Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 87

Archive 80

←

Archive 85

Archive 86

Archive 87

Archive 88

Archive 89

Archive 90

Can someone(s) help a student editor with Draft:Pseudoscience on social media

This seems like a very important topic given recent events, eg the Buffalo shooting, but it's written as an essay and I really do not have the time to help. I did find another source[ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/pseudoscience-fake-news-social-media-facebook-twitter-misinformation-science-a9034321.html] but I've just got too much on my plate and start chemo in a few days. Thanks. I've told the student that I've posted here. Doug Weller talk 16:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

If I have some time I'll pop by, probably won't be for a couple days though. Also, of I haven't mentioned it yet, good luck with the treatment. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Gustaf Kossinna

• Gustaf Kossinna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I came across this guy reading Angela Saini's Superior, where he is described as someone whose theories the Nazis liked a lot.

In June 2015, two ground-breaking archaeogenetic studies appeared to confirm certain key aspects of Kossinna's theories on settlement archaeology and Indo-European migrations, in what has been referred to as Kossinna's Smile.

This sounds dubious to me, especially because of the peacock term "ground-breaking". There is a slow discussion about it on the Talk page - April 2020, November 2020, January 2022. Maybe that can be sped up if knowledgeable editors chime in. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, Kossinna is one of those awkward 19th century figures who was simultaneously an awful, awful person and a genuine "father of the field" for prehistoric archaeology.

Kossinna's smile is the title of a great paper by Volker Heyd which, far from saying that archaeogenetics proves Kossinna right, criticises it for unthinkingly reviving some of his (fallacious) ideas. – Joe (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the text in the article, which indeed wasn't great. I'm not sure if Kossinna's Smile is a valid redirect. – Joe (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Changes look good.  Tewdar  08:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

As for the "ground-breaking" archaeogenetics articles, Volker Heyd, author of "Kossinna's smile", says:

One might eventually look back at June 2015 as a turning point for archaeologists dealing with the third millennium BC and the approximately 30 centuries thereafter. That month, two ancient DNA (aDNA) papers were published in the scientific journal Nature (Allentoft et al. 2015; Haak et al. 2015), with far-reaching implications for our understanding of the later prehistory of Europe and Western Asia.....While I have no doubt that both papers are essentially right, they do not reflect the complexity of the past.

Sounds like a reasonable take.  Tewdar  07:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Heyd also talks a bit about the spread of the Indo-European languages, and the relevance of these papers for the two main competing hypotheses:

On another level, everyone will also have to accept the existence of large-scale prehistoric migrations, the fact that they were a driving force of cultural change and that there was a link to the Indo-European languages, which in turn makes the late dispersal theory much more probable than the supposed connection with early farming.

These two studies, and subsequent papers, pretty much killed off Renfrew's "PIE from Neolithic Anatolia through spread of farming" model.  Tewdar  08:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I think that's all true, but it's of limited, if any, relevance to our article on Kossinna. When his name comes up, it's not to say that new results confirm his theories (he identified PIE with the Corded Ware culture and his story of its spread was basically the familiar blonde haired Aryans conquering Europe fantasy), but to point out that the way these early archaeogenetics papers treated ancestry, culture, and migration is eerily reminiscent of Kossinna's "equation of ethnic identification with archaeological culture" (as the abstract for the Heyd article puts it). – Joe (talk) 08:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. I think the only reason Kossinna might be smiling about anything is because aDNA studies demonstrate that "large migrations happened"...  Tewdar  08:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

But, if Kossinna is smiling about anything, it's not because recent archaeogenetics studies validate his theories of Indo-European origins. Because they don't.  Tewdar  08:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Jordan Lead Codices

Jordan Lead Codices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) These are almost certainly a forgery, but the article is terrible and gives far too much prominence to a David Elkington. See a publicity website for him, his Graham Hancock page and most importantly, an Ofcom report about a rejected complaint he made about the BBC coverage of him which is pretty damning.[1] I don't have much confidence in Margaret Barker either as she seems pretty fringe. Article needs a major cleanup. I haven't found anything recent, but this doesn't seem to be used. Doug Weller talk 10:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

This is from 2019: Spotting a fake: Flourishing industry of Jewish manuscript forgeries and discusses the Centre for the Study of the Jordanian. Doug Weller talk 11:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Parascience

is a two sentence stub. Ran into it when hidden comments were added to Ancient Aliens.[2] Not sure if they are appropriate or if we need to do something about the article. Doug Weller talk 15:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The stub appears to indulge in a bit of editorializing. The Stanford page cited says Martin Mahner proposed the term “parascience” to cover non-scientific practices that are not pseudoscientific. So it's a proposed term, not a recognized category. And it does not say anything about "examin(ing) phenomena that are not recognised to exist physically", etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

New page patrol should be stopping crap like that, rather than allowing it. They're recruiting desperately atm too. Should it be prodded or AfD'd? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 19:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

It’s in Collins dictionary and a number of other sources. Doug Weller talk 20:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Neither then. OK. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 20:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Google Scholar has a lot of high-quality sources. I commented on Talk:Parascience#No_sources?. 5Q5|^✉ 12:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Robb Elementary School shooting

I received a warning from Taxin609 about edit warring, which I half expected, however, neither Benmite or Pennsylvania2, the other parties involved, received a warning despite both having a history of edit warring, and the disputed content is still in the article when this is an issue best resolved on the Talk Page. 48Pills (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@48PillsPlease see my talk page. Taxin609 (Talk To Me) 01:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Dan Gibson (author)

Self published author with what seems to be a fringe idea about where early mosques pointed. Unhappy new editor on talk page challenging neutrality. I just removed a chunk of trxt explaining how one of his critics was the greatest expert ever and I’m not sure if the King sources meets rs, the journal it’s in seems dubious.[3] Doug Weller talk 19:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

On further perusal David A. King (historian) seems a very reliable source. Doug Weller talk 10:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Based on the scope of the status quo article and a quick skim of sources on the web, shouldn't the article be Early Islamic Qiblas? Most of the coverage is focused on his book and the responses to it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Lysenkoism

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

First edit warring by IPs, now, finally discussions on the Talk page. But with accusations of Lyssenkoism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Kim Iversen‎

I was asked to restore this deleted article to draft, which I did (I think the subject is pretty clearly notable), but shortly found myself needing to remove content sourced to the subject's Twitter and YouTube posts and other WP:RSP-disfavored sources presenting fringey takes on COVID-19 in particular. I expect that this will eventually return to mainspace, and will need eyes on it. BD2412 T 05:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned with how much weight is given to The Daily Beast's rather inflammatory article, in the lead, replete with quotes. WP:DAILYBEAST is a biased sourced with an unclear consensus on reliability, with a warning advising "particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons." (this particular article is in the Confider newsletter, previously called Source Material, which looks rather gossipy). Per MOS:LABEL, what the Daily Beast labels "parroting Kremlin talking points about Ukrainian neo-Nazis" might just be mentioning the well-documented existence of Ukrainian neo-Nazis. And what DB calls "seemingly defending the Chinese government's brutal treatment of Uyghurs" is not necessarily the same as "actually defending". Potentially disingenuous misreadings or interpretations shouldn't be quoted in the lead of a BLP, even if the underlying claims of grumbling staffers are true. And if DB is the only source covering what it calls a "saucy scooplet", then maybe it's better to err on the more conservative than scandalous side for now. --Animalparty! (talk) 10:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Confider is a news letter which defines itself as "Media scooplets you can't get anywhere else - that everyone will be talking about tomorrow" that "deliver[s] a buffet of juicy media morsels to your inbox". This looks worse than Daily Beast in general, and we already shouldn't be using Daily Beast for controversial statements about BLPs. So a particularly unreliable gossip newsletter of an already marginally reliable source definitely should not be used for controversial statements about BLPs. Endwise (talk) 11:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

My concern is that we take care to avoid presenting fringe views, or their propoundment, as mainstream. BD2412 T 16:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The problem with creating this article is that we don't have sufficient reliable sources to create an informative article. The same applies to many youtube personalities and even legacy media journalists.

The lead of the draft article says Iversen is a progressive talk radio whose show features primarily populist viewpoints. Both the terms progressive and populist are vague. The lead ignores that her main message today is conspiracism. But although there are probably a few hit pieces about her in partisan media, there's no body of literature that seriously examines the subject.

If we cannot write an informative article, readers are better served by having no article than one based on passing references to her and assorted hit pieces. It's not as if readers cannot google her name and decide what to read about her. Or they can learn more about her by watching one of her shows than they could from the draft article.

TFD (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Akashic records

Are the Akashic records a fringe theory? My assessment is that they are a fringe theory, but I am requesting other opinions. I reviewed Draft:Linda Howe, which states that she is an authority on the Akashic records, and am requesting comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Not really, it is a non-scientific religious concept. To the extent that anyone claims that it is literally true and scientifically provable, that would be pseudoscience, the same way that the 21 grams experiment is pseudoscience, while the concept of a soul is just not scientific. Looking at that bio, it is fact challenged. I'd treat it like you'd treat a prospective bio for a Prosperity gospel preacher that claims praying their way will make you a millionaire. MrOllie (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Are you, User:MrOllie, saying that it isn't a fringe theory because it lacks even the minimal scholarly content required to be a fringe theory? I agree that theosophy and anthroposophy are religions rather than theories. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that sums up my position well. MrOllie (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Wait, you're saying a sleepy guy in Hopkinsville, KY (also home to some goblins) doesn't equate to scientific validity? Shocking! Dumuzid (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I am pretty sure there are a lot of believers in the Akashic records that consider them essentially scientific texts. Same is true of adherents to both theosophy and anthroposophy. jps (talk) 02:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

:So fringe doesn't apply to any of the sections, including those using self-published sources? Doug Weller talk 08:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC) Wrong thread. Doug Weller talk 14:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Of course it is a fringe theory, but so also are all religious or spiritual belief systems. It means that they have little or no support in academic literature. But what difference does that make to how the article is written? TFD (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)</>

Isn't it a mythical tome located on the astral plane? Like something in D&D? Not so much fringe in itself, but if (say) somebody claims to have visited the plane, consulted the tome, therein found a medical system described, and then did medicine on earth accordingly, that would certainly be fringe. Alexbrn (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I am using the term fringe as it is defined in policy: "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." The astral plane is not an accepted view in physics and the tomes recording all of history isn't accepted in history studies. But I wondered what difference it made if fringe applies. Obviously we shouldn't present this as a fact or as a theory with substantial support in academic literature. TFD (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

We've certainly had anthroposophic doctors in the past claiming it was legit. medicine. That's more where WP:FRINGE comes into play. Alexbrn (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that we have agreement that the existence of the Akashic records is not a mainstream theory. It doesn't matter whether it is fringe or less than fringe. I declined the draft BLP that stated in the voice of Wikipedia that the subject is an authority on the Akashic records. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I think that the presumed tome is said to be located on a different plane of existence than the astral plane. It doesn't matter unless one believes that the planes of existence exist. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Stanislav Drobyshevsky

Article on a "Russian anthropologist and science popularizer".

"Drobyshevsky condemns the popular theory, put forward only according to the data of geneticists, that there are no human races, since their existence is visible to every person. He believes that the lack of mass collection of morphological data by the anthropologists of the world, both on large and small races after the Second World War, led to a failure in world science in the anthropological study of races".

Drobyshevsky may possibly believe this. Wikipedia shouldn't however be asserting it as fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Definitely agree. There was a related recent discussion of the source Antropogenez.ru that Drobyshevsky edits at RSN ([4]). NightHeron (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• Stanislav Drobyshevsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Hipal (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Is Decipherment of rongorongo a fringe article?

And if so, does it comply with WP:FRINGE? See the talk page also. Doug Weller talk 14:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Doug Weller - I am not one of the regular editors here. (I do have a degree in the history of science.) However, my opinion is that whether it is a fringe article depends on what you mean by a fringe article. The efforts to decipher rongorongo are not fringe scholarship. Claims to have successfully deciphered rongorongo are fringe theories.

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. But I’m still saying WP:FRINGE applies, do you? Does it comply? Doug Weller talk 18:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Doug Weller - That will require reading the article in depth as opposed to looking at it. I will review it in the near future. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Doug Weller - I have read the article. If the question is whether it presents fringe theories as fringe theories, my conclusion is that it does. It refers to the various claims to have deciphered rongorongo as "fanciful". Is there some more specific question, or is it simply a matter of ensuring that fringe theories are not presented as mainstream?

Any theory as to how to read rongorongo is a fringe theory, because the mainstream view is that it is not true writing. It doesn't present any theory on the decipherment of rongorongo as a mainstream theory. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon Just the size of some of the entries, eg De Laat where I think we shouldn't use his self-published works but only the review which is a reliable source. I hadn't noticed but it seems to now become part of an edit war.[5] Doug Weller talk 14:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Even in an article that either is a collection of exercises in futility (in case Rongorongo will never be deciphered) or the future's past errors (in case it will be deciphered, and only one proposal will be proven correct), I suppose that the principle of due weight still applies. Since WP merely reflects, proposals that have received more attention in peer-reviewed academic sources should obviously also receive more coverage in the page, and vice versa. –Austronesier (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Due weight applies. The open question of mainstream scholarship is whether rongorongo is true writing. If so, it is likely but not certain to be deciphered. If it is proto-writing, it is unlikely to be deciphered. The difference between rongorongo and hieroglyphics or cuneiform is that it was always known that hieroglyphics and cuneiform were writing. (There had been previous attempts to decipher hieroglyphics that confused things because they were wrong.)

The difference between rongorongo and the Akashic records is that there is an open question of whether rongorongo is true writing. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Bionic Reading

Up for deletion for notability, but it has the smell of something fringey. One would expect some research backing up the technique if nothing else. Mangoe (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Certainly if the article is kept, any claims that it actually works would have to be backed up with solid scientific evidence. From a quick Google, it seems that people are pushing apps for this hard. I wouldn't install any of them on any device I own - another bad smell... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Move request Reverse racism ––> Discrimination towards white people

Here's another move request that may be of interest: Talk:Reverse racism#Requested move 31 May 2022. The OP appears to believe that evidence exists to support the existence of discrimination towards white people, and that the current article title unjustly delegitimizes this evidence. Generalrelative (talk) 03:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I mean, I suppose there is technically discrimination against any group you can name whatsoever, in specific circumstances, by specific people. The question is when it rises to the point of notability, and when isolated incidents are being treated as if they were typical. This looks much more like the latter. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.9% of all FPs} 15:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I want to clarify that I know discriminating against white people for their race is extremely rare and even more rarely actually serious, but reading the reverse racism page makes it seem like it doesn't exist in any form, when that obviously isn't the case. I withdrew my rename nomination, but I'm currently trying to find a good place to place this source (https://www.aclrc.com/myth-of-reverse-racism), which takes the same stance as the rest of the sources, but has a very important first paragraph that acknowledges the fringe discrimination's existence and tells readers the distinction in a way even people who disagree with the rest of the article like myself can agree with, instead of blowing it off. Unnamed anon (talk) 07:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Please use the "move request" discussion as indicated. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mathsci:, if you're not going to use the reverse racism talk page, I'd like to discuss this with you here. Regardless of the article's neutrality, the first sentence acknowledges up a very common slightly different definition of reverse racism that is mentioned in the overview, something I feel like is completely ignored by other sources. As Adam Cuerden said here, I suppose there is technically discrimination against any group you can name whatsoever. The Alberta source not only acknowledges the existence of anti-white discrimination, it explains how it never reaches the damaging heights of anti-black discrimination. (Sorry about that first sentence, I typed this as you were typing on my talk page, thanks for replying) Unnamed anon (talk) 08:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) User:Unnamed anon is "forum shopping' on this noticeboard. The posting concerned a requested move, which was almost unilaterally opposed (with the title unchanged). At the moment there might be a report at WP:AN3 in the standard way, due to a content dispute mentioned on Talk:Reverse racism (as explained by NightHeron and Sangdeboeuf) and on the user's own talk page – currently there seems to be no relevance to this WP:FTN. Mathsci (talk) 08:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion which led to this proposal, at Talk:Reverse sexism is also relevant. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Great Barrington Declaration

There is a discussion on the article talk page about the use of the word "Fringe" in the opening paragraph of the article. I am involved as an admin as I just had to block an edit warring IP. However, after reading the discussion I am concerned that use of the term "fringe" is not supported by reliable sources and the arguments for its use sound rather WP:SYNTHy to me. Could some experienced editors have a look? Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Economics has an RFC

Economics has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. The dispute is on whether we can give due weight to critics of the field, some of whom equate it to pseudoscience. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

RfC on Source Discussing Del Bigtree, Miki Willis (Plandemic), Marla Maples, JP Sears, etc. Meeting

There's an ongoing RfC here about whether we should use Vice for reporting on a meeting to pray for Trump and discuss conspiracy theories around George Soros that featured notable anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists, conspiritualists, etc. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

interesting that you didnt post this on RSN, seeing as its about sourcing. If you do, be sure to mention that the line your proposing we quote directly is actually sourced to a podcast, as noted here by @ScottishFinnishRadish: nearly two weeks ago. Bonewah (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

This is the Fringe Theories Noticeboard and this source is focused on fringe figures. It is interesting, isn't it? Welcome. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not strictly about sourcing, though that's obviously a significant part of it. The other side is the notability of the gathering, both alone and in relation to Sears, and how linked it is to his broader political advocacy. The argument that swayed me was that it's not solely that Vice isn't the best source to use for what was said, but that there doesn't seem to be any other source on the topic, which often indicates a lack of notability. The "Vice said, according to a podcast..." attribution claim in particular makes it hard to have a full throated defense against a BLP concern.

Regarding this noticeboard, it's not like this is a case of whitewashing, as best I can tell (with the prior notice having cleaned up some past concerns). The section still mentions anti-vax and other public activities, this particular sentence is either notable based on an attributed hearsay presumption, or a private event that's not nearly as notable as the rest of the section. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Two editors on the article have now attempted to remove very single reference in the "political activities" section; that is, the subject's antivaxxer activities. Attempts at whitewashing are a very real thing on that article. Unfortunately, this sort of behavior is all too typical for fringe articles on the site. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Could you please provide the edits that you're referring to that removed these references? In my recent edit, I summarized the quote based on how I interpreted the consensus on the recent Talk Page discussion, but I did not remove any references. Unless I'm missing something? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Hydrogen water

Claims of therapeutic benefit with insufficient counterarguments. All but one of the sources are pro-fringe, and some of the sources are not about "hydrogen water" rather than general medical use of hydrogen. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I have taken a quick jab at it with my cellphone. Delete the article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

There appears to be some overlap with water ionizer and magnetic water treatment; both of these articles appear to give undue weight to fringe theories (water ionizer#Operation essentially claims "alkaline water" carries an overall electric charge; magnetic water treatment describes "electrolytic devices" as "effective", without being quite clear on what that effect is supposed to be). IpseCustos (talk) 05:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Correct – the surplus hydroxide ions must be matched by an equal amount of positive ions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I have deleted the entire "Operation" section of Water ionizer and also removed a reference which has no relevance to the article topic — it is possible that some of the remaining references are also irrelevant to the claims they are used for. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Magnetic water treatment has been cleaned as well. Two sections have been deleted respectively as pro-fringe and for lack of reliable sources, and the article is now short enough that the third section can be condensed into the lead.

An image showing the purported mechanism was also removed. We recommend replacing it with an image of a device that purports to do this, and doing the same at Water ionizer. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

General arrangement of MWT apparatus

Jorge Ferrer

• Jorge Ferrer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could use more eyes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Western Imperium

• Western Imperium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Another newly edited article is pushing Francis Parker Yockey and other neo-Nazis. The article was previously deleted in 2010. About two-thirds of its references are to neo-Nazi sources. Llll5032 (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

A lot Is sourced to self published sources, eg Yockey’s book Impеrium: The Philosophy of History and Politics written under a pen name. Is there an appropriate board to take this to? Doug Weller talk 18:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia:Articles for deletion count? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe. If there aren’t enough reliable sources discussing it. Doug Weller talk 19:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The right board for this is Sockpuppet investigations. If I'm 99% sure, can I tag for G5 speedy deletion right now, or do I have to wait for the SPI to resolve? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Doh! Sock blocked, revert away. Doug Weller talk 20:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Carnivore diet, again

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

---

• Monotrophic diet (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Slow motion edit war underway with an editor arguing a particular source, PMID:34934897, constitutes clinical evidence for the diet. More eyes from savvy editors welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 03:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Question about whether recent exploration of the mythical Lake Parime should be added

Lake Parime#21st-Century Explorations - this is based solely on a report made to a science meeting and I can find no discussion of it. Doug Weller talk 13:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

There are no citations to this work. Until other researchers acknowledge and discuss this it is WP:TOOSOON to demonstrate notability here. We can't base inclusion of section text on existing poor quality references.[6] --mikeu ^talk 22:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

N Deleted. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

James Delingpole

• James Delingpole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

He is obviously a climate change denier, and there are more sources for that than we can link without being ridiculous, but some people do not like the term. So, business as usual. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

This reminds me of a list that I read written by Jimmy Wales saying things like: we are not utterly neutral, we are pro-science etc. Feels like a good time to quote it, if I could find it. But I can't.... CT55555 (talk) 01:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you were thinking of the quote reproduced here? XOR'easter (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. CT55555 (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

COVID vaccine "side effects"

• COVID-19 vaccine side effects (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

POVFORK of COVID-19 vaccine#Adverse events, with non-WP:MEDRS sources. My attempt to blank and redirect has been reverted by the page creator. More wise eyes welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

What's the POV part of the POV fork? It seems like a reasonable fork from the main article, to go into more detail. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

You think the section at COVID-19 vaccine#Adverse events is so large a split is justified? The POV is to air material only available in unreliable sources, as part of an anti-WP:MEDRS point-making exercise (see recent Village Pump discussions). Alexbrn (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

There's already a whole article on Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination, so it does seem plausible that there'd be enough material to write an article on all such adverse events. Endwise (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh boy, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#What_MEDRS_is_NOT seems like a load of fun... Bakkster Man (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, the "Jiggly boobs" stuff is one of the more amusing self-owns I've seen on WP in a while. Amusement in an otherwise grim time! Alexbrn (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, my wife glanced over at my phone while I was reading that and I think she had a different opinion on what I mean when I tell her I'm editing Wikipedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

• Anyway, this is probably now moot as it's been AfD'd: WP:Articles for deletion/COVID-19 vaccine side effects. Alexbrn (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  It ended up getting redirected. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Matt Ridley – "science writer", or ... ?

• Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19 (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Some disagreement on how to characterize a co-author of this book, Matt Ridley. The present term "science writer" as well as being jejune, could seem a bit too coy in light of the fact The Guardian characterizes him as "a Conservative hereditary peer best known for his sceptical writings on climate change"[7] as well as mentioning other related notions that are not really "science" (e.g. that fracking protests are Russia-backed[8], or that CO₂ emissions are merely "greening" the planet.[9]) He evidently refers to himself as a "science writer" for example in this[10] piece which contains some surprising claims too on dietary fat. Alexbrn (talk) 05:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• Addendum, note the coyness is being manifested[11] in other reverts too. Alexbrn (talk) 05:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
• Second addendum: I note Michael Hiltzik, who is a Pulitzer-prize winning reporter, and author of several books, but who is critical of the lab leak conspiracy theory, is described merely as a "columnist". Alexbrn (talk) 06:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, technically, he is a science writer. I liked "The Red Queen". But he is also an anti-science writer, so calling him a science writer is a half-truth. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• He is a science writer, & the Guardian (or rather Mark Honigsbaum) is wrong, over the long term anyway, about what he is best known for, which is his generally well-regarded books on non-CC topics like genetics, which is what his doctorate was about. That and his disastrous period on the board of Northern Rock. He was only a voting member of the Lords for 8 years or whatever, & has only been a peer since 2012 - he was actually better known before this. The Guardian is hardly neutral in this area. Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
  • @Alexbrn: Actually, Michael Hiltzik was described as 'columnist and journalist'. It now reads, columnist, journalist and author. Bonewah (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
  • The Guardian does not need to be neutral, it only needs to be reliable. Ridley has chosen to taint his own reputation by joining several dubious groups. If he wanted to be called a science writer, he should have stayed one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

    Per MOS:TENSE, I'd suggest he "is a science writer" if he ever was one. With any reliable and notable criticism of his veering into pseudoscience/woo being an additional description. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

He can still be described as a science writer and noted for being a climate change sceptic if that is what other sources consistently refer to him as. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Henry I Sinclair, Earl of Orkney

Falls under fringe because he's best known for a fringe theory. My main issue is with the Knights Templar bit as I think we should never use Alan Wilson, a retired shipping expert, and Baram Blackett, a businessman. Doug Weller talk 15:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

We also shouldn't be relaying so much nonsense either from Lomas & Knight, an electrical engineer and an advertising exec. Much of the Templar section relies on Lomas. Just as an example, the article currently says "He claims that the founder of Templars Hugues de Payens was married to a sister of the Duke of Champaine (Henri de St. Clair)." Except Champaigne was a County, and the count at the time named Henri had no association whatsoever with the St. Clairs. This is pure hoax/fraud/amateur incompetence that we are giving voice to. Agricolae (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Joseph Eidelberg

• Joseph Eidelberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I found this double WP:WEASEL: Many scholars believe that the story of Exodus, as told in the bible, did happen, yet only some of it can be proven. The article would probably profit from historians having a look at it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Yup, today everybody and their own dog are called "scholars". They just have to publish something remotely resembling scholarship. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

COVID origin

• Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

There's been some off-wiki recruiting on this[12] and an uptick in activity regarding the virus origin. More eyes maffy be helpful. Alexbrn (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Today I learned: Wikipedia is owned and operated by Google or Microsoft and or maybe the Alphabet company aka Google. [13] It's good to know that clairvoyants on Twitter are on the case. This whole time I thought I was part of an entirely different cabal. Generalrelative (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

This may be aimed at me? For the record I was led to the SARS-CoV-2 discussion after I looked in to Alexbrn edit-warring on the 2022 monkeypox outbreak article. Palpable (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you strike that untruth, or produce evidence of "edit-warring". Alexbrn (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

First revert, with context on the talk page. The edit being reverted included the comment "Please do discuss edits on Talk page, and do not wholesale revert, per WP:REVONLY—thanks kindly!"

Second revert, which was deemed an abuse of WP:MEDRS at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Are you burned out yet?

Third revert

Palpable (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Your links don't show any any warring (or even link to reverts). You probably need to learn what WP:EW is to avoid making further untrue statements. Alexbrn (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Help:Reverting states that "Any method of editing that has the practical effect of returning some or all of the page to a previous version counts as a reversion". Your actions fall within WP:EW from what I can tell. If someone else wants to explain why they don't, I'm happy to learn.

It sounds like I should have just taken this to Admin but it's been over 48 hours. -- Palpable (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Aside from the edit warring issue, my point in commenting here was to object to your insinuation that I came here due to some garbage on Twitter. AGF please. I've had this account since 2010 though I was inactive for many years. Palpable (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

which was deemed an abuse of Well, if one person deemed that, then it has been well and truly deemed.

Removing new and improperly sourced material is not edit-warring. Putting it back in again and again is. See WP:BRD. Instead of flimsy accusations, how about using actual reasoning in favor of the text in question? On the Talk page of the article itself, where that sort of thing belongs, instead of cluttering this noticeboard? --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

You are confusing two different pages. Talk:2022 monkeypox outbreak#Majority of cases in gay and bisexual men (MSM) and Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Zoonotic origins which was closed on the pretext that somebody somewhere said something on Twitter. At this point this is clearly a job for Admin and I will drop it until I figure out the right venue. -- Palpable (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

You are confusing two different pages. Bullshit. I did not even mention any pages, I just refuted your bad reasoning in a general way. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I acknowledge that you're not talking about any pages, just arguing in a general way. -- Palpable (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The source used does not say the virus is of zoonotic origin, it says it likely is. If you want to make a definite statement ruling out other possible origins, you need a source that does that. Alternatively, you could use the type of wording used in the current source. You can't just say you have read all the literature and this is your informed conclusion. TFD (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The opening of the source: "The present outbreak of a coronavirus-associated acute respiratory disease called coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) is the third documented spillover of an animal coronavirus to humans in only two decades that has resulted in a major epidemic" [my emphasis]. Alexbrn (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Note that they aren't making a claim about where the spillover occurred. -- Palpable (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The source also seems to be using "zoonotic" in a slightly different way than the zoonotic article. What the source claims that the virus is zoonotic in the sense that it derived from a bat virus, which is uncontroversial. As far as I can see, the source does not deny the possibility of lab involvement at some point - but the phrasing in the article construes it that way. -- Palpable (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Alexbrn, sorry I thought that later wording qualified the statement: "rapidly spread in the human population after a likely spillover from bats or from a yet unidentified intermediate host." I see now that the author was probably referring to the bat origin as likely.

An article in the British Medical Journal says that "The theory that SARS-CoV-2 may have originated in a lab was considered a debunked conspiracy theory, but some experts are revisiting it amid calls for a new, more thorough investigation."[14] I don't know where that research has led, but if the lab leak theory has again been discredited or has been determined to be an extremely remote possibility, then at least there should be some clarification in a footnote.

TFD (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know the BMJ article reflects the current thinking. There are other references in the Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 article - e.g. the US Intelligence Assessment agrees that a purely zoonotic origin is likely but unproven.

While neither of these sources have the weight of a refereed journal, they address the proximal origin question, unlike the current source. It is telling that the refereed publications avoid taking a stance on that.

I think the key point is that the burden of proof for establishing uncertainty is much lower than the burden of proof for any particular hypothesis. -- Palpable (talk) 02:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. "There is uncertainty" can be said about literally anything. Wikipedia still defers to high quality sources in determining how to deal with that uncertainty. Given those sources (brief listing here; you can do your own research on PubMed if you so please) pretty much unanimously find that the lab leak is at best something like unlikely and not supported by available evidence (and most are far less generous than this), then we must reflect these rather clear findings as such, even if there are some minority dissenting voices, even if what the scientific sources say is not the same thing as political agencies or newspapers say. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and in my understanding the remaining "sane" lab-leakers are arguing for a zoonotic lab accident in any case; the "bio-engineered" narrative has long been recognized as a conspiracy theory. In any case, Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 is linked: readers can read all about that kind of stuff there. To insist fringe views are crowbarred into the WP:LEDE of the main article is textbook WP:UNDUE and out-of-alignment with the WP:BESTSOURCES. Alexbrn (talk) 04:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

And since people somewhere complained about sources not being recent; here's a sampling from a quick search on PubMed (somehow allowed myself to get distracted past a reasonable sleeping hour on a Saturday night; so there you go):

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]

These are all from 2022, and tend to go in the same direction as existing sources as given in the articles (from a quick look)... Really people should WP:DROPTHESTICK, or understandably get frustrated when they refuse to adhere to Wikipedia's sourcing and content guidelines. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

1. "We confirm that a direct proximal ancestor to SARS-CoV-2 has not yet been sampled"
2. "Findings support a “bat origin” but results are not highly convincing"
3. "the pandemic probably started from a natural source"

(1) is pretty strong but all these papers hedge their claims more than the article text. Palpable (talk) 08:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

(Yet nobody is accusing them of being conspiracy theorists for including the word "probably") - Palpable (talk) 08:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The excellent sources we cite don't entertain the possibility (it could have come from a meteorite; that possibility is not entertained either). Querying zoonosis is indeed to swim in the conspiracy theory stream. There's a good lay piece on this here. (Quote: "Plausible routes for a lab origin do exist—but they differ from the engineering-based hypotheses that most lab-leak rhetoric relies on. The lab in Wuhan could be a relay point in a zoonotic chain in which a worker became infected while sampling in the field or being accidentally contaminated during an attempt to isolate the virus from a sample.") Alexbrn (talk) 08:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Y'know, the only thing I asked for was the inclusion of some small amount of uncertainty (like the word "probably") in the article lede.

As documented on the Investigations page, my fellow fringe conspiracy theorists include the US Intelligence Community, the director of the NIH, the director general of the WHO, and senior biologists at top universities. So that's some consolation.

I understand that you've worked hard on these "guidelines" but their zealous prosecution here is unlikely to improve Wikipedia's credibility. -- Palpable (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

1. using an article which is about the "natural origins of SARS-CoV-2" and which specifically states The origin of SARS-CoV-2 can be unambiguously traced to horseshoe bats, genus Rhinolophus. SARS-related coronaviruses, like SARS-CoV-2, are dispersed over a large geographical area across southern China and Southeast Asia. They have undergone extensive recombination throughout their evolutionary history indicating frequent transmission among their Rhinolophus host species., and picking one quote which does not put this hypothesis in doubt, and interpreting this the wrong way, seems like WP:CHERRYPICKING to me...

2. This article is again unambiguous: Taking into account the SARS-CoV-2 dating and its MRCA properties, three scenarios are most probable: (a) The SARS-CoV-2 ancestor has been incubating for years inside bats, accumulating mutations, and probably through a random event, e.g. in the Huanan wet market, the virus was transmitted in humans, (b) A less virulent SARS-CoV-2 ancestor was infecting humans for years, until accumulation of mutations increased its virulence, (c) The SARS-CoV-2 ancestor has been circulating in intermediate hosts until transmission to humans by a random event. The lack of certainty about the bat origin is here covered by the scientists in a specific way (i.e. we don't know for sure where the virus comes from, but it looks like it's from bats). You using this to argue that the "results [not being] highly convincing" is supposedly reason for us to cover an (unmentioned by the source) hypothetical lab-leak origin more favourably than the source does again seems like misinterpretation of the sources.

3. Although there is not yet any substantial evidence for a lab leak, and most scientists support a natural origin of the virus, by a jump to humans from bats, if it was a direct spillover—or, more likely, through an intermediate mammal, researchers have looked into genetic features of SARS-CoV-2 bioengineering signals. A team of scientists combed through the genome sequence for any signs of lab tinkering and determined that were not engineered genetic elements and they concluded that SARS-CoV-2 was not a laboratory construct

Again, all of these sources support the current wording of the various topic articles, which is that Most scientists say that as with other pandemics in human history, the virus is likely of zoonotic origin in a natural setting, and ultimately originated from a bat-borne virus. and Available scientific evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 has a natural zoonotic origin. (in the detailed Investigations into the origin of COVID-19); or The scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of zoonotic origin, from bats or another closely-related mammal. (in the very summary-level overview at COVID-19 pandemic). Endlessly arguing over this and misinterpreting the sources is disruptive and borderline sea-lioning. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The only thing I've objected to was the lede of the Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 article. I concur that most of the topic articles are sufficiently cautious in their claims. -- Palpable (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Palpable please read WP:1AM, and stop wasting everyone's time here. Rabbit holes like this (if done repeatedly and in sea-lion-like fashion. have gotten many users banned on this site. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I think Palpable's proposal to include a small amount of uncertainty is reasonable. No good sources describe a natural occurrence of zoonosis with certainty in regards to COVID's origin. Certainty will be established once an intermediate host is found, and SAGO's Christian Drosten said that will require the Chinese government's cooperation, which they will hopefully get in the near future [18]. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The cited source asserts it was of zoonotic origin. RS describes the "bio-engineered" stuff as a conspiracy theory. A demand for "certainty" would have Wikipedia hedging its bets about everything from bigfoot to cold fusion. Instead we follow decent sources without indulging wingnuttery unduly. Alexbrn (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

There are newer and better sources than that Feb '20 paper, which is why I think Palpable's proposal is reasonable. One such source is a recent letter published in PNAS calling for an independent investigation into the origins of SARS2, and it cites engineering as a possibility, so it is not a conspiracy theory. This has nothing to do with bigfoot or cold fusion, and wingnuttery isn't something PNAS generally publishes. The new SAGO report is another newer and better source. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

An opinion piece is not a "better" source for anything, when we have peer-reviewed secondary literature. And a report which "said that available data suggests SARS-CoV-2 had a zoonotic origin" is not a good source for showcasing a fringe theory to the contrary in the lede of Wikipedia's main SARS-CoV-2 article. Alexbrn (talk) 08:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I said the PNAS letter is just one such sourcec and StN and Palpable did not actually call to showcase any alternatives theories in the lead of the article. What the SAGO report describes as a possibility [19], you describe as a fringe theory [20], so your POV might need refreshing with newer and better sources. The SAGO report is clearly the WP:BESTSOURCE now, better even than Holmes et al, which it reviewed. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Star of Bethlehem

This is about [21]. While I don't think that the nativity stories from NT gospels have historicity, I don't think that the authors of the gospels were spewing astrological gobbledygook (meaning that they were secretly adepts of the Christ Myth Theory). Even if we, modern people, regard them as tall stories, it does not mean that they were awarely lying like a dog. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure what the issue is here. This new section simply summarizes a paper recently published in a reputable and peer-reviewed academic journal, Religion in the Roman Empire - so can hardly be considered to be "complete bollocks" - and the author of the paper makes no profit from the sales of that journal. No claim is made that the authors of the gospels were versed in astrology, only that they were recording a story which had astrological roots in the context of Hellenistic horoscopes for royal birth. The paper in question makes reference to material from the time and place and people in question - the Dead Sea Scrolls - to show that astrological thinking was present, and the link to between the scrolls and Teucer of Bablyon is particularly pertinent as Teucer specifically mentions the decans of the Manger and the Child on the Lap of His Mother. It was extremely common at this time to use astrology in the context of royal births, which is what this was viewed as. The popular theory of Molnar is based on this context. And in what sense does this mean they were consciously lying? Saying that astrology was used to justify messianic claims does not mean that they necessarily did not believe those claims, but who knows, maybe they didn't - we cannot say. But in any case saying they cannot have been lying is not in any way an academic statement.Please remove the block and allow the edit to be reinstated as it does not appear to be based on a reasonable objection. Thank you. Archaeopteroid (talk) 10:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I would also like to add that this also has nothing to do with the Christ Myth Theory. If astrologers retrospectively drew up a horoscope for a historical figure then the fact that the horoscope might have skewed the birth date and time to fit with expectations does not mean they viewed the figure themselves as mythical. Again, please remove the block and allow the new section because the removal seems to be based on a misunderstanding. Archaeopteroid (talk) 10:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Well for a start, what is with that bizarre section title, can not that be said in three words? Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

For another start, just because it was published with peer-review, it does not mean that such view gained traction in the mainstream academia. So, peer-reviewed does not exclude fringe or WP:UNDUE.

The problem with symbolic interpretation is that it transforms any row of words into any other row of words. See, they were not saying the Jesus was born in a manger, what they really meant is that Jupiter was in the decan Manger.

Same problem as with the Old Testament prophecies about Jesus: about many of them, there is no evidence they were meant as prophecies, the rest simply do not claim to be speaking about the Messiah, and there is one OT messianic prophecy that applies to Jesus, only it says that Jesus was a false prophet. Similarly, there is no evidence that the NT gospels were talking about Jupiter's position. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler. If the title is complicated it is because the theory is complicated, but we cannot expect history to oblige us by being simple. Archaeopteroid (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

For the record: Unless you see it as a historical fact, Jesus being born in a manger presents a problem, a question, a puzzle, because why would you invent that motif? What was its purpose? Luke says the Manger was the "sign" (semeion) of the birth, and this word was used in Hellenistic astrology to mean a star sign. So it is not really transforming one row of words into another. Likewise, when Mathew's account says the Magi saw the child with his mother in this house of the virgin mother, then, since The Child With His Mother is a decan in the sign of Virgo, the Virgin, again there is very little transformation of one row of words into another, only a challenge to our assumptions about what those words originally meant. The NT may not mention Jupiter, but it does mention a star, and Jupiter was the star of royalty. If the fact that the NT doesn't mention Jupiter is an issue, why then are there existing sections on the page that explain the star as Jupiter? Archaeopteroid (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding peer-review doesn't exclude fringe - maybe so, but there has to be a valid reason for calling something fringe. That some early Christians were interested in astrology is a perfectly legitimate matter for historical discussion and indeed the general scholarly consensus is that some of those groups most certainly did have such interests, as there are written sources. Archaeopteroid (talk) 12:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not clear what point is being made about symbolic interpretation. I'm not trying to have a row or any kind and symbolic is the wrong word I think. If Luke and Matthew wrote down a story as they heard it, without knowing what it meant in the original context, then it is surely valid to consider what the original story pertained to in a logical and methodical manner. The Star of Bethlehem page on Wikipedia hosts a large number of different theories coming from different perspectives, many of which have very little connection to the actual texts about the Nativity. A new perspective on what those texts meant is surely at least as valid as a theory that has very little connection to them at all. Archaeopteroid (talk) 12:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Archaeopteroid: are you William Glyn-Jones? MrOllie (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

My motivation here is simply that the question of the Star of Bethlehem question now has an answer that has better arguments than many of the others on the Wikipedia page so it ought to find it's place there. If a media response is required, so be it, we shall wait and see and revisit this later. In the meantime, it is utterly inappropriate that it be listed as a fringe theory, so I would request that it be taken off this list. Archaeopteroid (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

For example, there is nothing in the Gospels to suggest the Star was an unusual spectacle, only that Herod was interested in the time of its rise. The idea that it was some great astronomical phenomenon is itself an interpretation, and one that has no basis in the texts themselves. Meanwhile, "Magi" implied astrologers and the usual reason why astrologers observed the stars in connection with royal birth was the obvious one - for astrological purposes. The Wikiopedia page therefore is lacking excessively weighted towards the astronomical perspective and needs to include theories looking at the astrological question, of which Glyn-Jones's paper is recent example, and results form a review of earlier examples of this perspective, such as Bullmer-Thomas and Molnar. Archaeopteroid (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

It could in other words be argued that it is actually far more the case that the attempts to identify an unusual astronomical object that are fringe and that it is time we returned to take a closer look at the texts, rather than continuing to make the same old assumption Archaeopteroid (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

It's quite true that Herod being interested in astrology is a mainstream view. But that does not automatically translate into your view being mainstream.

If Wikipedia had been available around the sixth century BC, it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact without qualification. It would have also reported the views of Eratosthenes (who correctly determined the Earth's circumference in 240 BC) either as controversial or a fringe view. Similarly if available in Galileo's time, it would have reported the view that the Sun goes round the Earth as a fact, and if Galileo had been a Vicipaedia editor, his view would have been rejected as "originale investigationis". Of course, if there is a popularly held or notable view that the Earth is flat, Wikipedia reports this view. But it does not report it as true. It reports only on what its adherents believe, the history of the view, and its notable or prominent adherents. Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free thought, which is a Good Thing.

— WP:FLAT

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

If the section is to be removed because it has yet to gain mainstream traction, that is one thing, and I can accept that. But for it to be placed on a list of "fringe" theories in the meantime is a whole other thing and does not accord at all with the spirit or nature of the theory. It lumps a theory in a peer-reviewed journal together with genuinely fringe theories, and the danger of that is that it could skew subsequent reception. I.e. while I can accept a need to see what the mainstream reception is before it is included on Wikipedia, I cannot accept that it should be included in a list that would skew that very reception in an unwarranted manner. Archaeopteroid (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Listen, friend, if Albert Einstein had published his annus mirabilis papers inside Wikipedia, they would have been deleted as fringe. So, don't complain, you're still in good company. "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." Meanwhile the stage of your paper is still either WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE. And these discussions don't get deleted, but eventually archived. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

ok, fine, I get it. Archaeopteroid (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Chemical energy and related articles

I was quite shocked to come across this statement in photosynthesis:

In most cases, oxygen is also released as a waste product that stores three times more chemical energy than the carbohydrates.

As far as I can tell, this statement simply makes no sense (in a standard atmospheric environment, molecular oxygen is abundant and cannot react with the environment, meaning it stores no energy, right?).

I removed that statement and traced it to an editor who has made several such edits to various articles, all containing statements along the lines of declaring that oxygen is a "high-energy" molecule which "stores energy in its double bond".

(Please note that all this is about chemistry, not nuclear reactions.)

I'm afraid this rises to the level of pseudoscience, and someone will have to go through all the places where this editor cited what they claim to be their own publications, but thought I'd ask for a second opinion before doing that.

IpseCustos (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems that the problematic edit is this one : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Photosynthesis&diff=1058709581&oldid=1057406610

It seems to mention many times that oxygen and chlorophyll are "high energy" molecules.

It's referenced to this paper, which is apparently by the editor in question. Building off his earlier work "Oxygen Is the High-Energy Molecule Powering Complex Multicellular Life: Fundamental Corrections to Traditional Bioenergetics"[22]

I'm no biochemist, so I can't evaluate his claims. It does seem that he's a real professor of chemistry and not a crackpot, but if this is really a "fundamental correction" to the field, we should't be reporting it as established fact until there's more than just one chemist saying it. ApLundell (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is one of the many problematic edits. I wasn't sure whether it was okay to link to or name explicitly the editor in question.

I assume you mean we should not be reporting it as established fact, for now?

I would just like to point out that

• generally speaking, some crackpots are real professors (Serge Lang and Linus Pauling come to mind)
• I'm not calling this specific editor or the author of the papers a crackpot, at this point
• I'm not convinced the two are the same person.

This affects quite a few articles and some of the problematic statements have been there for years, apparently unchallenged. That may count as evidence that I'm wrong and it's perfectly good science. On the other hand, the paper author himself claims fundamental differences between his views and the established science, which would mean the "extraordinary evidence" standard applies. Also, many of the edits could have been challenged as undeclared COI, OR, RS, or, in the photosynthesis claim, purely for getting the numbers wrong. That they weren't makes me suspect they weren't reviewed very closely. IpseCustos (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I would support reverting all such edits. COI in service of advancing one's pet theories is an occasional form of WP:REFSPAM and fringe theory pushing. I note that the journal cited in that edit is an MDPI journal. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Of course I meant "shouldn't". fixed. ApLundell (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The editor (AGF, also the author of the papers) has responded to my concerns on my talk page (and agreed to let me link to the response).

The last paragraph, I think, is particularly remarkable:

In summary, unless you can produce references and evidence to the contrary, you will have to acknowledge that the oxygen theory of combustion and respiration energetics is actually the only known quantitative theory of combustion and respiration energetics that has explanatory and predictive power.

This concerns about 80 articles, including fire and fuel. I do not feel the burden of producing such references and evidence is on me, but would appreciate further external opinions. IpseCustos (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Remove them all. Grandiose self-promotion. You are entirely correct that the burden of providing references is not upon you. XOR'easter (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The editor's claim that unless you can produce references and evidence to the contrary, you will have to acknowledge that the oxygen theory of combustion and respiration energetics is actually the only known quantitative theory indicates they should read WP:NFRINGE, WP:GNG, and WP:OR, particularly the independent sourcing. Maybe they have solved a major thermodynamic and biochemical question, but we need to source that to someone else's academic paper that indicates the view's prevalence within mainstream science. Convince other scientists, and we'll follow. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not going to replace a conventional/mainstream understanding of various well-studied non-essoteric bits of science with content based on WP:PRIMARY studies by a single author/group. I don't need to study the science to know that that's against policy here, nor are wikipedia editors required to do their own research to disprove an editor's one-off idea. DMacks (talk) 09:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I must strenuously object. All my writing about science is rigorous and consistent with the laws and experimental results of thermodynamics. I am a Fellow of the American Physical Society and of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and a published expert in chemical thermodynamics and chemical energy in peer-reviewed scientific journals. There is agreement in chemistry textbooks that conversion of relatively weak electron-pair bonds to stronger bonds releases energy, which means that relatively weak bonds store chemical energy. That is the essence of what I’ve been writing, and it is not in dispute among experts.

Contrary to common assumptions, there is no “scientific consensus” on the energetics of combustion, respiration, and batteries. I have read dozens of chemistry textbooks and can tell you that they do not derive that combustion is always exothermic, or why the heat of combustion (LHV) is strictly proportional to the amount of O₂ consumed, or why carbohydrates have less than half the heat of combustion, per gram, than fat, or how batteries store and release energy. (If you can cite quantifiable textbook answers to these questions, please indicate that in a response.)

Biochemistry textbooks have no convincing explanation why fermentation of glucose produces only 2 ATP, while respiration of glucose + 6 O₂ produces 30 ATP (attributing this difference to incomplete decomposition of glucose in fermentation is invalid, because splitting glucose up all the way into 3 CO₂ + 3 CH₄ releases only 15% of the energy of glucose combustion with 6 O₂, and complete decomposition of glucose into 6 formaldehyde molecules would release no energy at all). They also fail to explain how nearly half of all the energy of aerobic respiration is released by the reaction of O₂ at Complex IV of the inner mitochondrial membrane without any bonds of an organic molecule being broken. Nor can the textbooks, or relevant reviews, on bioluminescence, explain the source of the energy of the photons (~ 200 kJ/mol) emitted, for instance by fireflies, and why O₂ is the only indispensable reactant in bioluminescence. (Again, please feel encouraged to reference quantifiable textbook answers to these bioenergetics questions.)

Without a textbook theory of the energetics of combustion and aerobic respiration, it is necessary to refer to more specialized literature, for instance by K. Ross, H. Weiss, and myself, that achieves all these explanations, and more, based on the accepted bond-energy principles of chemical energy mentioned above.

Any editor is of course free to replace one type of explanation with another, better one if it is properly referenced, but just removing relevant and valid statements that explain notable observations, e.g. why combustion is always exothermic, without a better replacement is not acceptable.

IpseCustos has even started to delete statements of relevant thermodynamic facts (for instance that the heat of combustion (LHV) is strictly proportional to the amount of oxygen consumed, or that heat can be converted completely into work in a non-cyclic process like the reversible isothermal expansion of an ideal gas, where heat q is fully converted into work w, according to w = -q). This must stop.

Klaus Schmidt-Rohr (talk) 13:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

If you can cite quantifiable textbook answers to these questions, please indicate that in a response. Given your familiarity with the topic, can you cite such a textbook (ideally, written by someone other than yourself) that repeats your findings? If so, it would make the case for inclusion much simpler, and we'd be able to add it easily without the potential WP:COI concerns. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Textbooks do not derive that combustion is always exothermic

That is because combustions are by definition exothermic? I do not claim to a good memory but if I recall correctly, Law's seminal text on combustion physics had defined combustion as such.

Textbooks do not derive how batteries store and release energy

When I used to be a child, I was frequently excited at having discovered a pioneering answer to some question. The excitement was short lived because every single time my teacher impressed upon me how I had merely reframed the answer quoted by the book in my own way.

TrangaBellam (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

My two cents is that Klaus Schmidt-Rohr| should stop editing anything that requires citing his own work. He's smart and well-intentioned, and IMHO, he is definitely not promoting fringe theories. BUT he's blind to the inherent problem of editing topics where he is actively publishing. There's also the issue of "righting great wrongs", which seems to influence his editing, he seeks to set the record straight because the rest of us are sleep walking. One can sympathize with his angst, but he just needs to live with the situation. I also actively publish, but I avoid editing virtually anything where my research would be cited. If Klaus Schmidt-Rohr| wishes to promote his views, which, again is ill-advised (COI), then he should be required to cite textbooks or major reviews written not by him. Best of all, he should apply his insights and enthusiasm into themes other than bioenergetics. Stated differently, if he so damn smart, he should prove it by editing outside of his wheelhouse.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I do not think that he is righting any wrong. Nothing in this paper is remotely pioneer (I can cite atleast half-a-dozen texts who provide the same treatment but not from USA) from a conceptual pov and that the paper was published at "Journal of Chemical Education" attests to it. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could provide some references to these texts. Then we could quote these and document that this is not a "fringe theory".

Klaus Schmidt-Rohr (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

he is definitely not promoting fringe theories

I'm confused as to why you are so sure about this. I'd like to point to just one example, the statement in photosynthesis that I deleted: normal (ordinary triplet) oxygen "stores three times more chemical energy" than the carbohydrates produced along with it.

It's perfectly legitimate to say "that's too chemical/physical for me, so I can't tell whether it's a fringe theory", or even to say that it doesn't look like a fringe theory to you, but to say it is definitely not a fringe theory is a very strong statement, and one which I must disagree with. IpseCustos (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The record shows that I have comprehensively edited technical aspects, often fairly advanced, of numerous articles not related to bioenergetics but to thermodynamics more generally, mass in special relativity, chemical equilibrium, acids, kinetics, electrochemistry, NMR spectroscopy, statistical mechanics, etc. In fact, on Aug. 1, 2020, you asked me to improve the articles on exothermic reaction and exergonic reaction. Klaus Schmidt-Rohr (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

As I see it, Klaus Schmidt-Rohr is entitled to add (limited) content and references to his own work, per WP:SELFCITE. These particular papers are WP:Primary in nature and relatively recent, so not yet widely critiqued in WP:Secondary sources which Wikipedia would prefer to use. My reading of the work is that it makes a plausible case to explain, for example, the use by plants of two photosystems. Some of the suggestions can be challenged, as with all theories. Thus I wouldn't call oxygen released by plants a waste product. Plants only photosynthesise when in sunlight: at other times they respire, using oxygen like the rest of us, so the "waste" product gets recycled. Also, I don't like the idea that oxygen is a high-energy molecule because it has a "weak double bond". If so, why doesn't it form an O₈, or similar, allotrope as sulfur does? That would replace four double bonds with four single ones. [I don't expect anyone to respond, I'm just giving an example of why primary sources are less preferred]. To calculate the free energy released by a chemical reaction requires one to know all the starting materials and all the products. Calling one particular component "high energy" is not terribly helpful. So, in summary I suggest that Schmidt-Rohr help remove some of his more prominent citations, especially in the lead sections of articles, until the statements can be backed up by secondary references from review-type articles or books not written by him. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't like the idea that oxygen is a high-energy molecule because it has a "weak double bond"

I'm sorry to keep asking, but what, if anything, is a high-energy molecule even supposed to be? The idea isn't just questionable, it's a statement that is ill-defined and "not even wrong". I've read through this editor's contributions on Wikipedia and the relevant papers, and there is no rigorous definition in there what the chemical energy of a molecule, in the absence of a specific reaction that it's involved in, is even supposed to be.

There are vague hints that he means something like the enthalpy of formation divided by the number of electrons usually considered available for covalent bonding, but that directly contradicts claims stating that oxygen stores "three times more" chemical energy than carbohydrates, or that chemical energy is "stored in", rather than reduced by, chemical bonds.

Anyway, I've now opened an RfC about one specific claim, that the heat of combustion (LHV) of an organic fuel is strictly proportional to the amount of oxygen required in its combustion. IpseCustos (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing up interesting scientific questions. Here are some comments: -- It is others who call oxygen a waste product; I consider it a valuable molecule storing most of the chemical energy in the biosphere and thus making all complex lifeforms possible. -- Oxygen does not form chains because two O-O single bonds are even weaker than the double bond in O₂ (2x142 kJ/mol vs. 498 kJ/mol). So oxygen chains are less stable (higher in energy) than O₂ and break up spontaneously. -- A high-energy molecule is one that releases a lot of energy in countless reactions with millions of other molecules and does so forming a variety of products. F₂, O₂, H₂O₂, and NO_x are examples. A high-energy molecule must have relatively weak electron-pair bonds, because it is the conversion of weaker to stronger electron-pair bonds that releases a lot of energy. Since the electron-pair bonds in organic fuels, CO₂, and H₂O are all significantly stronger than those in O₂, reactions of the latter with organic molecules will always release a lot of energy. If you know that a molecule is high in chemical energy, you can predict that its reactions will be very exothermic (unless another high-energy molecule is formed). That is very useful in understanding bioenergetics. Indeed, in biochemistry, the analogous concept of "energy-rich" molecules is widely invoked. (However, some of the biomolecules often considered energy-rich do not meet the criteria for a high-energy molecule, since they release a lot of energy only in reaction with O₂, and one must acknowledge that the energy released may come from O₂ with its relatively weak double bond.) Klaus Schmidt-Rohr (talk) 00:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Klaus Schmidt-Rohr I think you have fallen into the sort of trap that results from trying to give simple explanations for complex science. Earlier I asked why the "weak double bond" wouldn't result in the formation of allotropes with solely single bonds, and you replied because two O-O single bonds are even weaker than the double bond. If so, why then aren't you promoting the alternative idea that "oxygen is a high-energy molecule because it has a weak single bond"? I read an article DOI:10.1021/jacs.7b04232 that goes into considerable detail on this topic and I'd prefer that Wikipedia tried to summarise the whole story without over-simplification. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Michael D. Turnbull, thanks for this scientific discussion. I would have no objections at all against a more detailed presentation of the energetics of combustion and oxygen on Wikipedia, and would be happy to work on it collaboratively with others. In the past, I have just tried to keep edits brief so they don't come across as disruptive or imposing. One could make a statement similar to the one you propose, saying that "oxygen is a high-energy molecule because it has a weak sigma bond" (it's not a single bond because the accepted bond order of O₂ is two, not one). But just focusing on one of the formal bonds would be insufficient in a generalized bond-energy analysis to predict the heat of combustion. Here one must count formal or electron-pair bonds (or analyze the bond energy divided by bond order); otherwise the number of bonds in the reactants and products changes in an unpredictable manner and one cannot make general predictions. Please note that this analysis has not just tried but actually succeeded and explained a result for all kinds of organic molecules of great complexity: The heat of combustion, corrected for the condensation of water, is 419 kJ per mole of O₂, with a small uncertainty of only ±3%. That's precise enough for fire-safety science and bioenergetics (e.g. the energy derived from ATP hydrolysis under various conditions has a much larger relative uncertainty). I'd like to add that the conventional "theory" cannot even predict from any basic principles whether a generic organic molecule will have an exothermic reaction with O₂ or not, let alone predict how much heat is released - that is in a category beyond overly "simple": it's "not even wrong". Klaus Schmidt-Rohr (talk) 14:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Just to defend that article, it does not in any way subscribe to the "view" that the energy released by a chemical reaction can be apportioned (nontrivially) to the individual reactants. That "view" is indeed an over-simplification, even compared to the admittedly simple answers traditional established chemistry has to those questions.

IMHO, and I realize this is not the consensus opinion of this board, we should attempt to remove basic category errors from the affected articles rather than summarising recent research. I would go as far as to question the value of even describing dioxygen as anything but a double-bonded molecule in an encyclopedia in which the lede paragraph of photosynthesis fabulates about 80% of the energy of photosynthesis being stored in the oxygen rather than the carbohydrate. IpseCustos (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

From that paper:

With the exception of gold, absolutely every element reacts exothermically with oxygen

Who wants to be the one to create the neon oxide article?

(Sorry, I don't mean to be disrespectful. Writing papers is hard, and letting a thing or two slip through is absolutely normal and forgivable, particularly in the introduction.) IpseCustos (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

A high-energy molecule is one that releases a lot of energy in ... reactions ...

You're defining one non-standard concept in terms of another. In general, in an exothermic reaction A + B -> C + D + energy, there's no (good) way to apportion the energy released between the reactants A and B, so there's no way to tell how much energy was released by A or B.

I maintain that no scientific definition has been given according to which O₂ is "high-energy". Is it okay if I remove those specific statements, or do you have usable references and a definition that we can link to? IpseCustos (talk) 12:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

You are misconstruing the given definition of "high-energy molecule". It is not based on a single reaction of A + B. It is based on a large number of reactions. For instance, you compare dozens of reactions of glucose, and dozens of reactions of 6 O₂, with molecules in the biosphere. You will find that reactions of glucose release much less energy, on average - so glucose is not very "energy-rich" in the biosphere (contrary to the claim on its Wikipedia page). We can explain why: Glucose has strong O-H and C-H, and pretty strong C-C and C-O bonds. As textbooks tell us, it is reactions that convert weak (formal) bonds to strong bonds that are exothermic. Per two formal bonds, the bond energy of O₂ is relatively small (weak bonding) compared to all other common molecules in the biosphere, which explains its appearance as a high-energy molecule. My peer-reviewed paper in ACS Omega 5: 2221-2233 (2020) contains this definition of a high-energy molecule with quantitative examples (I don't know if you consider that a usable reference). I must agree that "high-energy oxygen" is not finding consensus among editors. As you will see, I have eliminated it in many of the phrases you had flagged. On the other hand, stating that chemical energy is stored in the relatively weak double (or sigma) bond of O₂ is an application of textbook principles to a specific case. Klaus Schmidt-Rohr (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I haven't worked as a chemist for twelve years, and that was a break from database IT, but I have a follow-up question to a claim that diatomic oxygen is "high-energy" because it has a double bond. Why, then, doesn't diatomic nitrogen, which has a high-strength triple bond, support very energetic combustion? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

That would be because Schmidt-Rohr's argument is that the bond has to be weak in order to be high-energy. As I've commented above, simple explanations are attractive but sometimes misleading. Hydrogen bonds are weak but good luck extracting their energy. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

But I agree with the Original Poster that the claim that diatomic oxygen is "high-energy" as such is not even wrong in the absence of a further explanation that I haven't seen. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The explanation or defining quality was given above: A high-energy molecule is one that releases a lot of energy in countless reactions with millions of other molecules and does so forming a variety of products. A high-energy molecule must have relatively weak electron-pair bonds, because as textbooks tell us, it is the conversion of weaker to stronger electron-pair bonds that releases a lot of energy. Klaus Schmidt-Rohr 108.26.180.6 (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd just like to mention the discussion at WP:COIN#Oxygen. IpseCustos (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Michael Woodley, New York Times Profile

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Woodley (2nd nomination), which I nominated, closed as Delete. Since then, his work was cited explicitly by the shooter in the 2022 Buffalo shooting and now The New York Times has done a profile of Woodley: [23].

I really don't have the stomach for this. Does anyone else?

jps (talk) 11:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I read the NYT, so no. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

If this NYT article had been available at the time of the 2nd deletion discussion what effect would it have had on the end result? Reading the NYT article over I think it would have pushed it a bit more to the keep column but only some. It is very much not complementary and contains very little content about Woodley, mostly about his writings. I think it is more likely that we will see a Wikipedia page in the future about a book authored by Woodley than of Woodley himself. Just because a bit more content has been created about a BLP does not mean that the Wikipedia page needs to be written, we are only compelled to write pages that we find interesting enough to sink hours of time into. Move onto other projects jps, as I voted in the 2nd deletion discussion, I'm against salting articles. If someone tries a third time, then we will deal with it then. Until then, plenty of other work to do, and it is a beautiful day outside. Sgerbic (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Astrology at AN

This discussion at WP:AN may be of interest to the notice board. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

A rather lengthy discussion has been transpiring at Talk:Astrology regarding the article lede. XOR'easter (talk) 01:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Currently focused in Talk:Astrology#Lede_revision, for those who don't want to sift through the whole page. XOR'easter (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Now with an RfC. XOR'easter (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

1561 celestial phenomenon over Nuremberg and 1566 celestial phenomenon over Basel

A lot of unsourced information added today - who in the world is "Charlie Solis" or "Charlie Davis Solis"? It's been added by User:DellBuddie1 who may be identifying himself on his user page as Solis, at least that's all that's on this user page. Our article on Conrad Hass has references but no citations, and I removed on that was a forum (although Hass is shown by 19th c sources as born in Dornback, which that was what the source was probably used for. Doug Weller talk 07:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Charlie Solis Here. I have a degree in physics from Michigan Tech University and build micro gas + steam turbines. I cofounded TesTur Energy, a Combined Heat And Power Generation company. I also do research in rockets and rocket history. I’m sorry if my edits are still unfinished. I’m new to actual editing of wiki pages. I’m working on the citations for the work I added. However much of it is just parroting what’s already on the Conrad Hass, and company, pages. Please feel free to reach out to me if you have further questions. I’m still trying to figure out how to put a proper citation in the edits page but needed to sleep as it’s getting late where I am in Detroit. Will continue adding citations in the morning. Ps. I hope this is how to respond to you…— Preceding unsigned comment added by DellBuddie1 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I have removed all the changes referred to by Charlie on the two pages noted above, with an edsum noting WP:COI and WP:CIR. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 08:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

So as long as my name is not attached the information is acceptable? I have citations for everything. Most of what was added was already information from other wiki pages. I just brought it together in this wiki, as the phenomenon can be shown to be the result of contemporary artillery specialists. I didn’t really change anything just added further information to what was already stated in the page about the “military interpretation” using known found manuscripts from the time. -Charlie— Preceding unsigned comment added by DellBuddie1 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I think that the best advice I can give you is to read the welcome message Doug left on your Talk page, and follow the links it contains and read them carefully. Try to remember that Charlie Solis is just another stranger on the internetz to wikipedia. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 09:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Charlie - I know how confusing it is to learn to edit Wikipedia correctly. Adding content and code is one thing, knowing what to add and how to say it is another one. Please start with small edits, and work your way up. As you progress you will gain the skills that are needed to edit so that the edit remains. You have a sandbox that you can use to experiment with, and there are places to ask for help if you have questions. But we aren't mind readers, if we see something being added to a Wikipedia page without citations, we can't assume that the editor is just waiting till they have more time to add them. When you make the change to a live Wikipedia page, we expect it to be with the citation attached. We were all brand new once and even still make mistakes. So play around with your edits, start with a small page that you have no conflict with (butterflies, birds, structures that sort of thing) and use your sandbox. In time with practice you will find you are starting to give advice to new editors. Sgerbic (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Is Dysgenics a fringe theory?

@Generalrelative has reverted my edits. I have cited paper from PNAS on the negative relationship between education related polygenic scores and fertility. Is that fringe?--203.186.250.135 (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Generalrelative has removed my citation to PNAS paper [24]:

"Based on 129,808 Icelanders born between 1910 and 1990, we find that the average POLYEDU has been declining at a rate of ∼0.010 standard units per decade, which is substantial on an evolutionary timescale. Most importantly, because POLYEDU only captures a fraction of the overall underlying genetic component the latter could be declining at a rate that is two to three times faster."

What other evidence you need?--203.186.250.135 (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

One isolated population, that may have other pressures does not a valid theory make, we go with what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

1) The two individual studies you added (including the Iceland study) were pretty thoroughly debunked by the PNAS study that came afterward: [25]

2) Another of the individual studies you cited, which had been present in the article before, shows the exact opposite of what you claim: [26]: Taken together, these trends provide no evidence that social sorting is becoming increasingly genetic in nature or that dysgenic dynamics have accelerated.

3) Wikipedia is based on WP:SECONDARY sources wherever possible, and see the new one I just added (published this year in English; first published by Springer Nature in German in 2019): [27]. Here's the quote I included in the citation: Since the nineteenth century, a “race deterioration” has been repeatedly predicted as a result of the excessive multiplication of less gifted people (Galton 1869; see also Fig. 9.1). Nevertheless, the educational and qualification level of people in the industrialized countries has risen strongly. The fact that the “test intelligence” has also significantly increased (Flynn 2013) is difficult to explain for supporters of the dysgenic thesis: they suspect that the “phenotypic intelligence” has increased for environmental reasons, while the “genotypic quality” secretly decreases (Lynn 1996, p. 111). There is neither evidence nor proof for this theory. Generalrelative (talk) 13:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

For the second point, in the PNAS paper [28], the authors said:

“ Thus, although there may be positive selection on height and slight negative selection on additive measures of the genetic architecture of education, these are not accelerating (32). ”

So the paper actually confirms the dysgenic trend, contrary to "genetic studies have shown no evidence for dysgenic effects in human populations". --203.186.250.135 (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

1) No that is not their point. The term may be simply indicates that this possibility is within the error range. Here's what they say prior to the sentence you just quoted: For example, although the less educated respondents in the population have a fairly stable number of offspring over the birth cohorts, those with greater observed (i.e., phenotypic) education levels have fewer children over time. A similar pattern can be observed for height where only in more recent birth cohorts do we see those with higher stature having fewer children. Both of these phenotypic trends would seem to imply dynamics of emergent or strengthening dysgenic reproductive patterns. However, when we look at the relevant genetic scores in Fig. 2C, we find that the dysgenic trends inferred from phenotypic associations between education and height on the one hand, and fertility on the other, are not present with respect to the genotypic data. (Emphasis added.)

2) Even if it were their point, we go with what the reliable secondary sources say. One of the reasons why is that primary sources so often give rise to this kind of misinterpretation by editors. Another is that they are easy to cherrypick. Generalrelative (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting the paper. The author want to say the strength of dysgenic selection is not accelerating. Falling down is different from an acceleration in the speed of falling. The secondary sources just tells that some people have a different opinion. There are many other secondary sources support the theory, for example in a reference work [29]. --203.186.250.135 (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I mean, you and I could go back and forth saying things like "No you're misinterpreting the study!" Luckily for us, Wikipedia solves that problem by requiring us to base article content on reliable WP:SECONDARY sources. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Your edit "Some genetic studies have shown a selection against variants in the genome associated with educational attainment in United States, the source you quote here "Based on 129,808 Icelanders ", Icleand is not part of the USA. Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

No. See my edit here:

Some genetic studies have shown a selection against variants in the genome associated with educational attainment in United States and in Iceland --203.186.250.135 (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Does either study mention Dysgenics? Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Just searched and got some good secondary sources here.--203.186.250.135 (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

FYI, this edit was entirely inappropriate. The WP:ONUS would be on you to explain how these sources support the idea of dysgenics in humans, and then to persuade others that your explanations withstand critical scrutiny. Generalrelative (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Inbreeding depression is very real and not fringe, and there's no reason why it wouldn't apply to humans. But that's all I can say for now, since I haven't delved into this topic. Xcalibur (talk) 02:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:DNFTT
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Generalrelative, when you rewrote the dysgenics article a few months ago, you stated in your edit summaries here, here and here that you were making WP:BOLD changes to this article. The accompanying discussion about your changes clearly did not reach a consensus to support them, and there has never been a consensus for your changes in any other discussion either. When you have made bold changes to an article that aren't supported by consensus, and another editor is challenging them, you should not be continuing to restore your bold changes while demanding that the other person gain a consensus to change them. 2600:1004:B10F:3171:5095:5EFA:69DB:6C26 (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC) When Generalrelative removed profringe content, such as the material sourced to the editor-in-chief of the white supremacist journal Mankind Quarterly that was removed in your second and third examples of the edits you object to, it should not be put back by another editor. Generalrelative was simply complying with Wikipedia content guidelines. NightHeron (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC) When the other IP attempted to restore the material that Generalrelative boldly removed (about the existence of a real dysgenic effect in humans), he cited it to a paper by Jonathan Beauchamp in PNAS, a paper by Kong et al. in PNAS, and the five sources that Ferahgo the Assassin listed here, one of which is a literature review published in Nature Human Behaviour. Is your position that these sources are "profringe" as well? 2600:1004:B10F:3171:5095:5EFA:69DB:6C26 (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC) The first source is not about dysgenics at all, and the second is a primary source based on one study in Iceland. It's always possible to cherry-pick sources to find scraps that seem to support a fringe POV. Mainstream geneticists don't support this theory. NightHeron (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC) This is right in the abstract of the Beauchamp paper: "My results imply that natural selection has been slowly favoring lower EA (educational attainment) in both females and males", which is specifically what the idea of a dysgenic trend in that trait is refering to. In addition to Nature Human Behavior, the sources that the other IP tried to add also included The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence and Cognitive Neuroscience, and the 2020 textbook An Introduction to Statistical Genetic Data Analysis. These are all uncontroversial, top-quality sources. Where are the sources that say this is a fringe theory? 2600:1004:B10F:3171:5095:5EFA:69DB:6C26 (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

References
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
References

Webster Technique

I just reverted this edit at Webster Technique, as the paper supporting the 92% success rate was a questionnaire survey. I thought someone here might want to check whether I was right to revert, and put it on their watchlist. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Astrology, again

There is a current RFC on Talk:Astrology regarding the inclusion of the word "pseudoscience" in the lede. 5.151.22.143 (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

It would be weird for us not to include the word "pseudoscience" early on in an article on this quintessential pseudoscience. But there are more problems than that with the article, and I made a suggestion about the structure that I would appreciate comments on. Most of the article is, and should be, about the history of thought. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Like everything else on this site, the articles in that corner were built piecemeal with no central plan, and I expect that bits and pieces were added to Astrology rather than related pages simply because the former is more visible. So, we'd probably benefit from a systematic re-evaluation and reorganization that properly sorts out what should go in Astrology, what should go in Astrology and science, whether we need an Astrology and astronomy in addition to Astrology and science, etc. Since we can't agree on three sentences, though, I doubt that will ever work.

Incidentally, Planets in astrology looks like it needs some attention — there's a lot of "astrologers say" when it might just be one astrologer who says. XOR'easter (talk) 00:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• What the OP writes here is a misrepresentation: the RfC is not about whether to include the term, but about how to include the term. We're all for including it early there. Looking at the contribution history of this IP, not having made 25 edits since 2018 but citing Arbcom findings and coming to my talk in reaction to a RSN thread, I'm also a bit concerned about them being a logged out editor. Anyway, all input in the RfC is more than welcome! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Tewodros I

@Dawit S Gondaria:, is pursuing undue/fringe ideas here imo, they state that despite several sources including the one currently attached to the article is not referring to the Adal Sultanate because of some dating errors. Upon review I tried explaining in vain that the sources are indeed discussing Adal but they wont even compromise instead they're latching onto one source that vaguely states "Walasma princes" killed the emperor. I provided several references that state he was killed by Adal but its been rejected for their preferred interpretation. Would like outside opinion on this, 3rd opinion was already tried and not accepted either by the user. Link to discussion can be found here [30]. Magherbin (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Magherbin: i choose a uncontroversial neutral term Walashma since it was directly quoted from the source and covered both [Ifat Sultanate] and [Adal Sultanate]. Adalites is a controversial term, and Magherbin reading sources out of context to imply Adal was before the date 1415, while many other sources provided by quotes in the references is conflicting this after 1415. You said I provided several references that state he was killed by Adal but its been rejected for their prefreed interpretation. You provided two sources (Abir Mordechai and BRILL publisher source) for the term Adal killed Tewodros I, and have read Tadesse Tamrat out of context (deliberatly or out of incompentence) to create this timeline for yourself. Tadesse Tamrat was talking Ifat and Adal in geographical terms (see Quotes nr 1 on talkpage covers entire pages 285-287). Abir is a old publication, and was uncertain in his wordings, BRILL publisher was not, a total of 2 sources. I provided several more recent sources that Ifat Sultanate was still around untill 1415. This has been put forward to WP:DRN an hour ago Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 05:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Grey School of Wizardry

Reads like an advertisement. Doug Weller talk 15:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Having travelled through Whitehall, New York (the home of America's navy!) many times, I can assure one and all that there is nothing magical about the place. Dumuzid (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: The revisions that got deleted as a result of the first to AFDs are worse. You're an admin, so you can see them. The current version isn't bad by comparison, and the third AFD was a keep. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Anachronist yes, but I'm just commenting on what I see as hype/puffery, esp. in the lead. Doug Weller talk 15:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Well, I just revised the lead after finding some superfluous words and a claim that isn't even in the article body. It should be more neutral now. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Teal Swan

There is a current discussion at the BLP Noticeboards[31] about weighing of sources on Teal Swan that editors may be interested in. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Sherrie Lynne Lyons

I'm not sure she's notable. I'm pretty sure she doesn't work where it says she did but can't confirm it. Linkedin says adjunct at Empire State College, part of SUNY who published her book. I can see BLP vandalism in the history. Doug Weller talk 12:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Her book having at least two independent reviews probably makes her notable as per criterion 3 of WP:AUTHOR CT55555 (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense when included, I agree. Doug Weller talk 12:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Slavic Native Faith articles

• Slavic Native Faith's identity and political philosophy
• Slavic Native Faith and mono-ideologies
• Slavic Native Faith's theology and cosmology

These three articles are all quite interesting but they feel to lack relevance to Wikipedia and to be too much focused solely on a Rodnover pov Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 11:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Those articles are accurately built according to academic WP:RS and were created specifically as spin-offs of the main article (1, 2, 3), dedicated to themes pertaining to Rodnovery, as the main article itself was already lengthy. They present the views in an academic style and neutral way, so I think that your tags are completely undue. Wikipedia has articles for Christian theology, Christianity and other religions, and a plethora of other articles only dedicated to Christianity; I think therefore that there is enough space for a small number of articles dedicated to a religion which statistically has more adherents than Zoroastrianism. I also think we should rather focus on deleting articles of intricate amasses of POV material and POV sources (and often not even sourced) like Growth of religion, Christian population growth, and other articles in the same vein.--Æo (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

These began as splits from the main Slavic Native Faith article which had grown too large. They may benefit from a clearer focus and the titles could be discussed (they were previously called "Slavic Native Faith views on identity", "Slavic Native Faith and Christianity" and "Theology in Slavic Native Faith", respectively). But the subjects are relevant and the content is supported by good sources. Pinging Midnightblueowl who created the original, shorter versions. Ffranc (talk) 10:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ffranc@Æo having known they were split off makes them seem more useful. I'd still support changes to their structures. In particular "mono-ideology" seems like it should be the name of Slavic Native Faith and mono-ideologies as nobody else talks about them, and there should be somewhere giving the Russian word for the term Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 16:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I have found mention of the term "mono-ideology" in other contexts, part of the broader Russian philosophical and politological milieu (where it refers to all Western post-Enlightenment totalising ideologies in general) of which Rodnovery either may or may not be a part; therefore, I think that the article should be restricted to the Rodnover perspective on the topic. Through a rapid search among scholarly sources online, you will find that it is used in various other contexts not strictly pertaining to religion (example).--Æo (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ffranc@Æo I still think it might be worth making the mono ideologies article about mono ideologies in general and expanding it with other uses of the term Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 12:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

If there is an article about monoideologies in general it should be separate from this one. If you look at this article, monoideologies are only mentioned a few times, although it's been blown up in the opening of the intro. The article overall is about the relationship between SNF and Christianity, where the rhetoric about monoideologies only appears occasionally, as one of several elements. Ffranc (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis

See recent edits and material I reverted now reinserted. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 20:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Reverted, and I called it pseudoscience in the lead, since the phrase of the title is used for claims of modern shift, not Rodinia. — kwami (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree the claim is definitely fringe. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Ice canopy

Isaac Newton Vail's diagram 'Earth Cooled From a Molten State' showing his supposed water ring system. In his theory, the rings collapsed to form Noah's flood.

For some reason ice canopy was a redirect to Flood geology#Vapor/water canopy. However, there is noting in flood geology to explain why. So it now redirects to Sea ice#Fast ice versus drift (or pack) ice where the term is explained. What I need is a {{redirect}} in that section saying why someone interested in an ice canopy should see flood geology. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

FYI, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annular Theory (Vailan Theory) about Isaac Newton Vail theories. --mikeu ^talk 22:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. So I should have a hat note linking there? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, Mfb, Chiswick Chap, XOR'easter, WegianWarrior, Crossroads, Brunton, Orangemike, Bearian, and CambridgeBayWeather: The Isaac Newton Vail#Reception section refers to Flood_geology#Canopy_theory, as it should. However, ice canopy is both a modern term and a historical fringe theory. I'd say that "ice canopy" should redirect to the modern definition rather than an obscure and archaic term. I've pinged others who participated in the AfD for further opinions. --mikeu ^talk 00:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks I've add the template, here. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 01:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

That looks good to me. --mikeu ^talk 01:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Yuhwang-ori

The article contains fringe-sounding nutrition and health claims not backed by MEDRS; in fact, none of the references are adequately identified. The subject is a grade of duck meat produced from birds that were fed high volumes of sulfur. Also, the text is very informal in tone and has grammatical errors. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I just took a knife to it. It seems to be a real thing though. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 06:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Interdimensional hypothesis

This article contains only a description of the theory and its proponents, with some sources being from pro-fringe media. In particular, some mainstream evaluations of this pseudoscience are wanted. Rundown of sources:

1. This one is definitely not pro-fringe, primarily describing the beliefs held by ufologists.
2. Dead link from History.com, not an RS regardless of POV.
3. Can't evaluate this book, but it's by Jacques Vallée, who is one of the main proponents.
4. Brad Steiger.
5. A duo of ufologists who probably don't match any Wikipedia article.
6. Steven J. Dick is likely mainstream.
7. David Hatcher Childress.
8. Hilary Evans.

John Keel and The Repo Man are also mentioned without inline references. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Good find. Page definitely needs work. I've just chopped The Repo Man as OR, and that's just for start. Feoffer (talk) 01:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

This article could use some language in the lead that articulates what context this hypotheses exists in, i.e. it's not a mainstream scientific one. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Detoxification foot pads

• Detoxification foot pads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could use more improvements. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Cryptozoology

I just discovered a set of cryptid articles at WP:NPP created in March that all use similar poor references. The discoveries of these "cryptids" are attributed to William Beebe, an article which fails to mention any of them.

• Bathysidus
• Bathyembryx
• Bathysphaera

The only possible legitimate reference (weak support for notability) is Robert Ballard's Eternal Darkness.[32] I'd like to get a second opinion: PROD or AfD? Should there be a brief mention in the Beebe article? --mikeu ^talk 23:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think Prod is waranted. They are 'real' controversial fish (even if they don't exist). They appear to be controversial outliers (along with "Bathyceratias trilychnus") among the valid species described by Beebe (over 80 fish taxa). They are mentioned but not by name in William_Beebe#Impact_of_work_and_legacy. An article in ICES Journal of Marine Science notes none of the four species (described solely based on visual observations) are currently recognized. Carl L. Hubbs criticized the methodology of naming species by sight. An excerpt from Karl Shuker's encyclopedia indicates some of the deep sea cryptids are on a Bermuda postage stamp. Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes treats Bathyceratias as a synonym of Cryptopsaras with B. trilychnus a nomen dubium, and the other genera as available yet of uncertain status. They might all best be redirected to the section of Beebe's article above and fleshed out a bit, or at Bathysphere, or perhaps a single article covering all four cryptids is warranted. --Animalparty! (talk) 08:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't see Half Mile Down as establishing that there was a historical debate about the (non or otherwise) existence of a species nova. It doesn't seem to have received much attention from others in the field. I wouldn't support the creation of an article about the listed group and certainly not with the sources provided. I do think that Dolan warrants brief inclusion of mentioned "discoveries" in the Beebe article. --mikeu ^talk 21:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

It took quite a bit of searching but I did find some better references for Bathyembryx. Some of those also mention the species in the other two articles. I changed my mind about a merger. I think that there's enough for disputed new species claimed by Beebe or some such better title, especially given the overlap like the background section. --mikeu ^talk 20:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Friends of Science in Medicine

• Friends of Science in Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Gasp! They are "criticized" by quacks! Actually, it's just disagreement again. Good page for watching. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The article is very out of date. I quote: "The group further demanded that all alternative medicines be taken off private health insurance which the Australian Government subsidizes. The Australian Government is currently examining the evidence of clinical efficacy, cost effectiveness, safety and quality of natural therapies. The result, expected in April 2015, will include a decision as to which natural therapies should continue to receive the rebate. A fine illustration of why we warn against using the word "currently.. ! The references for this snippet are from 2012 — 2014. Anybody know what the Australian Government decided, and/or how it went after 2015? Bishonen | tålk 20:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC).

If I'm reading it correctly, according to this page, the 2015 review resulted in a number of therapies being excluded. Then they conducted a review calling for additional evidence for the 2019 - 2020 period to review. Then more evidence was apparently submitted. Then it doesn't indicate any conclusion, that I can see. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Robert Clancy and "miraculous drugs"

• Robert Clancy (doctor)‎ (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Got one or more IPs keen to remove any mention of false claims from this person; could use more eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 09:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

OK. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 09:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

These IPs are all from one small range, 103.79.255.0/24. I've blocked it indefinitely from the article. Bishonen | tålk 11:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC).

It looks like the page block has made them actually use the talkpage for the first time. Bishonen | tålk 14:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC).

Pre-Columbian transoceanic contact theories

Could use a going over. Of course, there are no theories in the article, just speculation and hypotheses. I'm not sure we should have sections labelled "Disputed evidence", as anything not disputed probably doesn't belong in the article. The Iceland section is a bit confusing. Worse is the "Claims of Norse contact with the Toltec" which seems based on this University of York article[33]. The problem is the author works in the University nursery[34] and is a member of the Visitor Experience Team Member at York Museums Trust, I'm not sure that "5 years of experience in various customer-facing roles alongside the full-time study of Medieval Archaeology, with a specialisation in The Viking Age and it's peripheries; from 535 AD to the mid-15th century" qualifies him as an RS.[35] Doug Weller talk 16:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Forgot. Toltec suggests there may have been no Toltec people. Doug Weller talk 19:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

YEC in the US a conspiracy theory?

See the links I added to Talk:Young Earth creationism#YEC as a conspiracy theory (in the US). It seems that the idea was important enough for at least two creationist sites to attack it. Maybe it's significant enough not to be WP:UNDUE in the article? Doug Weller talk 09:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Science-Based Medicine

• Science-Based Medicine (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Some discussion lately at the article on how to characterize this website and its activities (including maybe mention of its role on Wikipedia). May be of interest to FTN regulars. Alexbrn (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended content

In what way is this an appropriate noticeboard to post a WP:VERIFY or WP:DUE question which does not involve fringe theories? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC) Because this noticeboard is for fringe material and the content in question is about, err, fringe material. It's fairly obvious you don't like the SBM article's existence and are a bit POV-pushy about it - for example by deleting content for odd reasons; all the more reason why more eyes are needed! Let's see if we can't expand and improve the article, eh? Alexbrn (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC) The content is about misinformation, I can kind of see where you're coming from but I don't really think this is what the fringe theories noticeboard is for... As for the accusations of personal misconduct this is not the noticeboard for that either. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC) We haven't got to "misconduct" quite yet. But it's pretty obvious you're harbouring a strong POV and it's now getting to the point where it's impeding improvements to Wikipedia's article. When we have on-point scholarly sources to hand, it seems very odd indeed to want to keep the article to an uninformative stub. Alexbrn (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC) The scholarly source in question ([36]) is not on-point... It contains no substantial discussion of Science-Based Medicine at all... This is not the place to discuss a POV/COI if that is what you truly believe is an issue. What do you mean by "Wikipedia's article"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC) The cited article I added covers SBM. No, it's not "substantial" but it's something - and in a stub-like article that something can be used to expand the article, especially since there is a dearth of other coverage, "substantial" or not. Nobody mentioned "COI" (unless you have something to declare?) but Talk:Science-Based Medicine is ram-packed with your comments railing against the article. Now, as soon as a new independent third-party source is added and you immediately blank it. What is going on? Alexbrn (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC) Its also "ram packed" with your own source removals... Unless I'm misunderstanding Talk:Science-Based Medicine#removal of Atlantic & WSJ + overall language used to describe subject by RS. We seem to be on the same team here with the same goal of having a better article at the end of the day, just because I reverted you doesn't mean I'm your enemy and its a shame to see it that way. Hopefully we can find more agreement on the article talk page than we have here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC) I fail to see how we get a "better article" by entirely removing well-sourced material from (rare0 independent scholarly sources. I don't see anybody on Wikipedia as my "enemy" (except for you-know-who) but I am utterly perplexed by your edits if your goal is to provide more knowledge to our readers about SBM. Let's see if you can add anything, or what others have to say ... Alexbrn (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC) It wasn't well sourced (even you agree "No, it's not "substantial" but it's something") and it failed verification as has been clearly established on the talk page, that shouldn't be perplexing. Poorly sourced content that fails verification is generally going to be removed, no matter how august its author. And I do mean august, I really can't exaggerate how much respect I have for you, your dogged style is legendary and it really is quite something to attempt to oppose you... Historically we've been on the same side of arguments which is a much more comfortable position. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC) I don't agree it's a poor source for this article (given the general dearth of sourcing), and in my view the WP:V was superb. Your labelling of whatever you say as "established" and your misrepresentation of my position are OTOH just tiresome debating tactics. Alexbrn (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC) We jumped the shark long ago my friend, lets stop cluttering up this noticeboard with stuff that has nothing to do with it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC) Then maybe it was not a good idea by you to start cluttering up this noticeboard with stuff that has nothing to do with it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC) "Dont clutter up this noticeboard with stuff that has nothing to do with it." - A post cluttering up a noticeboard which has has nothing to do with it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC) Noticeboards are for posting notices. This notice is relevant here as the article is relevant to the topic of the board. End of story. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC) Just a reminder... WP:Parity applies to the sourcing for the SBM article. IOW, not so strict rules as for mainstream topics. Just sayin'. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Polarity therapy

Polarity therapy was created last month, and proposed for speedy deletion per WP:G4 because of the deletion in 2012 resulting from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polarity therapy. However, I had to decline the speedy-deletion nomination because this incarnation of the article is substantially different from the deleted one. The topic seems to have significant coverage in mainstream-consumer health websites, which might meet our threshold of notability even if no WP:MEDRS can be found (and I'm skeptical that any MEDRS sources can be found on this alternative health topic). ~Anachronist (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Nought out of ten for spolling at that theraphy page. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 23:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

• After futzing around with this a bit I've ended up blanking and redirecting to Randolph Stone, where his quackeries are dealt with more thoroughly, and where they make more sense in context per WP:NOPAGE. I don't think there was any new suitably-sourced actual knowledge here. Alexbrn (talk) 05:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, well, I am pleased to see the comments above. Pity all the children who left stay anonymous with their accusations of child abuse. His son has a Youtube channel where he gives the facts out. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Anachronist,[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]],Whiteguru.Thank you all for participating here and sharing your views. But the article has beeen moved without giving me opportunity to expand. Isnt it wrong as per Wikipedia policy. In every past such instances, I was asked to elaborate the article and I did it. There are many articles where there is no universal consensus but they exist. Request you all to consider. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Gardenkur: What you should do is expand on the topic in the Randolph Stone article, citing WP:MEDRS compliant sources, and then if it grows big enough we can think about splitting it out into its own article. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Anachronist. Thanks for your prompt response. However as you felt earlier that it meets Wikipedia policies I left it for other editors to improve. Will do the same now. Gardenkur (talk) 04:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I did not say that. I said that it didn't meet WP:G4 speedy deletion criteria, and it might meet our threshold of notability. Now that I know there is already another article that covers this topic well enough, additional work must be done for the topic to merit a stand-alone article. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Sanat Kumara

And his family. Is this woowoo really all encyclopedic? Doug Weller talk 15:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Alfred Kinsey

Need more eyes upon Alfred Kinsey. See [37]. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I took out the anti-Kinsey movement section, given that it starts off with an ad-hominem and seems mostly devoted to discrediting Reisman as if she were the only critic of the work, which she is not. The article on the reports is conspicuously more balanced, and Kinsey's own article does need to mention that, as the thing is rather hagiographic as it stands. Mangoe (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

So, agree with your view. I was mostly reacting to people who have been rabble-roused by What is a Woman? in order to write rants that Kinsey was a child abuser or fraud.

I am a man who fights against egregious violations, I usually don't touch nuanced stuff. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Mind control protester images

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Move_Earth_to_new_Habitable_Zone

Interesting collection of images: one showed up at Microwave auditory effect. If they are used in other articles, captions will definitely need editing to conform to FRINGE guidelines. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Looks like that's the only enwiki article impacted and they've been around for about a year, so I don't know that it needs much more scrutiny. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Larries/Archive 1#Requested_move_1_July_2022

Move discussion on a CT you probably never heard about. Opinions welcome. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Because of my age, I'm going to treat this one the same way I treat Wrestling and Religion. -Roxy the bad tempered dog 17:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

For context, the discussion is about whether the article should be titled after the conspiracy theory or the adherents of the conspiracy theory. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 20:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Gospel

This is about [38]. Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

This seems premature - I literally just dropped the comment, and the other party hasn't had time to respond yet. I obviously won't complain if others want to stop by and take a look but to be clear, there is no dispute / edit war / anything afoot here, just a perfectly standard editing discussion. It's not (yet?) a big deal. SnowFire (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

EDIT: I guess I didn't see that you'd also reverted (I assumed that diff was pointing to my talk page comment). Okay, that makes slightly more sense, but still, let's chat it out on the talk page first. SnowFire (talk) 05:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

bruh, SnowFire deleted 4,000 bytes of text from an article apropos of nothing. Give WP:BRD a chance, please. I've responded at Talk:Gospel Red Slash 04:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Red Slash: Just as a point of clarification, I didn't randomly slash a long-standing section. All of that material was added just a few weeks ago. So, the bold was adding the section, the revert was me reverting it, and you're the one being bold again. ;-) (Will discuss content on the talk page, just wanted to mention this as a procedural matter.) SnowFire (talk) 05:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Lucius Artorius Castus

There has been an ongoing dispute among editors among the status of the article, specifically content related to a supposed inspirational relationship of the subject to the legend of King Arthur by Linda A. Malcor and coauthors. I have no ability to discern whether or not that relationship exists, but it is adequately cited, at least at face, though other editors contend that it flies in the face of scholarly consensus (usually by demonstrating their knowledge of the original Latin, rather than pointing to secondary sources). See e.g. Special:Diff/1096381621. Any input onto the ongoing dispute would be appreciated, as would willingness to guide the editors along the dispute resolution process. Pinging @TonySullivanBooks and Artoriusfadianus as a courtesy (several IP editors are involved as well). Feel free to briefly state your reasoning and view of the dispute here. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 04:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try to be brief and to the point.

We have a stone inscription below:

L ARTORI[.........]STVS 7 LEG

III GALLICAE ITE[....]G VI FERRA

TAE ITEM 7 LEG II AD[....]TEM 7 LEG V M

C ITEM P P EIVSDEM [...] PRAEPOSITO

CLASSIS MISENATIVM [..]AEFF LEG VI

VICTRICIS DVCI LEGG [...]M BRITANICI

MIARVM ADVERSVS ARM[....]S PROC CENTE

NARIO PROVINCIAE LI[....] GLADI VI

VVS IPSE SIBI ET SVIS [….]T[...]

Some historians just as Higham and Tomlin suggest an Antonine date is more likely. Others such as Loriot, Birley and Davenport suggest Severan. No-one claims to be certain except those pushing the Artorius Castus =King Arthur theory. Putting it simply the style suggests Antonine but the wording suggests Severan. A date range of c.160-240 thus covers all the expert opinions.

The main topics of controversy, aside from the dating, are in lines 5, 6 and 7.

……………………………[…]AEFF LEG VI

VICTRICIS DVCI LEGG [...]M BRITANICI

MIARVM ADVERSVS ARM[….]S…………

These three missing pieces have a number of possible interpretations:

1. PRAEFF LEG VI means praefectus of the Sixth.

In the second century this would normally be accompanied by CASTRORUM which denotes the third in command, the camp prefect. However this began to be dropped from inscriptions in the late second century, the last attested case being c. 202. In fact we have a similar inscription from Caerleon dated to 198-207 which uses the same phrasing:

RIB 326 dated to 198-209 A praefectus legionis of the Second at Caerleon: praef(ectus) leg(ionis) IIAug(ustae)

Equestrian legionary commanders did not generally appear until the time of Gallienus (Egypt is an exception being one of the four great prefectures). Early examples under Severan were specific and termed equestrian prefects acting vice legati rather than praefectus legionis. Thus a praefectus legionis without CASTR in an inscription of this time was likely late second or early third century and a camp prefect.

The pro-Artorius Castus =King Arthur proponents would have it that he was a praefectus not of the sixth but of an auxiliary unit. They insist auxiliary units were attached to legions permanently. However these units were only attached for campaigns. When in forts they had their own command structure and reported to governor not the legionary commander. In inscriptions they would always refer to the auxiliary name e.g. praefectus ala (or cohortes) I Tungrorum. Yet the stone indicates clearly praefectus legio VI Victrix.

Even more bizarrely they claim he must have been commander of a specific unit, the Sarmatians. A claim we have no evidence for other than Cassius Dio stating 5,500 were sent in 175. Which is why the proponents have to date Castus to this time period because they have to connect him to Sarmatians. And they have to place Sarmatians in same area as Castus. The only evidence for a unit of Sarmatian is at Ribchester in the wrong period for them, c225-40 and closer to Chester and the Twentieth legion.

2. DVCI LEGG [...]M BRITANICIMIARVM: The missing letters could be:

LEGGIONUM (unlikely with a double G)

LEGG ALARUM (Cavalry wings)

LEGG TRIUM

LEGG DUARUM

Most scholars go for option 3 or 4. However only the pro-Artorius Castus =King Arthur proponents insist this must be LEGG TRIUM and that this must mean he led all 3 legions in their entirety.

The historians listed above all agree this can simply mean detachments or vexillations. The absence of vexillations on the stone is not particularly significant. Indeed the fact it does not list the legions by name suggests the implication is it was detachments. The likely interpretation of the next bit makes this even more likely.

3. ADVERSVS ARM[….]S:

Funerary, dedication or monument inscriptions such as this would always name the enemy.

Internal enemies would be called public enemies, defectors or rebels.

External enemies would be named.

There are only two known names beginning ARM.

1. ARMORICANOS

2. ARMENIOS

The first seems too long for the missing gap and the regional name is not attested in that period. Still perhaps a form ARMORICOS could have been used.

The second is seen as most likely as we do indeed have 3 campaigns in Armenia against Armenians. We have coins depicting this, emperors taking the title Armeniacus, and inscriptions referencing the 233 war:’expediteone Partica et Armeniaca’.

Plus we have the first reading in 1850 which claimed to see signs of an E as the fourth letter. The stone has since been weathered.

No other alternative tribal or peoples’ name has been found to date but that option remains open.

The pro-Artorius Castus =King Arthur proponents reject the first reading and claim because ARMENIOS is not found anywhere else it must be impossible.

They have suggested ARMATOS, armed men. But this is too vague and not found on any similar inscription.

However the two examples they have offered of ARMATOS are not funerary, dedication or monument inscriptions listing a cursus honorum or tres militiae military career. One is a law code written on 9 bronze tablets concerning a town in Spain, The second is in a similar context but on stone on the Danube. Both are embodied in text and relate to the carrying of arms. Literary examples are irrelevant as it’s a Latin word.

Their insistence the most likely options are ‘impossible’ and every historian who has looked at it is wrong is just bizarre. We do indeed have individuals who travelled from Britain to the other side of the empire. The governor of Britain, Priscus, was sent to Armenia and he captured the capital in 163. To deny even the possibility he was accompanied by units from Britain is not reasonable.

The problem as I see it is there is a fringe theory with a small but devoted group of believers. Any page concerning Lucius Artorius Castus, Sarmatians, Roman Britain or King Arthur is targeted and adjustments, both minor and major, are made to fall in line with their theory.

For example on the Governors of Roman Britain page they placed Artorius Castus as a Roman governor in Britain c. 191-7. Roman Britain was an imperial province with senatorial governors throughout the 2nd and early 3rd centuries. Castus was an equestrian. His inscription makes no mention of this and would have been the pinnacle of his career.

The word dux evolved throughout the centuries. In the second century it was a descriptor simply to denote ‘commander’. It’s on several inscriptions as that.  It did not become an official title until the early third century c. 230s (first attested is the Dux Ripae at Duro-Europos) and when it did it concerned a geographical area not a temporary command over a body of troops in a campaign. The Artorius Castus =King Arthur proponents insist this denotes a post similar to the dux in the 4th century in northern Britain. TonySullivanBooks (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I will try to be brief You failed.

This is a noticeboard. It is a board for posting notices. Notices which tell the reader that something is going on somewhere, and where it is going on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

See this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Artoriusfadianus#c-WhinyTheYounger-2022-04-28T13%3A59%3A00.000Z-TonySullivanBooks-2022-04-28T12%3A35%3A00.000Z.

And please leave the page as it was. Otherwise you can delete my profile. Wikipedia is not a serious encyclopedia if allow men like sullivan to ignore new information and doesn't deserve person like me. Artoriusfadianus (talk) 12:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

A fringe theory is a theory held by only a few. Unless this is a mainstream opinion it is fringe. Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The page can't be left as it was because you keep posting hugely speculative and unfounded statements about Lucius Artorius Castus, Sarmatians, Roman Britain and the Arthurian legend. I'm happy to take each topic point by point and spend as long as you have got to explain why you cannot make the statements you do and present them as fact. TonySullivanBooks (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

No idea what you mean. The person above asked for info and I supplied it. What's that link for you put below? Am I supposed to do something with it? It doesn't seem to go to the relevant talk page of the article in question where I've posted similar explanations. I'm very happy to post more information as long or as short as you like on any particular page or by email. But you are going to have to be very very clear exactly what you want and where you want it because this is not an easy site to navigate or understand. ta TonySullivanBooks (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

How comes whenever I reply to someone it doesn't sit under the message I replied to? TonySullivanBooks (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Empirical limits in science

• Empirical limits in science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• {{Did you know nominations/Empirical limits in science}}

I don't have much time for Wikipedia lately but thought I'd post these links here, considering that other regulars are familiar with science and its principles. My impression is that this may be confusing empirical science with naive realism; science of course goes way beyond human senses to formulate and test hypotheses (and it develops its own extra senses, a simple example being chemistry). This article probably belongs in WP but may need extra eyes, one of the proposed DYN seemed misleading, particularly. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 08:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

It is a bit of a strange article. It looks like a decent overview of how various technologies have allowed for scientific observations to be made beyond the boundaries of human sensory faculties. Of course, if I were writing this article, I don't know that I would emphasize it this way: separate sections for "taste" and "touch" seem quite weird when there is only one section on moral and epistemological judgment. But I don't think anything here is actually incorrect. jp×g 21:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the overview was decent at all. I WP:BOLDly redirected the article to empiricism where the subject is much better described, in my opinion. jps (talk) 12:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Contested redirect and so now at AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empirical limits in science. jps (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Chronovisor for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chronovisor is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronovisor until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Books by "New Paradigm Books" are used in other articles too: [39]. They publish authors of junk books I am familiar with, and de:Hartwig Hausdorf. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Long term abusive rants on fringe subjects

Blondeignore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) does mostly abusive rants on fringe topics (eg claiming NASA killed JFK) - not just talk pages either and their response to their talk page is snide comments.

Since they have been at it for more then a decade, they might need something 2001:8003:34A3:800:756A:FD3E:7FAF:BD1A (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

This might get a quicker admin response at WP:ANI, since this noticeboard is more often about content issues. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Transrational for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Transrational is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transrational until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Georgia Guidestones

There is discussion on this article's talk about a fringe source used in the article. (And used by the John Oliver show. So we're in good company.)

Discussion seems to revolve around whether or not it's ok to use the source, and if so, how to present it, and if not, is it still possible to include the facts allegedly discovered by the filmmakers. (Perhaps by citing Oliver.) ApLundell (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Benny Peiser

• Benny Peiser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pretty one-sided. It recounts what Peiser thinks but no reactions from the scientific community. Not just on climate change. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Orthopathy and list of orthopaths

Bad edits being made by Dchmelik on list of orthopaths and orthopathy. User is repeatedly adding a website healthscience.org [40] which is the website of the National Health Association (The American Natural Hygiene Society) which has a long history of peddling raw food and anti-vax nonsense. Worse still the links being added do not mention such people as being orthopaths. For example, Dean Ornish is not an orthopath. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Herbert M. Shelton is now a nurse scientist? [41] which is unsourced and clearly false. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of using labels, esp "conspiracy theorist" at Jimbo's talk page

I'm not sure if this is concerning enough to bother with, but take a look at [42]. Including my posts at the bottom of the thread. Doug Weller talk 09:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The usual suspects lacking clue and whining away. Probably best to ignore. Alexbrn (talk) 10:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Are you referring to the usual suspects whining that it's a good thing or those who feel it's not a good thing for a source that professes to be encyclopedic? Per CIVIL it might be best not to accuse either side of whining. Springee (talk) 11:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Yep, whining away is apropos. -Roxy the bad tempered dog 11:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

And of course the whole thing is made worse by the inevitable introduction of AP2 headbanging into the argument. Ultimately, if editors want to change BLP/NPOV/FRINGE they'll need to propose the changes they want; any amount of whining in other venues will achieve bugger all. Alexbrn (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Jimbos talk page has not and has never been a place where a consensus on a topic like this will be decided, I'm not even sure a well attended RfC would stop the bickering. Are they also expecting Jimbo, who called alt-med practitioners "lunatic charlatans" to be a sympathetic ear? Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• All I see is a bunch of people claiming that a factually accurate term is somehow an opinion-laden value judgement, and a bunch more pointing out that no, in fact, it's not. And all of them are so mired in the minutiae of the arguments that 80% of the discussion is a tangent to that. There's no value to this discussion. Nothing good can come from it. It's just a giant waste of time and energy. Happy (Slap me) 12:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I ignore Jimbo's talk page, and I understand Jimbo does too, for the most part. Nothing useful, nothing worthwhile. It's a cesspit similar to WP:ANI, which I also try to ignore (and what do you know, WP:CESSPIT actually redirects there). ~Anachronist (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• In all my years here, I have been to Jimbo's talk page exactly once. And that was because someone alerted me to some vandalism there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Lynne Kelly (science writer)

Fringe writer arguing that Stonehenge served the purpose of a mnemonic centre for recording and retrieving knowledge by Neolithic Britons, who lacked written language. Needs cleanup, most is still the original text. Doug Weller talk 08:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Jonathan Bernier

I take issue with some recent edits by Special:Contributions/Formcriticism. They seem to promote very early dating for NT writings, especially based upon a WP:PROFRINGE book by a certain Jonathan Bernier. I mean: from the title of his book it is patently obvious that he does not like the mainstream consensus.

At amazon.com he boasts an endorsement of his book by Pitre, but an endorsement by Pitre is nothing to be proud of, since Pitre is an apologist of fundamentalism rather than a real scholar. It's a free country, and if he does not want to obey the requirements of the historical method, no one can force him to do that. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: The book also boasts an endorsement by Anders Runesson, who is a member of the Faculty of Theology at the University of Oslo [1]. Are you going to disqualify him as an evil fundamentalist too? Potatín5 (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Too lazy to Google Anders Runesson. But, anyway, people do not have to be evil to hold WP:FRINGE beliefs. In certain churches fringe beliefs are encouraged and applauded.

To tell you the truth, the historical method and archaeology are backstabbing traditional (conservative) Christianity. Christian traditionalists will dance around this truth, nevertheless it is true: history and archaeology are the enemies of traditional Christianity. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

"Too lazy to Google Anders Runesson" is a pretty hilarious comment from someone who has disqualify Bernier's book just after seeing in Amazon that he has boasted an endorsement by Pitre. The same follows with your disqualication of Runesson: unless you can demostrate that he is a member of a fundamentalist Church and not a trained New Testament scholar then your claims say little to the truth Potatín5 (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Not denying that he is a trained New Testament scholar. Even trained New Testament scholars could support views which fail WP:DUE. In the end, Wikipedia is mainstream encyclopedia, heavily based upon mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Other views are free to exist, just it isn't our job to publish them. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

By that logic then we should remove references to scholars who hold an Hellenistic date for the Pentateuch since the mainstream consensus is that said Pentateuch reached its final redaction during the Persian period (and based on earlier sources). But our article on the Composition of the Torah does not seem to have any problem in presenting such minority view... Potatín5 (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

In the end, i feel kind of sorry for faithful believers, but Wikipedia has to render mainstream scholarship instead of trying to make everyone happy. Do Britannica or Larousse do otherwise? And that article is not endorsing the minority view, just reporting that some have that view. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

"And that article is not endorsing the minority view, just reporting that some have that view" Then we can do the same in the article on the date of the New Testament and report that some have the view that the NT books were written at an early date. Potatín5 (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I don't go into attack mode if the text has enough nuance in respect to WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE. There is a difference between rendering the views of scholarly minorities for what they are and aggrandizing minority views. While I can tolerate a brief mention, I won't tolerate that the scholarly minority view gets more space than the academic consensus. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Are there any reviews of the book, or is any other scholarship citing it? Is there any evidence that it's claims are noteworthy? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

At least James F. McGrath has made a positive review of the book in his blog [1]. Potatín5 (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Potatín5 have you read no personal attacks? Doug Weller talk 08:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Have I insulted or threatened tgeorgescu at any point during the discussion? I deny ever doing that. Potatín5 (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

You certainly demonstrated a lack of good faith, but maybe you got carried away. Doug Weller talk 12:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

A single book that claims to be a "paradigm shift" on such a well discussed issue as the dating of the books of the New Testament is clearly undue. Wikipedia should be attempting assess the consensus of the academic literature, not cherry picking sources with minority views that contradict it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Paradigms have huge inertia and cannot be shifted by a single person just by claiming to have done it. (How did that go? "Brother, can youse paradigm?") --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

It also has an endorsement from James F. McGrath.[43] StAnselm (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Besides, Bernier is not even a full professor (correct me if I am wrong). So, if you mean that he did change the paradigm but did not even get a full professorship, you're clutching at straws. There is no indication that his attempts to redate the NT writings have been accepted by WP:CHOPSY.

McGrath said "With careful attention to the evidence for each work, Bernier makes a strong case for dates that are often earlier than the scholarly consensus." So, this renders Bernier's position in respect to the scholarly consensus. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. Mentioned it on the Gospel talk page. While I think tgeorgescu is being rather fiery on the topic, I am inclined to agree that Jonathan Bernier does not appear to be a particularly impressive source (nor is Brant Pitre). It's not so much that he's an apologist for fundamentalism or something, just that he's a random assistant professor at a not particularly distinguished university. The New Testament is quite possibly the single most deeply covered topic in all literature, with people spending their entire careers on just one book of it, and over a century worth of material since the "modern" dating and its arguments came to the fore in the late 1800s and early 1900s. I'm not opposed to including a "traditionalist" view (with the proper WP:DUEWEIGHT, i.e., acknowledging it's a minority of modern scholars and not subtly phrasing everything in favor of it), but surely, surely better sources can be found. If editors want to include more on the traditionalist view, cite the actual respectable traditionalist heavyweights who acknowledge the issues and their explanations for them, not Bernier. SnowFire (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Hugh Ross (astrophysicist)

Please see latest edits. Thanks Doug Weller talk 19:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

And Talk:Stephen C. Meyer - the thread at the bottom about the talk page. Doug Weller talk 19:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

And Mitochondrial Eve. And the Genesis section from above. We have a user on a mission. --mfb (talk) 06:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Not the first time. Maybe, however, we should let him know that his WP:ADVOCACY is being discussed here. jps (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Doug Weller talk 11:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh hell. I've told them, but on their talk page I found "Discretionary sanction is a restriction placed on a Wikipedia editor who is found not to subscribe to leftist thought and ideology Lightest (talk) 7:06 pm, 15 July 2022, " Doug Weller talk 12:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

That's cool. I mean, people can believe and argue whatever they want on the talkpages, I guess. What I think is a problem is when they become WP:WikiDragons who start to impose novel editorial philosophies in articlespace that contravene things like WP:ENC and WP:NOT. jps (talk) 12:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Is Genesis History?

• Is Genesis History? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Are the theocratic developments oozing from SCOTUS encouraging fundies to come out of the woodwork and turn out alternative facts everywhere now? --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

That movie, and the article, appeared 5 years ago. I don't see how either the film or the Wikipedia article have anything to do with theocratic fulminations from SCOTUS. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the above comment missed this diff as the concern relevant to this noticeboard. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

The larger problem is that the source is a guest blog post by someone without a salient degree who doesn't actually say what they're being cited for. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Here are some better sources, "They only tangentially addressed the elephant in the room, that conventional science has overwhelmingly concluded that the Big Bang and evolution are real, and a 6000-year-old earth and global flood and the rest of the Bible’s “history” are not.", "Unfortunately, the narrative that accompanied the rich display of God’s amazing creation fell far short of reflecting what we actually find revealed in nature.", "As I explain below, I must dissent from my role in the production.". These are much higher quality sources than a guest blogger with no expertise on a blog, and directly attack the correctness of the movie. Also, one of the scientists in it spoke out against the portrayal in the movie. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

The article has always had some problems, and frankly should've been deleted last time around at AfD. The coverage is basically advocacy in religious publications, a couple interviews with people associated with the film, and local "this movie will be shown on Thursday; here's the summary" bits and pieces. No mainstream film reviews/criticism to be found. As I said back then, we should either treat it as a film and use real reviews from real film critics (there are none), or we treat it as a piece of creationist apologetics and use WP:FRINGE guidelines for sources (which results in pulling in some marginal sources to get past FRIND). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't know, the article reads okay to me. Other than serving as a honeypot that we have to watch, does anyone see any problems with it as is? jps (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, the source cited for the pseudoscience label may as well not be there because it doesn't support it, and it's written by a first time guest blogger without any sort of expertise on an already non-RS. There are a few decent quality sources (which I also put above) that can be used to state that the premise of the movie is false, and also provide critical reception. The article is also missing information on how one of the scientists in the movie wanted the final cut revised. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Looking through the history, the claim in the lead was originally sourced to this, this and this source. They were removed under the pretense that they don't address the film specifically, and as such, cannot be used in this article (example). However, as the film openly supports creationism, I personally find it ridiculous to suggest that sources discussing creationism shouldn't be used in the article. The claim that the film discusses creationism, and the claim that creationism is a pseudoscience are both true and both verifiable. And of course, they are not the same claim. A source that supports one doesn't necessarily need to support the other. Happy (Slap me) 16:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Or we could cite this and just call it false, and not have to worry about WP:SYNTH concerns, instead of using an incredibly bad source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  See my comment about finding it ridiculous that we can't use such sources. Any expressed concerns about WP:SYNTH that arise from us saying "this film is about creationism,^[source] which is a pseudoscience.^[source]" are either ignorant of the policy on a fundamental level or downright dishonest. Simply putting two claims into the same sentence doesn't make them one claim, after all.

  I think the only problem right now is that there's nowhere in the body to go over the content of the film and include those statements and sources, so as to then support the lead section. If there's not enough sources to build such a section in the article, then I'm fine with dumping whatever number of sources into the lead section to support the statements. It certainly reads very accurate, as it is. The only problem is, as you've pointed out, the sourcing on that claim. Happy (Slap me) 21:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Here is a source by a professional geologist (notable enough to have a wiki biography: Lorence G. Collins) which explicitly calls the film's content "pseudoscience". See the last paragraph, e.g. jps (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that it's a self published open letter. Is there really any objection to (change in bold) Is Genesis History? is a 2017 American Christian film by Thomas Purifoy Jr. that promotes the false notion of Young Earth creationism, a form of creation science built on beliefs that contradict established scientific facts regarding the origin of the Universe, the age of the Earth and universe, the origin of the Solar System, and the origin and evolution of life. with [44] and [45] as sources? They're not the best sources, but they're not self published or blogs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Why is the open-letter style a problem? The fact that it is self-published seems fine to me given that the author is an expert. After all, there is no third-party venue that would want to publish a take-down of this film. See WP:PARITY, e.g. jps (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I've linked to three non-self published sources above, although one is the objections of one of the people in the film, rather than the take-down the other two are. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The three sources that are non-self-published are rather less impressive in their analysis than this one. Two of them are to rather problematic outfits (biologos and the discovery institute, fer goodness sake)! It's a question of genre. Collins is writing a specific take-down of pseudoscience while the other sources are a bit more popular-level or explicitly within the religious milieu. Since Collins is a great source for debunking creationism, I don't understand your hesitation to use the source. jps (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Because it's still an apparently unpublished open letter stashed away on someone's private web space, unlinked to from the index. The BioLogos source is written by three professors, is not self published and has editorial oversight. Seems like an objectively better source to use. That said, either the source you provided or the ones I provided are dramatically better than what's being used now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

If the concern is about it being stashed on someone's private web space, it's also uploaded to ResearchGate [46]. jps (talk) 00:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't make it any less self published. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Stop fetishizing the means by which something is published. What matters is the reliability of the source, not the publishing. When an expert self-publishes about a topic, it is the equivalent of getting an interview with the expert about the topic. jps (talk) 10:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, self-pub doesn't matter in a case like this, but couldn't we use both that and the published sources? Certainly it should be clearly debunked, esp. if there's a sequel coming out this year. Also, there seems to be a lot of trivia in the release history, as if trying to promote the importance of the film. — kwami (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm all for using as many sources as possible. The reason Collins' monograph might be useful, however, is that he explicitly identifies the subject material of the film as pseudoscience. There were those arguing that we did not have a source that said that. jps (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

This is literally enshrined in policy, at WP:SELFPUB. Happy (Slap me) 12:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't really care about this that much, which is why I haven't edited the article, but we're talking about using a self published source by someone with an h-index of 4 and a 138 citations rather than a source by co-authored by someone with an h-index of 11 and 541 citations and someone with an h-index of 21 and 2259 citations which was published in an independent source with editorial oversight. WP:SELFPUB says exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. I don't even care about the pseudoscience label, which is why I haven't removed it, I just don't know why we're looking at using a self-published open letter from someone with no impact and almost no publications over a secondary source co-written by authors which much higher impact, more publications and more citations. That is the someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources that WP:SELFPUB is talking about. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I just don't know why we're looking at using a self-published open letter from someone with no impact and almost no publications over a secondary source co-written by authors which much higher impact, more publications and more citations.

We're not. jps and I are both opining that this source is perfectly useable for this purpose, and you seem to be pushing back on that, despite the fact that this source's usefulness in this case is literally spelled out explicitly in policy.

I think there is an element of us talking past each other, here. See jps's comment to kwami about being in favor of using all fours suggested sources. I too, am perfectly on board with using all four sources. Happy (Slap me) 14:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

See this about Bigfoot investigator David Paulides

WP:RSN# Violation of Biography of a Living Person Guidelines. Doubt it’s going anywhere but a bit amusing. Doug Weller talk 19:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• Better-working link: WP:RSN#Violation of Biography of a Living Person Guidelines --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, I blame my iPad. He's getting support there. Doug Weller talk 07:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I wonder whether this person is notable enough for a biography. There does not seem to be a whole lot of mainstream coverage of him. The fact that the best sources that seem to exist about his ideas are in the form of a podcast gives me pause as to whether Wikipedia is equipped to host a biography of this person. jps (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest the best sources on the article are Vice, HuffPo, and Mercury News. Not sure on full deletion, but it does look like it has more coverage than his notability warrants. Though this is something of an issue with Fringe topics, hard to give enough context to be neutral without also having quantity of text. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Vice is dodgy at best for BLPs, and that's probably the best here. The Huffpo article is a blog by a "UFO content producer", and the Mercury News piece is about an accusation with no resolution that wasn't covered anywhere else, so if those are the best we can do we probably can't produce a good article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Fair, all good catches. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Missing 411 might be a more notable topic and easier to write as an article. Could we perhaps write that one instead and redirect? jps (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

That's still pretty fringy. He implies that many of the disappearances are paranormal. Likely BigFoot. ApLundell (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Definitely fringe-y, but arguably the subject of more reliable sources that the person himself: [47]. I don't know, I'm just trying to think of alternatives here. jps (talk) 18:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I was about to suggest that an article on "Missing 411" might be more warranted than an article on Paulides, given the comparative thinness of the biographical background material. XOR'easter (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I looked in NewspaperArchive (via Wikimedia Library) and found an additional source providing significant coverage of Paulides' involvement in Bigfoot investigations. I agree, however, that recasting the article about Missing 411 would be better than a biography, of which scant information is available. Most of the article is about Paulides' claims, not his life. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Roy Spencer (meteorologist)

• Roy Spencer (meteorologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

IP is insistent that ID should not be called pseudoscience. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, given the complete lack of context, I'm not sure that the IP's objections are entirely invalid. Context-free sentences like "In TCS Daily, Spencer embraced the pseudoscience of intelligent design", sourced only to TSC Daily itself don't belong in a biography. If Spencer's views on Intelligent Design are relevant to his biography, demonstrate it through content cited to independent WP:RS.

Biographies are not galleries of shame. Even for people we don't like. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed that bibliographies are not properly galleries of shame, but in this case Roy Spencer is pretty well-known for his embrace of intelligent design. It's not just a private religious matter or anything like that. Take a quick Google search and you can find a few sources which show this. I think the thing to do here is improve the sourcing. jps (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Improve the sourcing, and then improve the writing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I've tried to improve the sourcing and the writing in that section of the article. That section is now dominated by Spencer's own written statements on the topic, so I believe it is WP:DUE. Based on his writings it seems that none of this content would bring Spencer any "shame." Just the opposite. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

And "the opposite of shame" is a good thing in a page about a fringe proponent? I think WP:FRINGE says it is not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, we should shame this monstrosity. All they've done is *checks notes* been the principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. What kind of scientist does he think he is?!?? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

"All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?" There are aspects of Roy Spencer's work that are mainstream and process science, no doubt. But to ignore his profound rejection of the conclusions of most of the scientific community in matters of global warming predictions, abiogenesis, and cosmology is to do a disservice to the reader: [48]. jps (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree, which is why it's covered extensively in the article. Writing in a neutral manner, rather than aiming for "shame" isn't a bad thing, however. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

You are using a strawman here. I did not say we should shame him, I said we should not do the opposite, that is, not quote his opinions extensively. we should be trying to shame someone, as Hob Gadling said is thoroughly false. I really dislike strawmen and people who use them, and this is not the first time you are doing this. I don't expect you to retract this, because last time you didn't either. My opinion of you is steadily getting worse and worse. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

That a 'card-carrying' scientist repeatedly self-identifies as a fringe proponent violates WP:FRINGE? Look, please remove the damn content if it is so egregious. I care insufficiently about this article and the article subject to edit war over it. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

You're doing good work, JoJo Anthrax. Don't let the caustic environment of this website get you down. jps (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Like I said below, your work is a definite improvement. What I'm objecting to is that we should be trying to shame someone, as Hob Gadling said. It looks like the climate change section covers that pretty well, although I'm a bit surprised there is nothing in the lead that covers his non-consensus hypothesis that it's cloud cover variation rather than human made co2 causing global warming, since that seems to be what most of the coverage about him deals with. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

It's certainly an improvement. Secondary sources would be nice, because I'm always uncomfortable picking out a bunch of a BLP subject's quotes, but if that's what we have, that's what we have. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

No, it's not. Wikipedia should not give him a megaphone for his outsider views on biology or climatology. That's how we handle it with other fringe proponents: it's better to just say where he stands than help him proselytize.

WP:FRIND says, Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. What happened to this board? Did everybody get replaced by pod people? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I think we all agree that third-party sources are much preferred. jps (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

But we do not seem to agree that Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. Some users here want to give them space. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

And when it's brought up in multiple secondary sources ([49][50][51][52][53]) perhaps it's worth expanding a bit using WP:ABOUTSELF?. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Points that are not discussed in independent sources obviously means that we have to actually use those multiple secondary sources. If we just repeat the misinformation fringe proponents spout without adding any mainstream refutation, Wikipedia becomes a vehicle for fringe views.

See WP:PROFRINGE: The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. However, it also requires that they not be given undue weight. A conjecture that has not received critical review from the scientific community or that has been rejected may be included in an article about a scientific subject only if other high-quality reliable sources discuss it as an alternative position.

Some people here seem to think that claims may be included even if they have been rejected, in direct contradiction to that.

Regarding WP:ABOUTSELF, that page uses the conditions: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves [..] so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; [..] and the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Spencer's claims we quote are exceptional, starting with "evolution is a religion" and ending with "global warming is just hysteria". And although the article may not be based on questionable sources as a whole, the sections on Spencer's anti-science beliefs are just his own mouthpiece.

Usually, when I am swamped by users who want to include unrefuted fringe propaganda in Wikipedia articles, I come to this board. To me, this looks like WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY, yeah, let's spout creationist and denialist nonsense, it's fine as long as it's attributed, it's better than nothing. It would be really nice if someone agreed with me. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

That he believes that intelligent design and evolution take the same amount of faith is not an exceptional claim. An exceptional claim would be using an ABOUTSELF source to say "Spencer can fly, and can also speak with animals." We're dealing with someone who is partially notable for, and often described as, their belief in intelligent design. The religion is as scientific as evolution quote is actually from a secondary source[54], which is already in the article. The other quotes provide context to his beliefs, and the article is making no exceptional claims, only using his words to describe his beliefs to provide context. Again, more secondary sources would be great, but as it stands ABOUTSELF covers what's in the article. I certainly wouldn't, for instance, go to evolution and add in "unfortunately for the evolution types, evolution takes as much faith to believe in as intelligent design. Checkmate, atheist evolution believers" citing him. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

It is a fringe idea and a standard anti-evolution trope. We should not repeat anti-science propaganda without mainstream refutation, and it does not matter where we copied it from. That it does not belong in articles about non-fringe subjects (even with refutation) is neither here nor there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, if you really think that context-free single-sentence paragraphs like In TCS Daily, Spencer embraced the pseudoscience of intelligent design are a way to refute anything, I can only suggest that you are going to find it difficult to find people to agree with you. That doesn't belong in a biography. Not remotely. Refute with (properly-sourced, on topic) evidence. Evidence directly concerning the subject of the biography. Not appeals to emotion and denunciations of heresy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't know where you got the crazy idea that I think that, or that I "appeal to emotion" or "denounce heresy". Maybe you, as well as SFR, should actually read what people write instead of inventing stupid thoughts for them and refuting those. That is behaviour I am used to from discussions with creationists. Snap out of it, I have seen you do better. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Spencer's claims themselves are WP:ECREE-able, but the fact that he makes such claims and he has been given a platform to spout those claims in the anti-science/denialist/merchants-of-doubt media is something that is plainly true. The secondary sources we have that document these claims are doing so critically. That is what we should point out. Y'know, phrasing that captures ideas like "Spencer's claims that evolution is a religion and attribution of global warming to human causes is hysteria belie his ideological opposition to those scientific facts that have become politicized in the ongoing US culture wars." That is the sort of analysis which I see in secondary sources which will help readers. We can also mention that many of his claims which go well-beyond his expertise are simply and flatly contradicted by the experts who study those fields -- and they have done so in direct reference to things Spencer has said in various venues (such as in testimony before legislative bodies or on Rush Limbaugh's show). I guess the simplest way to say this is that if there are claims being made on the page which have not been noticed by WP:FRIND sources, by all means get rid of them. But I don't think that's what is happening here. jps (talk) 12:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, this seems to be the right threshold. Which of his beliefs are notable enough to get significant secondary coverage. The ID section is probably the one that needs the most scrutiny, with Spencer being brought up only in passing on a list of ID+Climate people, with the remaining two citations being Spencer himself. Without another relevant secondary source that demonstrates due notability, it feels like a WP:COATRACK.

The climate topic is certainly notable, both being directly related to his profession and due to his providing congressional testimony on the topic. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

[55] In Huntsville, Christy began working with a NASA scientist, Roy Spencer. Spencer shared Christy’s religious orientation—he has written about rejecting the science of evolution in favor of the creationist theory known as intelligent design...

[56] Seriously, read that link to get quite a bit of background on Dr. Spencer. I was also surprised to find Spencer is a big supporter of Intelligent Design. I was initially reticent to mention that, since it seems like an ad hominem. But I think it's relevant: Intelligent Design has been shown repeatedly to be wrong, and is really just warmed-over creationism.

There are plenty of sources that provide secondary coverage, including a secondary source explaining why they think it is relevant information, just not in-depth enough to provide much in the way of context. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

In general, if a fringe idea get aired in an article the framing mainstream context can come from any decent source, which need not be on-topic for the article's main subject. This is core in NPOV/PSCI: "The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included". It's counter-intuitive because it seems like a license-to-synth; but it's core policy. Alexbrn (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

We don't even need other, unrelated sources, since we have rejecting the science of evolution in favor of the creationist theory known as intelligent design... But I think it's relevant: Intelligent Design has been shown repeatedly to be wrong, and is really just warmed-over creationism. We just need a bit of expansion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. Yes! That is something I expect to hear on this board. Not that I am "denouncing heresy". --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

That is the sort of analysis which I see in secondary sources which will help readers. Yes! That is something I expect to hear on this board. Not that spreading anti-science propaganda without accompanying refutation is "an improvement" from just stating which pseudoscience he is a fan of. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Esteemed reputation as a credible scientist?

• Robert Clancy (doctor) (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

More COVID-related recent editing could use eyes Alexbrn (talk) 11:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Alkaline diet

There is a new account editing the alkaline diet removing criticisms from the article and several talk-page discussions. Based I what I have seen so far, this user has confused papers mentioning the Potential Renal Acid Load (PRAL) score with the "alkaline diet". I can see why some might think they are related but there appears to be some original research and other POV issues here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I've been playing along at home these last few days, and have now joined in. -Roxy the mindfulness dog 13:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

There may also be competence issues involved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

It's one of the many topics in altmed (e.g. detoxification, chronic lyme disease, leaky gut syndrome) where the term describing the quackery-thing overlaps with terms describing topics in legitimate science. This has been a long-term problem with this article. Alexbrn (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and moved the article to become Alkaline diet (alternative medicine). Like the above mentioned topics it's one I think where the topic space needs to be managed to effect a clean break between the science (which goes in other articles like Acid–base homeostasis) and the woo (which goes here). Alexbrn (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

You may want to review Dietary acid load. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The new account (if they are actually new) is now spamming links to 'Dietary acid load' across multiple articles - hijacking existing links to another article to do so. [57]. The new article is clearly a POV fork, and synthesis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia could benefit from an article on dietary acid load as good sources are available. But the current article which couches it as a kind of "diet" (with a modified version of the alkaline diet lede) is bizarre. It could be edited into shape. Alexbrn (talk) 04:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, at the moment it seems to be a WP:POVFORK. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

In regard to the Dietary acid load article, I would like to re-write that and rename it the potential renal acid load (PRAL) but might be easier if it is deleted and I can start from scratch. The problem is that Maffty is confusing the PRAL score with the alkaline diet, the same user has also confused PRAL with acid ash hypothesis. It would probably be best if the dietary acid load article was deleted. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Psychologist Guy: Why not write the new version under the new name and we'll redirect dietary acid load there? If it should be deleted, it needs a nomination at WP:AFD. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: @Psychologist Guy: Maffty has been blocked, but three other IP addresses have appeared to edit that article, and two of them are blocked. The third one's contribution history has a comment admitting to block evasion for the second blocked IP address but asks who the first evasion block was supposed to be be for. I assume the first IP was blocked with an assumption that it's an evasion of Maffty's block, but I am not sure.

In any case, the IP address has been constructive and the edit requests look reasonable, but I'd like some more eyes on it. The article has been WP:PRODed for deletion, and I am not sure I agree with that given that the subject might be notable as Psychologist Guy suggested above. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The PRAL is notable an we need a Wikipedia article on it but the dietary acid load article is just a mess. The IP 109.119.212.245 is obviously just Maffty who is making fanatical comments and requests on the talk-page. The article needs to be deleted. I will submit it to afd later today. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that there may be more than one person operating the Mattfy/IP account, as the language cpmpetence is far better with this one than Mattfy, if indeed it is the same one. FWIW, I dont hihnk a PROD is going to do it, and it'll need an RfC, but I'm often wrong about many things. - Roxy the English speaking dog 11:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Diagalon

I was redricted here for my draft page Diagalon, it uses reliable sources from seperate independent organisations such as the Canadian Anti-Hate Network. However user Curbon7 suggested isn't enough to warrant a standalone article? "To quote from WP:FRINGE, "Because Wikipedia aims to summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence, a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is", my question is is this, i have specified Diagalon is a far-right extremist group.[1][2], formed in Ottowa during the Canada convoy protests to protest COVID-19 restrictions and mandates[3][4]. It consists of over one hundred “ex-military members"[5] does this make it clear that this fringe group doesnt appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. my second question is does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Diagalon warrant a standalone article? This group while obviously fringe has a wide array of media coverage and is its own concept completley seperate from the canadian trucker protests (while it is mentioned briefly in the candian protest articles) i belive it deserves its own page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thingsomyipisntvisable (talk • contribs) 12:08, July 26, 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like giving them a standalone article would absolutely make the group "appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is". — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Wasn't this country first proposed by JK Rowling? -Roxy the English speaking dog 13:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Norman Fenton

• Norman Fenton (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Got new accounts and IPs taking issue with Wikipedia relaying the COVID-19 activities of Fenton. Could use more eyes (maybe from an admin?) Alexbrn (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

That's almost AIV worthy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

And now it is AIV worthy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• The edit-warring account has been blocked, but is saying this Times article has been amended to remove Fenton's name. I don't have access to The Times at the moment so can't check (until morning anyway). Does anybody else have access? Alexbrn (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Unfortunately I don't, and I can't bypass their protection by copying all of the text before the "please subscribe" banner pops up like I can with most other sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  I do. It says "Among the 41 academics named in its foreword, several of whom subsequently promoted it on social media, are [...] Norman Fenton, professor of risk information management, Queen Mary University of London". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  The text removed from the BLP said "Fenton was one of several academics who put their name to a document from the Health Advisory and Recovery Team". There is no doubt that Fenton has been a spokesperson for the Health Advisory and Recovery Team. However, being mentioned in a forward is not the same as "put their name to a document" which is kind of awkward wording that implies a co-author role. Cullen328 (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Firefangledfeathers: Okay, that was the text that I saw too in my version from 18 March 2022. Wikipedia is not saying Fenton is "an author" of, or "contributor" to the document, just that he put his name to it (source: "Academics from large British universities have put their names to an “extremely irresponsible” document ..."). Fenton is a member of the HART Group after all.[58] So when the blocked user claims that WP:V is not satisfied they would seem to be in error. Wondering if there's LTA here. Alexbrn (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  So you're not seeing Tom Whipple's article now Fenton's name is removed and it has an emendation at the bottom saying Tom removed it.? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  I'm doing some original research, and looking on the HART site to see what he's signed. This doesn't show anything around March 2021. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Does the article name the report? Can someone supply a link to the report itself. It would be helpful to see the actual document referred to. What does being "named in the forward" mean? Does it mean the scientist supports the report or does it mean that a paper by the scientist was mentioned in the forward? StarryGrandma (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I think this is the report. The names appear on page 2. Alexbrn (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

This is the report. Fenton is simply listed as a member, not mentioned in the forward. Directly above the list of names is Disclaimer: each contribution in this booklet reflects the author’s viewpoint alone, and not the position of the entire group ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Here in California, I cannot read that PDF for some reason. Maybe only people in the UK can read it. If the document only mentions him as a member of the group but not as an author or endorser of the publication, then I do not think that it should be mentioned in Fenton's biography. Cullen328 (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish, thanks for reading it and giving the relevant content. I can't access a readable version of the pdf either. The actual published report does not support including the disputed material in the article. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Seeing the original report it seems the Times wording is a bit of a stretch. Probably best to leave this out. Alexbrn (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Good call. I’ve heard this guy has excellent lawyers, so we definitely wouldn’t wanna impute anything defamatous. :-) –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 05:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Indeed not. Incidentally, I just now checked the article in the Times online and there is no indication it has been changed, and no "emendation at the bottom". The pertinent text now, as then, is:

Among the 41 academics named in its foreword, several of whom subsequently promoted it on social media, are Ellen Townsend, professor of psychology at Nottingham University, and the group’s spokeswoman, Marilyn James, professor of health economics at the University of Nottingham, and Norman Fenton, professor of risk information management, Queen Mary University of London.

Alexbrn (talk) 05:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

After Disclaimer: each contribution in this booklet reflects the author’s viewpoint alone, and not the position of the entire group, the report gives an executive summary and then a table of contents listing each section by its author (sorry for loss of formatting):

Contents 1. COVID policies and harm to children - Professor Ellen Townsend; Dr Karen Neil 2. COVID-19 vaccination in children - major ethical concerns - Dr Ros Jones 3. Vaccine passports - an ethical minefield - Dr Malcolm Kendrick 4. Asymptomatic spread - who can really spread COVID-19? Dr John Lee 5. Economic impacts - the true cost of lockdowns - Professor David Paton; Professor Marilyn James 6. Mutant variants and the futility of border closures - Dr Gerry Quinn 7. ‘ Zero Covid’ - an impossible dream - Professor David Livermore 8. Masks - do the benefits outweigh the harms? Dr Gary Sidley 9. Psychological impact of the Government’s communication style and restrictive measures - Dr Damian Wilde 10. Lockdowns - do they work? - Professor Marilyn James 11. Mortality data & COVID-19 - Joel Smalley 12. The ONS Infection Survey: a reevaluation of the data -Dr Clare Craig; Dr Paul Cuddon 13. Promising treatment options - Dr Ros Jones; Dr Edmund Fordham 14. Care homes - we must do better for the most vulnerable in society - Dr Ali Haggett 15. Ethical considerations of the COVID-19 response - Professor David Seedhouse

So Fenton is not listed as the author of any of the sections. Unless Fenton actually promoted the report in social media, I think the Times screwed up. The other two people they named actually authored sections. I don't know why they picked his name out of the foreword, and I can see why he'd be annoyed at the implication that he was more involved than he actually was. Valereee (talk) 10:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee: it's quite hard to tease out what happened, but I note the original version of the report[59] apparently contains no disclaimer, which only appears in the PDF which is "updated" (according to its filename). It seems Whipple's concern in his Times piece was that apparently major academics were "putting their name" to a document which contained antivax "nonsense". Alexbrn (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Very interesting about the addition of the disclaimer. I'm thinking Dr. Fenton's lawyer insisted. :) Valereee (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

<redacted>

Congratulations, Alexbrn, on your promotion to "gatekeeper of all medical knowledge". jps (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

There should be a barnstar for that Alexbrn (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Rather shitty stuff on twitter there, the sort of behaviour that wouldn't be acceptable by our rules I think. - Roxy the English speaking dog 12:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

That's eminence-based medicine. I guess that for someone who uses "professor" as a sort of first name, lack of medical credentials is a really important criterion, and lack of evidence is of no consequence. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Aftermath

Well Fenton's hit-piece has now landed.[60] At least one of the follow-up tweets about "defamatous" material[61] bears interestingly on who Holomatrix might have[62] been. Alexbrn (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Given what I've read from Fenton and others who have interacted with him, he seems very pugnacious, rude and disrespectful to people who disagree with him. He's also defending known COVID fringe theorists like Malone and McCollough. It's hard to be sympathetic to him here, given his previous actions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadio??!!!? What the hell!? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Careful, I'll report you to Jimmy Swayles. Alexbrn (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Changing username if you'd like to make it official. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I assume that's a station that plays nothing but black metal on bagpipes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Holy shit, They are working together. JBW and ScottishFinnishRadish have the same IP address, same timestamp and are listed on other pages Alexbrn has edited. ScottishFinnishRadish makes the threats against users who make changes he/she and Alexbrn do not like, and JBW swoops in to block the person. Alexbrn and myself are known for being thick as thieves, and generally agreeing 100% on content issues. Also, I am JBW's deep cover sock. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I dont care. Deepak Chopra once made a whole video in response to something I said. -Roxy the English speaking dog 18:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The most I've gotten was a what appears to be an automated tweet asking people if they know as much as I do about coffee[63], and Brittany Spears and Victoria Asher fans trying to figure out if I had some sort of agenda (they decided I didn't). Although, because of that, Victoria Asher typed out "ScottishFinnishRadish" to someone, and she's not quite notable enough for a Wikipedia article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Yay, I'm famous! Just not quite as famous as you. :(

This blog is definitely going to make me reconsider that he's actually a victim here of my checks notes defamatory new material, and not merely a blowhard upset that the internet isn't as complimentary to him as he deserves. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The thing is there is actually some respectable material about the guy[64][65] which yet falls below the high bar that WP:BLP requires. So from reading Wikipedia one would have no idea anything is amiss. It a problem I think, but I have no idea what the solution could be. Alexbrn (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but it's not going to be me who maintains or cleans up his article after getting called out for nothing more that tidying up language for encyclopedic tone, without any real content changes. Not impressed. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I think per WP:NACADEMIC he passes -- guy's got an h-index of 62 and his most-cited work has 6800 citations. That's a lot. Valereee (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Just a note, while it seems correct that Fenton's name was not removed or the part on him clarified, there have been some changes to the Times article post publication which don't seem to have been clearly indicated. If we compare this version: [66] from the day of publication with this version from 2 days ago [67] we can see changes.

In particular a paragraph was added (after the part about Brady saying it was “grim but important reading”.') which gives a response from Brady

Brady told The Times that his comments, which appeared in a press release issued by the group that produced the report, referred to other parts of the report, and he had always been a vocal supporter of vaccinations.

Also the section on the document was changed from beginning with 'The 50-page document argues that the rollout of the Pfizer vaccine coincided' to instead say 'Among arguments about the harms caused by lockdown the 50-page document also states that the rollout of the Pfizer vaccine coincided' making it clearer it's only one thing the document was about. (Note that this paragraph always mentioned it was written by Joel Smalley.) It also adds a comment from Smalley 'He suggested the Pfizer vaccine had not been tested sufficiently on older people.'

It looks like links have been added for Sumption and Toby Young although I'm not sure if that is just some randomness about when links are shown. Finally a response from Hart was added to the end

A spokesperson for Hart said, “In Hart’s recently published overview of Covid-19 evidence, we noted that the January peak in Covid cases and deaths correlated both in time and geographically with the mass roll-out of the novel vaccines. However, Hart is mindful that correlation does not always equal causation and we are not asserting that vaccines are the cause.”

I guess the newer version is perhaps better for Fenton since while it doesn't specifically say this unlike the disclaimer which was added to the PDF, it does make it clearer the document is about multiple things, so it's possible someone in the foreword or promoting it on social media isn't endorsing everything in it such as the contentious vaccine part.

Also, I don't know if there was some earlier version although that archive isn't that long after publication, and I also don't know if there was some intermediate version that did say something different about Fenton which was removed.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Pumapunku needs eyes now

IP inserting fringe, reverted at least twice. Doug Weller talk 18:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Clearly the same person that was behind 79.7.112.133 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) a year ago, sigh. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)