-0. Retrieved 6 March 2023. The Christology of Cerinthus is notably similar to that of Rudolf Steiner (who founded the Anthroposophical Society in 1912) and contemporary New Age writers such as David Spangler and George Trevelyan. These individuals all say the Christ descended on the human Jesus at his baptism. But they differ with Cerinthus in that they do not believe the Christ departed from Jesus prior to the crucfixion.12 Rhodes, Ron (1990). The Counterfeit Christ of the New Age Movement. Christian Research Institute Series. Baker Book House. p. 19. ISBN 978-0-8010-7757-9. Retrieved 26 October 2023. Leijenhorst, Cees (2006b). "Antroposophy". In Hanegraaff, Wouter J. (ed.). Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism. Leiden / Boston: Brill. p. 84. Nevertheless, he made a distinction between the human person Jesus, and Christ as the divine Logos. Again, I'm not pleading that the Gnosis was secret, just that it was called "secret teachings". tgeorgescu (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC) I don't think these sources undermine my key point. The term "Gnostic" is too ambiguous to really be useful as a descriptor. Theosophy and Anthroposophy are both esoteric and thus "gnostic" in the broadest sense, but Anthroposophy had some beliefs that resembled specific beliefs of the ancient Christian Gnostics. So the article should explain the resemblance between Steiner's Christology and that of the ancient Gnostics, but it doesn't seem to be a simple copy of ancient Gnosticism. Leijenhorst's article says as much: "Though Steiner’s emphasis on Jesus Christ’s divine character could be called Gnostic, he avoided docetism by affirming that Jesus Christ had really died in human shape and had risen from the dead." So just slapping the label "Gnostic" or "neo-Gnostic" on Anthroposophy really isn't helpful. I think it would be better for the lead sentence to just call Anthroposophy "esoteric", which doesn't seem to be in dispute. A. Parrot (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC) You say there is a dispute. Which WP:RS (i.e. WP:FRIND) dispute this label? tgeorgescu (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Even if it's not disputed (disputed in the sense that there might be sources that explicitly do not consider Anthroposophy as "Gnostic" or "neo-Gnostic"), how many RS use "(neo-)Gnostic" as a primary descriptor for a defining opening sentence? While I am admitted completely disinterested in this topic (disinteresed as in *yawn*), I have spent a few seconds to look up entries for Anthroposophy in Oxford Reference: none of them even mentions a gnostic connection. Austronesier (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Yes exactly - leading with the Britannica citation (and/or Oxford sources) with some similar copy feels much more appropriate: https://www.britannica.com/topic/anthroposophy It does appear a range of scholars including Leijenhorst are pointing out important differences as well, which should be mentioned around any eventual potential label slapping attempts of "neo-Gnosticism" etc, if at all Perhaps additional work and defense will be found and/or published soon in addition. The impulse to seek to label the article as "neo-Gnosticism" right out of the gate (with 11 citations??) does feel highly inappropriate and quite reminiscent of Italy in the late 1910's and early 1920's during its governmental transition to full state authoritarianism, if one looks a bit more closely at the history and various similar labels applied at that time as well. There are plenty of reliable sources detailing their "neo-Gnosticism" edict in 1919, with Mussolini's rise just so happening to occur quite rapidly afterwards - and we all know what happened next.. SamwiseGSix (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC) I understand that "gnosticism" is not very specific. But I don't understand that the label is disputed in WP:FRIND. And I find that bringing in Mussolini is just ridiculous. Reductio ad Hitlerum. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Sometimes you have to use common sense. It's obvious that Steiner's Christology was influenced by ancient Christian Gnosticism, and the article should of course say that, but the word "Gnostic" is too ambiguous to be all that useful as a descriptor by itself. And, as Austronesier and Samwise just said, it's not necessarily the most prominent descriptor for Anthroposophy in the recent sources. I don't see why you're fixated on declaring Anthroposophy to be "Gnostic" in the lead sentence. A. Parrot (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC) It is articulating my WP:OR knowledge that Steiner spoke a lot about Ancient Gnosticism and Manicheism. And, indeed, many of his ideas are influenced by the 19th-century understanding of Gnosis. It's what every reader of many books by Steiner knows, but somehow it is too boring to get mentioned by scholars. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC) The influence of Gnosticism upon Steiner is clear and supported by sources. The label of "Gnostic" is unnecessary and potentially ambiguous. A. Parrot (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC) The influence of Gnosticism upon Steiner is clear and supported by sources.—okay, I'm prepared to settle at this. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Ok, an exploration of 'Gnostic influence' etc in the 'Religious Nature' section could make sense - but the attempt at ambiguous, unnecessary labeling and extensive citations therebouts in the intro paragraphs should be moved down to the 'Religious Nature' section as well, right.. SamwiseGSix (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC) The intro should also start with the Britannica citation and similar language.. SamwiseGSix (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Just for the record, according to de:Aktion gegen Geheimlehren und sogenannte Geheimwissenschaften Bormann and Goebbels hated Anthroposophy, while Hess and Himmler loved it. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Yes some Nazi elements there did appear to hold on to a small, leftover and controlled German remnant, long disavowed by the other country branches as discussed above (US/UK/FR etc), and then also crushed in '41 as the linked article shows.. I have prepared a modest draft for the intro paragraph and #Religious Nature section which I have posted over in the article's talk page, how about I go ahead and edit those subtle adjustments in then? They contain the points covered above and I could implement this first edit tonight or tomorrow, if there are no objections.. Certainly hoping to avoid any kind of arbitration issues here though too, maybe folks would want to offer advice as needed? Could also check in at the teahouse or help desk if that might be recommended here as well, thanks! SamwiseGSix (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC) First, I don't say that people should be blamed for preserving their own lives during a totalitarian regime. Second, most German Anthroposophists were not sent to concentration camps. It is true, SD purists wished they have been sent to concentration camps, but it simply did not happen. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Yes indeed, tragic circumstances they were. "Never Again" as the saying goes - I've added a reply over in the talk page, and looking forward to hearing your thoughts. Thank you for your consideration, and thank you all for your help and deep analysis here in addition. SamwiseGSix (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC) Agree that "esoteric" should be the label. It's not helpful to the general reader to throw "gnostic" in the lead, as opposed to other influences, and without explaining it. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC) More eyes needed See Talk:Anthroposophy#Epistemology, Ontology etc. My opponent thinks that gnomes, elves, fairies, and sylphs who are in control of natural phenomena is "an ontology" and talking to the spirits of dead Atlanteans is "an epistemology". I have told them the following: if you are here to deny atomic theory in the name of Goethean science: go away, don't waste our time with such nonsense. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC) There are over 3000 Waldorf schools in most major cities around the world and have they have been quite extensively published about positively in academic publications, also the Camphill movement and in environment/conservation (pls see history around Rachel Carson's famous 'Silent Spring' and more) - here are some initial sources: https://repository.arizona.edu/bitstream/handle/10150/621063/azu_etd_14891_sip1_m.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/1069 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1476718X211051184 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244013494861 The idea here is not to reverse the qualification that much of Anthroposophy is considered pseudoscientific by todays standards - the philosophy and application in education and environmental conservation for example however have demonstrated very measurable results published in academic articles, the article should thus approach a more balanced NPOV by also featuring some sources like these: https://pureportal.strath.ac.uk/en/publications/discovering-camphill-a-personal-narrativehttps://figshare.utas.edu.au/articles/journal_contribution/The_Rachel_Carson_letters_and_the_making_of_Silent_Spring/22907084/1 On metaphysics, the philosophy does draw a notable amount of influence from Thomas Aquinas and Ancient Greek philosophy. SamwiseGSix (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Never mind the Waldorf schools and Thomas Aquinas, are you seriously telling us that gnomes and fairies are real? Achar Sva (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Yup, suggesting that Wikipedia should endorse gnomes, sylphs, and talking to the spirits of dead Atlanteans makes a mockery of our encyclopedia. WP:RS: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/my-waldorf-student-son-believes-in-gnomes-and-thats-fine-with-me/274521/ tgeorgescu (talk) 01:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Personally I'd say they're not, though we do live in a democracy (for now) - the positive effects of Waldorf education have been measured in the journal articles above and have received some press: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/technology/at-waldorf-school-in-silicon-valley-technology-can-wait.html SamwiseGSix (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Not trying to make a mockery out of the Encyclopedia in any way here, rather simply trying to help add some of the scientific insight available in the many independent journal articles above to help facilitate neutral point of view, for the sake of a decent and humane future. Humanity faces existential risk https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/1069 SamwiseGSix (talk) 01:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC) And gnomes and sylphs will bail humanity out of this crisis? Yes, we live in a democracy, Wikipedia isn't a democracy. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Only we humans can bail out humanity :) If we follow the science and stick to a true NPOV, it appears we should be just fine.. SamwiseGSix (talk) 02:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Gnomes and sylphs are part and parcel of the ontology of Anthroposophy; talking to the spirit of dead Atlanteans is part and parcel of the epistemology of Anthroposophy. Correct me if I am wrong. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Well no I don't think so - the core approach starts more with a philosophy of freedom, so there really are no requirements for anything like that hehe However for humanity to survive the 'mechanization' of the economy etc (as was written in the 20's, perhaps in consideration of ai/nuclear etc these days) some sort of re-thinking of global society as a more unified human body might actually be needed, as the C&H piece explores hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 02:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Rudolf Steiner did claim to directly see gnomes and sylphs, he did claim he directly talked to the spirits of dead Atlanteans. He named that Spiritual Science. Was he a schizophrenic? tgeorgescu (talk) 02:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC) I did enjoy your Thomas Szasz quote from yesterday "If you talk to God, you are praying; If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia" etc hehe He appears to be drawing quite deeply on Freud Beck and co there right, default Existentialism of the 20s / 30s, with a dash of Stoicism added on in the 60s there perhaps ;) SamwiseGSix (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Treher, Wolfgang. Hitler, Steiner, Schreber – Gäste aus einer anderen Welt. Die seelischen Strukturen des schizophrenen Prophetenwahns, Oknos: Emmendingen, 1966 (newer edition: Oknos, 1990). ISBN 3-921031-00-1; Wolfgang Treher Archived 2005-02-12 at the Wayback Machine tgeorgescu (talk) 02:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC) An interesting (default existentialist? 'existence precedes essence'? some pretty big assumptions etc eh, hm) response - Hitler and Steiner really were very different though as even P. Staudenmeier points out, with Hitler personally telling his followers to "wage war on Steiner" as the Independent.co.uk article discussed further above also illustrates in further detail hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Steiner and many of his friends had to flee to Switzerland by the early 1920's, never to set foot in Germany again.. SamwiseGSix (talk) 02:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Treher's point is that both Hitler and Steiner were schizophrenics. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Hitler maybe yeah, plenty of scholars have considered psycopathy etc Re Steiner, Goldwater rule ha SamwiseGSix (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Treher was not bound by the Goldwater rule, and I am not a MD or psychologist. So I may speak freely: the case for someone claiming to have the Siddhis of Imagination and Inspiration (i.e. seeing things which are not there, and hearing voices talking in his head) is much stronger than the case for Hitler. The problem with Well no I don't think so is that you are not WP:RS about Anthroposophy. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Blom, Jan Dirk (2010). A Dictionary of Hallucinations. New York, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. p. 99. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1223-7. ISBN 978-1-4419-1222-0. Retrieved 2012-01-11. Clairvoyance Also known as lucidity, telesthesia, and cryptestesia. Clairvoyance is French for seeing clearly. The term is used in the parapsychological literature to denote a * visual or * compound hallucination attributable to a metaphysical source. It is therefore interpreted as * telepathic, * veridical or at least * coincidental hallucination. Reference Guily, R.E. (1991) Harper's encyclopedia of mystical and paranormal experience. New York, NY: Castle Books. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Well, you may seek to diagnose him from afar if you like hehe, though as you say, you're not an MD or psychologist hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Blom, Jan Dirk (2010). A Dictionary of Hallucinations. New York, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. p. 99. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1223-7. ISBN 978-1-4419-1222-0. Retrieved 2012-01-11. Clairaudience The term clairaudience comes from the French words for hearing clearly. The term is used in the parapsychological literature to denote a ∗verbal or ∗nonverbal auditory hallucination that is attributable to a metaphysical source, and is therefore interpreted as a ∗telepathic, ∗veridical, or at least ∗coincidental hallucination. Reference Guily, R.E. (1991). Harper's encyclopedia of mystical and paranormal experience. New York, NY: Castle Books. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Yes so to be precise though, we should qualify the intro of the article, as it appears relatively few folks in the article-related community believe in their ability to gain deeper insights etc through their meditations these days, especially as say in comparison with the Buddhists of old.. Much different time we live in these days (material progress makes life much better in so many ways!) although the environment and everything is much different now than in days gone by hm It is getting late here though too, and I should get to bed soon SamwiseGSix (talk) 03:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Price, John S; Stevens, Anthony (1998). "The Human Male Socialization Strategy Set". Evolution and Human Behavior. 19 (1). Elsevier BV: 57–70. doi:10.1016/s1090-5138(97)00105-0. ISSN 1090-5138. Many studies of cults and revitalization movements have noted that the leaders are susceptible both to auditory hallucinations and sudden changes in beliefs. The schizotype, we suggest, is someone who has the capacity to shed the commonly held and socially determined world view of his natal group, and to create a unique and arbitrary world view of his own, into which he may indoctrinate others and become a prophet, or fail to indoctrinate others and become a psychotic patient. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Perhaps you might take a look at this auther, who has been covered and published in academic research journals in addition: Robert Sardello, PhD, is cofounder (with Cheryl Sanders-Sardello, PhD, in 1992) of the School of Spiritual Psychology. At the University of Dallas, he served as chair of the Department of Psychology, head of the Institute of Philosophic Studies, and graduate dean. He is also cofounder and a faculty member of the Dallas Institute of Humanities and Culture, as well as author of more than 200 articles in scholarly journals and cultural publications, and is a former faculty member of the Chalice of Repose Project in Missoula, Montana. Having developed spiritual psychology based in archetypal psychology, phenomenology, and the spiritual science of (RS) from more than thirty-five years of research in this discipline, as well as holding positions in two universities, Dr. Sardello is now an independent teacher and scholar, teaching throughout the US, Canada, and the UK, as well as the Czech Republic, Philippines, and Australia. He is a consultant to many educational and cultural institutions..and is author of several books, including Facing the World with Soul (2003) and Love and the World (2001). SamwiseGSix (talk) 03:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC) It is getting late here though, going to need get some sleep SamwiseGSix (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC) you may seek to diagnose him from afar if you like hehe, though as you say, you're not an MD or psychologist—I'm not Treher: he diagnosed Steiner with schizophrenia, not me. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Hm just appears quite reductive yeah, to just say those two are clinically identical etc, when they really couldn't be much different looking at the Independent.co.uk article for example 'Existence precedes essence' etc, lots of deep assumptions there - one could perhaps look a bit more closely at Treher's philosophical / ontological approaches there as well hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Robert Sardello isn't WP:FRIND about Steiner. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Well he has been published in a range of mainstream journals etc right, feeling a bit dragged into the ring here though hehe and really need to get to sleep hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 03:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC) This isn't the place to whine about materialism or Existence precedes essence. Keep those remarks to yourself. WP:NOTAFORUM. And you seem to equivocate between "mystical delirium" and "religious belief". You claim that he was essentially wrong about "seeing" gnomes and sylphs, but "not a schizophrenic". This looks like a contradiction. Steiner considered himself a Great Initiate, he thought he could talk with God like Moses, and considered himself to be an universal genius, far superior to Leonardo da Vinci. That Sardello isn't WP:FRIND I learned it from your message. When a member of a new religious movement denies that his own guru is a schizophrenic, that member is not WP:FRIND in respect to his guru. I don't even have to claim that Sardello is wrong, but simply that he has an axe to grind against rational critics of his guru. Simply being a religious adept of his guru disqualifies him from WP:FRIND. Occultism is definitely religion if you want to know that. Wikipedia does not sell the patent nonsense that occultism isn't religion. Some people think I'm to blame for the WP:RULES of Wikipedia (which is dumb), or for the public availability of information published by third-parties (which is again dumb). I simply WP:CITE WP:RS according to WP:RULES, so don't blame me for the POV that Steiner was a schizophrenic. It is publicly known and actually quite a straightforward POV. On many occasions I have received irate attacks from cultists simply for citing stuff publicly known for decades. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Hm, well you are attempting to cite Treher who never met Steiner in person - APA and equivalent ethics rules internationally point out that it is irresponsible and unethical to attempt such a remote diagnosis without consent and without even having met the person hm The many mainstream articles from Sardello (including while chair at UDallas Psych Dept etc) establish his deep mainstream-recognized insights in the field and can help serve as a buffer for the very small smattering of material published in the 60's by Treher outside of modern ethics rules on Steiner (it appears he is the only one) seeking to diagnose him with serious clinical conditions hehe (stigmatizing and potentially discriminating, possibly even damaging the discipline of the time etc)  without ever even having met him, and without consent.. A range of court precedents establish that this specific approach as it relates to matters esoteric is not a 'religion' - as for analysis around existentialism and questions of whether 'existence precedes essence' etc, as discussed on the talk page previously this is all part of the notable branch of philosophy considered as ontology, which serves as an important cornerstone also in the development of our philosophy of science.. Because the existentialist stream does rely quite heavily on Marx's 'dialectic materialism' which at its core really is just an inversion of Hegel's dialectic into materialism, another very deep and arguably gaping set of assumptions; it would therefore be arguably quite deeply unscientific ontologically speaking to simply exclude views that do not fully conform with Marx's (somewhat dogmatic?) leaps of faith into materialism, based actually on a somewhat simple inversion of Hegel's spiritually understood and famous 'Hegelian dialectic' hm For example, how can you be so sure that a dogmatic focus materialism will at some point produce a truly comprehensive understanding of the big bang? There are plenty of famous and well respected academics that leave room for the possibility of at least some deeper mysteries in the universe, recognizing that their are some things which are actually somewhat difficult to measure simply from only a material perspective hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 13:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC) You are conflating psychiatry with existentialism, existentialism with Marxism and seeing Marx as the inventor of materialism. This is completely offtopic. WP:NOTAFORUM. I urge you to desist from offtopic rants about materialism, existentialism, future of mankind, and existential risk. Courts which decide that occultism isn't religion make a mockery of justice. As I said, I don't even claim that Sardello is wrong, but you told me that he is a disciple of Steiner. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Where did I say Sardello was anyone's disciple? He has published various works stating himself that he has studied a range of thinkers hm The philosophical ontology, and underlying philosophy of science are all arguably quite applicable here, especially to the somewhat wide-ranging counter claims / assertions shared above hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 14:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Having developed spiritual psychology based in archetypal psychology, phenomenology, and the spiritual science of (RS) from more than thirty-five years of research in this discipline, as well as holding positions in two universities (emphasis mine). Does it mean the spiritual science of the reliable source? That does not make sense. So, it must mean the Spiritual Science of Rudolf Steiner. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Yes he is saying he has developed his concepts based on the 35 year career in mainstream psychology, and also by leveraging insights by critically/analytically reading (though not through serving as a disciple of any kind) aspects of Steiner's body work hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Plato had many disciples who have never seen him alive. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Is there anything specific that WP:FTN needs to deal with in all of this, or is it just an exercise in space-filling? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC) @AndyTheGrump: Yup, SamwiseGSix suggested some edits which IMHO are filled with sources which fail WP:FRIND. I did not check them all, so I could be wrong, but my instinct tells me I'm not. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Here are a few of them again, they do seem quite independent and reliable to me hm https://repository.arizona.edu/bitstream/handle/10150/621063/azu_etd_14891_sip1_m.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/1069 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1476718X211051184 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244013494861 https://pureportal.strath.ac.uk/en/publications/discovering-camphill-a-personal-narrativehttps://figshare.utas.edu.au/articles/journal_contribution/The_Rachel_Carson_letters_and_the_making_of_Silent_Spring/22907084/1 SamwiseGSix (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC) @AndyTheGrump: Articles written by Steiner's believers and/or Waldorf teachers should be discarded for failing WP:FRIND. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC) In which case, I suggest you start a new thread at WP:RSN, asking whether a specific source can be cited for a specific statement. And stick to that. No off-topic tangents about whether it is possible to be a disciple of a dead philosopher. No debates about how many Anthroposophists were sent to concentration camps. Nothing about Atlantis. Just the source being cited, and what it is being cited for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC) tgeorgescu has tried to explain to SamwiseGSix why neither anthroposophic literature nor WP:FALSEBALANCE is acceptable on Talk:Anthroposophy for about a week now, and the discussion contains many excursions into WP:FORUM territory. The point of coming here is usually to lure people there to help. Instead, the "discussion" has metastasized to here. This is a noticeboard. It is for notices. Can we please stop it here, go over there and comment? I just did. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Apollo program#Conspiracy theories

See talk page Parham wiki (talk) 11:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Watchmaker analogy

• Watchmaker analogy (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Discussion on German Wikipedia spilled over here. Is a professor of media studies, writing in a journalistic source, relevant? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Seriously WP:UNDUE, especially in the form of a long quote from Schneider's blog. HuffPost explicitly swears off responsibility for Schneider's text, marking it with "This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site". It's like quoting a self-published book. Bishonen | tålk 12:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC).

Robert M. Schoch‎

Latest changes need checking. At the very least I think he should be called a geologist in the infobox, not a scientist. The lead seems to maximise his credentials over his notability as promoting pseudo ideas. Doug Weller talk 16:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Schoch is arguably more notable for his historical paleontology work than geology. I've cited his work on the obscure mammal group Dinocerata, which is genuinely solid. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Gurdon light

Actual photo of a paranormal thing according to Wikipedia

• Gurdon Light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Low edit count users adding vague images without discussion. As I mentioned at Talk:Gurdon_Light, there is no way to WP:V verify a blob of light on a dark background is the Gurdon light. Most user-submitted images to Wikipedia are fairly conventional and it is reasonable to assume good faith and trust the uploader. However some images, like this one, are connected to topics that are sufficiently unusual that they cannot be taken at face value. Even modifying the image caption with a caveat ("Photo claimed to be of the Gurdon light in 1994") isn't sufficient. Platforming images that make unverifiable claims doesn't improve the article and isn't in the best interests of Wikipedia. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

OMG, it's a blurry blob! So blurry blobs do exist! --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I think perhaps the edit warring user doesn't know about their own talkpage. At any rate, I've posted a final warning there, but I won't be blocking anybody for some hours (just soon off to bed). Bishonen | tålk 22:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC).

Update: oh yes, they do know the way to their page; they just reverted my warning. Bishonen | tålk 23:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC).

Shivapuri Baba

New article describing a Hindu mystic who allegedly lived 137 years without any good sourcing. David Wolfe (raw food advocate) was being cited a source, I have just removed that. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Seemingly reliable Wiley publication promoting archaeological nonsense concerning Gunung Padang

This is what I just posted to RSN:

Gunung Padang is a fairly recent megalithic site. However, geologist Danny Hilman Natawidjaja author of "Plato Never Lied: Atlantis Is In Indonesia" has claimed it to be much older and to be a buried pyramid. This is nonsense but he along with a number of other authors have had recent work published in a Wiley peer reviewed journal an article backing that claim.Geo-archaeological prospecting of Gunung Padang buried prehistoric pyramid in West Java, Indonesia concluding that "The oldest construction, Unit 4, likely originated as a natural lava hill before being sculpted and then architecturally enveloped during the last glacial period between 25 000 and 14 000 BCE" and buried 9,000 years ago. See also [3] which is not an RS itself but has good background material and sources. I expect attempts to add this to the article. We need to look at the author's BLP as well. Doug Weller talk 10:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, no, we aren't going to base article content on such wild primary-source claims from someone writing outside their field of specialist knowledge. As for Natawidjaja's biography, it currently says nothing about pyramids or Atlantis etc, and probably shouldn't until such claims are reported on by sources capable of reflecting how off-the-wall they are. Watchlisted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrumpl We list his "Plato Never Lied: Atlantis Is In Indonesia", perhaps that could be in the body of the article instead of just tucked away. Colavito is considered an RS and mentions him here.[4] Doug Weller talk 12:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Archaeologist Víctor Pérez described Natawidjaja's conclusions as pseudoarchaeology.

That's in the main Gunung Padang article. Which also says:

research.

Natawidjaja's analysis was questioned by other scientists. Vulcanologist Sutikno Bronto suggested that the carbon dating result was influenced by weathering and concluded that the elevation is the neck of an ancient volcano and not a man-made pyramid. Thirty-four Indonesian scientists signed a petition questioning the motives and methods of the Hilman-Arif team. Archaeologist Víctor Pérez described Natawidjaja's conclusions as pseudoarchaeology.

Natawidjaja's conclusions gained the attention of Indonesia's President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who set up a task force. An archaeologist who did not wish to be named due to the involvement of the country's president, stated:

In archaeology we usually find the 'culture' first … Then, after we find out the artefact's age we'll seek out historical references to any civilisation which existed around that period. Only then will we be able to explain the artefact historically. In this case, they 'found' something, carbon-dated it, then it looks like they created a civilisation around the period to explain their finding.

Plenty there about him. Doug Weller talk 12:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

As we mention his work on Gunung Padang, I think it's necessary to mention the criticism. Doug Weller talk 13:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

He did an episode of Graham Hancock's Netflix show about Atlantis, Ancient Apocalypse. There was a lot of response content that pushed back against the show, so that may aid in finding WP:FRIND sources. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Jeremy Griffith

• Jeremy Griffith (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Discussion on the Talk page about how fringey the guy is and about whether an IP's opinion is a hindrance. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Is the lab leak at all racist? (episode 94)

• Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#"informed by racist undercurrents" redux

Probably of interest to fringe-savvy editors. Bon courage (talk) 09:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Richat Structure and Atlantis (again)

A student editor, who ironically appears to be part of a class of well known pseudoarchaeology critic John Hoopes, is insisting on adding a really undue 12,000 byte addition regarding the claim that the Richat Structure is Atlantis, which includes no reliable sources specifically about the claim itself, mostly cited to YouTube videos and the conspiracy streaming service Gaia. Other eyes on the page would be appreciated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I've added back a small section to the article mentioning the claims. I don't think 12,000 bytes of prose is due, but a single three sentence paragraph probably suffices. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I’ll tell John. Doug Weller talk 19:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Steve Fuller (sociologist)

• Steve Fuller (sociologist) (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Could use more NPOV and less FRINGE. But a WP:SPA thinks it needs less NPOV and more FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

That's a bizarre way to read my corrections to Fuller's entry. In fact, the entry in general suffers from a surfeit of criticism from variously (in)competent sources and a dearth of statements of Fuller's views. (Indeed, the entry is skewed very much towards the creationism debate, which is only part of what Fuller does -- though I realize that this seems to preoccupy Wikipedia editors.) I operate from the spirit of NPOV. If you're going to criticize the guy, at least allow him to state his position. It's as simple as that. Morgan Dorrell (talk) 10:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

at least allow him - WP:FRINGE says, Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement or deprecation.

Yes, Fuller seems to be an all-round anti-science activist but the sources concentrate on the creationism aspect. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

"There's a cabal"

Entertaining thread: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia project (GSoW) --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

It's a contentious topic, and some admin inteverion (eg a block) is needed there. There are ongoing aspersions cast against good-faith WIkipedians, edit wars involving several IPs, NOTHERE ADVOCACY behaviors, and possibly MEAT happening as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

"The most ancient settlements in Epirus date to the Middle Paleolithic"

A claim that The most ancient traces of human settlements in Epirus can be found in the late period of the Middle Paleolithic era (40,000-30,000 years ago) on the villages of Xarrë, Konispol (Kreçmoi Cave) and Shën Mari., sourced to [5] and [6] has been added tot he article on Epirus. Not only do I find the sources inadequate for such a claim, but it seems to be WP:FRINGE, as there were no human settlements in the Middle Paleolithic, the earliest human settlements dating to the much later Neolithic. This seems to be a typical Balkan nationalist protochronist fringe claim, all too common in Balkan articles. Any help with this would be greatly appreciated. Khirurg (talk) 05:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I do not think human settlement in this context would refer to permanent settlements. I’m pretty certain they mean evidence of human settlement in the area, not necessarily towns or fortifications, but just evidence of human habitation in the region, such as artefacts from caves and the like. That’s perfectly plausible. Although admittedly, quotes would be useful here because I don’t think it’s been translated properly. Botushali (talk) 09:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Biomesotherapy

• Biomesotherapy (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Does not seem to conform to MEDRS or FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Mantell UFO incident

• Mantell UFO incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An old article obviously written by UFO believers. Gives primary weight to fringe explanations. Fixed the lead a bit, but article needs major overhaul. See Talk:Mantell_UFO_incident#NPOV_and_FRINGE_issues. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done Article overhauled, thanks Rjjiii. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I added a citation (ref no. 15) for the burial place and the location of marker. The source is NICAP. I also added the NICAP collection on Mantell under External Links. Understand it is an ufology source. Feel free to revert or let me know if the addition is inappropriate. Thank you. Path2space (talk) 06:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to you as well!

@Path2space: The publisher is the significant thing. In this case,[7] that was the official website of the Kentucky state government. I reformatted the citation,[8] and it could likely be pointed to a more neutral archive site. I would view this as a primary source for this article (Kentucky on Kentucky). The policy for that is at: WP:PRIMARY. If it was published by NICAP, it would not meet Wikipedia's standards. A discussion explaining why is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_358#NICAP_And_other_non-government_UFO_research_organizations Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 07:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on merging content boards

There is a discussion about possibly merging this notice board on Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Etzel Cardeña

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

This article is almost completely credulous and quotes a lot of argumentative claims that are fairly reproachable. Not sure what to do. jps (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

A WP:FRINGEBLP that requires criticism of his "expressed views", such as [9] and [10]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Right. Can I page someone for cleanup on aisle ten, then? jps (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Tried to clean up, but there is resistance [11]. Same editor deletes context in another article [12]. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Started a section on the Talk page so any upcoming consensus edits won't be a surprise. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I saw your work, Hob. Thing is, I think that Cardeña is actually right about this particular point. Much the same argument is made by no less a bigshot than Richard Wiseman, but Wiseman's conclusion from this observation is rather different than Cardeña's. Namely, Wiseman contends that the comparable level of evidence for certain parapyschology claims in contrast to more prosaic mainstream psychological claims demonstrates that critics should be worried that the evidence in favor of many standard claims of psychological phenomena is rather weak. See also replication crisis. It is actually true that parapsychologists have through tests of fire been forced to deal with their shoddy statistics to a greater degree than psychologists who have made claims that aren't as "out there". Wiseman points out that we shouldn't accept a psychologist's claim that, I don't know, people are motivated by some psychological mechanism on the basis of supposed effect seen in a small sample under dubious controls and with many confounding variables just because the mainstream psychologist is testing a prosaic claim and the parapsychologist ic testing a wild claim. If anything, the legit criticisms of parapsychology act as an object lesson for why many arguments in mainstream psychology are corrupt! jps (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Good point. On the other hand, he may be technically correct but he phrased it in a misleading way. Parapsychology is not "as good as parts of normal psychology", parts of normal psychology are as bad as parapsychology.

Even the word "psi" itself is misleading. It pretends to be a thing but actually it is a junk room. Parapsychologists cannot explain something? Then it's psi! The word should be replaced by "something parapsychologists cannot explain". That would diminish conflict a lot. Skeptics would agree with parapsychologists all the time:

• "Parapsychologists have proven the existence of psi" turns into "Parapsychologists have proven that there are things the cannot explain". Skeptic: "True dat."
• "During the course of an extensive experiment, psi tends to decrease over time" turns into "During the course of an extensive experiment, we are able to explain more and more of what happens." Skeptic: "Yeah. I knew that."
• "The presence of skeptics inhibits the presence of psi" turns into "The presence of skeptics helps parapsychologists explain stuff." Skeptic: "Thank you for noticing."

I maintain that the technically true sentence is still misleading and FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Disputes at Falun Gong

As usual, we've got a group of adherents over at Falun Gong attempting to whitewash the page to fit the group's preferred narrative and hide that the group is entirely centered around the words and whims of one ultra-conversative guy who now and then claims to levitate, Li Hongzhi, over at a big compound in Deer Park, New York. There's a whole propaganda media empire behind this guy, like the Epoch Times and Shen Yun, and his group here in the US and here in Germany. See this October 2023 article from NBC for example. They openly attempt to influence elections and law, and had a lot of success under the Trump administration.

The attempts by the Falun Gong to turn this article into a propaganda leaflet has also been the subject of academic discussion. Falun Gong adherents regularly attempt to rally and push through this or that.

Realizing they can't excise almost every non-Falun Gong-aligned (and by that, usually meaning coming directly from the Falun Gong) source on the topic from the past several years, the latest strategy seems to be to try to bury what they don't like in the article by cherry picking old sources, plastering huge sections of old material about the group as victims of China to bury everything else, and endlessly—and I mean endlessly—attempting to decry most WP:RS-complaint sources from the past several years, especially media reports.

Since these editors come out of the woodwork especially when they think they can move the needle, I highly recommend more eyes and ears on this article. The Falun Gong treats it as a straight up battleground—it is after all another potential propaganda arm from which the group could benefit—and closely monitors it with any number of single purpose accounts. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I would like to speak to what happened, as I have recently been extensively involved in the talk page discussions relating to Bloodofox's recent edits on the Falun Gong article. I have been less involved with editing the article itself (probably edited less than five times over the past 3 years), due to my relative unfamiliarity with this topic, compared to other regulars at this page.

• For those unacquainted with this topic, Falun Gong has attracted sustained, intense interest from certain parts of our community for almost two decades, in part due to its importance, and its various dimensions that spans human rights, religion and politics, which is what attracted me to this page in the first place.
• On November 8 22:44 (restored after reversion on Nov 10) Bloodofox deleted 5066 characters, essentially 3 entire paragraphs out of 5 paragraphs of the lede of this article. Most of the content deleted by Bloodofox has been stable on this page for months if not years, representing the consensus of many editors from both sides, over the course of a decade, debating almost every line and sometimes word.
• The content deleted by Bloodofox includes the following:
  • How Falun Gong emerged - Source: Freedom House 2017 report.
  • What Falun Gong is - “a meditation, slow moving exercises. Self-identifies as a practise of the Buddhist school. With moral psychologies/philosophies.” Source: Freedom House 2017 report.
  • What happened to Falun Gong - “Initially supported by the Chinese government. Later alleged to be a heretical organization by the Chinese government. Finally subject to "a nationwide crackdown", "a wide range of human rights abuse", with estimated "hundreds of thousands" to be "imprisoned extrajudicially", "torture". "As of 2009, human rights groups estimated that at least 2,000 Falun Gong practitioners had died within China as a result of abuse in custody."” Sources include: Amnesty International 2000, Freedom House 2014, New York Times 2009, China Quarterly 2015.
  • Subsequent developments in Falun Gong movement - “"Millions continued to practise Falun Gong there [in china] in spite of the persecution", and "practised in over 70 countries" with "40,000 to several hundreds of thousands" of adherents.” Source: Telegraph 2009, China Quarterly 2015,
• Bloodofox replaced all of the above content with essentially one statement (which is revised and "supplemented" from an existing sentence in the next paragraph):
  • Led by Li Hongzhi, who is viewed by adherents as a deity like figure, Falun Gong practitioners operated a variety of organizations in the US and elsewhere, known for opposing the CCP, feminism, modern medicine ,and being "ultra-conversative".
  • The last assertion is almost exclusively sourced from a single NBC piece, on Epoch Times, a competing media. The first description about "led by Li Hongzhi' and "viewed by adherents as a deity like figure" appears to be sourced from none other than Bloodofox himself.
• No one can reasonably argue that the sources deleted by Bloodofox are unreliable per WP:RS, no such arguments have been made. No one to date (except presumably the Chinese government) has suggested that all the content deleted by Bloodofox is not true, especially the part concerning the persecution of Falun Gong in China.
• A WP:Lede is intended to introduce the article, and summarize its most important content, including any prominent controversies. What was previously a summary of two decades of stable scholarship and journalism of this multidimensional topic has now become a summary of one or two online articles, cherry-picked amongst the sea of sources and information on this topic.
• Is there controversies to Falun Gong? There appears to be. But Falun Gong is not just a controversy. It's also a serious religious and human rights phenomenon.
• To delete all of the above context, background and history, distilled from two decades of journalism and scholarship on this serious topic, and confer exclusive limelight to a passage from a select media article, which is not even mainly about the beliefs of Falun Gong, strikes me as POV-pushing, in serious infringement of WP:Weight, WP:Lede, WP:DUE, WP:NPOV, WP:RECENTISM and WP:SOURCETYPE.
• After being challenged See here, here, and here, on the merits of his edits, Bloodofox engaged in further edits of the same pattern. His justifications for his edits is essentially that all those who challenged his edits are "Falun Gong adherents", and that he is preventing alleged adherents a platform for their views see here, here and [13]. He declares his belief of Falun Gong as an alleged totalitarian movement, out to essentially corrupt the world, his disdain for Falun Gong's alleged influence on conservative parties in different countries (example) and declares his motive as, I quote,
  • "And that's why we're not sweeping everything aside to smokescreen Falun Gong operations by emphasizing at every corner how evil the Chinese government is and how very persecuted Falun Gong is."
• Some editors and my attempt to restore the article to its stable version were quickly reverted by Mr. Ollie, who is also a regular on this page.

In light of all of the above. I believe that Bloodofox's edits are plainly indefensible and needs to be undone. The last version of this article that stood before Nov 8, should be restored, and I seek fellow editor's input on this discussion. Thank you all for reading this lengthy post. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 03:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

First, this user appears to have issued a vague threat of violence aimed at me recently ("external assistance will be inevitable") and did not deny that it was a threat when asked to clarify, preferring to again issue another vague statement. Note that I've experienced threats of violence stemming from editing this page before, and academics have also noted vague threats when studying the Falun Gong.

I believe this account gave its angle away by referring to NBC News as a "competing media" of Epoch Times in an attempt to dismiss the October 2023 report, lol. (Now what account have I heard that from before on the talk page?) Anyway, there's a mountain of this material from WP:RS from the past several years and a lot of the Freedom House stuff you're pushing often seems to just be Freedom House citing the Falun Gong. This is the equivalent of laundering a source. Such an approach ist unfortunately typical of the Falun Gong-aligned embedded accounts over at Falun Gong.

And none of this is coming from me, it's coming from a mountain of reporting from the past several years that the group has pushed to get off the article. For example, here's a quote from the NBC News report (bold added). Here's the quote I supposedly invented from the above:

"To his followers, Li is a God-like figure who can levitate, walk through walls and see into the future. His ultra-conservative and controversial teachings include a rejection of modern science, art and medicine, and a denunciation of homosexuality, feminism and general worldliness."

It is also quite well documented at this point that the Falun Gong propaganda arms include the now notorious Epoch Times, a major source for disinformation and backer of far-right politicians in both the US and here in Germany, and organizations like Shen Yun (whose false claims about folk tradition are what introduced me to the Falun Gong in the first place). The fact that this user is attempting to dance around these well-documented facts tells you a lot about what we're dealing with over at Falun Gong. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I've been editing Wikipedia for about 13 years off and on, and the topic of Falun Gong has always interested me from a human rights perspective as well from a contemporary religious perspective. I've stressed repeatedly to the editors involved in this current dispute that Falun Gong is a religious minority undergoing well-documented persecution in China. Within the western diaspora communities in the United States, Europe, and other countries, the group is largely an ethnic and religious minority group with a significant portion being refugees who had to leave China because of their beliefs.

The efforts of @bloodofox and @binksternet in recent days/weeks/months is an alarming attempt to take away the narrative sovereignty of this group. It is not correct at all to dismiss decades of ethnographic and religious scholarship on Falun Gong in favour of a recent article on NBC news, which takes an entirely American-centric view of the issue and focuses on the media outlets run by Falun Gong adherents rather than the religious practices. The viewpoints being pushed on the page right now come from a western hegemonic mindset that disregards the beliefs of indigenous groups (Falun Gong being an indigenous Chinese practice) in favour of arguments that align with a very specific mindset of specific westerners who don't like the way they think and act. That's called bigotry. And refusing to engage in dialogue while attacking editors as SPAs and promoting Fringe theories is disruptive to the entire encyclopedia.

Falun Gong is a sensitive and contentious subject, but we have to remember that this subject is about human beings who have human rights. It is inappropriate for a handful of WK editors who do not share their heritage and are generally unfamiliar with their beliefs to determine how the world should view them. —Zujine|talk 13:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

In reality, the Falun Gong is a US-based new religious movement centered around the words and whims of one guy, Li Hongzhi.

He lives at the Falun Gong compound in Dragon Springs in New York. As you know, the group intensely supported the Trump Administration and its media arm, The Epoch Times, gained special access to the Trump administration in particular. Let's not play games here: this is and has been a US-based topic since the Falun Gong leadership left China.

The NBC News article is just one of hundreds covering this topic, especially since the connection between Falun Gong, Shen Yun, and the notorious The Epoch Times became clear around 2016.:bloodofox: (talk) 13:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

If you have produced even a fraction of the alleged "hundreds" of articles covering this topic allegedly supporting your edit, I might have been inclined to agree with your edit. You did not. You cobbled your statement from two passing and casual descriptions of Falun Gong from two media articles, that are not even focused on this topic (they were mainly talking about EpochTimes, a media and a performing arts troupe). In so doing, you deleted perfectly credible and serious scholarship books and articles, and reports by well established human rights NGOs, some of which were published as recently as 2018 and 2019, on this topic. And in your defence of your edit, half the time you were WP:SOAPBOXing, and the other half, you were launching blatant WP:PA against other editors, discrediting their edits because of their perceived religious faith. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 14:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

"Epoch Times" + "Falun Gong" + any search engine = yes, hundreds of articles. No need to play games. They're indeed all over the Falun Gong talk page. We even have sources discussing Falun Gong's attempt to influence Wikipedia coverage. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Is "alarming attempt to take away the narrative sovereignty of this group" something like "not giving them the right to WP:OWN"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Editors are arguing that Freedom House isn't a reliable source because they interviewed Falun Gong adherents about their experiences. That's what I mean about narrative sovereignty. The view of some editors is that the beliefs of Falun Gong should only be represented by people who disagree with them. I don't think that Falun Gong adherents should own this page, and I don't think that is the issue at question here. @Bloodofox took action on this noticeboard after going on a long string of nonconstructive edits that represent his/her/their own POV. That POV is one of aggression towards a minority group. That's my point. All of the attacks on other editors have been about their POV and trying to "out" editors as Falun Gong sympathizers. It's perfectly fine for Christians to edit pages about Christianity and for Muslims to edits pages on Islam. It would be strange to prevent people from editing on topics related to their own religious beliefs. I am not a religious person, but I try to extend respect to religious groups, and I think that an article about a religious group should be approached as a tool to understand that group. I live in Belgium. I don't know anything about NBC News, but if you're telling me that it trumps the works of scholars and human rights organizations who have spent decades researching and reporting on the subject, I have to disagree. And if a handful of editors think they have the right to define a minority group themselves by excluding the participation of people on the basis of having a potentially positive relationship with that group, I have to disagree as well. It's a regressive Euro- (or in this case American-)centric interpretations of a culturally distinct group. —Zujine|talk 17:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

"to take away the narrative sovereignty of this group" no group on wikipedia should have narrative sovereignty, if one does then yes it should be taken away. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

"Editors are arguing that Freedom House isn't a reliable source because they interviewed Falun Gong adherents about their experiences" is false. Freedom House cites things like official Falun Gong websites for basic information like demographics and claims of crackdowns. We don't consider any website from the Falun Gong to be an WP:RS. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

To construe my phrase "external assistance will be inevitable", when I was plainly referring to administrator or arbitrator or other forms of external intervention, as a threat of physical violence, is an astounding distortion of the meaning of my words.

But it does show how Bloodofox tilts at windmills, in his unconcealed activism on this topic. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 13:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I invite anyone to take a look at this account's edit history, especially on the Falun Gong, and drawn their own conclusions. As for "unconcealed activism": one could say that I happen to be in the pocket of Big WP:RS, where I don't dance around this project's source requirements. And it's obvious that this topic, which I unfortunately fell into from the bread crumb trail around Shen Yun's manufactured "folk traditions", needs a big dose of Big WP:RS from contemporary WP:RS. And that'd be all that media coverage of the US-based empire around Li Hongzhi and crew you and a crew of 'new' editors here are keen on keeping off the article and/or burying. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

If you don't wish to "fance around wikipedia's source requirements", if you think you are above complying with Wikipedia's rules and policies on source, then frankly and respectfully, I think you should take a break from editing this topic. I appreciate your intense interest on this topic, but I think you are letting your activism get in the way of your editing. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

"Dancing around Wikipedia's source requirements" means "trying to circumvent Wikipedia's source requirements". Bloodofox does not do that. So, you think you are above complying with Wikipedia's rules and policies is wrong. Good luck for your next attempt at reading what people write. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I did not misread. Bloodofox changed his edit shortly after I made the above comment. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

You do understand that by filling up this thread with personal attacks on Bloodofox you're just proving the point, right? Somebody needs to move this mess to ANI or AE, we're going to need a few topic bans to be handed out I think. MrOllie (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Pointing out how Bloodofox's assertion, that whoever disagrees with his edits are Falun Gong adherents, are not arguments to support his deletion of two decades of journalism and scholarship on this topic is not a personal attack. And I think you should explain why you reverted other editors' attempts to restore these deleted sources on this article that has been stable for months, if not years. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

That is not what you are doing, both here and elsewhere. I note your attempt to change the subject, but I decline to help you with that. MrOllie (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• I've added the article to my watchlist and I agree that more input is needed. Further lengthy discussion from the main dispute participants here is not helpful. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

From the getgo I'm deeply uncomfortable with how this is being raised here. First and foremost: I don't want to wade into this topic for a multitude of reasons; while I have a strong interest in minority religions this topic is, uh, contentious, to say the least, and requires a lot of expertise.

That said, I don't think using the language you are here is appropriate. People of a religion are allowed to edit their own wikipedia article as long as they follow WP:RS, and referring to Falun Gong in the same way as one might refer to people who ardently believe in water memory ignores the fact that one is an outright religion, and the other has only has adherents in the way a religion does.

@Zujine was right to raise narrative sovereignty, though I think the word choices were poor. People belonging to a religion are typically the most educated on the topic of that religion. That doesn't mean an encyclopedia is the place for presenting ones theology as true, but this language which paints Falun Gong's members themselves as the problem, rather than a certain subset. You can't use as broad a brush as is being used here just because their religious beliefs themselves are controversial.

Religions are not fringe theories. I do not think that Falun Gong is an appropriate topic for FTN, but I may be alone in that. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 23:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The Falun Gong is a new religious movement focused on Li Hongzhi, who promotes all sorts of fringe theories about, for example, modern medicine. This is echoed by the group's media arms, like Epoch Times, one of the biggest spreaders of fringe theories in the United States, ranging from vaccines to climate change. It would be difficult to find a more suitable candidate for discussion here than the Falun Gong. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say I'm not familiar with it; I wouldn't be as opposed to wading into this situation if I was. :)

"Li Hongzhi, who promotes all sorts of fringe theories about, for example, modern medicine"

Address those on a case by case basis.

"This is echoed by the group's media arms, like Epoch Times"

Absolutely worth mentioning in both the main article and the article on the Epoch Times. The article on Falun Gong itself still needs to maintain an NPOV and just making the article a laundry list of their fringe sins won't fly.

"It would be difficult to find a more suitable candidate for discussion here than the Falun Gong."

Then I think you need to take a biiiiiig step back on this topic. A religion is not a fringe theory, even if it contains or supports fringe theory elements. You're may have a hard time sidestepping just naked prejudice in this process otherwise, it seems? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 00:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

A reminder: Wikipedia isn't censored. We have no shortage of WP:RS on this. New religious movements don't get special treatment on Wikipedia. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

See: WP:RNPOV

"In the case of beliefs and practices, Wikipedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from religion's sacred texts as primary sources and modern archaeological, historical, and scientific works as secondary and tertiary sources.

Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 00:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

That only works if practitioners haven't been instructed to mislead the public, as strong secondary sources tell us is the case here. MrOllie (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Falun Gong is absolutely a fringe topic that needs to be monitored for fringe promotion. The religious group has actively promoted pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, along with helping push such nonsense as Qanon, among many others. If it hadn't been for the decades of all of that, I would be more sympathetic to the claims regarding it as a religion above. But when the religious movement chose to be a mouthpiece for fringe quackery, it became a topic of concern for this noticeboard. Silverseren^C 23:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree that topics relating to Falun Gong need to be approached as fringe topics. Any beliefs which they harbour which are inherently fringe theories, which admittedly are abundant, should be handled on a case-by-case basis. We don't treat the obvious pseudolinguistics of speaking in tongues to be an excuse to bring Pentecostalism under the purview of FTN. Falun Gong itself is a religion, and we need to be careful not to just stomp on WP:NPOV and likely WP:SOAPBOX in addressing what does seem to be some NPOV edits on the other side of the spectrum. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 00:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Where have I heard this argument before? Scientologists?

Here we discuss fringe topics. The Falun Gong's Epoch Times and its many other propaganda arms (there's really no more neutral way to put it) are a major source for misinformation and promotion of fringe theories in the US. Wikipedia isn't censored. This topic is about as appropriate as it gets for this board. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

It is a religion that is much more on the level of a cult of personality around one person and it is that person who has purposefully used the religion they created to push the fringe nonsense. So, no, you can't deal with the religious part separate from the fringe part, as they are purposefully intertwined by the creator and adherents. It is an inherent aspect of the group as a whole. Silverseren^C 00:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

"It is a religion that is much more on the level of a cult of personality around one person and it is that person who has purposefully used the religion they created to push the fringe nonsense."

Well that's certainly one un-nuanced take. Not exactly certain why it belongs in an article on wikipedia since it's blatantly ignoring any pretence of an NPOV approach. A religion is more than its leadership, its also the lived experiences of its adherents. Plenty of religions have very strong central figureheads who abuse their position, that's not unique to Falun Gong.

Also, to re-quote this:

It is a religion that is much more on the level of a cult of personality

I'm beyond uncomfortable with a random member of FTN (or any part of wikipedia) attempting to arbitrate what is and isn't a legitimate religion for the purposes of whether or not it falls under FTN's watchful eye. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 00:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

This statement: I'm beyond uncomfortable with a random member of FTN (or any part of wikipedia) attempting to arbitrate what is and isn't a legitimate religion for the purposes of whether or not it falls under FTN's watchful eye. and this one: I do not think that Falun Gong is an appropriate topic for FTN do not appear to be compatible. MrOllie (talk) 00:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course it's compatible. "Religions are not fringe theories" is a perfectly coherent stance, one which actually made it to the serious level of policy suggestion (albeit a failed one) at Wikipedia. We shouldn't be trying to come up with criteria for what counts as a "real religion" here when even scholars of religious studies have generally done away with that value judgement and even the term "cult" in general. Religions just are what they are; both internally and externally diverse.

The point is we shouldn't be trying to ascribe degrees of legitimacy to religious topics to determine whether they're sociological/anthropological topics or fringe theores. We can absolutely tackle individual beliefs which are fringe theories, but we cannot extrapolate that back to calling a religion itself a fringe theory. Raelism is obviously inherently based on a fringe theory (UFOs!) but that doesn't mean it's not a serious religion. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 00:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see. No one can arbitrate what is and isn't a legitimate religion except for you. You will find that any number of religious topics are fringe theories. For example, some people believe that Jesus traveled to India and incorporated portions of that region's religions into Christianity. That some people fervently believe this does not mean it would be inappropriate to discuss it on this board. MrOllie (talk) 00:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe this is worth a read? I am making zero attempts to arbitrate what is and isn't a legitimate religion. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 00:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

And yet you're trying to police what people can say on this noticeboard. Please don't do that. MrOllie (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Is... this a Poe? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 00:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I've been wondering the same thing myself. MrOllie (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Cults of personality are still religions, just based around singular people. A lot of the new religious movement groups are organized as such. You seem to have a really strong POV trying to support Falun Gong for some reason. I'm just stating general well-known, and well cited in the article even, information about the group. Wikipedia is not meant to be a representation of what adherents of a religion think their group is or what it's about, Wikipedia is about what reliable sources and especially academic sources say about the subject, purposefully independent of anything connected to the religion in question. Silverseren^C 00:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

"Cults of personality are still religions, just based around singular people."

Not necessarily, they can be religions but not all cults of personality are, well, literal NRMs. I don't actually think we disagree here, though.

"You seem to have a really strong POV trying to support Falun Gong for some reason."

Mainly because I don't think it's appropriate for FTN to be treating an NRM as a fringe theory, and I think some of the discussion here is showing naked prejudice. This is extra problematic when this discussion is happening a) somewhere inappropriate and b) away from the article's talk page.

"Wikipedia is about what reliable sources and especially academic sources say about the subject, purposefully independent of anything connected to the religion in question."

I wholeheartedly agree, to the extent that I've also said the same here in one of the posts you replied to! Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 00:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, are you suggesting we not be allowed to discuss the Falun Gong and it's fringe superspreader arms like the Epoch Times on this board? :bloodofox: (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I do not think putting a religion on FTN's watchlist should be a thing that happens, no. It feels like a very high risk example of mission creep which has the potential to do some damage to the careful NPOV needed to tackle handling a religion who has been... very active in how they present their preferred image to the world.

I actually think the Epoch Times probably just needs to have a feed of recent changes piped to FTN regulars' inboxes, given its history.

I'm getting the impression from some of what you and what @Silver seren are saying that you think I'm one of the Falun Gong members/adjacents who is active on Wikipedia ("You seem to have a really strong POV trying to support Falun Gong for some reason."), which, y'know, either is all in my head in which case apologies, or it isn't and, y'know, knock it off. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 00:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure the Falun Gong and its many misinformation arms like the Epoch Times would be more than happy to hear that you think discussing them should be forbidden. And why not let this poor multi-billion dollar org spread anti-vaccine, anti-evolution, anti-climate change, and so on in peace to millions in the US, Canada, and Europe without troubling them with reporting on it?

Unfortunately, I think you're going to have a hard time convincing editors here that they shouldn't be allowed to discuss the group's role as a major superspreader of major misinformation in the US.

But maybe you should contact all the major media outlets in the US and tell them to stop bullying the Falun Gong with all their nasty coverage that doesn't parrot Li Hongzhi's talking points as well. Don't ya just hate it that they keep reporting on stuff like Falun Gong's connections to the GOP and US government policy?

Again, Wikipedia isn't censored, and we have no shortage of WP:RS covering it. So we cover it.:bloodofox: (talk) 01:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

"I'm sure the Falun Gong and its many misinformation arms like the Epoch Times would be more than happy to hear that you think discussing them should be forbidden."

You really need to read both WP:AGF and what you're replying to. I am very explicitly calling the Epoch Times an utter font of fringe that needs careful monitoring. Further, you really should consider knocking off casting aspersions at anyone who disagrees with how this is being handled here. For real, oblique and increasingly explicit implications that I'm a Falun Gong member for disagreeing here is not okay. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 01:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I have yet to see anyone here accuse you of being a Falun Gong member. However, I am sure our many embedded Falun Gong adherent editors are no doubt over the moon for your support in attempting to censor any discussion of the group here.

After all, it is much easier to promote misinformation when you can forbid discussion of its source. Even muddying the waters by having an editor fill this talk page with pleas to censor any discussion of the many media sources discussing the Falun Gong helps keep discussion off of Falun Gong misinformation activities, if just for a little bit. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

"I have yet to see anyone here accuse you of being a Falun Gong member."

Oh please:

"But maybe you should contact all the major media outlets in the US and tell them to stop bullying the Falun Gong with all their nasty coverage that doesn't parrot Li Hongzhi's talking points as well."

Yeah the rules around civility don't allow you plausible deniability here just by dint of not being extremely specific. I'd appreciate a strikethrough on those and an apology, it was beyond out of line. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 02:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Trust me, if I suspected you of being an adherent, I'd have no bones about telling you. I've called them out plenty of times before. And I was right.

But there's no denying that you're actively and aggressively lobbying here to attempt to censor and forbid any mention of Falun Gong on this page. You've said it over and over it. Now you can deal with the inevitable rejection. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Religion isn't a Fringe "get out of jail free card." If a religion gets involved with fringe stuff like election denial and January 6th (which FG did) that doesn't fall under any religious exemption... Even if its a religious belief (for example flat earth, ghosts, or immaculate conception). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Religions don't get special protection from WP:FRINGE due to WP:RNPOV. When a religious claim is made which is contradicted by basic facts and reliable sources from the relevant epistemic community, it is described as such. Marian apparitions do not get a pass just because they are Catholic beliefs. Likewise, Falun Gong/Falun Dafa's main claims and political messaging doesn't avoid the WP:FRINGE lens just because it is a religion. So let's stop with that argumentation.

Finally, it would be good for those who are here and at those pages defending Falun Gong to identify whether they are adherents. This is mainly because of bad taste we've had in the past with this sort of thing. Prem Rawat, scientology, transcendental meditation, Unification church, etc. have all gotten their hands dirty with Wikipedia content-skewing, so we are twice shy having been more than thrice bitten.

jps (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

"When a religious claim is made which is contradicted by basic facts and reliable sources from the relevant epistemic community, it is described as such."

Since I was the one raising the handling of a religion as a fringe theory and RNPOV, I'm just going to assume this is directed at me. I want to be clear I emphatically agree, and I even brought up speaking in tongues as an example of a fringe belief of a mainstream religion which should be treated as fringe while not making the religion fall under the purview of FTN. That's also just my perspective, I simply may be wrong.

"Likewise, Falun Gong/Falun Dafa's main claims and political messaging doesn't avoid the WP:FRINGE lens just because it is a religion. So let's stop with that argumentation."

I may be mistaken but I don't think anyone has made that claim here.

"Finally, it would be good for those who are here and at those pages defending Falun Gong to identify whether they are adherents"

WP:AGF. If there are problematic edits from an editor then handle that on a case-by-case basis. Asking members of a religion to out themselves gets sticky, though it does factor in to WP:EXTERNALREL without much clarification. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 01:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad we are in agreement on so much, and if no one disagrees with my points, then I'm happy that they can be left to stand. Sometimes providing a clear statement about norms is a way to make sure we are on the same page, and maybe we are. But I protest that it is not an assumption of bad faith to point out that people who are adherents ought to make their adherence known given the history of this sort of thing at Wikipedia. I'm not even saying that they have to stop editing, only that it would help provide context and would be a good faith practice on their part. jps (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't actually have too strong an opinion on people outing themselves, it clearly is mentioned in WP:EXTERNALREL but I think an equal point in favour of people not doing that is there are real, serious reasons for certain people to fear persecution/blowback. That's particularly pronounced for Falun Gong, though it's definitely a bit tricky to differentiate propaganda from the reality. I think the flipside here is that those most likely to out themselves are also those least likely to have issues with WP:RS and WP:NPOV.

There's absolutely been an issue in this very thread with people accusing others of being crypto-Falun Gong, so I think perhaps WP:AGF still is something that needs to be generally mentioned again. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 01:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Can everyone who's posted more than three times in this section please take 24 hours off from it? There's essentially no chance of additional input if this keeps ballooning, and is probably already at that point anyway. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I can do that. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing we can do to force people into self-identifying. Allowing them the excuse of "safety" is one that is a bit too convenient considering the context. Identifying discussions are buried on non-indexed pages that discuss the content of the indexed pages. As a general principle, adherents to a religious faith should be willing to share that information lest we run into problems that arose in the instances I outlined above. I also think that one person's "crypto-Falun Gong" is another person's useful idiot. Generally, we try to identify the outcomes of a particular advocacy and do not distinguish between motives for that reason. If a position results in WP:PROFRINGE, then that's what's happening whether the person who is pushing such a position is a true believer or whether they are just a concern troll/devil's advocate/accept-all-comers-mr-niceguy. jps (talk) 02:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:TPG is clear, Do not ask for another's personal details. It is inappropriate for a number of reasons, and adherents of a faith should in no way be expected to share that while editing. As you say, it is on the outcome of their editing where the focus should be. All of the personal commentary from many of those involved needs to stop. This includes both referring to normal editing as disruptive, and calling people adherents. This is a WP:CTOP, and that behavior is unnecessary and unacceptable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish I genuinely think there needs to be a wider discussion about the role of FTN on articles pertaining to religion (note: since I’ve been accused multiple times of trying to suppress all discussion of Falun Gong here: specific fringe-theory-overlap beliefs of those faiths are all fine fodder for FTN. Raelians having a thing for UFOs doesn’t make UFOs not fringe.) stemming from this. Or, perhaps, a revival of some previous protracted ANI discussions about the insularity and acceptance of deviation from behavioural norms at FTN, because some of this discussion was pretty gross, difference of opinions on the nuances aside. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 01:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

That's a discussion for the village pump. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan, I guess. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 01:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Y'all need to think about how to square your pollyanna circle of pretending that we can't ask for personal details as is argued on WP:TPG with the basic functioning of this website when it comes to things like WP:COI. The history of this site is that we have uncovered individuals and groups who were editing Wikipedia on behalf of their religious organization and sometimes were directed to do so. If you think we shouldn't be allowed to ask whether this is the case on talkpages, I think you are arguing in favor of a policy that is proscriptive rather than descriptive. As I said, there is no way to force people to disclose things, but the eye-rolling implications of saying that people aren't even allowed to ask is something I think does not align with what actually happens here and it is also in opposition to what best practices are, in my opinion. jps (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I do not think it is reasonable to highlight all members of a specific faith as having so significant a COI that they should be expected to out themselves on edits pertaining to their faith. I think it’s reasonable to expect people with a strong COI to highlight that themselves, but I don’t see how you can expect people who are making problematic COI edits to out themselves and expect a successful outcome. If they’re making bad COI edits they’re not exactly going to be committed to making their biases known.

And yes, I absolutely am proposing something a bit more proscriptive. As a FTN semi-regular this place has far too heavy a systematic issue with incivility to lead me to think that this is an appropriate venue for tackling a religion itself without further behavioural oversight. FTN routinely throws nuance to the wind, and a complex intermingling of faith, human rights, and, to be fair, a mountain of fringe theories requires more delicacy than I’ve seen here at practically any point.

Just look at how this thread has played out, at the pre-Admin-edit title that was used and the language used here to describe practitioners of a specific faith. It’s… not good. It reflects badly on Wikipedia, looks nakedly prejudiced, and any attempts at moderating the discussion around the entire faith specifically were met with aspersions and hostility. None of that is saying that FTN isn’t the appropriate place to handle specific fringe beliefs or topics like the Epoch Times, which is, of course, a great source of fringe. My attempt at conveying this were met with some fairly insultingly phrased accusations of trying to suppress any mention of Falun Gong at FTN. I’m not sure how you get from “we should closely monitor the Epoch Times and fringe topics which pertain to a faith, such as Speaking in Tongues” to “But there's no denying that you're actively and aggressively lobbying here to attempt to censor and forbid any mention of Falun Gong on this page.” without a profound assumption of bad faith.

We should be handling fringe topics as they arise, and PROFRINGE posters as they come. We should not presupposes the entire congregation of a minority faith is WP:NOTHERE just because it makes our jobs easier. I think the mission creep, implicit belief that WP:AGF doesn’t apply here, and what’s sort of looking a little like attempting to systematize religious discrimination in the name of fighting fringe content calls for a wider overview of the scope, behaviour, and membership (from the perspective of getting more eyes on FTN, not reviewing the members here, to be clear) of FTN to prevent this from metastasizing into something ugly.

Look, I’m not saying my perspective here is flawless or correct. But I equally don’t think the pool of FTN regulars, which isn’t exactly a huge number of us, are qualified to evaluate their own behaviour fully anymore. There’ve been admin discussions about issues caused by FTN and how it’s insularity has lead to it overvaluing the importance of specific fringe theories (an old discussion of Panspermia here come to mind).

If this perspective is simply mine, then I can accept that. I’m not going to accept that this is just my perspective because a small subset of hostile posters elect to be loud and I’m not just going to accept assumptions of bad faith, or being a useful idiot, as actually substantive. I want outside voices on this rather than than an internal debate among those of us whose overton window has potentially been skewed by burnout dealing with this topic. That’s not me saying “I want outside voices because I’m right”, but rather “I want outside voices because this situation has become so insular and cliquey and people so convinced of their correctness that meaningful meta-discussion has become impossible.” Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Concur. Sennalen (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

As below, disclosing a religious COI is not "outing". Outing is identifying a person (name, address, etc.). Eliding these two things is unhelpful. FTN is a Wikipedia noticeboard with over 1000 watchers. Religions with pretensions to reality (e.g. Falung Gong, anthroposophy, Sahaja Yoga, scientology, Christian Science) all fall under WP:FRINGE and are appropriately dealt with here. Bon courage (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

An admin has already weighed in on the topic of asking people to provide their religious affiliation as inappropriate. And "Outing themselves" ≠ WP:OUT but I could have used much more careful language than that.

"WP:TPG is clear, Do not ask for another's personal details. It is inappropriate for a number of reasons, and adherents of a faith should in no way be expected to share that while editing."

Further:

"Religions (e.g. Falung Gong, anthroposophy, Sahaja Yoga, scientology, Christian Science) all fall under WP:FRINGE and are appropriately dealt with here"

I think this is certainly one perspective, but I don't think it's a given that the religions themselves fall under the purview of FTN, rather than some of their specific beliefs and practices which should be handled as fringe topics. I would be sincerely curious if you can back up the idea that religions themselves are inherently WP:FRINGE from a policy perspective. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Here is the actual guidance from WP:COI: "Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI." However, to repeat, this is moot because problem editors won't do the decent thing and declare their religious COI. Hence the community can only look out for problem edits. WP:FT/N regulars have a wealth of specific experience in such problem areas. This is how the Project functions and standards are maintained in fringe areas. It is a feature, not a bug. Bon courage (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

(Add) More generally, religions in theselves are not WP:FRINGE except insofar as their statements obtrude into reality (so no, the earth is not 6000 years old, burying quartz crystals does not increase crop yield, and E-meters do not measure anyting usefully). There are also fringe theories within religious discourse (e.g. Christ myth stuff). But religions in general are not relevant here. Bon courage (talk) 07:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Nobody appears to be arguing that religions themselves are inherently fringe. Why would you ask them to back up an argument which nobody has made? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I have a feeling this straw man has been paraded here before. Bon courage (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The only argument I see being made is that certain religious beliefs are inherently fringe, but it would seemingly take willful ignorance to transform an argument about specific religious beliefs into an argument about religion writ large. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you don't see religious belief in general being discussed here. OTOH certain specific beliefs (like that Christian Science prayer can influence disease) are very relevant here. Bon courage (talk) 10:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• There a big difference between 'outing' and the kind of specific disclosures Wikipedia recommends/requires for COI editing. I think it is reasonable to expect Falun Gong members to disclose an affiliation if they get involved in that topic area. However, as with other difficult COI-tainted topic areas, ultimately it's futile to pursue suspected hidden COIs as a means to getting anything done on Wikipedia. It is by their edits ye shall know them. Bon courage (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
• I don't care whether a person offering an opinion about what is or is not appropriate has a mop and a bucket. My opinion is just as valid even though I don't have a mop and a bucket. jps (talk) 03:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  I just saw this discussion. I have long been interested in human rights in China. The main body of FG adherents is still in China. Most of their activism outside China also aimed at ending the persecution in China. Based on some media articles I read, Epoch Times pivoted to Trump after 2016 because they thought Trump could have destroyed the CCP–which didn't happen. The recent NBC article mentioned above noted, "The Epoch Times has yet to throw its weight behind a candidate for 2024."

  FG's activities in the U.S. could be featured more on the page "Falun Gong outside mainland China" but shouldn't carry undue weight on the main FG page, because China is where the movement originated and developed, the main body of adherents are, and the major conflict that the movement has been having for over two decades. Thank you. Path2space (talk) 03:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Falun Gong is headquarted in Dee Park, New York. The religion is centered around one man, Li Hongzhi. He lives in Deer Park, where he commands and leads the new religious movement. The Falun Gong's most visible arm, the Epoch Times, has not changed a bit since Falun Gong went all in with the Trump administration. In fact, they are now much bigger than they were then and are still pushing exactly the same conspiracy theories.

Persononally, I have yet to see any reliable numbers on the amount of adherents that exist in China. The Falun Gong's own numbers are obviously not reliable and they're frequently repeated with little scrutiny by NGOs. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Two things can be true simultaneously. The Chinese government soured on Li Hongzhi's movement and pivoted from supporting or, at least, toleration to banning at about the time he started commanding a bit too large a following and began flexing his own opinions about who should control whom. The crackdowns were real, but the claims of forced organ harvesting, systematic killing and imprisonment, etc. are a bit bewildering when it comes from a group as insular and immune to evidence as Falun Gong adherents. And their beliefs are pretty wild. They really hate biological evolution, for example. I never really understood exactly why that was except that it aligns with the bizarre predilections of Li Hongxi. jps (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

"The main body of FG adherents is still in China" do you have a source for that? Note that the sources we do have say that almost all of their current activities happen *outside* of China and we go by what gets coverage, not where they have adherents or history (that would be a NPOV violation). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The 2022 State Dept IRF report says: "Prior to the government’s 1999 ban on Falun Gong, the government estimated there were 70 million adherents.  Falun Gong sources estimate that tens of millions continue to practice privately, and Freedom House estimates there are seven to 20 million practitioners." WP:RECENT is something to be considered too. Thanks. Path2space (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

When citing figures from NGOs like Freedom House and Amnesty International, it's worth noting that these groups may be uncritically using Falun Gong as a source. The close NGO-Falun Gong relationships comes up a lot in scholarship around this topic and one can even find Freedom House citing Falun Gong websites for facts, figures, and claims. Yes, the very same group behind The Epoch Times. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Previously Uninvolved Comment

A case request was just filed at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard by one of the editors involved in this discussion. I declined it because this discussion is in progress here, and DRN does not handle a dispute that is also pending in any other content forum, such as FTN, or any conduct forum. If I were conducting moderated discussion at DRN, I would probably start by asking a content question. The purpose of content dispute resolution is to improve an article in the encyclopedia. So I am asking each editor here: What do you want to change in the article, or, what do you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change? Focusing on what an article or articles should say may make the discussion more productive. That might make a Request for Comments about one or more changes in an article be a feasible way to resolve the disagreements here. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

This appears to have been closed. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Bloodofox - Are you saying that the discussion of Falun Gong here at FTN has been closed, or that the discussion of Falun Gong at DRN was closed? If you are saying the latter, maybe I wasn't clear enough. Yes. I closed the discussion of Falun Gong at DRN because it is being discussed here at FTN. I am still asking the editors here to explain what they want to change or leave the same in the article. If there is a content dispute, the editors should be clear what they want the articles in the encyclopedia to say. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Study: Why Wikipedia is the Last Good Website

Rebecca Watson writes about Sverrir Steinsson writing about Wikipedia's handling of fringe subjects: [14] --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

What a joke! Her feel-good everything is okay no need to worry attitude is ill-informed. The rules are only in place until they are changed. Yes, Wikipedia may be the Last Good Website, and the reasons she mentions might be good ones, but it's people we need. Well-trained pro-science dedicated and fair people. Admins are overworked and at a low-time number, so acting as if they are plentiful and sitting around waiting for something to do is nonsense. She would do better to use her audience to actually ask for more people to train-up and help. This kind of nonsense hits a nerve with me. Sgerbic (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh and thank you Hob for posting the article, I don't follow her content normally. Sgerbic (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I tried to post a comment and the spam filter blocked me. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I was looking for comments on her blog, but still nothing. I assume she has to approve them. I am stunned with all the ads that are all over that blog. Says a lot about the blogger. Sgerbic (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I suspect that the spam filters are set to maximum since the Skepchick network is no more. jps (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The video in the article already has 15K views and 300+ comments. Everyone says they love Wikipedia and throws them donations. Nothing mentioned about needing more volunteers to help. Just feel-good everything is fine thanks for letting us know. Sgerbic (talk) 23:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

To be a bit overly fair, it is not really incumbent upon either Ms. Watson or the author of the paper to advocate for Wikipedia. It's possible to say "it's interesting how this thing works" while not supporting said thing in the optimal manner. Just another county heard from! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there a reason for your extremely toxic response to a general video about Wikipedia? You seem to have a personal issue with Watson. Silverseren^C 00:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

+1 This "Wikipedia is under attack" mentality of "us vs. them" can lead to problems in my view. Wikipedia's policies have stood the test of time and have generally resulted in accurate articles (more often than not). Those pillar policies will unlikely ever change at this point (at most they will get stronger such as WP:MEDRS). If "it is people we need" (I generally agree) we should work to make editing the encyclopaedia a less toxic experience for newcomers that maybe don't know all of the "rules". We need to Wikipedia:Encourage the newcomers, not "fight" contributors with "well-trained" people {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 01:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The trick is to encourage the right newcomers. After decades of work, many of us have finely tuned baloney detection kits that can identify problematic newcomers out the gate. Still, Wikipedia does have a culture of second chances and bending over backwards even as we've been burned over and over again. Good luck! jps (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

You mean you can predict future crimes a la minority report? That seems fringe to me! Jokes aside: I know that keeping content in check is not easy, but Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers is crucial or there won't be any editors to maintain Wikipedia one day. It's not like one day our work will be done. Someone must replace us all one day. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 01:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

There is a difference between biting newcomers and showing the WP:DOOR to problematic people. Heh, problematic kinda like the person who made those points in the first place. *smirk* jps (talk) 01:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The point is: most new editors are problematic in some way as editing Wikipedia becomes more sophisticated every day. (And even experienced users make mistakes!) {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 09:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that's true in a WP:FT/N context. A WP:PROFRINGE editor coming good is very rare (I can think of two or three), and in general WP:CGTW#3 applies. Bon courage (talk) 10:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a hot take in here but FTN is so fundamentally terrible at Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and WP:AGF that I genuinely think it needs either more constant admin oversight or needs to be merged with another noticeboard with less, shall we say entrenched, power users.

Yes, we need to come down on fringe content like a ton of bricks, but I’ve had luck getting people to actually discuss their fringe edits and working on improving them by engaging them civically on talk pages and it really feels like a huge amount of the regulars around here have an explicit goal of driving away newcomers who make bad edits. I know there’ve been admin discussions in ANI about FTN becoming a problem on this front but the longer I’m here the more it feels like this place has a huge WP:CABAL issue, despite its necessity to keep fringe content off of Wikipedia. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Did mention CABAL, that is me! ;-) IMHO every senior editor is trying to do their best. Sometimes people snap at repeated acts of edits that are not done correctly, people not listening, people trying to force in an edit and so on. The problem with editing Wikipedia is that it is not straight forward, the instructions are over complicated and there is very little mentoring and zero human training, no wonder new people are confused. We are volunteers and we are here because we believe in Wikipedia, what it is and what it can be. Please no more policies or watch groups trying to police well-meaning people who are only trying to do what they can with the limited time and resources we have. Deal with this one-on-one when you see the problem. Most interactions are good healthy ones, don't cherry pick out a few bad ones and call the whole a problem. Sgerbic (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

"Deal with this one-on-one when you see the problem"

I have attempted to, I get piled on for not being too burned out to be civil, pretty much explicitly in those terms. Like, the situation I'm referring to involves a multitude of editors *explicitly stating* that they don't intend to assume good faith on fringe edits due to burnout, which is a call for a wikibreak, not a WP:AGF-free zone at FTN.

Note that my main suggestion is simply to get more eyes on FTN to dilute the presence of power users, not policy the utility of it away. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 20:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I hear ya - more well-trained people not more policy. Sgerbic (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

It would also help to WP:AAGF. Some "power users" have experience with past conflicts that we would do well to pay attention to. I have seen some people assume that people are just being mean when, in fact, they are providing "Danger, Will Robinson!" indicators. jps (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with @Warrenmck. 100% right. I've seen trained doctors just trying to contribute on Wikipedia being laughed off the platform for not knowing the intricacies of WP:MEDRS. The culture of toxicity has taken hold on many editing areas on Wikipedia and some editors even think it is a good thing. FTN often doesn't help and even generates some of those problems by creating a "group think echo chamber" and incentivising piling on, with incivility being often tolerated "for the greater good". WP:CIVIL should apply to all. Even, and especially, the "well trained" editors. No exceptions. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 20:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto Yeah, a few months back I got into it with some of the other regulars here that the delineation used between panspermia and Pseudo-panspermia is mostly an artifice of Wikipedia, rather than one reflected in the scientific literature (it's occasionally used, but certainly not extremely consistent) and provided an ocean of literature referring to what Wikipedia calls pseudo-panspermia as simply “panspermia” and I’m a literal meteoriticist with zero overlap with the fringe theory side and got shouted down pretty heavily, evidence be damned. I’m not saying I should have gotten my way automatically by any stretch but there should never be a “well I see your plethora of peer-reviewed sources and that disagrees with my personal exposure to the term so you’re wrong” and that ended the discussion on improving the article. It’s still straight-up incorrect in the lede but I’m not brave enough to try to change it at this point, because a few people have got it into their heads that the term means one specific thing and one thing only and that cannot change.

FTN is too attuned to the fringe theories in some places to notice when something else is going on, which is exactly what I think is happening with trying to roll an entire religion under the watchful eye of FTN just because it’s believers harbour (or theologically necessitate) fringe and fringe adjacent beliefs (see the above Falun Gong discussion). I think it’s gotten to the point of being destructive. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 22:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

a few months back I got into it with some of the other regulars here I cannot find your user name in the histories of either Talk:Panspermia or Talk:Pseudo-panspermia, so I do not know what you are talking about... ah, one moment. Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 94#Panspermia (again) You only discussed here. You seem to misunderstand the purpose of this page. This is a noticeboard - look it up. People keep using it for discussions, and a bit of that is OK, but sometimes it gets out of hand.

trying to roll an entire religion under the watchful eye of FTN You seem to misunderstand the purpose of this page in this aspect too. When I see an article that has fringe aspects that could be improved, I put a link to it on this page. Then people can check that article and improve the fringe aspects. If that article happens to be about a religion, what am I supposed to do? Do I only have the choice between ignoring the problem and trying to improve it myself although it is outside my expertise? That is not a helpful limitation. A posting to FTN does not mean "That whole article is fringe! Diss it on this Noticeboard! And go destroy it!"

Your vague "oy vey! oy vey! this is such a cesspool of people behaving in another way than I would like them to!" does not improve anything. Looking at the Panspermia thread I linked to above, you are partly whining about 1. me telling you about a few mistakes you made, 2. me disagreeing with you. 1. Usually, when I tell people about their mistakes, or people tell me about my mistakes, the response is more positive. I am used to people who want to learn and improve. Telling somebody about a mistake they made is not an attack. It is one of the tools that improve fruitful discussions. And 2. disagreement is not an uncivility but you seem to view it as such. All that makes discussions with you unpleasant, and that - and you completely ignoring my suggestion about Panspermia (pseudoscience) and Panspermia (astrobiology) and instead focussing on how mean people are - is why I quit that Panspermia one.

I expect you to complain about this post too: I disagreed with you, pointed out misunderstandings, and criticized what you said. All of those seem to be no-nos for you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't actually intend on rehashing this or any particular topic with you. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 23:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I've seen trained doctors just trying to contribute on Wikipedia being laughed off the platform for not knowing the intricacies of WP:MEDRS ← that sound pretty serious, Gtoffoletto (even it it's unclear how FTN is relevant). Please provide a link. Bon courage (talk) 07:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I think this mostly speaks to the badness of the rest of the internet rather than Wikipedia being "good". Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

+1. Also, I think the main conclusions are right. The state of Wikipedia right now is downstream effects from some pretty yucky stuff that happened nearly 20 years ago. Y'all shoulda seen what it was like to fight Reddi. jps (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

And here I was thinking Conservapedia was the last good site. Hyperbolick (talk) 11:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

It's all thanks to a few smart, vigilant, persistent editors. Huge props to them. Time for a mea culpa, hopefully of interest to others: until recently, I thought we had to phrase debunkings in a subtle way, to avoid a counterproductive "backfire effect". Turns out that's wrong, the effect is either not real or highly overstated. So, we're doing great, and maybe not doing enough. DFlhb (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for posting Hob. I also like what you said DFlhb. I suspect that two things have kept Wikipedia better off than other sites (in addition to the quality of the folks involved): 1)thus far there has been a thumb on the scale helping anti-fringe edits. That is policy -- WP:PARITY and WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS are the fence that keeps the wolves out. Because in a truly even evidentiary playing field, the scientific consensus loses. 2) It takes a certain amount of effort and knowledge to make an edit. There is an "entrance fee". Unlike Twitter or Reddit, where you can just pop off with your opinion. I worry that AI will lower this entrance fee. DolyaIskrina (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

This comment on the video was interesting

"The only reason it reached level 5 and stayed there is because of Wikipedia's Arbcom ruling that all articles that are widely considered pseudoscience may be identified as such. That meant the article lead could be changed to specify it. Ironically, Larry Sanger who wrote the original core policies, and did a really very good job, was absolutely FURIOUS about this, and thought that the article should allow the readers to make their own mind up, which in theory is a good idea, but ever so greatly overestimates the capabilities of the median reader." DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Completely disagree, on a truly even evidentiary playing field the scientific consensus will in fact win every single time. Reality has an anti-fringe bias, if it did not then the entire concept of scientific consensus and fringe would be moot (consensus wouldn't be consensus and fringe wouldn't be fringe). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Our commitment should be to the truth (or, if you prefer, fealty to the most reliable sources) rather than to persuasion. While I am somewhat sympathetic to the point that we can write prose in a way that isn't clunky, often times clear declarations of what is actually going on is the best we can do given the sources on a subject. "Homeopathy is pseudoscience" is a clear statement, but it is also devoid of explanatory power until we explain demonstrate exactly why the most reliable sources declare it to be so. I remember trying to force statements like "There is a complete lack of solute in all common 30C homeopathic preparations. Thus, if their labels are to be believed, homeopathic preparations that claim to be of a certain substance contain none of the substance." in to the homeopathy article during the pseudoscience wars of the past and having good faith editors revert me and get super mad about how I was hitting people over the head. I also used to go around to articles on plants and remove all homeopathy information because there wasn't actually any bit of plants used in the products being discussed, and there was quite a bit of push back. Things are much better today. Reminds me that I haven't done a "what links here" --> Homeopathy check through botanicals for some time. jps (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

C.f. [15], [16]. Anyone know why the "Hide Transclusions" option doesn't seem to be working on the What Links Here search? I don't really need to check situations where homeopathy is linked due to transclusions of a template, but I would like to look for where it is used in the text of the article directly. jps (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd also like to know how to do that, because links in transcluded templates being shown in "What links here" has been stumping me for a while DFlhb (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we should ask at WP:VP. I couldn't figure it out, but I did go through the rest of the backlinks and found a bunch of instances that needed help including a few that confused homeopathy with traditional medicine. jps (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Rick Alan Ross

• Rick Alan Ross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Past discussion: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_51#Rick_Alan_Ross_-_deprogrammer

The subject of the article is once again requesting changes to the article. Given the fringe nature around Deprogramming#Controversy_and_related_issues and Cult#Usage_of_the_term_'cult', it would be helpful to get more editors to look at the FRINGE issues that may be involved in the current state of the article and the edit requests being made. --Hipal (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposed changes. The article seems good as is. I think that this guy lost a lawsuit for false imprisonment is leadworthy information. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Kurds are ethnic Iranians

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

The article is "Kurds" and the introduction says that the Kurds are an "Iranian ethnic group". Considering that I have not come across any source which says that the Kurds are an "Iranian ethnic group", I wonder if this is a fringe theory. Thank you. Mikola22 (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

In the first place, this is a Wikipedia thing (not sure if we can call it fringe). In the POV of some WP editors, ethnic groups are by default classifiable based on the linguistic affiliation of the languages that they speak. As a result, the linguistic labelling of the language of a given ethnic group (based on comparative linguistic subgrouping criteria) is applied as a classifier for this ethnic group. This default assumption was popular in the 19th century, but is insular in the modern context and not found in reliable sources. An even more insular corrollary of this erroneous labelling convention is the claim that the collective of ethnic groups speaking languages belonging to one language family or subgroup make up "ethnolinguistic groups". This insular in-house usage is a misapplication of the term, which in real life refers to a single ethnic group thas is primarily defined by a shared language as the most significant token for ethnic self-idenitification. It becomes most horrid when we have spurious articles about "X peoples" (Cushitic peoples, Romance peoples etc.), that are just OR-concoctions derived from linguistic classifications.

Note that I'm talking about an erroneous default assumption. This does not preclude that we can label an ethnic group with the same term that also denotes its linguistic affiliation, but only when reliable sources commonly do so. Emphasis lies on commonly; you will always find one or two books that e.g. call Catalans a "Romance ethnic group", but more often, you will find in RS about Catalans that the label "Romance" only is applied to the Catalan language.

I'm too lazy atm to join the discussion in Talk:Kurds, but it all boils down to the question of how many reliable sources actually label Kurds as an Iranian ethnic group (and not just an Iranian-speaking ethnic group). –Austronesier (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I mostly agree with this perspective. That said, I do think the Iranian peoples article does have some merit discussing the cultural similarities between Iranian-speaking peoples as separate from the linguistics. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Iranian peoples are certainly a special case, and it's good to see that editors take up the challenge very seriously and produce exactly the kind of sources that are needed. –Austronesier (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there is a single source that refers the Kurds as ethnic Iranians. That's why I put this information up for discussion because fringe theories shouldn't be part of articles. Mikola22 (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The RfC is not about Kurds being "ethnic Iranians". Kurds are ethnic Kurds, just like Persians are ethnic Persians and Bachlochis are ethnic Bachlochis (grossly oversimplified, I know). But multiple RS label these ethnic groups as "Iranian" based on criteria that go beyond linguistic classification, hence "Iranian ethnic group". Whether there are sufficient reliable sources (and sufficiently modern ones) to jusitfy having this label in the opening sentence of the lede is a question of due weight, but not FTN matter. –Austronesier (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I did not ask the question in the context of the RfC, but in the context of the information from the article in which is mentioned ethnic in the context of Iranians(The Iranian peoples or Iranic peoples are a diverse grouping of peoples who are identified by their usage of the Iranian languages). "Kurdish people are an Iranian ethnic group", this context, as well as information does not exist in the sources. Is such information fringe in that context? As if we would say that some Slavic people are ethnic Slavs. Mikola22 (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Lyndon Larouche publications used as references

See here. Unless the article is about Larouche, probably none of these are appropriate. If anyone is looking for something to do. Prezbo (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I removed it from Rationale for the Iraq War. I looked at several more pages, but they appeared to be just English translations of other cited sources in foreign languages, which is... kind of helpful I guess? Sennalen (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Muscovy duck

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

Does a homeopathic preparation of 200C contain any Muscovy duck? An editor claims it is possible it might. I say that there are many instances of the universe that would be required which means that to the extent that anything is true, it is true there are no molecules of this duck in that preparation. What say ye? [17] jps (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I gotta say, I saw this pop up on my watchlist and was psyched for what it could be. I'm kinda disappointed that it's something as mundane as very watered down duck soup to treat a flu. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

It's made by a company that makes something like half a billion euro each year... much of it on the reputation of this "cure" for the flu (best-selling in France!). jps (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

If i understand Oscillococcinum#Preparation correctly then you are being completely irrational as you have neglected the final step. The active ingredient is 10^-400g of the 200CK solution in a one gram sugar tablet. Doesn't that mean they need to mix one water molecule with 2.99x10³⁷⁷g of sugar? They obviously have access to multiple universes to begin with as there ain't that much sugar in ours. fiveby(zero) 05:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The absolute absurdity of this homeopathic preparation is very difficult to state in terms that are not under exaggerations. Paul Offit said it was unlikely to find one molecule of duck in a universe full of Oscillococcinum. I don't know what a universe "full" looks like, but if he is referring to one that doesn't Big Crunch immediately with our rate of expansion, there are something like 10⁸⁰ molecules one could fit in the observable universe. So you would need 10³²⁰ universes. This is an absurd under-exaggeration. jps (talk) 11:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Ow, my head. The dumb. Silverseren^C 02:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Not sure of the drift of these mixed flippant/irrelevant comments, but this is not a "fringe theory" question, but one of strictly correct framing of a stochastic outcome. If 100 molecules of a substance are dispersed into a water volume the size of the Pacific, then it is still incorrect to say "the Pacific contains none of that substance". These molecules do not magically disappear into the aether. It is merely extremely improbable that any given sample from that volume will contain a single moclecule. ජපස et al, please stop waving "homeopathical claims are bunk" like a flag of merit - I think we are all in the same boat here - and resist the temptation to state false absolutes in articles because they sound nice. If the term "astronomically improbable" is not snappy enough for your liking, desist of inserting the relevant statement entirely; the article in question does not need to hit readers over the head with comments on homeopathy. We deal with that elsewhere in great detail. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

You used the Pacific as an example, but that is a way under-exaggeration. In physics we deal with practical impossibilities all the time. It's a game of statistics. There are 10⁴⁶ water molecules in the pacific ocean. We would need 10³⁵⁴ Pacific oceans worth of water to actually approach the dilution level we are talking about here. This is zero molecules by any possible measurement standard you could ever invent using human technology. And if you're interested in non-human technology, who exactly are you writing the encyclopedia for? jps (talk) 11:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

You honestly don't get that "one molecule within the galactic volume" would not still not allow you to say "that volume does not contain any of the substance"? Honestly? You managed to make any headway in a scientific discipline with this kind of mulish insistence that sloppy phrasing becomes correct just because the numbers get large? I keep assuming that you are just posturing, but if that is really a fundamental lack of understanding, I'm giving up - not my circus, not my clown car. Things seem to have been sorted (one way or another) at the article, so that's me out of this sideshow. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The point is that there is no gigantic volume large enough (even a "galactic" volume is an absurd underexaggeration). A volume of that size doesn't exist. It cannot physically exist. So we can only talk about the sample and the sample has zero molecules in it. That's as plain a fact as something like, "the Earth goes around the Sun". jps (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

By the way, the same nonsense is being promoted in Domestic Muscovy duck as well. "Minute" is not the right word for the amount of duck stuff in these preparations: [18]

jps (talk) 11:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Might be a (rare) case where an explanatory footnote is merited. Say the preparation contains no molecules of liver, and then footnote the "no" with something about the multiple universes stuff. Bon courage (talk) 11:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Likely that would be considered WP:OR even though the calculation is something that anyone who has a passing familiarity with order of magnitude could do. It's just not worth it. jps (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

This[19] could be used as a source for the duck goo vs. molecules count stuff. Bon courage (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately I think they messed up the math. It should be 10⁴⁰⁰ not 10²⁰⁰⁰. Not that there is any practical difference as there are zero molecules in preparation of either concentration (which just follows my main point). jps (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Note that per WP:ONEWAY among other principles, all mention of oscillococcium has been excised from Muscovy duck. We now move venues to Talk:Domestic_Muscovy_duck#Oscillococcinum. Should we mention this lunacy there? jps (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

As long as editors are reasoning based on these absurdities, then you might say that it is made from the heart and liver of wild duck. Maybe they should have to prove the one duck that needed to be killed to create our multiple universes of tablets was in fact a domestic one and not wild. fiveby(zero) 14:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)