Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

Skip to TOC
Skip to bottom

Welcome to the fringe theories noticeboard

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

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

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

To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Article alerts

Did you know

17 Dec 2019 – Kambo cleanse (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by OneUpOnUs (t · c); see discussion

Articles for deletion

26 Feb 2020 – Controversies related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Bondegezou (t · c); see discussion (12 participants)

Categories for discussion

22 Feb 2020 – Category:Scientific skepticism media (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Marcocapelle (t · c); see discussion

Redirects for discussion

01 Mar 2020 – James Edwin McTeer (talk · edit · hist) →Hoodoo (folk magic) was RfDed by Tavix (t · c); see discussion
26 Feb 2020 – RaceandIQ (talk · edit · hist) →Race and intelligence was RfDed by Scottywong (t · c); see discussion

Good article nominees

21 Jan 2020 – Ad hominem (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Cinadon36 (t · c); start discussion
25 Dec 2019 – Homeopathy (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Heptor (t · c); start discussion

Race & Intelligence RFC[edit]

There's an RfC and an AfD, we don't need to hash out whether racism is fringe here as well. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

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.

Danger, Will Robinson!

But also, check out a WP:Local consensus abrewing on the talkpage about adding "F*A*C*T*S" to the lede about how IQs differ among the races.

Sockpuppets may be around.

Yuck.

jps (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I am surprised there is not a WP:BLUELOCK on that article. Alexbrn (talk) 09:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
"I know, let's add text to the lead that says there are racial differences in intelligence, even though the rest of the article says this is facile, meaningless and probably wrong". Guy (help!) 10:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
There definitely are differences (if you look like me at left)... —Paleo Neonate – 01:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

In the hope of getting more editors involved and getting a non-local consensus, I started an RfC about the first paragraph of the lede at Talk:Race and intelligence#RfC about lede of Race and intelligence. More eyes welcome. NightHeron (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

IT CONTINUES: [1]

More and new voices would definitely be appreciated, even if just to offer a small point as some users seem to be interested in simply counting the number of users who agree with (a) or (b). jps (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Which would be ridiculous, allowing forum shopping and canvassing to generate a fake consensus (I'm not contesting that it's a possibility)... —Paleo Neonate – 22:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Please feel free to explain that on the talkpage. Maybe people will listen to you. jps (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Theoretically, if an uninvolved experienced admin closes the RFC, they should be able to take into consideration aspects like SPAs (or resurected inactive accounts indicating offline canvassing if any), sources, if the arguments of participants are policy-based etc... Rather than considering it a ballot (WP:VOTE). But we already know this is the ideal, I wonder if posting a message at WP:AN when it nears completion would be a good idea to call for such uninvolved admin closure and hopefully avoid the mess of contested closures... —Paleo Neonate – 19:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Seems to me that WP:AE might work too. I am thinking about proposing a topic ban for a few accounts active there. Haven't decided yet. jps (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

It's been one of my fears that it could go up to a lengthy arbcom case like WP:ARBPS... Although that case did ultimately clarify the scope of Wikipedia in relation to pseudoscience. —Paleo Neonate – 00:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed the discussion about it being a WP:POVFORK and it may very well be true (I'll try to check and comment). I'd also like to point at a very related article, history of the race and intelligence controversy which has been on my personal TODO and watchlist for a while. When I read it months ago, I found it a good read and interesting; notes that I kept to eventually revise it (and anyone is welcome to): portrayal of left-right debates (was it this simple in every case?), part(s) in relation to heteditarian Jensenism (from notes I took, claims: left-wing harassment, censorship, accusations of Marxism)... Then there was an important part about pseudoscience used to justify racism, complaints of chilling effect and attacks against unpopular racist scientists. Then a Jewish conspiracy theory, followed by more Jensen apologetics... —Paleo Neonate – 00:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Adding for context: it's also historical with views that may have been valid inquiry at some point but be considered protoscience today (early psychology and psychiatry not being without controversies, this reminds me of Freud, influential enough to deserve coverage), so the context is also relevant... —Paleo Neonate – 00:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

There are many articles which have these problems. As one example, Nations and intelligence grossly over-represents the same group of fringe academics, based on flimsy sources. As I said on that article's talk page months ago, the article says "nations" but means "race", and it ain't subtle about it. As an example, the article uses a single primary source to suggest a selective pressure that reduces g based on genetic markers. Grudging, minimal lip-service is paid to the mainstream view, but the article treats Jensen, Rushton, etc. as credible for this, which wasn't even accurate when they were alive. My take is that this content only sticks around because of filibustering on the talk page. Grayfell (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a hot mess all around, we certainly should't be framing any of this as an ongoing "debate" or "controversy" in wiki voice. The whole thing relies heavily on journal articles that are essentially a big basket of opinions but don't tell us what the consensus actually is. –dlthewave ☎ 03:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Related: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Race and intelligence/Current consensus. jps (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if it would make sense to propose adding to WP:FRINGE#Examples the example of Scientific racism, and include a statement there such as "Beliefs in inherent differences in intelligence between groups based on race, ethnicity, or gender contradict scientific consensus and must be treated as fringe." The purpose of adding that would be to have a reference to policy guidelines that would make it easier for editors to revert attempts to use Wikipedia articles to give credence to white supremacist or male supremacist views on intelligence, without having to seek consensus each time on the fringe nature of white supremacy and male supremacy. NightHeron (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The examples part of the guideline was meant to clarify how fringe theories can be covered on Wikipedia. I think we haven't decided yet how this particular subject should be discussed on Wikipedia (as AfDs may still be in the offing). One option might be to write something like a meta-page. We did something similar at Talk:White pride and while it did not discourage the rabble from rousing, it did put an end to certain endless discussions. jps (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The actual scientific consensus is that (1) there are inherent brain differences between men and women, but their effects on intelligence or IQ are not clear at the moment; and (2) inherent intelligence differences between other groups is a hypothesis that is neither proved nor disproved. There is no consensus whatsoever that the weight of present evidence is strongly against the idea of inherent differents, or that the genetic evidence as it develops will necessarily point one way or the other. It is an open question but the evidence to date is mostly statistical rather than detailed understanding of the brain, genetics, and cognition. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The actual scientific consensus is that race is a social construct with some limited, but inconsistent, ties to biology. The definitions of these "groups" you are talking about are poor and frequently challenged by biologists, anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists, etc. Somehow these experts are not accepted as experts in the field of "racial psychometrics" or whatever the latest euphemism is, so they get ignored. This is classic pseudoscience. These racial categories are constructed based on convenience. The scientific method is applied to unscientific premises, and the results are misrepresented as meaningful. Afterwords, anyone who points out these errors can be dismissed as ignoring the "evidence". Grayfell (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The scientific consensus is that race is often a social construct, but not necessarily only a social construct. It is debated whether "race" should be used as a term for the biological constructs or structure observed between human groups or populations. The correlations between race-based social constructs and actual human biological sub-populations is only in some cases 'limited', and can often be quite significant, although you are correct that the amount of correlation is inconsistent. 2605:8D80:648:1B4D:5360:2F1D:EF2F:174C (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

This "partial social construct" nonsense wasn't accurate when you said it at Talk:Racialism#David Reich article, and it's not accurate anywhere else, either. This comment is, however, a good example of the quantity of sock puppets and disruptive editors these topics attract. Grayfell (talk) 05:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me? I don't know what or who you are speaking on or about. Biological constructs or structure in humans is real, and 'race' has been a term to be used for that. This is fact from the foremost experts, and is accurate. You mention one there. Race takes on social identity and colloquially is imprecise, but the biological constructs which they often have correlations with are real. No one says that real, occurring human biological populations are 'social constructs'. The group differences you see are biological constructs, not social. The Fst between a Native American and an East Asian is far lower than between a Native American and a black African. That is a real biological construct, not a social one. 2605:8D80:648:1B4D:5360:2F1D:EF2F:174C (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Academic consensus is clear that "race" is not a term that is used to distinguish biological constructs/structures in humans. It is either the mark of an inveterate racist or an ignorant person who claims otherwise. I would consider it a disqualifying position for working at this website at all per WP:CIR. Or my personal favorite policy of ban all nazis. You choose. jps (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

There is no consensus on that, and the term is used in many studies. There is ongoing academic discussion on the use of 'race as population' or 'race as subspecies'. I can point you to such experts and publications if you wish. Knowledge of this should be a qualifying position according to your 'CIR' policy. The rest of your comments are distasteful insults. Is that permitted? 2605:8D80:648:1B4D:5360:2F1D:EF2F:174C (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

race as subspecies is a talking point straight out of the Third Reich. (Personal attack removed) jps (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I removed the personal attack against me (insulting labels of other users is a personal attack, so stop that). As for 'race as subspecies' in humans, that is a terminology used by the top genetic experts themselves in the most recent literature on the debate, as is 'race as population' or other levels. I can refer you to the sources if you want. 2605:8D80:669:29A9:D46A:4209:C977:4A0C (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

It's highly likely that there are people contributing to this conversation from "races" some here regard as being of lower intelligence. Can anyone see the problem with not allowing direct personal attacks, but allowing comments that say some people here are dumber than others? HiLo48 (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2020 (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.

AfD discussion of Race and intelligence[edit]

A discussion is taking place of whether to delete the article Race and intelligence, see [2]. NightHeron (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

And now at deletion review here, —Paleo Neonate – 05:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

New watchlist section[edit]

No BLPs yet there, but various articles were added in a new subsection of the skeptic's watchlist. Help welcome to add important ones I missed. —Paleo Neonate – 18:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Scale relativity[edit]

Scale relativity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Laurent Nottale (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The article Scale relativity is pretty amazingly bad. It is entirely an advertisement for a fringe theory that barely anyone has even paid attention to as such. The explanations of actual science are terrible, most of the references are to the inventor himself, the claims of what it explains are impossibly wide-ranging and grandiose, and the few criticisms aren't even reported properly. I'd suggest burning it to the ground, but it survived AfD in 2008 after what strikes me as a very superficial discussion. XOR'easter (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

It seems that in that AfD, other than a keep by a SPA and another by a banned user (who complained about orthodoxy), John Z's keep was persuasive with various other regulars also voting keep yet without explaining in detail. I also noticed that Nottale is cited at fractal cosmology. Is International Journal of Modern Physics peer reviewed (I've seen conflicting information on its publisher, World Scientific)? Fractal Space-time and Microphysics is probably in-universe... I couldn't find the source for it, but his article says that he is/was director of French National Centre for Scientific Research. Likely notable if so (and especially so if professor, but I'm not sure for scale relativity yet). —Paleo Neonate – 17:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

... And fractal cosmology is yet another article that needs work... —Paleo Neonate – 17:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, IJMP is peer-reviewed, but I haven't been able to find any indication of serious follow-up on Nottale's paper by anyone else. And throwing together the words "fractal" and "cosmology" could mean any one of many different things, with varying levels of respectability. XOR'easter (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Interestingly, a major 2015 rewrite was also published as an essay on academia.edu with "thanks to Laurent Nottale for many corrections and clarifications." –dlthewave ☎ 21:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

So many statements in that betray a lack of actual familiarity with science or mathematics. Searching for the most important paths relevant for quantum particles, Feynman noticed that such paths were very irregular on small scales, i.e. infinite and non-differentiable. No, the path integral isn't about finding the "most important paths", and the idea that typical paths are non-differentiable goes back to Brownian motion. This means that in between two points, a particle can have not one path, but an infinity of potential paths. This is trivially true for any two points in a plane. The principle of relativity says that physical laws should be valid in all coordinate systems. No, it doesn't. This principle has been applied to states of position (the origin and orientation of axes), as well as to the states of movement of coordinate systems (speed, acceleration). Acceleration is not inertial motion. And so on.

Then come the "applications" to biology, geography, the technological singularity... XOR'easter (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Nottale was a director at CNRS, but "director" (as opposed to "director general") means the leader of a research unit, of which there are about a thousand. It's comparable to "principal investigator" in significance.

Because I hate myself, I read the paper where he claims to derive the Schrödinger equation. It was about what anyone familiar with fringe physics would expect: unclear writing covering up unclear thinking (deliberately or not). The closest approach to a substantial point was that, if you throw imaginary numbers into a diffusion equation, you'll get something that looks like the Schrödinger equation. This is well-known, and others have done a better and more careful job of the analogy. (To pick an example that springs to mind, Risken's textbook on the Fokker–Planck equation does a good job adapting techniques from quantum physics to solve diffusion problems.) It's almost too vacuous to criticize. XOR'easter (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I mean, I tried to clean the thing up all those years ago. The rabble just wouldn't let me. Maybe the time is now to try again. jps (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Definitely fringe and very self-congratulatory (some of the promotion has been removed since this discussion started, thanks for that)... —Paleo Neonate – 01:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

My first impression is that the AfD got it right, and this is a notable subject (that is in need of a complete rewrite). Methinks stubbify and start over? VQuakr (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I honestly don't see a very good case for wiki-notability. I mean, the physics literature contains over 2.4 million papers, so it does take a little work to stand out. All we've got here is self-promotion, some fannish interest, occasional brushes with nominal respectability in marginal journals, a negative book review, and a withering post on Physics Overflow. It's the sort of thing that there's almost no critique of, because there's virtually nothing substantial to critique, so only a very few even take the time to bother. XOR'easter (talk) 04:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Per VQuakr, I stubbified the page. XOR'easter (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Update: the article's main creator has reverted the stubbification and been reverted in turn. XOR'easter (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Amy Lansky[edit]

Amy L. Lansky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Amy Lansky promotes the fraudulent CEASE therapy and other quack cures for autism, and is an ardent antivaxer, but this is not in the article despite being her primary claim to fame. If anyone is aware of sources that would help me fix that, please pitch in. Guy (help!) 10:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Claim to fame? Her book was published in a trade press for alternative medicine and all the citations are self-citations or passing notion. This article looks like it was written as a favor to a friend by User:Dicklyon, albeit back in the day when such backscratching was less frowned upon. jps (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Hmm Integrative Psychiatry and Brain Health seems in-universe (integrative medicine) and uncritically echoes the claims, citing Impossible Cure: The Promise of Homeopathy directly. Maybe that mention in Psychology Today is an indication of notability but I'm unsure and can't access the article. According to the current BLP she's computer science professor, but the only cited independent source for the CS part of the bio is Fundamental Research in Artificial Intelligence at NASA. In both independent books, there are only mentions, no significant coverage about the subject. —Paleo Neonate – 20:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Guy, what are your sources for her being mostly known as an ardent antivaxer, or for CEASE therapy? Dicklyon (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Dicklyon, This is a talk page so doesn't need sources, but that is the only source of reality-based commentary (most of which is on science blogs of one kind or another, e.g. [3], [4], [5]). And a great deal of the non-reality-based coverage (e.g. by homeopaths and other loons) also focuses on CEASE, which is anti-vaccinationist autism quackery. Oh, and she spoke at Autism One, which is pretty conclusive for involvement in autism quackery. Guy (help!) 15:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see anything there associating CEASE therapy with Lansky. What are you finding? Dicklyon (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Dicklyon, can I just check: are you aware that homeopathy is fraudulent? Just checking here. Guy (help!) 20:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how representing only that point of view can be considered consistent with WP:NPOV. But anyway, you were claiming that Lansky is associated with CEASE, and I'm not finding evidence of that in the links you pointed out, or elsewhere. Dicklyon (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

"point of view"? So no, you are not aware that homeopathy is fraudulent. --Calton | Talk 08:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but doesn't fraud imply intent? I have no doubt there are homeopaths who intend to deceive, but I think some might be victims of self-deception as well. It's hard to know which is which. OTOH, maybe we're using "fraudulent" as a stand-in for "without basis", in which case, carry on! jps (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

https://xkcd.com/303/ —Paleo Neonate – 20:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Interpersonal Neurobiology[edit]

Interpersonal Neurobiology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

New article; the topic may well be wiki-notable, but it's definitely written from an enthusiast's POV, and I'm concerned about the quality of the sourcing. XOR'easter (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

It was written as part of some a WP:Education course. User:Picklewik is the author. Cross-posting this to Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard may be advisable. jps (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm writing about interpersonal neurobiology for university. It's unfinished as I have many more references/sources I need to add, as well as sub topics on 'relationships' 'integration' 'Development/attachment' and 'applications for clinicians and patients'. All my sources (other than two websites) are respectable journal articles I'm trying to improve on the inclusion of many more to make this a verifiable topic. I apologise if it sounds enthusiastic as I'm trying to get used to a neutral point of view :) Picklewik (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Picklewik: Some of what you wrote was problematic. There is absolutely no consensus for the kind of dualism (or even Triangle!) that is being argued by Siegel. It is important, then, that we only write such articles as (a) the attributed opinions of the proponents, and (b) keeping in mind WP:FRIND when we include content. The journals you are using are of middling to fair quality in general. Part of the problem is that this idea is really developed by only a few people and does not seem to have received a lot of notice outside. To really establish that this is worth writing for Wikipedia, you would be advised to seek out more critical sources because there is a lot of what you wrote that may be the beliefs of those who are into IPNB, but the WP:MAINSTREAM understanding of these things is quite different. jps (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  - Thanks for the tips, I'll source more critical mainstream articles and hopefully make it more neutral + valid Picklewik (talk) 06:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The user has added quite a bit of content which may need to be checked for compliance with our WP:PAGs. [6]. I began the process of neutralizing some of the more arguable points that were asserted in Wikipedia's voice: [7]. jps (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Racism in pseudoarchaeology[edit]

No hating on the aliens.

I've suggested the addition of a section on this to our article and have provided some sources. See Talk:Pseudoarchaeology#Section needed on racism in pseudoarchaeology. Doug Weller talk 13:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, against aliens? Guy (help!) 14:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Isnt that Xenophopbia? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 18:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I don’t mind most marine mammals. But sea lions? I could do without sea lions.[edit]

Told you, dude. Sea lions. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Related: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Indian Journal of Pharmacology --Guy Macon (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I don't even know where to start with this bollocks. I get an itchy block finger reading his comments. Guy (help!) 17:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I gave up responding. I was hoping for some help from some of the regulars here. I did give everyone involved a pseudoscience DS notice so I suppose that I could go to AE, but where is the specific policy that I can show is being violated? WP:SEALIONING is just an essay. How much do you want to bet they he makes his living doing what the Wikipedia article calls quackery and is fighting us because we are costing him money? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

And now he is at Talk:Unani medicine#Citing Supreme court order So, what to do? RfC? ANI? AE? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Mises Institute[edit]

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

More eyes, please. I removed a lot of material that was self-sourced or drawn from unreliable sources (e.g. lewrockwell.com), but I am being reverted. This is analogous to the recent situation at Knights of Columbus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) where much of the article was self-sourced. Happily we're now past that on the KofC article, but it looks like the Mises article might be headed for the same months-long fight. Guy (help!) 08:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Bryan Caplan[edit]

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

RfC at talk:Bryan Caplan. Guy (help!) 13:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Obviously UNDUE and POV, but he's a George Mason economist, why is this here?—eric 16:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

This noticeboard deals in tosh like this. I still think you should fix your sig. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

EricR, he's also associated with a handful of extreme libertarian think-tanks. He advocates Ayn Rand as a great philosopher. That on its own would be fringe even without the bonkers opinions on education and everything else. Guy (help!) 17:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

For logical consistency you should probably label the entire GMU faculty as FRINGE. Or why not the whole public choice school? or even the chicago school? Pelirojopajaro (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying they all adore Ayn Rand and they all think that money is the only yardstick for measuring the worth of anything? Libertarian think-tanks tend to be fringe because they usually deny climate change - its very existence refutes their view that free markets can do no wrong. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I cannot tell if you are serious or trolling... PackMecEng (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE/PS lists 'pseudoscience', 'questionable science', and 'alternative theoretical formulations' (within the scientific community) as fringe. Do political arguments/viewpoints fall under the WP:FRINGE guideline?—eric 15:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand, looking at the history more, this shouldn't have required all those reverts, a talk page section and RFC for something so obvious. Shame you had to go through all that effort for something that should have been an easy change. Where is the WP:Reasonable Editor/Noticeboard?—eric 17:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Sheldan Nidle[edit]

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

I thought about nominating for AfD but am requesting input first. I can't access the Skeptical Inquire article (subscription needed) so am not sure of the coverage extent there, although it would still be just a skeptical source about fringe, their main topic. There are a few news article where he's just mentioned among various other people. There are only two possible indicators of notability in the article: the Randi prize (that is more like a trout, and also just a skeptic having noticed him that year) and the only coverage that's more than a mention is in Guesses, Goofs & Prophetic Failures: What to Think When the World Doesn't End (about 3 pages). Online there's a lot of self-promotion using social media as well as in-universe fringe sites mentioning him. Disclosure: I'm now a contactee, an unknown editor called my attention to the article. —Paleo Neonate – 21:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Telepathy brought me to this section. Or was it the watchlist? Can't be sure. He writes books but they seem to be self-published or using some fringe publishers with effectively the same result. Difficult to find much beyond that. --mfb (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, now at AfD here. —Paleo Neonate – 10:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

You saw Ground Crew Project? Sheldan Nidle/Ground Crew Project/Planetary Activation Organization, all the same topic with brief notability in the 90's. Maybe a worth a brief mention in UFO religion or List of UFO religions, but there is this Ground Crew Project article with excessive, well-referenced detail. The current Ground Crew Project is completely non-notable. If something has to be kept it may be better to merge to Sheldan Nidle?—eric 14:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I think I saw it mentioned in one of the sources but I didn't know of that article yet. —Paleo Neonate – 19:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh and your concerns are probably worth commenting in the AfD, —Paleo Neonate – 19:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I can't say I've read the citations yet but that other article appears to have more and better sources, so I'm now wondering if merging the bio article in it would also be a valid approach... —Paleo Neonate – 20:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: I have scans of Skeptical Inquirer through volume 29 courtesy of a DVD they (used to?) sell. I updated the SI reference in the article to properly cite it and quote all the text which is relevant. Probably going to get deleted anyway but at least the AFD respondents can see what that ref said. --Krelnik (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 19:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, no need for two separate articles. Ground Crew Project has a fair number of references, seems the logical merge target. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Bob Lazar, Whistleblower?[edit]

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

I always assumed the term whistleblower applied to someone who brought forth information that is based in reality, rather than claims of government conspiracy to cover up involvement with aliens. Maybe I'm wrong? Lazar has been lately promoted as a whistleblower in conjunction with recent media appearances. And some media outlets covering the PR campaign have used the word as a hook, albeit in scare quotes. So now (perhaps in a spate of WP:RECENTISM), it has been inserted into the lead sentence of our article, replacing a much more encyclopedic lead sentence. This has triggered an ongoing edit war with people retaliating by adding the word "criminal" to the first sentence, ostensibly to describe Lazar's various legal troubles. And, there are other recent WP:FRINGE problems:

Rebuttals to criticism [8]
Removal of criticism [9]
Addition of fringe POV [10]

Maybe someone with WP:BLP experience can help sort it out. In any case, more eyes needed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree more eyes are needed. The article is in pitiful conditions. There have been several reverts on this page in the last couple of days. If someone new arrives decides to contribute could we please ask that you read the discussion and WP:ROWN. Thanks! --Gtoffoletto (talk) 12:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

You’re the problem. Note diffs above. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the WP:PA. We have discussed every single edit to the page and have already sorted them out in the discussion. When you have (legitimately) attacked my sources I have looked for alternative ones and when none are available I have removed the content. You are engaging in a revert war against my good faith edits and attacking me personally. You state "This has triggered an ongoing edit war with people retaliating by adding the word "criminal" to the first sentence" yet you are the one that keeps reverting and reintroducing this term in the first sentence. I am wasting my time with this useless discussion and the work that has been done on the page is being lost. So as I said before: I Agree more eyes are needed and would invite people with more experience to join the discussion in the talk page and to DISCUSS instead of just REVERT. cc User:Bishonen --Gtoffoletto (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually, no. You started out simply making edits and reverts without any Talk page discussion at all: [11], [12], [13], [14]. When you finally posted on the Talk page, it was in an old section [15]. And your edits since then have pretty clearly been in support of a pro-Lazar POV. And I don't see any support for them from other editors, only disagreement. So I suggest you try to get WP:CONSENSUS for any changes you want to make. Since you ask, I don't think it's useful to say "(he) is a criminal" in the article lead (there are much better and WP:BLP-appropriate ways to summarize such article content, such as "Lazar was convicted of X in 19XX, and Y in 19XX", for example). Neither do I think "whistleblower" is appropriate or useful. The first only attracts Lazar fanboys come to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The second is only a term recently introduced as part of a publicity campaign for Lazar's videos and podcasts, and smacks of WP:RECENTISM. I would prefer a much more encyclopedic lead as previously existed. Thanks, - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I started out simply editing the page as I thought it was appropriate to do so. It was a casual edit and you identified it as problematic (which I agree it was as it was an unreliable mirror of a reputable primary source). I don't agree with your handling (you reverted it while we could have found together a better source) but I accepted it and improved the sourcing thanking you for the help. The same happened with subsequent edits by another editor which we discussed and we reached consensus on how to treat it. After this process all of this work has been wasted by sloppy reverts which definitely do not assume WP:GOODFAITH such as your attacks on my personal opinions which are irrelevant. Don't attack me personally but help me improve my contributions please. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

p.s. Please continue the discussion in the article talk page on the specific edits indicated in the diff of your revert so we can reach some kind of consensus. Attacking each other here is useless. Thanks! --Gtoffoletto (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The word "whistleblower" has floated in and out of Lazar's article. I, perhaps ill-advisedly, added "supposed whistleblower" and "convicted criminal" to the lede for the sake of having descriptors (he was previously described only as an "American"). I'm not particularity passionate about retaining my additions. Keldoo (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a hard one. I rather think of all the alternatives I can wrap my head around, "supposed whistleblower and convicted criminal" is pretty good. conspiracy theorist might also work, but he is less of a conspiracy theorist and more of a con-man. Anyway, we would need a source for this, but I imagine we could probably pretty easily find one. I think fabulist might also be appropriate, but I'm not sure we could find a source for that. It also seems pretty clear to me that reliable sources identify Lazar as a charlatan as he uses his fame to enrich himself, but that's going to be even harder to source. We might be able to say something WP:NPOV such as "ufology personality famous for promoting conspiracy theories" or something. jps (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I think UFO conspiracy theorist is the best holding category. I've implemented the change: [16]. Enjoy! jps (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist seems closest. You can't blow the whistle on shit that didn't happen. Guy (help!) 23:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Albert Ostman[edit]

The Albert Ostman appears to have quite a few fringe sources supporting it. While performing a sweep of fringe sources through Wikipedia today, I noticed that there appears to be a lot more there than I currently have time to dig through. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

some cleanup, looking for Napier 1973 or the like before removing the fringe refs.—eric 18:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Beast of Buchan[edit]

Looking over Beast of Buchan, I've stripped most of the obvious WP:RS fails/WP:FRINGE stuff out of it (including the usual link to pirated PDFs...), but the article likely needs further looking over. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Scholarly peer review and suppression of dissent[edit]

Talk:Scholarly peer review § Suppression of dissent

I was on a {{rs?}} tagging spree in relation to Journal of Scientific Exploration / Society for Scientific Exploration (not done yet) and voiced a concern at that talk page after tagging some sources. I didn't delete the material and there was at least one other supporting citation that I didn't tag, so possibly there's still merit for a mention in some form. Since it's relevant to this noticeboard I thought I'd ask other editors to evaluate and/or improve. Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 10:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Past RSN discussions of the JSE:[17][18] [19] Maybe if the author is Alice Kehoe we could use it but only with attribution, I'm not sure. Doug Weller talk 16:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes agree that it is generally unreliable and that it then depends on the author and topic (it becomes usable for the author's opinion when due). I didn't specify it above, but the two sources I tagged at the "Scholarly peer review" article on dissent are from Martin. —Paleo Neonate – 01:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Update: tagging over (including sometimes specifying that the journal caters to pseudoscience when an article mentioned that an author was publishing in it without criticism). I noticed that some of the sources were scientifically skeptical, some from Bauer and a few others. A number of others were to support ideas about reincarnation or UFOs, etc. In case anyone is interested, here are links to some articles I noticed that may be promotional: Satwant Pasricha, Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect, Reincarnation and Biology, Dirk Schulze-Makuch, Neurognosis (all sources by a single author). —Paleo Neonate – 03:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

And about the above article, considering the lack of response on its talk page or here, I boldly removed three questionable sources (also one from Independent Institute) and consider this solved unless it's reverted, —Paleo Neonate – 05:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I've tagged Neurognosis with a stack of templates and will try to find the time to evaluate the others. It looks like Reincarnation and Biology is puffed up with references to book reviews in journals that aren't actually reliable. XOR'easter (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I now noticed that Biogenetic structuralism was once at AfD (discussion) with consensus to merge/redirect to Charles Laughlin. This could also be a solution here, unless it gained more attention than Biogenetic structuralism. —Paleo Neonate – 22:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

USS Nimitz UFO incident[edit]

Hello everyone. I'm seeking advice regarding this UFO incident.

Since it has been confirmed by several reputable sources (including the U.S. Navy) and multiple eyewitness am I correct in thinking that the SKEPTIC angle should be considered fringe in this case?

The article is not very clear and a substantial section is dedicated to reporting absurd skeptic views that even contradict the official navy reports.

I've cleaned it up a little trying to give the article a slightly more balanced tone (see edit history) but there is a lot that should be done.

Also the article conflates multiple events/video releases together in multiple points. The video of this incident was released together with 2 other videos (both from a subsequent event) that have also been confirmed by the U.S. Navy. A page for the other event don't exist or if it does I cannot find it for some reason.

Opinions? Thanks --Gtoffoletto (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Article doesn't seem unbalanced to me in its current state and your edits looked ok at a glance. Skepticism being in its own section lower in the article makes sense. You could take the skepticism as meaning skepticism that UFO = aliens, which is certainly not FRINGE. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Right but questioning the accuracy of the report? No source supports the statement “it was aliens” beyond speculation by the witnesses (“nothing that we have behaves like that”. Alien? Adversary? Who knows). But no reputable source questions the fact that contact was made with an ufo. (There are multiple radar visual reports, more than once, from sea and air etc. after all). A lot of focus in the article is on the chance that this could have been “human error or a tech glitch” but also given the navy’s confirmation I would reduce them significantly As FRINGE. Is my interpretation correct? Thanks—Gtoffoletto (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

No. The overwhelming mainstream consensus is not going to be overturned by an argumentum ad verecundiam relating to a single incident. Brunton (talk) 09:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok I understand people here are used to being in attack mode against armies of trolls and pseudo science guys. I will try to state better my question.

I am NOT - REPEAT - NOT talking about the fact that the objects were “aliens”. No proof exists of this and no source states it other than speculation.

I’m talking of the fact that the encounter HAPPENED and was of an UNEXPLAINED aerial PHENOMENA(not hallucinations/fake/error/easily explainable as stated by “skeptics”). Since this fact seems incontrovertible given the overwhelming consensus based on the amount of proof from multiple witnesses on record/sources/technologies and official confirmation (occurring only recently). Previous marginal SKEPTICAL SPECULATION regarding the accuracy of the event should be proportionally treated. This is the point and in my understanding conforms with wp:fringe guidelines. I hope my request is more clear now(The article should separate the two topics in its treatment and I will do it if I have the time).—Gtoffoletto (talk) 10:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Hmm wasn't Entropy on Beal's list? I just read the Popular Mechanics article including the text following "There are three obvious but uncanny possibilities ..." which shows how unclear it still is, although the article also says that it's unlikely to be a deliberate hoax. This comment is related to these changes. Probably that the skeptic impressions can remain but it would also be possible to put them in context. Like for news reports, if new information surfaces after a skeptic's statement, they can be dated or chronological, etc. Inline criticism is also favorable to concentrating it in a special section. —Paleo Neonate – 11:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

"Hmm wasn't Entropy on Beal's list?" Not that I'm aware of.

Fun story: I've discovered that the Skeptical Inquirer's 2018 article on the incident is fundamentally flawed. Most of it's content and conclusions are invalid. Good times :-) I sent them a note (anyone have some direct contacts? Quite embarrassing for the magazine). More info here (end of thread) for those who want to join in on the fun Talk:USS_Nimitz_UFO_incident#Remove_the_skeptic and deter me from independently researching too much O:‑) --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

MDPI, who publishes Entropy, was listed on Beall's list for a while in part because of Entropy, but MDPI had a successful appeal. However, reviewing standards are lax at both Entropy and MDPI. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Definitely not an immaculate record but seems a bit of a blanket statement given that they publish a lot of journals: List of MDPI academic journals. Entropy appears to be associated with one controversial paper from 2013. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, when they publish credulity about UFOs like this, it's not hard for us to request that a paper with zero citations published by them shouldn't be considered worthy of Wikipedia's attention. jps (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Not only that, but this is a journal which is apparently interested in the fields of 'entropy' and 'information theory'. Ufology makes as much sense to cover in that journal as sperm whale reproductive methods. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Nota bene I have reverted Gtoffoletto (talk · contribs) for WP:POVPUSHing on this article. If this sort of thing keeps up, I suggest asking for sanctions at WP:AE. jps (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS_Nimitz_UFO_incident&type=revision&diff=940940772&oldid=940920696 You have reverted 20 edits that have been sourced and thoroughly discussed/are being discussed. This diff is a disgrace and edit warring. Your edits are masking several revers of other previous edits (to avoid blatantly braking the 3 revert rule I am sure). This is unacceptable. I am the one that asked for a source check in the discussion of the article for that source. It's from a reputable peer reviewed journal as we are discussing here and in the talk page. I am reverting your edit and will gladly turn myself in WP:AE myself. What a disgrace. Behaviour like this is worst stain on the great project that wikipedia is. Can somebody else involved in the discussion chime in please? Any admins watching this?! --Gtoffoletto (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Your edit was so indiscriminate that you even removed the entire section including the Skeptical Inquirer's 2018 article. What a sloppy and lazy edit. A totally unjustified personal attack. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I really don't think you should be editing articles related to UFOs. You don't seem to understand the issues related to WP:FRINGE. jps (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

However, I thank you for pointing out that a well-sourced paragraph that was inadvertently removed should have probably remained. I restored it! Hugs and kisses! jps (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I restored it myself actually as there was a lengthy discussion regarding it which you have ignorantly missed.Several other editors have reviewed (per my request) my edits as you can see above and have deemed them satisfactory. Then you arrive and decide for yourself? Ever heard of WP:CON and WP:CIVIL? Rather more basic concepts than FRINGE I agree but maybe you should refresh on them a little. What manners and self entitlement my gosh --Gtoffoletto (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The article is in a great state right now! If you have anything you think needs to be changed, I am open to reading your carefully explained and well-sourced suggestions. See you at the talkpage. jps (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

You destroy the careful work by me and all the other editors. Write trollish and childish edit summaries. And ignore several ongoing discussions. Yet I should be the one to explain your ignorance? Is this what makes you feel powerful? I will just ask for a other opinions on you revert: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS_Nimitz_UFO_incident&type=revision&diff=940944267&oldid=940944190 (you even called the "skeptical views" section "mainstream". What the hell is that even supposed to mean...) cc PaleoNeonate DIYeditor Headbomb --Gtoffoletto (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

you even called the "skeptical views" section "mainstream". What the hell is that even supposed to mean... I'm glad you asked. jps (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll add that the section in question isn't limited to the views of avowed skeptics; it contains many relevant technical experts and academics with no connection to organized skepticism, so labeling it as "skeptical views" was a misleading description. WRT what are considered "mainstream" views, Wikipedia doesn't shift that definition in response to sudden media flaps and hyperbolic publicity surrounding reported UFOs. In the case of ufology, we can only mirror the bulk of scholarly opinion on the subject, which hasn't changed in any significant way in the last 20 or 30 years [20]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm really sorry guys: white flag. I tried to engage and be reasonable but the behaviour of a small(?) "gang" within this group stifles all attempts at discussion and constructive editing. The result has been blind reverts eliminating all contributions indiscriminately. Wikipedia should be a positive environment. Yet I've never had a more exhausting and frustrating experience editing on Wikipedia in more than 10 years and was forced to file my first ever admin report for edit warring. I'm not sure if anything will come out of it but the approach you have with new contributors in the space is completely unhinged and not WP:CIVIL. You accused me of being a tin foil hatter (which I am absolutely not). Then you accused one contributor I was having a constructive discussion with of being one himself (User:Keldoo). It's deranged. I'm sure you come from the best of intentions (fighting hordes of lunatics probably forged those behaviours) but you have lost sight of the goal here and I really believe you are damaging Wikipedia as a result. I'm sorry about this and worry this is not the first time someone gives up on editing the pages you preside over. The discussions of the last week have been a waste for all of us. I really think simply reverting ONLY when ABSOLUTELY necessary would have saved us a lot of useless fighting and helped us reach consensus. But few of you seem to believe it should even be taken into account (one admin even pointedly asked me if I was aware that ROWN is "just" an essay). I hope you take this into account in the future when you come across the edits of other contributors. Maybe our discussion will not be for nothing after all. Cheers! --Gtoffoletto (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

What do you expect when you come to the fringe theories noticeboard saying UFO skepticism is fringe? —DIYeditor (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Umm...[edit]

Anybody tell me what the heck I'm looking at here? I can't brain it. GMG ^talk 16:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Made up shite. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Jakub Tencl provided no enlightenment?—eric 16:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah. I suppose then it's safe to say that DanDvo is likely a sock of Tencl.jakub. To FFD we go. GMG ^talk 16:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

But you're accumulating karma for censoring vital information that could lead to the self-realization of many beings.^[Humor] —Paleo Neonate – 00:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

AATIP[edit]

Wow.

jps (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Related ANI thread. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Shen Yun[edit]

Back in the states for a bit recently, I noticed absolutely relentless ads promoting Shen Yun. For those of you have not yet been pummeled by their ads or have yet to enounter an expose about the group: In short, like the ultra-right wing and relentlessly pro-Trump Epoch Times (cf. New York Times, New Republic, etc.), Shen Yun is essentially a propaganda arm of the Falun Gong. Shen Yun espouses the group's usual anti-evolution, anti-atheist, and anti-communism (and anti-socialist, more broadly) views, as well as presents a, well, creative interpretation of Chinese history and culture (Here's fairly recent and very high profile expose from the New Yorker).

I've just made some modifications to our Shen Yun article, but it needs far more eyes, particularly given the extreme lengths that the organization appears to be willing to go to promote itself and its fringe views. The article badly needs a solid vetting of its sources and its presentation, at the very least. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

What's the WP:FRINGE aspect? They can dance anti-whatever the hell they want to off WP. I don't see any anti-evolution arguments, for instance, in the article.—eric 04:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

For example, from the article:

Li has been open about his beliefs that evolution is fraudulent, that people of different races will be separated in Heaven, and that homosexuality and promiscuity are unnatural. He told Time that aliens were attempting to control humans by making us dependent on modern science.

Yep, aliens. Just search the article for "evolution", etc, and there are plenty more where that came from. Shen Yun promotes the fringe beliefs of the Falun Gong, along with the Epoch Times. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

And claims he can walk through walls. A bit of equivocation tho to apply WP:Fringe theories to fringe belief and opinion. I see one edit from 2007 arb case claiming medical benefits that would be WP:FRINGE, if there was argument in the article claiming truth for any of those beliefs it would be WP:FRINGE. Arguing their creative interpretation of Chinese history and culture in the article seems the most likely problem that could apply, but I see none of that. Ensuring the opinions and beliefs of the group are accurately described with due weight looks like a matter for WP:NPOVN.—eric 15:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, the problem as I see it is one of framing which does touch on fringe theory issues. Is Shen Yun most famous for its Falun Gong connection or is it more notable for the aggressive advertising they engage which intentionally and without shame downplays the Falun Gong/Falun Dafa connections? Our lede right now puts the company line as the first paragraph before descending into "the actual story" in the second paragraph which, intentionally or otherwise, ends up serving the same problem as WP:CRITS in articles where all the verifiable revelations are buried lower down in hopes that readers or content scrapers just get the PR version at the top. [[WP:NPOV] is one aspect of how to handle this, but owing to the fact that this particular group has been the subject of a number of threads on this noticeboard before, it is not a bad idea to alert users here as some may have experience dealing with this. jps (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Repressed memory[edit]

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

Recent edits by a new WP:SPA look distinctly fringe to me, but I am not an expert on this. Guy (help!) 08:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Update: I replied to their concerns at the article talk page and it seems that they have moved on for now, —Paleo Neonate – 06:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Manna[edit]

Hi fellows. Synce yesterday I am struggling with someone that compares Manna with Bread fruit. This sounds very fringe. The editor insists to put a blogpost that I suspect is published by the same person that edited the article, but now I'm afraid of WP:3RR. Some help is welcomed. Ixocactus (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Not exactly WP:FRINGE but primarily a WP:COI issue, as the editor adding the cite has the same name as the author and even offers details of his writing methodology in his edit summary. I see it has been reverted, but if the problems continue, you might drop a note at WP:COIN. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Noticed that every edit made by this user has been to promote themselves, so dropped my own note at WP:COIN. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Raman Kapur[edit]

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

As this article appears to have been written by a believer, it's impossible to tell that acupuncture is bollocks. Guy (help!) 22:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The nation's 4th highest civilian award does not seem to be enough for notability. One of 71 to receive the award that year.—eric 23:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

EricR, someone creates articles for absolutely every recipient of that award at any level. There are thousands of these articles, usually with crappy sourcing. Guy (help!) 07:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

List of fringe websites[edit]

Was looking at Institute for Historical Review links and started playing around with quarry[21]. Anyone got a list of fringe websites that should not be linked to except for maybe a few whitelist entries?—eric 18:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

personal greylist. fiveby (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Notice of RfC on Indigenous Aryans[edit]

I am bringing attention to the Request for Comment going on in the Talk page of the Indigenous Aryans article. The topic of the RfC is:

Should the article say in the lede that the Indigenous Aryans / Out of India theory is a fringe theory as in the suggestion below?

(The suggested wording is available at the Request for Comment.) BirdValiant (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Pseudoscience-focused WikiProjects outside of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptozoology?[edit]

Per the recommendations of users on this board, I've joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptozoology and started converting it from a pro-pseudoscience organizational platform into a means of covering the pseudoscience from an objective, academically-minded point of view. I am now wondering if there are any other pseudoscience-focused WikiProjects out there that I don't know of? I assume there has never been a WikiProject Young Earth Creationism or a WikiProject Flat Earth Theory, correct? :bloodofox: (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views, Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal were the most active. Wikipedia:WikiProject Intelligent Design never was very active and was dominated by the WP:MAINSTREAM evaluators for the most part. jps (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicine —Paleo Neonate – 06:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I thought there was an osteo or such WP but I couldn't find it. —Paleo Neonate – 06:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Astrology —Paleo Neonate – 06:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Wow! If ever there was an RfC to shut all these false-balance projects down, I would support it. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I think there was way back in the day (I don't really have the patience to go searching for it). The general consensus was that they weren't promoting particular points-of-view, instead they were just to handle content that was relevant to those points of view. Similar to the political WikiProjects, for example. They encouraged people who thought that there were false balance issues to join the projects. In practice, these projects (as most) are pretty moribund. jps (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes they are indeed supposed to serve for organization and editors are expected to follow policies. So the other one I was thinking of wasn't osteo, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Chiropractic, finally. —Paleo Neonate – 01:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

On the subject of Astrology, 2A01:CB04:4FE:F700:343D:F97B:1ADD:E5AC (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is identifying many of the articles related to Hindu astrology, many of which have a completely in-world perspective. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Can't find old talk about deleting these type of projects....but most years ago noticed that the projects aren't a haven for fringe theorist but a place were neutrality an article organization was discussed. Many also though it would be a good idea to keep track of fringe editors... but as I mentioned above that wasn't the case.--Moxy 🍁 01:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Reliability status of "skeptics"?[edit]

I'm encountering a huge emphasis on "skeptic" Benjamin Radford's opinions and commentary on the folklore topic Ogopogo, so much so that it entirely dominates the article. Radford appears to have no training whatsoever in folklore studies (eg. he is not a folklorist or any other kind of anthropologist), and Radford appears to be making a lot of ungrounded claims about "sightings" of what is otherwise a typical sea monster motif (eg. Motif-Index of Folk-Literature, etc.). What is the WP:RS status of the WP:RS status for so-called "skeptics" on fringe topics? It seems to me that swapping one non-expert opinion out for another results in more problems, and implies a false dichotomy of "believer" versus "skeptic", which is not at all how experts in anthropology handle these topics. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

It's largely a question of WP:PARITY. It sounds like you have a much better set of academic sources which would prove more reliable than all the skeptic (and cryptozoological) sources available. It is fine to excise all discussion or at least shunt it off to better environs per WP:WEIGHT. jps (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

There's a mixed bag review of Lake Monster Mysteries in Western Folklore. That's not the only Radford source used in the article, but does speak to his methods. "no more than an old-fashioned monster hunt,...closer to Lewis Carroll's The Hunting of the Snark than to a scholarly treatment..." It does give a nod to an "an in-depth analysis of the phenomenon from historic and folkloric perspectives" for the Ogopogo chapter only, but not any of the skeptical theorizing. A pretty harsh review actually. Powers, Luke (2009). "Lake Monster Mysteries: Investigating the World's Most Elusive Creatures."". Western Folklore. 68 (1). I would cut that whole section. fiveby (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Bloodofox, Radford is a professional investigator of paranormal and other bullshit claims. He's one of the most prominent in the field. Guy (help!) 19:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Bloodofox: Odd that you put skeptic in quotes. I’m sensing an agenda. Radford is an expert on matters such as this. BTW, he literally wrote the book on the Chupacabra and so I’m wondering if next you are going to try to remove his citations from that article? RobP (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Bloodofox, certainly no friend of cryptozoology, is rightly pointing out that while Radford is an expert in debunking pseudoscientific and credulous claims of cryptozoology, we might be better suited (and I believe Radford himself would likely also be perfectly okay with an approach of) excising all or nearly all mention of cryptozoology from articles that really should be about the folklore. In many instances, the cryptozoologists have WP:SENSATIONALized these stories for their own agendas and TV shows, and while Radford does the patient work of showing how those cryptozoologists are problematic, there is an entire literature being obscured on the literary and cultural context of these folktales. As it is, there is a legitimate approach we can take here which is to completely downplay cryptozoological claims altogether. I tend to agree that making cryptozoology the feature of articles about folkloric monsters is skewing the most prominent aspects of the topics whether we spend most of the time on skeptical debunking or the credulous monster hunters. We could make small mention of them if we must, but to have Radford's skeptical musings and takedowns be the primary focus of an article such as the one metioned in the OP is not doing our reader the service of presenting the best scholarship on the folklore aspect of the stories rather than any claims that these stories are meant to be literally describing extant organisms at all. jps (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents[edit]

Some work on this would be appreciated.

jps (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Some sources useful for general criticism of various under-criticized or critique-free articles regarding Navy UFO reports, AATIP, To The Stars, etc.: Robert Sheaffer [22], Joe Nickell [23], Flying Magazine [24] and Ben Radford ("Newly Revealed Secret DoD 'UFO' Project Less Than Meets the Eye". Skeptical Inquirer, 2018, Vol. 42, pages 6–7, possibly available via WP:REREQ). - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

What Darwin Got Wrong[edit]

What Darwin Got Wrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

May possibly give too much weight to Jerry Fodor philosopher & co arguments based on the book itself... —Paleo Neonate – 06:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused; what is your concern? Since the book is written by Jerry Fodor, our article about the book is obviously going to summarise his views; that we summarize the thesis of a book doesn't mean we endorse its arguments. (The spandrel theory may not have universal acceptance, but it's certainly not by any stretch a fringe view.) ‑ Iridescent 07:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

There were a number of critics who argued that the book preferenced fringe arguments in perhaps a crypto-creationist fashion. It makes it difficult to know exactly how to summarize the piece since a lot of these arguments are ones that may feature in certain philosophical circles while being ignored by the biological community. I don't know what the right way forward is necessarily in that. The article seems to delve a bit more into the content of the book in areas where it hasn't received a whole lot of notice in the relevant epistemic communities (if you believe that biology is the relevant epistemic community, for example). jps (talk) 12:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure, it's a minority view, but minority doesn't necessarily equate to fringe; "not every trait is necessarily the product of selection for that trait" isn't up there with "animals were genetically engineered by Annunaki space lizards". (Even if the book were espousing the fringiest of fringe theories, it still doesn't violate WP:FRINGE to explain what the author believes and what their argument is, provided we're not saying in Wikipedia's voice that we actually believe their claim. We have articles on outright whackadoodle books like Where Troy Once Stood, The New Pearl Harbor and The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail; it still doesn't violate WP:FRINGE to neutrally say "this is what this author believes, this is their supposed evidence, these are the reasons their theory doesn't have wider acceptance".) ‑ Iridescent 13:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

We are tasked to follow WP:NFRINGE inasmuch as an idea has received notice from a relevant community. A lovingly detailed summary can stray into WP:SOAP territory. I'm not saying, necessarily, that this is what is happening here, but in general if only certain aspects of a book have been noticed it may not be a good idea to summarize the book in as great detail as one might summarize some book like A Brief History of Time, for example. WP:NPOV sometimes means not discussing ideas which haven't been noticed. jps (talk) 02:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Then we include the criticisms. If the academic community have ignored it talk to them.Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

It does include the criticisms? I'm really not seeing what the issue is here. ‑ Iridescent 14:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not either thats my point.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

It's possible that I was wrong, thanks for looking at it. It's true that if not considered blatantly fringe, primary sources are often left more space, even if generally, independent sources are preferred. —Paleo Neonate – 08:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC

Tired light[edit]

Someone thinks Tired light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is "not psuedoscience". --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I skimmed the talk page and it seems that banned user Licorne has been responsible for disruption there for years, including under various IPs. This IP is almost certainly him; see this SPI. Also, given the history of this banned user coming back as shifting IPs, might be worthwhile to try to get it semiprotected indefinitely. I see the user has been messing around at Taj Mahal too. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC) updated Crossroads ^-talk- 00:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I've reported the IP to SPI. It is amazing that this has been going on for more than a decade. jps (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

IP is now blocked for 3 months, and article semiprotected for 3 years. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Da Vinci Globe[edit]

Thought to be the moon, now said to be the world. Probably not fringe, but then why publish through Cambridge Scholars Press/Publishing and a SCIRP open access journal? Side question, I thought we didn't allow copyright tags on images such as the one at Early world maps#Leonardo Da Vinci Globe? And although File:The Leonardo da Vinci Globe, 1504, Photo by Geert Verhoeven, © Stefaan Missinne 2018.png says © Stefaan Missinne it also says own work by the editor adding it, Davidguam (talk · contribs) who created the article on the globe. Doug Weller talk 15:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

lots of work needed Bracke, Wouter (May 2019). "The Da Vinci Globe" (PDF). Maps in History. No. 64. WP:SELFPUB by Missinne, shouldn't be the only source, especially since there were a lot of questions back in 2013[25]. fiveby (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

this The ostrich egg globe is since 2018 internationally accepted as the Da Vinci Globe from Hunt–Lenox Globe added by Davidguam (talk · contribs) is telling. I cannot find a copy of the The Portolan Journal article, and it's not very comforting how the Washington Map Society is pushing this on their site. Everything in that article should be "according to Missinne..." Reliability and POV issues, possible copyright and COI, WP:TNT is probably the best option.fiveby (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

No response to my question as to whether they have a COI. Doug Weller talk 10:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure there was such an article in the Portolan Journal.[26][27] Here's his 2019 Advances in Historical Studies paper.[28]. He's frequently referred to as Professor, eg [29] and his Cambridge Scholars' page which also says "He is Laureate of the Prince Albert Foundation and Managing Director of the Ginkgo GmbH."[30] But not on his Researchgate page= Note that this must be his Linkin site[31] as it also mentions {Ginkgo Projektentwicklungs- und real.} which is here.[32] - seems to be a real estate and project development company of some sort. His Laureate of the Prince Albert Foundation comes through this process[33] where he had to "manage a one-year business project for a Belgian company outside Europe". Doug Weller talk 11:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

No doubt there was an Portolan Journal article, it kicked off a wave of news stories[34], but also skepticism. From the WaPo article: Chet van Duzer "Where this thing comes from needs to be clarified", “It is an exciting discovery, no question, but I also think that more testing should be done.”, link to Da Vinci "tenuous in the extreme". John W Hessler "a couple red flags that popped up", "the Leonardo connection is pure nonsense." scholar doesn't show much independent review, for what that is worth. Since 2013 all we have is the self published book by Missinne, and the mostly negative review in Maps in History linked above, yet WP is making a bunch of unqualified claims about the globe. fiveby (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I see a copyvio issue raised at Talk:Da Vinci Globe where I've also posted. I've cleaned up the other articles. I need to go to COIN also. The CT scan at File:Counterweight Da Vinci Globe.jpg is the scanner's property, isn't it? And that's copyright to Missinne but uploaded by DavidGuam. And how can the photo at File:The Leonardo da Vinci Globe, 1504, Photo by Geert Verhoeven, © Stefaan Missinne 2018.png be copyright to Missinne but Guam's own work? Or File:Schmidt da Vinci Globe.jpg? Doug Weller talk 14:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Now reported at WP:COIN. Doug Weller talk 14:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

But if it's ignored by the academic community? And most of the article is from the book, User:Davidguam, who has twice removed the maintenance templates, tells me on my talk page "Hi Doug, I have an academic relationship with Stefaan Missinne and and I asked for his copyright for this wikipedia article and he accepted. how can i solve the many problems i seem to have ?" I haven't had time to reply. The basic issue is that this has not been even discussed by the academic community and is published in unreliable sources. Doug Weller talk 17:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

It is discussed by the academic world @ Doug Weller: On May 31st at the Faculty of Geography at the University of Barcelona: On August 28th at the International Conference organised by the Royal Geographical Society in London On October 31th at the International Conference organised by the University Library of Straßburg in France. On October 31st at the international academic and cultural center Spui25 in Amsterdam: on November 20th at the Academy Petrarca in Arezzo,Tuscany. on November 21st, at the University of Florence On December 5h 2019, Rome, at the International Conference on Travels and Modernity at the University ROMA III. On February 18th 2020, Vienna. Austrian Academy of Sciences, organised by the Friends of the Austrian Academy of Sciences.

None of those meets Wikipedia's sourcing standards. Blogs, personal web pages, predatory publishers and the like. Guy (help!) 20:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Unplanned[edit]

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

Editors consider that anti-abortion propaganda film Unplanned should have a "plot" section to be consistent with other film articles, but the plot section is seen by others (notably me) as violating NPOV by giving undue weight to anti-abortion propaganda. Guy (help!) 23:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

not a WP:FRINGE issue. fiveby (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

It is a fringe issue where a plot summary is a backdoor allowing fringe/pseudoscientific proponents a "free hit" in article space. Plot summaries are allowable per a MOS that explicitly allows exceptions, and here core policy (which is not negotiable) would apply, notably to prevent giving undue prominence to fringe views. Alexbrn (talk) 05:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks very much like a fringe issue to me. Doug Weller talk 11:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

How does Wikipedia:Fringe theories, which lists "Pseudoscience", "Questionable science", and "Alternative theoretical formulations", apply to this POV dispute? It's a fictional movie (based on controversial memoir). Problems with the "Accuracy of portrayal" section would apply, but that is not what was presented and there does not appear to be any questioning of that section on the talk page. Labeling opinion and belief as fringe and attempting to apply the Fringe theories guideline is not a neutral approach to editing. Bringing a POV dispute that does not deal with pseudoscience to this noticeboard is WP:Canvassing. fiveby (talk) 13:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

You can't omit the plot of a movie just because you don't like its POV. Of course, there's no reason why there can't be a criticism section. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge, you can't include it when it violates WP:NPOV. Guy (help!) 21:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

As a point of comparison, Triumph of the Will describes the movie's plot in extensive detail in the Synopsis, Themes and Hitler's Speeches sections. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

This is not about omitting the plot section, it is about the plot section not containing unchecked WP:PROFRINGE propaganda. Nothing wrong about asking fringe-savvy users to check that it does not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Then we challenge it in the section below about accuracy.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, we follow Wikipedia standard policy and practice and include only that which is verifiable from reliable independent sources. Which fixes the problem, because reliable sources do not uncritically repeat the false narrative that is so problematic in the "I watched the movie and this is what I saw" version of a Plot section. Guy (help!) 18:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

And Wp standard policy on plots is that the source material is an RS for what it contains (we are not saying it is true, we are saying it is what is included in the plot of film).Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

What "standard policy" do you mean? Alexbrn (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:FILMPLOT for one.Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

That not policy, but a style manual. Alexbrn (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Its a guideline, just as much as wp:fringe is (a guideline).Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Plot synopses can be used as WP:SOAPboxes. It is important to make it clear that while the movie may be striving for a cinema verite look, there are choices made in the depictions of abortions and related events that do not coincide with reality. This film is no Triumph of the Will in terms of notice of its individual scenes, for example, so it is not really a fair comparison as the WP:MAINSTREAM critique of Triumph of the Will is readily apparent so there is little danger in violating WP:WEIGHT or WP:SOAP if editors are diligent. In this scenario, there may be some strong arguments to excise certain long descriptions of plot elements if no one independent of the filmmakers has commented upon them. jps (talk) 12:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

There are definitely some problems at that article. E.g., I had to remove the claim that a WP:MAINSTREAM OB-GYN's explanation of the inaccuracies in the film's portrayal was "false" [35]. This is not only a fringe belief regarding fetal pain, it's also an egregious WP:BLP violation. I gave an extremely stern warning to the user who did this [36], but I suggest some scrutiny of this user's edits if to see if more of this is going on. There are a number of discretionary sanctions notices on that user's talkpage, but not particularly recent, so someone might want to do that as well. jps (talk) 11:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Yup, problems with the "Accuracy of portrayal" section apply, as i said above, tho the issue looks pretty minor and already taken care of. That is an objective implementation of the Fringe Theories guideline. All else mentioned: propaganda, soapboxing, pov, undue weight, etc. are subjective and should be discussed on the talk page, not here. Fringe Theories guideline does not apply. fiveby (talk) 16:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

You are simply wrong about this. I'm not sure if you're being willfully wrong about it or are just trying to be disruptive to prove a point. Either way, I suggest you back down. jps (talk) 17:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

This was a perfectly reasonable discussion until your comment, and not disruptive at all. I think maybe the guideline you've linked is probably another you are using improperly. fiveby (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Wrong again. "Minor and already taken care of" is not objective, and soapboxing, POV, undue weight etc. are not subjective. Since there are many fringe ideas about abortion, The Fringe Theories guideline is relevant to the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Look, you are allowed to disagree that something is relevant to this board. You can even state that disagreement. But to repeat this disagreement over and over again when others are trying to discuss the situation and work out solutions is not helpful, it's disruptive to the purpose of this noticeboard. There are plenty of other things you can turn your attention towards at this website. Trying to halt discussion here is not something that you should be doing. jps (talk) 11:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

We gain nothing by not giving the reader a full picture, we do lose credibility. We should giver a full plot synopses and then demolish its arguments.Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Our hands our tied by reliable sources, of course. If there is no notice of certain plot elements, I question whether they deserve inclusion. jps (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, neutrality requires that we omit fringe material where inclusion would risk unduly legitmizing it. If there's no counterpoint in RS, Wikipedia shall remain silent. Alexbrn (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

As I understand it plots can be referenced to the actual work. If these plot elements have not be questioned it is not out job to do that. Maybe it needs to be made more clear this is a fictionalised account, not fact.Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Referencing the plot points is one thing, but the question is how to summarize and which parts to emphasize. There is quite a lot of gore in the film for example and going through the details of it is probably not in the best interest of the reader nor would, for example, providing a complete transcript of the dialogue. The best thing to do is look for which plot points are most notably discussed in the independent literature to guide the means to describe the plot.

The film enthusiasts have written themselves a MOS that permits plot summaries, but I'm afraid that goes in the bin when NPOV is violated. The film does not promote itself as fiction but, on its main site, as "an eye-opening look inside the abortion industry from a woman who was once its most passionate advocate". Wikipedia should not get suckered in buy the "it's fiction!" bait-and-switch. Alexbrn (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

No we should make it clear its fictionalised and sensationalised.Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

It's a little hard to do that as the movie-makers themselves are loath to admit that this was fictionalized and sensationalized. Still, it would be good to find some sources to this end. jps (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

One question, give an example of a fringe theory in the plot that is not questioned in the critical response section?Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

There is the conspiracy theory that Planned Parenthood does not call ambulances during medical emergencies for fear it makes them look bad. jps (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

That did not take long [[37]], so we can point out this is a lie.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Go for it! jps (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not the one arguing for that a plot of a film is not RS for what it says. The lede says "The accuracy of the film's portrayal of abortion and of Planned Parenthood have been severely criticized by doctors and advocates for Planned Parenthood." and that as far as I am concerned is all we need to say.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Really? You think it's not important to identify what was inaccurate? jps (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT PackMecEng (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

We do which part of ""The accuracy of the film's portrayal of abortion and of Planned Parenthood have been severely criticized" does not say that the whole plot is not accurate? I am not against singling out specifics if you wish, but I am not sure we need do more then just say "and the film is bollocks" (but more politely worded).Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the "whole film is bollocks" is what our sources say. There are serious doubts as to the veracity of what is being claimed to be "based on a true story" or whatever, but there are some interesting self-reflective points in the movie as well where they, for example, admit that there are register problems with the way some anti-abortion activists have behaved at clinic protests. The film also condemns the killing of George Tiller in a somewhat hamfisted but still unequivocal fashion. Of course, nuanced critiques are simply not going to be easy to come-by here, and that's kinda my point with wondering how much detail the plot should have. Obviously a full transcript is not needed. jps (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I did not say "the whole film", we already say its factual accuracy is disputed (in the first line). Once our reader knows that he (I would hope) treat the film like any other dram film that is "BASED ON A TRUE STORY!". If you want to add a Battle of the Bulge (1965 film) style "differences from history" style section, fine. The lack of one (not that there is) is not a basis to gut the plot summery.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that it's not clear which aspects of the film are disputed just from reading through the plot summary. I don't know what you mean by "gut the plot summery". I've actually been working on at least making the summary true to what happens in the movie which it wasn't before. But there are a number of plot elements that are glossed over, omitted, or unclear as to whether we should include them. I'll let someone else argue over whether there should be a plot summary at all, but my point is that if there is a plot summary then we have some editorial decisions to make about what to include and exclude from it. I hardly think that's controversial. If you want to help figure that out, feel free to jump over to the page. jps (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Not, that, is not. What maybe is your reason for what you want to exclude. Generally fringe does not apply to fiction, even if dressed up as fact. So to my mind the only question is not should we exclude fringe topics, but how do we make it clear the film is in fact fiction.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, "it's fiction" is not an immunization from WP:FRINGE. I can point to other instances where people tried to claim this, and it's not a good defense. And as a matter of genre, it's not quite fair to call a dramatization "fiction". Anyway, exclusion or inclusion of fringe topics is handled by WP:NFRINGE and it's fine to refer to that if and when it becomes relevant as it may in instances where the filmmaker seems to be attempting to portray certain aspects of abortion that are essentially the purview fringe theories. In any case, there is active work going on over at the article, so feel free to help out. jps (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

It takes an extraordinarily tortured reading of "undue" to use it to remove the "plot" section of a piece of fiction.

It's very far from unusual for fictional works to have have a heavy-handed message, but we don't normally treat them as though they were some devious backdoor into Wikipedia. We accurately describe them, because that's the point of having an article about them. ApLundell (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I think I agree that removing the section is not warranted, but I think there are real questions about what level of detail is appropriate while maintaining an accurate description. jps (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Quacks who poison patients with mercury compounds and the Wikipedia editors who think this is OK[edit]

Siddha medicine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Mohanabhil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Gandydancer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Both of the above users have received recent arbitration discretionary sanctions alerts on the topics of complementary and alternative medicine as well as pseudoscience and fringe science.

Background: Siddha medicine and its twin brother Ayurveda medicine are forms of ancient Indian folk medicine that is said to have been conveyed by Lord Shiva to his wife Parvati, who passed it on to her son Nandi, who gave it to Siddhas. The word Siddha denotes one who has achieved some extraordinary powers (siddhi).[38]

A key part of Siddha medicine is giving patients toxic mercury compounds[39][40], causing heavy metal poisoning.[41][42]

Siddha practitioners have had mixed results getting the Indian government to approve what they are doing, with the Indian Medial Association and the Indian Supreme Court calling Siddha practitioners "Quacks".

Despite the page being fully protected, the proponents keep hammering away on the article talk page, trying to get us to say that Siddha practitioners are not quacks.

I am thinking of taking this to WP:AE. Comments? Pinging User:JzG. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Before you go off all guns blazing, consider that both Mohanabhil and Gandydancer may well have a point. I need some more clarity before I decide either way, but ... Siddha is Pseudoscience and quackery and imho fraud. The Indian Govt have tried to improve their regulatory framework of these practitioners (quacks from our pov) by requiring them to register as practitioners and reqiuiring them to have training of some kind to enable them to register. What we have difficulty with is interpretation of those simple facts. So, the question is, are Mohan and Gandy saying that if these practitioners register under these regulations, then they are not quacks? Something is being misinterpreted? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 08:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, I agree we should reserve judgment at this point - Gandydancer, in particular, is a long-time trusted editor. I am not familiar with Mohanbhil. My first step here would be to discuss with Gandydancer, but there is a definite problem here with India applying "legislative alchemy" to turn bullshit into "medicine". India's culture of religion and tolerance fosters a culture of "different ways of knowing" in which homeopathy, ayurveda and like bollocks are accorded parity with real medicine. Guy (help!) 08:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Yup. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 08:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I keep searching and searching, and I cannot seem to find these mythical Siddha practitioners who have received sufficient training to no longer be quacks. In particular, where is the school that trains them to stop prescribing organic mercury compounds and only prescribe medicines that have been found to be safe and effective in double-blind medical trials? Where is the Siddha practitioner who advertises that they have abandoned mercury? Where is the Siddha practitioner who complains that he tried to get certified but was told he has to stop giving mercury to his patients? Where are the regulations for training that require no mercury?

Instead I see things like Ayurveda GCP Guidelines: Need for freedom from RCT (Randomized Clinical trial) ascendancy in favor of whole system approach and Clinical trials not mandatory for licensing ASU (Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani) drugs, says govt. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the names "Mohanabhil" or "Gandydancer" -- the actual topics you brought up -- anywhere in that mini-rant. Nor do I see any sign that you've notified them about this discussion you've started. --Calton | Talk 09:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Look at the article talk page. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 10:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

There are pages such as ANI where the notification template is required and the instructions at the top of the page specifically says "The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose". Then there are pages like this one where either method is acceptable. I used the ping method. If Calton wishes to make the template required, he should seek consensus for such a rule change rather than criticizing editors for violating nonexistent rules. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes I think notification is not needed to post on this noticeboard, but is a courtesy. —Paleo Neonate – 13:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I have to say, when I saw the heading I thought this would be Vaccine hesitancy related. Carry on. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

It is odd that on the one hand we have antivaxxers claiming that mercury is poisoning children long after the tiny amounts of mercury in vaccines was removed, yet on the Siddha talk page we seem to have multiple editors who don't care about the fact that many patients are dying from heavy metal poisoning and who don't care about the complete lack of evidence that the so called "legitimate non quack" Siddha practitioners are required to stop prescribing organic mercury compounds. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC) .

Also been a problem with TCM in places like New York, where of course the crunchies lap it up. Guy (help!) 18:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

It's right that a distinction should be made between a dodgy belief system (like Siddha Medicine) and its practice, which is quackery. The usual "safe" formulation for dealing with this kind of scenario is to say something like "${Woo medicine} is not supported by medical evidence and its practice has been characterized as quackery". Alexbrn (talk) 11:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I have read the charge of "hammering away on the article talk page, trying to get us to say that Siddha practitioners are not quacks." I will give other editors a few days to read the article, the talk page, and the sites offered by Alexbrn and then I will respond to Alexbrn and the comments of others. Gandydancer (talk) 02:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

A couple of points. First, what sites has Alex offered? Second, why make us wait for your response? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 12:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps others have more time to carefully read the circumstances surrounding this complaint which states that I have been "trying to get [WP editors] to say that Siddha practitioners are not quacks" including the article, the talk page, and the related sources posted at the article and TP, and here than I do. After all how else could they make an educated judgement? That said, I do consider my WP reputation important and I certainly do not want my name to be presented at WP:AE for a discussion of my behavior. So I will make a short statement to show that I have not been trying to get WP editors to say that Siddha practitioners are not quacks but rather to respect and use RS correctly.

During my many years as a WP editor I have run into many instances of finding political bias of the WHO and US agencies such as the EPA (who are supposed to protect our health through addressing environmental concerns), the CDC, and the AMA, and as such I would well expect to find the same within the comparable Indian agencies such as the IMA and Indian governmental agencies. That said, following WP policy I do not enter my opinion re their positions and statements as demonstrations of fakery and lies, but rather I use RS to support or dispute what RS has reported. That is what we are supposed to do here; we are not supposed to argue in an article or on the article talk pages whether or not they are correct as has been going on here and on the Siddah talk page.

The article currently states: Identifying fake medical practitioners without qualifications, the Supreme Court of India stated in 2018 that "unqualified, untrained quacks are posing a great risk to the entire society and playing with the lives of people without having the requisite training and education in the science from approved institutions" However a reading of the judgement offered as a reliable source clearly shows otherwise and anyone reading the judgement should be able to easily see that that is the case. The judgement states they are addressing "Paramparya Vaidyas", not qualified practitioners of traditional Indian medicine. Quoting the court judgement:

The 2018 judgement made by the Supreme Court of India states: "Learned senior counsel for the appellants contended before this Court that in the State of Kerala, a large number of �persons are practicing in Sidha/Unani/Ayurveda system of medicines known as ‘Paramparya Vaidyas’, which are in vogue for a long time. They have acquired knowledge and experience from their gurus and parents and by continued practice over a long period of time they have acquired the requisite expertise."

Conclusion: "The government had been vigilant all along to stop such quackery. A number of unqualified, untrained quacks are posing a great risk to the entire society and playing with the lives of people without having the requisite training and education in the science from approved institutions.[...]But in the present case, the appellants herein have failed to show that they possessed requisite recognized qualification for registration entitling them to practice Indian system of medicines or their names have been entered in the appropriate registers after the commencement of this Act." [43]

As I say on the article talk page, this is a poster child of the reason that we should not be using primary sources as the one being used to (incorrectly) provide RS for this statement offered as factual in the lead of this article. There are similar problems in the second primary source used in the lead, an IMA statement, as well. Gandydancer (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The article at this moment seems to have improved a lot from the time when I looked into it for the first time in last month. I was merely concerned on talk page regarding the representation of the sources and if we are using credible sources. I am not adamant or seek enforcement of my suggestion but a civil discussion without any obstruction is ideally a good idea for improving the article. I agree with Alexbrn that the article must be careful with differentiating the historical Siddha and the present Siddha. Mohanabhil (talk) 08:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

To move on to the next primary source used in the lead. First and most importantly, this IMA source clearly shows why WP annon editors should not be using primary documents to back accusations of wrongdoing, or anything else, in our Wikipedia articles. Never the less, reading the second source which supposedly states that the IMA finds practitioners of Indian traditional medicine to be quacks, this document does not support that statement. It states:

Quacks can be divided amongst three basic categories as under :

1. Quacks with no qualification whatsoever.

2. Practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb, Unani), Homeopathy, Naturopathy, commonly called Ayush, who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practicing Modern Medicine. (emphasis added)

3. Practitioners of so called integrated Medicine, Alternative System of Medicine, electro-homeopathy, indo-allopathy etc. terms which do not exist in any Act.

The third source in the lead, the Guardian, does a good job of presenting the IMA's position, but even there Indian traditional practitioners are not called "quacks" but rather those practitioners who are practicing modern medicine and the IMA's fear that the Indian government will make legal changes to laws that allow them to do so. As time permits I will discuss the charge that I supposedly believe that it is OK to be poisoned with mercury. Gandydancer (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Finally, it is very insulting to have a fellow editor say that it's OK with me if the people of India are poisoned with toxic mercury compounds and that I should be taken to WP:AE. I'd like to defend my WP reputation by saying that I am not some sort of troublemaker or nutcase. I have one India-related article, the 2012 Delhi gang rape article and I have another related article that came up in the talk page discussion, the New England Compounding Center meningitis outbreak. I'd suggest that anyone reading the links that have been offered here keep in mind that any medication that is not properly prepared and prescribed correctly can be deadly, see the meningitis article for example. Another of the links offered here is clearly a discussion with an unlicensed Siddha practitioner of the type that India does not permit to legally practice. From my reading I learned that India has many universities that teach Indian traditional medicine and the government encourages their use for people that desire that form of medicine. IMO it is an insult to India and perhaps even racist for Wikipedia editors to declare that the people of India use medicine that is fake and is provided by quacks. Gandydancer (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Not any more racist (i.e. none at all) than it is to say that (some of, as was the case above) the people of the USA use medicine that is fake and is provided by quacks. And I don't appreciate use of the trope of using "racism" or "other cultures!" as a shield for quacks and fraudsters. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am referring to properly trained and licensed practitioners of Siddha medicine, which is what the particular article is about. Gandydancer (talk) 04:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Government endorsed quackery is still quackery. See: climate change denial. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

As the protecting admin, I vouch for Gandydancer as someone who is competent, edits in good faith, and is insightful. El_C 02:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Afterthought: I absolutely agree with this. It is the reason I posted to this thread in the first place. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 12:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

" properly trained and licensed practitioners of Siddha medicine, which is what the particular article is about" are still Quacks. Nothing in Gandy's posts above supports that IMA didn't call these people quacks. They clearly did. Gandy and Mohan provide nothing to support the differentiation, (read conjecture) that they, not the IMA, are making. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 11:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

There may be a question of labeling versus exposition going on here. The term quack is a somewhat inartful sobriquet that can mean a variety of things. I wonder whether it even means the same thing in the context of Indian medicine as compared to how it is defined in Wikipedia. E.g. The Times of India, which is a source of uneven quality at best, seems to define a "quack" as a doctor practicing without appropriate education rather than promoting dubious treatment regimes which is typically the way it is used in the US and the UK. jps (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

jps, I will give my best guess as to what is going on here. I did a lot of reading and as such I think I do now have some understanding of this matter. What I found out is that India has millions of people that need health care and the Indian health ministry is attempting to do the best they can to help their own people. But they have found themselves between a rock and a hard place when it comes to making mandates with strict rules because a large number of their people would be left without any care at all. Hence they did come out with a ruling that "‘Paramparya Vaidyas", those practitioners that had no formal schooling in medicine (see the link above in which a practitioner explains that the education cannot be taught in schools but only learned from one's guru--and it must be kept secret at that!), would not be sanctioned by the Indian ministry of health. ...And other guidelines which the IMA is not very happy about, which I mention below.

Add to that the problem that a large number of allopaths leave India because they can earn more money elsewhere and of those that stay, most of them do not practice in the rural areas. So one thing that the government is promoting the possibility that practitioners of traditional medicine be given rights to legally prescribe around 70 "modern" drugs after a three-month course. From reading the IMA statement that the allopathic doctors have issued one finds, not surprisingly, that they are vigorously protesting any laws that they see as cutting into their own territory. They argue that the Indian health ministry has been so vague as to allow all sorts of ways go get around their concerns (and I'd well guess that they are quite correct in their charges). So that's where things are at. (Though one can add to that the problem that the allopaths and the Indian traditional practitioners are not being educated in both types of medicine as this pharmacist believes is needed and is explained in this helpful link [44] ) But all that said, India accepts traditional med as a legal form of medicine and does not see it as fake or quackery, and our article should not be claiming that it is. We're required to report RS here, not what we think is true or false. Gandydancer (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand one point, do you think that just because the Indian government "accepts traditional med as a legal form of medicine and does not see it as fake or quackery" our article needs to follow the Indian government's position? I can understand an argument that our article might not be able to say with some clarity what exactly the position of the Indian government is, but it is not Wikipedia's place to argue one way or another on the basis of government proclamation. If we have reliable sources that indicate that Siddha medicine is "fake or quackery", we should report that. The Indian government is not the ultimate arbiter of this, surely. jps (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Well I assume you are aware that I have all along argued that the claims that the article makes in the lead are not backed up by the references that are offered. If you have RS that would top what their own Ministry of Health through the Supreme Court of India and the IMA have made I'd like to see it used to replace what we now have, though I should think that the opinions of those two would be considered as the leading agencies that we would use for a comparable article. The lead states:

The Indian Medical Association regards Siddha medicine degrees as "fake" and Siddha therapies as quackery, posing a danger to national health due to absence of training in science-based medicine.[5][6] Identifying fake medical practitioners without qualifications, the Supreme Court of India stated in 2018 that "unqualified, untrained quacks are posing a great risk to the entire society and playing with the lives of people without having the requisite training and education in the science from approved institutions".[9]

I would assume that if you have been reading the talk page and the links that have been offered that there is no question about whether or not the Indian health ministry supports traditional Indian medicine. Gandydancer (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

You are evading the question. But it does not matter. The Indian government is not the ultimate arbiter on the question of whether something is quackery, period. Their position does not matter, only the position of the scientific community does. If we report the position of the Indian government, it is just in order to give the reader an idea about the relation between the Indian government's opinion and reality. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I think there is a question about whether or not the Indian health ministry supports traditional medicine. I mean, do you think the sources indicate that they are endorsing the use of the mercury compounds? And if there is a nuanced take to be had here about access, why is the current wording something with which you disagree? It seems to me that you're playing a game of either/or when it need not be that way. jps (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

There are no doubt some parts of the Indian government that support traditional medicine, just as there are parts of the UK and US government that support nonscientific remedies. See Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 for an example of the dietary supplement industry health lobbying the government to vote down laws requiring supplement manufacturers to demonstrate supplements safety before marketing the supplements.

In the above, Gandydancer says

"Add to that the problem that a large number of allopaths leave India because they can earn more money elsewhere and of those that stay, most of them do not practice in the rural areas. So one thing that the government is promoting the possibility that practitioners of traditional medicine be given rights to legally prescribe around 70 'modern' drugs after a three-month course."

If the India government was talking about allowing say, homeopaths, to prescribe those modern drugs after training, they would at least have practitioners who are otherwise prescribing harmless but ineffective remedies. But when that talk about letting Siddha practitioners prescribe those modern drugs after training without requiring them to stop prescribing organic mercury compounds that is another matter.

At Talk:Siddha medicine#Evidence, please. I asked the following question:

"Some here claim that there exist Siddha practitioners who are licensed, trained, and thus not quacks. Please show me any shred of evidence that any such license or training requires Siddha practitioners to stop prescribing organic mercury compounds."

It appears that the same editors who are prepared to argue all day about "properly trained and licensed practitioners of Siddha medicine" not being quacks have fallen strangely silent when faced with the above question. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh right. Does nobody else wonder why anyone would routinely call practitioners of scientific medicine allopaths, as if Hahnemann's ideas had merit, and as if medicine, like homeopathy, had made no progress since Hahnemann's time? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Guy, have you stopped beating your wife? ;) also, whenever I see the word “allopath” I substitute it with “real medic” when reading. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 08:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, that's an India thing. See the top step of the pharmacy here: File:Bangalore pharmacy.jpg. The quacks have infested Indian healthcare rather badly. I put it down tot he culture of religious faith (homeopathy and ayurveda are both quasi-religious practices) - back in the day, reality-based doctors were mroe likely to be Christian and this was seens as a religious equivalence thing as far as aI can tell (despite homeopathy having been plucked out of the arse of an 18th Century German). Guy (help!) 10:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

There’s a particular irony in the use of the term here, given that (unlike modern medicine) Siddha medicine, along with at least 2 of the other therapies under the “AYUSH” umbrella, uses precisely the sort of humour balancing based approach that Hahnemann derided as “allopathy”. Brunton (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

ThetaHealing[edit]

ThetaHealing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The usual. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Ball lightning[edit]

Much of the obvious insanity was removed from this article years ago, but recently some questions were asked on the talk page as to whether it's still too credulous.

Is ball lightning a "Unexplained" phenomena? A "supposed" phenomena? Or perhaps just category of potentially related observations?

This thread might be of interest to people here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ball_lightning#Not_science

ApLundell (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Observed but not explained. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC).

Funny how the article lists 12 scientific explanations for something that is "unexplained". - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it is even clear that ball lightning really is a coherent single phenomenon. It is often invoked in discussions of UFOs, but unlike explanations such as Saint Elmo's Fire and Fata Morgana, there is no one agreed upon description of the supposed phenomenon. Is lightning sometimes in different shapes? Can balls of plasma form in our atmosphere? I don't think there are clear binary answers to these questions that cover everything our article is currently discussing. That typically indicates an area that is "unexplained" if perhaps not altogether "mysterious". jps (talk) 13:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Patrick Michaels, fossil fuel industry funding, and climate change "skepticism"[edit]

A New York Times article on Youtube's systemic promotion of fringe theories is making the rounds today (Nicas, Jack. 2020. "Can YouTube Quiet Its Conspiracy Theorists?" March 2, 2020. The New York Times.). One of the figures it mentions is Patrick Michaels, a fossil-industry funded climate "skeptic", which Youtube's algorithms promote to users. Michaels's page does not make the fact that he is a fringe proponent explicit, which further serves Google's promotion of his views on YouTube. Michaels's article could use a lot more eyes from users from this board. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Section "Michaels and Balling complaint against Star Tribune upheld" should probably go as undue, only reference a primary source, unless more can be found. Same in Robert Balling. fiveby (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

When someone writes an opinion piece for say The Washington Times, I do not think it is appropriate to quote from in a WP article unless there are other reliable sources which discuss that opinion and include similar quotations. Even if they are clearly the views of the article's subject, it gives their views undue importance. In this case the source of the opinion is a marginal source and considered partisan in WP:RSP and fringe material. Should also go if no other sources than Cato and the original opinion piece cannot be found. fiveby (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I found three good sources for his fossil industry funding. Guy (help!) 14:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Just to make sure every i is dotted and every t is crossed, did he start off publishing the fringe theory and then get fossil industry funding, or did he get the fossil industry funding and then publish the fringe theory? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  Guy Macon, I don't know if the sources say. It's pretty clear that he's been receiving oil money since before the last IPCC report, so it's not easy to pick apart whether he's the last of the unconvinced or whether this is a case of Upton Sinclair's famous aphorism. Probably a bit of both.
  
  Update: I just thought to look in merchants of Doubt. He's been working with Fred Singer since 1991, originally denying the scientific consensus on ozone depletion, then morphing into climate change denial. He called cap and trade "Obamunism" - he's obviously a hard libertarian and he appears, from what I can findm, to be taking the money mainly because he's unemployable in his original job by now due to science denial. Ironic really: climate change denial is vastly more lucrative than what he did before. Guy (help!) 23:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

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