Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
"WP:FTN" redirects here. For nominations of featured topics, see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates.
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
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


Articles for deletion

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Good article nominees

Requests for comments

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split


Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence[edit]

There is a disagreement between me and User:General Iroh, the Dragon of the West about whether or not Richard Lynn, Edward Dutton (anthropologist) and J. Philippe Rushton should be cited at Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence.

Dutton and Lynn are both closely tied to Mankind Quarterly and both have been involved with neo-Nazi groups such as Washington Summit Publishers and Red Ice. At Race and intelligence, the work of this group is handled carefully and contextualized by more reliable sources. In this article they are just added to the pile of sources, which suggests the article has deeper issues. Grayfell (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I added one source by Dutton and one by Rushton, respectively - the Lynn source was already cited by the time I started editing that article. In either case, I would argue that all three sources ought to be included as they shed light on perspectives essential to the article. It is true that they're a bit controversial, but what scientist researching these topics isn't? Preferably, we could come to an agreement on wording further emphasising the uncertain nature of this topic, Ashkenazi intelligence, without removing sources we may personally find undesirable. By the way, feel free to contextualise all you like, if you can find any reliable sources refuting their claims. One final comment: It's a bit funny how you describe publications featuring Jewish authors like Michael H. Hart as "neo-Nazi". Iroh (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
@General Iroh, the Dragon of the West: Michael H. Hart is a white separatist and white nationalist and has been associated with various other white nationalist figures, such as Jared Taylor and Richard Spencer (differing from other white nationalists mainly only in the area of anti-semitism). He certainly qualifies as fringe. Skllagyook (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


(edit conflict)Sure, look at the article on Michael H. Hart as an example if you want. Hart is published by Richard B. Spencer.
There are a lot of controversial figures in this field, but... the idea that these specific figures are "a bit controversial" is a comical understatement. Very few psychologists have their emeritus status revoked. Very few theology majors go on neo-Nazi podcasts to promote racist versions of anthropology. Shifting the burden on to more reliable sources to bother and "refute" these claims is a function of pseudoscience. Grayfell (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, let's examine the contents of these sources. I can begin with Dutton since you didn't choose one.
Dutton argues that Ashkenazi Jews do indeed have the highest average IQ of any ethnic group, but that their disproportionate successes may also be explained by their high general factor of personality (GFP) and/or positive ethnocentrism. His paper is really a response to a response by Nathan Cofnas to Kevin MacDonald. Cofnas acknowledges that high Ashkenazi GFP has been found by Dunkel et al., and furthermore does not fully dismiss the possibility than Ashkenazim may be more ethnocentric than for instance non-Jewish Europeans, though he does not think they are "extreme[ly]" or "uniquely" ethnocentric. Are all these people fringe neo-Nazis, too? Iroh (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

All these people are fringe. Whether they are neo-Nazis or not, I leave for to another venue to discuss. jps (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree, but to clarify why I mentioned this, Nazism's views on Jewish people is a based on scientific racism. Involvement in neo-Nazi movements is not incidental to being fringe. Instead, it's another demonstration of it.
That Dutton defends Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist) further shows that this his views of "Jewish intelligence" are based on fringe pseudoscience. As for Cofnas, I recommend this article for background, if anyone is curious. Grayfell (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Even Cofnas and Dunkel? Lol. Is there anybody but Noam Chomsky who is not fringe? Anyway, I don't really feel the need to argue the Rushton source right now as his findings on high Ashkenazi IQ during early testing are backed by Cochran et al. (in fact, the latter should be restored immediately as it directly contradicts a claim by The Guardian). As for the Lynn source, I need some more time to familiarise myself with it to be comfortable making a more definitive statement on it as I wasn't the one who added it.
All in all, my central point stands: If you accept that these allegedly fringe sources ought not be removed from articles like The Bell Curve since they're contextualised by left-wing sources, you can't have them removed from the Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence article just because you couldn't find any left-wing sources to contextualise them there. Iroh (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh great, Grayfell doesn't think Cofnas is fringe. That means this source should not be off-limits, right? Iroh (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Cofnas' work on this topic is fringe. Per the link I cited, Nathan Cofnas met Dutton at the London Conference on Intelligence, and both have ties to the Ulster Institute for Social Research which is a racialist "think tank" run by Richard Lynn. Cofnas is part of the same walled garden.
Context comes from reliable sources, regardless of ideology. Your opinions on "left wing" sources introduces a WP:GEVAL problem, but still has very little to do with reliability or fringe. Grayfell (talk) 23:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
How can you not consider Cofnas reliable when your own source portrays him in a positive light and criticises MacDonald's remarks on his Jewishness? It seems to me you just aim to shut down the whole discussion around Ashkenazi GFP and ethnocentrism. Can you at least see how the Cochran et al. "factoid" on early IQ testing is relevant to "contextualise" the Guardian's claims, or is contextualisation a one-way street only?
By "left-wing", I was referring not to politics but rather environmentalism as opposed to hereditarianism. Iroh (talk) 23:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
That source doesn't simplistically portray Cofnas in a positive light. Cofnas had some valid points, which is why his essay dunking on MacDonald was popular. Being popular isn't the same as being reliable, and disagreeing with someone who is fringe doesn't mean that he cannot also be fringe.
Consensus on Wikipedia is that any proposed genetic link between "race" and "intelligence" is fringe, for a variety or reasons. Therefore, per many tedious discussions, race and intelligence is not simplistically about "environmentalism" vs. "hereditarianism". Many self-described "hereditarians" have the good sense to reject the shoddy statistics of Richard Lynn, and there are plenty of "environmentalist" academics who push fringe perspectives on environment. Reducing this to a left-wing/right-wing issue is confused, arbitrary, and inflammatory.
In "Cochran et al." that et al is doing a some heavy lifting. Gregory Cochran is controversial, and his coauthor Henry Harpending was fringe and was (yet again) an associate of Richard Spencer, who is a neo-Nazi. Regardless, this discussion is about Lynn, Rushton, and Dutton. Shifting the discussion around to other people is a distraction. Grayfell (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
The problem with this article is that it relies on primary sources, i.e., isolated studies, without explaining their degree of acceptance in reliable secondary sources. There is a neutrality issue too. The article says that whether or not the subjects have higher intelligence is a matter of controversy, without explaining what the mainstream view is. Climate change and evolution are also matters of controversy.
If you can get a reliable secondary source that discusses the controversy and use primary sources properly, then the problem of rs problem will be reduced. But to answer your question, I would only use their writings in reliable secondary sources, which is AFAIK nothing.
TFD (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Lynn, Dutton and Rushton are all fringe figures who should not be cited; we can rely upon secondary sources to report upon them and evaluate their statements. And, to concur with Grayfell's point, fringe figures do indeed have disputes with others on the same fringe, whether it's arguing over the location of Atlantis, the proper way to build a perpetual-motion machine, or whatever. XOR'easter (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
XOR'easter, the way the article is written, the theory is not treated as fringe but mainstream controversial. IOW half of experts would agree, the other half would disagree. You need to fix that first. I agree that fringe theories should only be presented using reliable secondary sources. The only time I would use a primary source would be if it were directly quoted in a secondary source. If we provide more, then we risk violating OR and neutrality. If readers want to read Lynn et al they can get their books and papers. TFD (talk) 11:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Is there a single "expert", hereditarian or otherwise, who does not belive Ashkenazi Jews have "higher average intelligence than other ethnic groups"? Iroh (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Of course there are! The vast majority of experts acknowledge that we don't even have a validated definition of intelligence that allow anyone to be able to make declaration of the average intelligence of ethnic groups. Wow. jps (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I prefer primary sources on scientific issues as they tend to be more fact-based and less subverted by politics, but I've come to understand Wikipedia prefers secondary or even tertiary sources. I can respect that. Surely we should be able to find some non-primary sources properly summarising the hypotheses and controversies around Ashkenazi intelligence. Iroh (talk) 10:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Please also respect the Wikipedia consensus, which arose from lengthy discussion of the sources, that claims of genetic differences in intelligence between racial or ethnic groups are fringe, i.e., not supported by mainstream science. See [[1]. NightHeron (talk) 11:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Wait a second. Every single scientist who has ever researched the topic has found racial/ethnic differences in intelligence - the uncertainty lies in to what extent those differences are due to genetics vs. environment (numerous interracial adoption studies and countless twin studies have been carried out in pursuit of answering this question as well as the broader question of nature vs. nurture vis-à-vis intelligence). But this discussion is about Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence in particular. Iroh (talk) 11:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Someone please warn this user about discretionary sanctions. I just reverted them again for POV-pushing. Looking at their contributions, I'm afraid we may need to ask for a topic ban at AE. jps (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Hahaha. I didn't even add a new source, I just expanded on the article's main source, Cochran et al. ("contextualising" claims made by The Guardian). Per Grayfell, "this discussion is about Lynn, Rushton, and Dutton. Shifting the discussion around to other people is a distraction." To put it plainly, if that source is a "fringe POV push", almost the entire article (as it stood before I started editing it) is a fringe POV push. Yet apparently numerous times the article was nominated for deletion and rejected. Iroh (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Looking at my contributions, less than 5% are about Ashkenazi intelligence, and less than 10% are about intelligence in general. Let's try to resolve this issue in a civilised manner rather than running around trying to "topic ban" each other. Iroh (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I hope you are not a sockpuppet. Some of your commentary is reminiscent of User:Oldstone James. jps (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I scrolled through some of their contributions, and I have to say I'm feeling a little insulted. Not because you correctly noticed that we have taken interest in similar topics, but because their level of English literacy is far below mine. But no, I am not a "sockpuppet". On an unrelated note, I just told GirthSummit "[a]s for my occasional use of sarcastic language, that's probably a generational issue more than anything. My guess is I'm also a bit more neurotypical (i.e. less autistic) than most Wikipedia editors. Anyway, I'll try to cut that down as to avoid coming off as inflammatory." Iroh (talk) 12:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, upon further inquiry, his vocabulary doesn't seem too poor to me (still of course below my level); it's rather his grammar to which I would object more often than not. Furthermore, he apologises a lot. I doubt I could ever apologise that much unless I had raped or murdered somebody. Iroh (talk) 13:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

New sources[edit]

All right, now I've had enough of "edit warring" and off-topic discussions for months to come and then some. Let's start presenting and examining some non-primary sources so we can improve this article in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines (with which I like to belive I have now familiarised myself quite well). Iroh (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

This is the fringe theories noticeboard. This is the place to discuss the topic as it relates to WP:FRINGE. There appears to be consensus that these sources are fringe and should not be cited without context. Your comment suggests that you want to drag this out by discussing sources in general, but the article already has its own talk page.
Your willingness to go to bat for fringe sources, however, is relevant to this board. You've barely edited that article, and only for a couple weeks. Further, your account is less than a year old. Unless you do have some prior experience with another account, it's very odd for you to presume this will last for months to come.
As for your abrasive and dehumanizing comments about being neurotypical, and you casual use of rape and murder as rhetorical devices, I suspect behavior like this might end up at WP:ANI sooner or later.
Further, this edit from a couple months ago restored a context-free quote to Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi. This quote is pretty much only ever mentioned by advocates of the very fringe Kalergi Plan hoax, so that's also a big red flag. Grayfell (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I see, should other sources be discussed at the article talk page then?
Oh, I don't presume this particular argument will last for months to come, however I do expect to keep editing Wikipedia every once in a while. I've just grown tired of these nonsensical, substanceless back-and-forths.
Do you belive I regard autists as less than human? If not, my comments are not at all dehumanising; please do not follow the example of contemporary discourse by using that term so casually, in effect relegating it devoid of meaning like has already been done with nigger, etc.
I use rape and murder as rhetorical devices all the time for the same reason I know the Kalergi plan is really more of a meme nowadays - because I am a young person. It's really that simple. However it is true that Kalergi envisioned an all-encompassing race of the future (though I commend the other editor for removing the Quotes section altogether, Kalergi's views and predictions are already covered (with more context) in the rest of the article). Iroh (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

If you compare the word "autists" to "nigger", call the Kalergi Plan just a "meme", and childishly use rape and murder to score points in an argument, you will eventually be blocked for 4chan style trolling. Grayfell (talk) 07:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

No, I merely urged you not to overuse the word dehumanising in the manner that nigger is overused nowadays. Use a word too much and too randomly, and it loses its original meaning, or even worse, any meaning. Anyway, please refrain from engaging in ageism. Iroh (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Seriously though, I'll try to avoid making potentially inflammatory analogies in the future. Still trying to learn about and adapt to the Wikipedian climate. Iroh (talk) 23:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
What climate are you from where any of that behavior is acceptable?? JoelleJay (talk) 01:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Cochran and Harpending, again[edit]

To avoid WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at an obscure article, I would appreciate additional eyes. Specifically, this is regarding these edits by me, which Iroh has reverted.

These edits removed this source, which was the key source for the bulk the article.

As I said on the talk page, this was heavily over-represented without significant support from reliable secondary sources. Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending's work should be supported and contextualized by sources, not editors. Cochran and Harpending's credibility as a reliable source is disputed by many other academics. Further, this source is almost fifteen years old. Since then,more research has been done, and more information about Harpending and Cochran's extremist and pseudoscientific views has come to light (easy-to-find sources on this: [2] [3]). Any update should contextualize this based on newer sources, but fringe sources are not a good starting point for a controversial topic. Grayfell (talk) 07:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

As I previously remarked on the article talk page, there is an entire section - Criticism of the genetic explanations and debate - devoted to "contextualising" the Cochran et al. paper. Feel free to add even more critical soruces, just don't remove existing reliable ones. Again, you can't just remove the Genetic explanations section and leave the criticism/debate section intact - then they're ostensibly criticising thin air! As you've noted many times, context is important. Also, please don't start a new discussion involving me without pinging me. Iroh (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

AfD[edit]

No, not that AfD, but I can see why it might be confusing:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence (2nd nomination).

jps (talk) 06:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Spillover into Nobel Prize articles[edit]

These sources seem to have spilled-over into mentions of the Nobel Prizes. We have Cochran et al, Charles Murray, and now Richard Lynn (again!) being cited at List of Jewish Nobel laureates.

Jews#Contributions now includes a lengthy, extremely vague paragraph supported by Cochran et al, as well as an opinion from Charles Murray. As I said on that article's talk, most of these sources don't unambiguously support this content even if they were usable. Both of these sections were added by User:Maxim.il89 who has also repeatedly copy.pasted this into Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence. Grayfell (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Right, just for the record, no one actually "promotes" that theory - I think this theory is ridiculous, false, there's no such thing as genetic superiority, and I can explain Ashkenazi success in terms of historical circumstances.
HOWEVER, this pseudo-scientific theory exists, and because it exists, it makes no sense to erase information about its existence.
This guys removes basic information like the fact the overwhelming majority of Jews winning the Nobel Prize are of Ashkenazi ancestry, it's just a fact, statistics - it's definitely relevant to an article dedicated to Jewish Nobel Prize winners.
I started discussion on the talk page, I tried reasoning with him, I feel like for him it's more of a matter of ego to make a point.
Obviously this theory is nonsense, however... "Jews" are not a single, homogeneous group. Nobel Prize winners of Jewish ancestry are overwhelmingly Ashkenazi. No, it doesn't mean that silly theory is true, but it's a statistical fact. Maxim.il89 (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
@Maxim.il89: Instead of attacking my motives, discuss the issues.
As you may expect, Wikipedia has dealt with pseudoscience in the past. We directly describe fringe theories like this as pseudoscience to readers. We do this so we don't inadvertently promote misinformation. Merely mentioning a fringe theory's existence is not enough, we need to give enough context to readers for them to be informed about the topic. Your edits failed to do this. Your edits implied that this routine statistical information "prompted" a theory. This isn't necessarily true, but regardless, you didn't explain that this theory is based on racial superiority and rapid evolution, nor did you explain to readers why this was controversial.
Additionally, why are you citing pseudoscientific sources for this? Did you know who Richard Lynn and Charles Murray were when you cited them? Grayfell (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I offered you to collaborate, I said I'd be happy to see an edit from you where you bring up the percentage of Ashkenazi Jews without those sources or without the theory, I'm all for compromise, but you seem to just want to edit war here.
Go ahead, I might be inexperienced on Wikipedia, but I know the topic of Ashkenazi Jews is relevant to the Jews winning Nobel prizes article - come on, show me how it's done, because all you do is remove.
I used the word "controversial" about this theory, you want to add more info on that? Context? Go ahead. It's obvious this theory is crap.
You have to cite pseudoscientific sources when discussing a pseudoscientific theory. I mean, good luck writing an article about Nazism without using Hitler as a source for it. Maxim.il89 (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Invoking Nazism here, of all places, seems very odd, but okay. ...good luck writing an article about Nazism without using Hitler as a source for it. Stop and think about that for a bit, please. There are many thousands of in-depth reliable sources about Nazism. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, so we cite reliable sources about a topic to explain that topic. Instead, what you've been doing is sharing your own understanding of a topic based on unreliable WP:PRIMARY sources. This is a form of original research. I've tried to explain this to you on multiple talk pages, and if you presume I must be wrong anyway I don't know how else to collaborate with you. Grayfell (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
This is modus operandi for Maxim unfortunately. He is a good faith editor, but his ability to separate out what he is doing vs what people are saying he doing vs what wikipedia guidelines and rules say we should avoid is quite well documented on talk pages and the many argumentative discussions had. As it stands, I agree with you Greyfell. Koncorde (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
No, invoking Nazism here isn't odd, because Nazis believed in "scientific racism," and this theory is just that, trying to use statistical achievements to build some weird theory of genetic superiority.
However, as this article exists, and this theory is promoted by many (I mean, let's be honest, I grew up in Israel... a huge percentage their believes in this theory of superiority), this information is relevant.
Those sources are reliable in the sense of describing the point of view of those who support it, and that's all it is, an opinion, a non-scientific (or pseudo-scientific) opiniono.
Again, there are many links on the topic, I'm totally pro editing it, changing it, changing references, I literally said, show me how it's done. This is not sarcasm. I've said it many time.
But all he does is remove it, not edit it, not change, remove. He was told on the Jews page this info is relevant, he still continues removing it.
All I'm trying to include in the article about Jewish Nobel prize winners is the fact the overwhelming majority of them are Ashkenazi, it's not an opinion, it's a fact relevant to the article. If you have a better way to source or formulate it, I'll be happy to see it, no sarcasm, again. Maxim.il89 (talk) 10:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Those sources are reliable in the sense of describing the point of view of those who support it — which is not "reliable" in the sense that we need sources to be reliable. After years of reading documents from creationists, UFO enthusiasts, homeopaths, perpetual-motion mechanics, relativity denialists, etc., etc., it becomes clear that fringe authors are not reliable sources about their own positions. They lie. They shift the goalposts, hide their motivations, pretend to be scientific in one venue and abandon the pretense in another. Sorting through the mess is often a thankless task, and it is not what Wikipedia is suited for. We rely upon other analyses to do that for us. XOR'easter (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Wrong again. Be it an article on UFOs, Satanism, or any other ideology, those who believe in it are used as sources, it's just that the criticism against their views is also included. I've already edited my formulation, but he's not edit warring because of the formulation. Maxim.il89 (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
What you are describing is WP:GEVAL. Fringe sources are only used as WP:PRIMARY sources, and only with extreme caution. That's what we are all trying to explain to you. This is based on WP:PROFRINGE and WP:DUE and a lot of other policies. This is the consensus on Wikipedia based on many, many past discussions. Your edits did not explain that this theory was fringe. Your edits instead implied the theory was legitimate by offering random flattering statistics stripped of all context. If your goal was to explain that the theory was fringe, you made a serious mistake.
Above you say that scientific racism was trying to use statistical achievements to build some weird theory of genetic superiority. You added the statistical achievements to the article but completely failed to explain why this was pseudoscience. Grayfell (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I wrote controversial, and then I removed all references to this theory from other articles, what is the issue now? I am trying to compromise. Maxim.il89 (talk) 11:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
One of your most recent edits re-added "controversial" after multiple editors had removed it. Or were you talking about this edit, where you added two completely unreliable blogs as sources, at least one of which includes young-earth creationism and links to neo-Nazi propaganda? Oh look, you restored both of those things again while I was typing this. Grayfell (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Remove the sources which are unreliable - it's one sentence with like 6 references, the bad sources, remove them. I even added "citation needed" to it. Maxim.il89 (talk) 08:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Mind blowing concept; Stop adding the bad sources... Koncorde (talk) 08:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Why hasn't WP:JUDAISM been alerted about this discussion? I remedied this omission.[4] Debresser (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Because, in my opinion, the guy doesn't want people who might disagree with him to take part in the debate. Just my opinion. Maxim.il89 (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
What makes you think people wouldn't agree with him? Koncorde (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Because a few people across different pages have already told him that the information, even if could be better formulated, is relevant. Maxim.il89 (talk) 08:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I count one who has vaguely referred to the theory (his name is directly above this), but not your cited content, and one that has referred to the broader pseudoscience article which is currently in AfD. In contrast there are at least 6 or 7 named editors disagreeing with you about the significance or relevance. Koncorde (talk) 08:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
What "guy"? This discussion seems to involve multiple people. I don't know how many of them are male/"guy"s but any one of them as well as any editor who isn't a guy, including you whichever category you fit in, was free to notify any relevant Wikiprojects. If editors were concerned about canvassing, they could have asked here first. Unlike say required notifications of the editor/s your discussing at noticeboards, there's no particular editor who is required to notify Wikiprojects. Therefore if there was a failure to notify Wikiprojects, it's on all participants of this discussion except for Debresser when it comes to Wikiproject Judaism and editor's gender identity is also irrelevant when it comes to said failure. And me for said Wikiproject since I'm fairly sure this is the first time I'm commenting. TLDR; it's not because the guy anything, but because you neglected to do so, "you" being anyone who participated in this discussion before Debresser notified. Nil Einne (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
How is pseudoscientific to mention well-established statistical facts? Please avoid WP:Bias Grayfell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.5.219 (talk • contribs)
Pretending that these are "well-established statistical facts" devoid of all context or nuance makes this a loaded question. I have very little patience for that game, and as I've already said many times for this issues, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Ignoring the context of a source to imply that this is a bland "statistical fact" is cherry-picking. Look at what reliable sources are actually saying, not what you wish they were saying. Grayfell (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
WP:BIAS is actually a redirect to Wikipedia:Systemic bias, which is about how we're awfully white and male around here. XOR'easter (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Fallout[edit]

I was thinking of creating a draft now that the AfD has gone through... but I cannot even decide what title to use. Perhaps the best thing would be to start collecting sources. There were four I listed at the AfD, but these are largely of the "editorial commentary" sort except for the last one which is an excellent summary of the attendant race realism/antisemitism involvement. jps (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

A random thought for a title: Antisemitism in intelligence research? XOR'easter (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Philosemitism, surely? The evidence shows a higher average, which would generally be perceived as good. Oea the King (talk)
This comment is ridiculous, but it isn't even worth explaining why, because based on behavior, this is 96.44.5.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) evading a block. Grayfell (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Yep, almost certainly. XOR'easter (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
It would be helpful if Grayfell (talk) would avoid engaging in theories of conspiracy and instead talk about the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oea the King (talk • contribs) 20:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, sock has a point if, perhaps, sock doesn't realize what that point is. It is sometimes hard for even certain well-meaning people to see the antisemitism contained within this topic because, typically (though, crucially, not universally), the claim seems superficially to be to the benefit of the people being profiled. Seeing through this charade is not difficult for the majority of the reliable sources commenting, but there is a rather large group of people who are convinced by their own love-ins that they're just following the research wherever it may lead.

This really is an offshoot of race and intelligence, so perhaps it would be a good idea to start a section in that article and see if a WP:CFORK is really necessary. Perhaps a redirect can suffice.

jps (talk) 02:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Just want to mention that there are people who think intelligence is a bad thing. Or think that using one's intelligence is a bad thing. Or behave as if they think one of those. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Sander L. Gilman's rejection of the "philosemitism" claim in this monograph seems especially useful. Gilman also cautions against presuming that racial categories have scientific validity, which has been a major issue with race and intelligence.
Some of the sources I have looked at have tried to explain IQ testing differences without using biological race, but unless I'm forgetting some, they do so in response to racialist proposals such as Cochran et al or Murray. A non-racialist look at this has a lot of potential, but we cannot build articles on potential, we have to look at reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 06:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Love Jihad conspiracy theory[edit]

Love Jihad is a conspiracy theory alleging that Muslim men target women belonging to non-Muslim communities for conversion to Islam by feigning love. High-quality reliable sources, including academic publications, describe Love Jihad as a conspiracy theory.

The Wikipedia article on Love Jihad, for some time, did not explicitly label Love Jihad as a conspiracy theory, which caused the article to be in violation of WP:PROFRINGE. I have attempted to address this in Special:Diff/978047396/979186634 by adding the conspiracy theory descriptor to the first sentence, but the remainder of the article (particularly the example farm in the "History" section) still portrays Love Jihad as a plausible theory, rather than a confirmed conspiracy theory.

One solution is to introduce more content cited to peer-reviewed academic sources rather than relying solely on popular press. This would provide the appropriate weight to the scholarship that counterbalances the sundry unconfirmed allegations that are reported in the media.

If you have any other suggestions for improving this article, please feel free to share them. — Newslinger talk 23:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

If you're in the mood for some humor, see this Twitter thread. Click "Show this thread" at the bottom to see the entire thing. — Newslinger talk 23:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I never knew there was such a thing as a "Lutyens lifestyle" ... until today. GPinkerton (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
I remember of this article, although I've not been patrolling it recently. It used to always accumulate news with editorials to suggest that it's an actual thing. —PaleoNeonate – 14:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
The article is a disaster, and I have never really found the time to clean it up. Unfortunately, the media has thrown the term around in cases that do not meet the definition as presented (for instance, forced religious conversion after marriage), and presenting that material in a manner compliant with NPOV will take some work. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love Jihad (3rd nomination). --Guy Macon (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleting the article would resolve the WP:PROFRINGE issue, but I'm uncertain about whether this is possible under the general notability guideline. Another option would be to draftify the article until it's up to par. I'm also fine with improving it in article space, gradually replacing the existing content with new content supported by higher-quality citations. — Newslinger talk 18:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
The deletion discussion was closed with no consensus. I've started a new discussion at Talk:Love Jihad § Academic sources to continue article development. — Newslinger talk 04:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
It looks like Rustam Fan (talk · contribs · count) has removed the conspiracy theory descriptor from the article in Special:Diff/979473860, causing the article to violate WP:PROFRINGE again. The discussion is at Talk:Love Jihad § Lead. — Newslinger talk 03:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
In my mind a "conspiracy theory" is a story of powerful, shadowy figures manipulating events to hide the TRUTH. Something you can have a laugh about and mostly harmless to all but the gullible. Seems like unfortunate wording as "harmless" does not apply. I'm not well informed on the subject, but WP's coverage of Hindutva and the BJP looks simply inadequate. fiveby(zero) 14:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
With a Press Freedom Index ranking of #142 (out of 180 countries), the state of the Indian press is not exactly ideal. When academic sources are available (as they are for this topic), these sources can address the deficiencies in the coverage published in the popular press. — Newslinger talk 15:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Academic sources do not adequately address current legal proceedings on active cases of alleged love jihad, but instead focus on the narrative of right-wing groups. Consider the work of David Strohl, and Tyagi and Sen. It is debatable whether academic sources can address these deficiencies currently. This article’s focus seems to be heavily on what Hindu groups in India consider love jihad to be and their perceptions. Rather the framework should focus on whether forced conversion is a reality or not. As such, the term ‘jihad’ in this context needs discussion, which is currently lacking (and if it is lacking in general, that should be spelled out in the article). There is also a heavy focus on perception in India but not much mention of forced conversions of Hindus in other South Asian nations, especially women and how it relates to this topic. The motive of the alleged forced converter is key, as it will determine whether or not this is a hoax. Liberalvedantin —Preceding undated comment added 16:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Academic sources from reputable publishers are considered the most reliable sources. The highest-quality reliable sources (including academic sources and news sources) describe "Love Jihad" as a conspiracy theory, so the Love Jihad article does as well. It is not the role of Wikipedia editors to try to prove whether a theory is credible or not; that would be original research. — Newslinger talk 15:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Miracles can happen[edit]

Not here, according to Nathan Coley.. dave souza, talk 11:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

A little help. Clearly there are many Muslims who believe in miracles. Clearly there are few who are not Muslim who think these miracles are well documented. Compare literally any other religion on Wikipedia.

jps (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Carleton S. Coon[edit]

I'm not happy with all the changes here[5], particularly the many times an obituary was used in ways that seem to promote him and the major deletion of "In1961 non-fiction writer Carleton Putnam published Race and Reason: A Yankee View, a popular theory of racial segregation. A special session of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists voted to censure Putnam's book. Coon, who was then the president of the association, and was present at the meeting, asked how many of the participants had actually read the book; only one hand was raised in response. Coon resigned in protest, criticizing the meeting for representing scientific irresponsibility[1] and arguing its actions violated free speech.[2] Coon published The Origin of Races in 1962." I'll tell the editor. Doug Weller talk 12:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Pat Shipman (1994). The Evolution of Racism: Human Differences and the Use and Abuse of Science. Harvard University Press. p. 200. ISBN 0674008626.
  2. ^ Academic American Encyclopedia (vol. 5, p.271). Danbury, Connecticut: Grolier Incorporated (1995).
I'm not sure why you've decided to raise this here of all places, since none of my edits were remotely related to "fringe theories", and consisted solely of fleshing out the article with accurate information from a reliable source (which had been used heavily in the article before). Perhaps you'd like to explain which Wiki policies you think they violate? Note that "making Doug Weller happy" isn't one of them. And you clearly didn't read the diffs that clearly, or you would have seen that I didn't delete that passage, I just moved it to a more appropriate part of the article. Thanks. Ya hemos pasao (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Scientific racism is not supported by modern anthropology or biology. It is inaccurate to present this consensus as the view of a minority (WP:YESPOV, Special:Diff/981606945: "by some modern anthropologists to be pseudoscientific"). WP:PSCI is also policy related to fringe theories so it's in this noticeboard's scope. —PaleoNeonate – 07:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
It's true that I didn't notice the move of some content, but my point about the overuse of one obituary still stands. And Coon's ideas are considered fringe today. Doug Weller talk 10:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
My thanks to User:Joe Roe for greatly improving the article. Doug Weller talk 10:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I note that WP:Making Doug Weller happy ought to be policy. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Persecution of Christians[edit]

I part-rewrote the lead to Persecution of Christians to attempt a more neutral tone, but the body of the article, especially the post-Cold War section, could use its sources examining and its tone in places distanced from its subject. The introduction of that section starts with some commentary from neutral observer Benedict XVI (ret'd), and ends with a conclusion that uncritically backs the ex-papal claim Christians are (win?) "the most persecuted religion", (prize at the) 2019 (awards?). GPinkerton (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

It would be a much more neutral to move the article to Treatment of Christians. Of course it's possible to find examples of Christians being persecuted, but I don't there's any way we can have a neutral article by cherry-picking just those examples. This article has got to be a POV fork of something. Wikiman2718 (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
There are "Persecution of X" articles for all the major religions, including Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, etc. Do you think those articles should also be moved? Persecution of Christians is an observable and verifiable phenomenon, and has been for millennia, and of course it's possible to write an article that describes the phenomemon in a neutral way. And the fact GPinkerton is raising this at FTN, suggests that he believes the persecution of Christians is a fringe theory, which itself would be a fringe theory. Ya hemos pasao (talk) 01:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
It implies no such thing. I have identified quite clearly what I think one of the fringe theories is. I don't think there's any benefit in moving the page. GPinkerton (talk) 02:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that was very obvious. But now GPinkerton has probably been added to the list of persecutors of Christians, together with Nero, Diocletian, and Richard Dawkins. Because "persecution of Christians" is defined by some as "any type of disagreement with a Christian". That is at the base of the fringe theory in question. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Persecution happened in the past and still exists at some places and times, the issue with this kind of article is indeed that there also exists a persecution complex causing a tendency to accumulate irrelevant material. The solution is to only include obvious examples that are mentioned in reliable sources and to avoid apologetic ones... Free expression, the separation of church and state and criticism of religion is out of the scope (except of course where totalitarian/radical actions prevent expression, like imprisonment or more; then one should also take in consideration if it's "Christianity" or particular groups or individuals and why, i.e. Christian terrorism and abuse by individual members or leaders, like fraud and sex crimes, exist). —PaleoNeonate – 15:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
To call it a POV fork, you would need to find the other prong first. No, this is a legitimate article. The book series Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums, which has looked at another side of Christianity, is legitimate, so this is too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
"To call it a POV fork, you would need to find the other prong first." There is a partial overlap with the Christian persecution complex. Dimadick (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • There are problems with that article, including large chunks of text primary-sourced to Christian advocacy groups. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Edgar Cayce[edit]

I left the Cayce article unattended for a few months (Watchlist too long), and POV edits crept in. I reverted some, but the article would probably profit from more eyes. Also, Atomidine (or rather, the article it redirects to, Nascent iodine (dietary supplement)) seems to be in need of work. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Abbas ibn Firnas as a pioneer of aviation[edit]

The lead states, with sources (2 the same person) that he was a pioneer of aviation, yet the article casts strong doubts on the story of his alleged flight. This doesn't make sense and I'm not convinced that the sources are adequate. Maybe I should go to RSN, but this seems more of a fringe issue. Doug Weller talk 15:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

See also: Hezârfen Ahmed Çelebi, also an "aviator". GPinkerton (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Agree. I've been meaning to try to improve it, but it hasn't happened yet. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
I just reworded the start to reflect what is in the sources. A couple of the sources look to be good, especially the article in Spanish from the 1960s but I don't suppose it's easy to access. There's nothing intrinsically weird in the notion that a 9th century polymath might have had a go at a bit of hang-gliding with limited success. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
@Doug Weller, GPinkerton, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, and Itsmejudith: This is what Lévi-Provençal mentioned in his Encylopaedia of Islam (2nd edition) entry, "He was even a distant precursor of aviation, thinking out a sheath furnished with feathers and mobile wings; had the courage to put it on, to jump from the top of a precipice and to hover in the air for a few seconds before falling—escaping death by a miracle." -TheseusHeLl (talk) 22:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
@TheseusHeLl: feathers and mobile wings that's not aviation and flying like that only works in cartoons and the myth of Daedalus and Icarus. It would be charitable to call it gliding rather than outright falling. This no more a precursor to aviation than were Da Vinci's unbuilt and unflyable machines. GPinkerton (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough, but that's your pov. If a reliable source like EI2 and a reliable medievalist like Lévi-Provençal said that "He was even a distant precursor of aviation", so this view should be represented in the article. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
The difference between falling and flying is very slight, but noticeable at the end. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Hinduphobia in academia[edit]

I discovered this (and related page Hinduphobia in Academia) while doing new page review. It's unclear to me whether Hinduphobia is a legitimate, recognized term, as all the sources seem (as one might expect) POV-pushing. Would appreciate any guidance on this. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Wow, those are really two separate articles with the exact same title save for capitalization. At least one has to be a WP:POVFORK. Crossroads -talk- 23:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Based on the timing, this article looks like an attack on the academic sources cited in the Love Jihad article. See #Love Jihad conspiracy theory for details. — Newslinger talk 10:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Changes at Orgone[edit]

Can anyone have a look at this change of content, tone and source at Orgone, accompanied by this wall of text on the talk page? - DVdm (talk) 23:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

While the IP does a surprisingly good job at sussing out the various arguments in the Talk page history, and their appraisal of the overall content is pretty reasonable, I think they are giving too much credibility to one-off primary sources to rebut the pseudoscience label. The lack of comprehensive, independent, peer-reviewed research is a testament to the idea's lack of validity and experimental rigor and its consequent dismissal by later generations of scientists. It was a brief money-making curiosity rooted in an ultimately pseudoscientific theoretical foundation. That's all. JoelleJay (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
The IP first needs to respect WP:BRD and WP:PA. --Hob Gadling (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Joelle and Hob, thanks for comments and restore. - DVdm (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Tommy Tuberville[edit]

There is a discussion between me and Korny O'Near and how to describe US Senate candidate Tuberville's position on climate change (only God causes climate change/nobody will be able to feel it in the next 400 years), Talk:Tommy_Tuberville#Content_sourced_to_InsideClimate_News_should_be_restored. Editors here may be interested. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

‘So Frustrating’: Doctors and Nurses Battle Virus Skeptics[edit]

[6] --Guy Macon (talk) 19:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Did the Maya meet the Vikings? A Yale professor seems to think it's likely[edit]

Really embarrassing as I'm a Yalie. Valerie Hansen [7] Doug Weller talk 10:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Do we have sources saying this? I have not read the book.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Just skimmed a bit and yes, the author really has sunburnt Norsemen in the Yucatan, as proven by some watercolour paintings of some 1000-year old paintings which can be construed as showing yellow-haired people (and not just Mayan artistic convention) and a boat with planks, which apparently is unthinkable to a civilization that can build buildings much higher and grander than the Vikings ever did. GPinkerton (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
If we find sources, we can add them into the article about her.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
She's a historian of China. An awful warning to what's happening when you succumb to the pressure to write popular books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmejudith (talk • contribs)
Well, sure, but lots of academics put out theories of various kinds in their books and writings. It seems to me that is an essential part of both the scientific and history-writing process. Other intellectuals and academics will deal with such, and provide subsequent evidence for, or counter-evidence against, such theories. Personally, I have no idea whether there might be some historical "evidence" of a Viking boat getting down to the latitudes of the Maya. But I sure wouldn't think that someone's embarrassment at being a fellow of that university would be relevant. Wikipedia should just be following that which is verifiable. We don't really do very well at discerning "truth." Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Lost in the mall technique[edit]

Lost in the mall technique (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The criticism seems fringey to me, but I am not a psychologist. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The authors of the criticism papers were inserting their papers into the article. [8]. jps (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

David Ray Griffin[edit]

David Ray Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Griffin sent a representative to argue for him to remove the "conspiracy theorist" label, and the representative has asked why all the people who watch the article are not coming to discuss him. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Great Barrington Declaration[edit]

An open letter from anti-lockdown proponents, that appears to have received a universal raspberry from mainstream scientists. Add to that a rumour doing the rounds that the declaration's true greatness is being censored by Google, and we have a rich fringe cocktail. Editing seems to be hotting up so could probably use eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

New additions need reviewing. GPinkerton (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Single-purpose accounts named for bogus signatories are now quibbling over the presentation: the apparently non-fictional User:MadScientistDoctor and the definitely real and entirely not at all fake User:DoctorBananarama22. GPinkerton (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
You're going a bit overboard here, read the comments by James Naismith: At one level this declaration is a statement of a series of scientific truths and as such is non-controversial...That said, the declaration omits some rather critical scientific information that would help better inform policy makers...It is absolutely proper that scientists offer their best advice to government, especially perhaps, when that advice differs from the mainstream, as this does...Humility and willingness to consider alternatives are hallmarks of good science.[9] This is not "a bunch of rogue scientists...analagous to vaccine denial, climate denial, creationism, etc." fiveby(zero) 19:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
The content of the actual Declaration is not important; it's the diverse traction it's received in fringe quarters and the predicable furore over the "let-anyone-and-his-dog sign the damn thing" attitude to the "expert" signatories and the mutually exclusive (ir-)realities inhabited by a Guardian journalist and former Daily Mail's political editor-at-large and far-right Brexit Party chairman Richard Tice's girlfriend-journalist. GPinkerton (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
GPinkerton, see also Project Steve. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Open letters are meaningful when the people signing them are meaningful. When the letter writers crow about the sheer number of signatories, that's a huge WP:REDFLAG, Project Steve. jps (talk) 02:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Uhmm, of course it's true, American Institute for Economic Research is linked right in the first sentence. Maybe there needs to be some additional text explaining this is a property rights/free market think tank? Surprising you think it's surprising. (Why doesn't that author just say upfront Atlas Network). fiveby(zero) 02:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Fiveby, 70% of the AIER article was sourced to their own website. Normal for articles on think-tanks, there are a bazillion of them and they are often funded by the same people. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
JzG, I was just a little surprised that with 'Economic' in the name, and a libertarian slant this wasn't obvious from the git-go. GPinkerton is right that the article needs some context to explain. Not the Koch funding, but as David Naylor said it will: "...enliven the libertarians who object to public health measures on principle..."[10]. It ain't like this was from Kaiser, the motivation behind the organization should be understood. Just saying it's Koch funded doesn't do that. fiveby(zero) 22:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Fiveby, I agree. "part of the Atlas Network of libertarian think-tanks" might cover it. People think that Wikipedia invented citeogenesis and fact-washing, but we're decades behind the libertarian right. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The article is again filled with uncited editorializing … GPinkerton (talk) 05:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • And with drive by IPs making (ahem) "Grammar" edits like this it's looking like it might be a good idea for the article to be semi'd. Any uninvolved admins watching here? Alexbrn (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
    • I asked yesterday but was declined. GPinkerton (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

of interest The Gorsky take. ADDED Though I see from the article history that Alex is ahead of me, as usual. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Predictably, the "WHO caves to free-market economics" non-story is now being added to World Health Organization's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. GPinkerton (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, it's not the WHO, it's one dude. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
JzG Thanks, I am fully aware, I have already made that point repeatedly on the talkpage of the Great Declaration. I just wanted to notify others that this fringe spin on Nabirro's interview is cropping up elsewhere too. GPinkerton (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


Why is the Great Barrington Declaration listed in a section in WP:FTN? Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 01:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Because it is of interest. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 01:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
But the WP:FTN is a place for listing fringe theories or views not theories of interest. Right? Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 05:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
It's here because it is was promulagted by supporters of a fringe theory. GPinkerton (talk) 05:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
What is the proof that this is a fringe theory? Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 07:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
More than that, it proposes a fringe idea, as RS tells us. The article is looking in quite good compliance with the WP:FRINGE guidance. Alexbrn (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
What is the RS that told us that this is a fringe theory? As far as I know there is no mainstream yet that was outlined in any systematic reviews (and probably there won't be for many years given that the scientific literature is still taking its first baby steps into the COVID-19 knowledge world), so I am really intrigued to see the peer reviewed systematic reviews/meta analysis that said that protecting the vulnerable is a fringe theory. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 07:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
You don't get "systematic reviews" determining if something is fringe! See WP:PARITY for the kind of sources usually necessary for fringe topics. In this case, maybe check out the Science-Based Medicine article cited, or see the words of Francis Collins quoted. Essentially, when you have pretty much every international health body on one "side" of the argument, and a handful of rogue scientists (with a boatload of political activists) on the other, then it's important not to WP:GEVAL, so as to maintain Wikipedia's need for neutrality . Alexbrn (talk) 07:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
@Alexbrn: No, you get systematic reviews determining if something is fringe by stating the current main stream theories that already have been proven correct in many published randomized controlled trials, and if the fringe theory is missing in all these systematic reviews then you determine that it is fringe. Do you have these systematic reviews? WP:FRIND says that independent sources are necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse. Science-Based Medicine is not even a scientific journal and Francis Collins's statements are not peer reviewed so it is original research violating Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Reliable_sources and can be negated by words of scientists on the other side. When you say that every international body is on one side of the argument without peer reviewed RS you violate WP:RS/AC and WP:NOR. In summary, if a Wikipedia editor doesn't like a scientific theory, they can't simply bypass systematic reviews and quote original research or non-peer-reviewed websites that support their views as academic RS. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 03:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Something that was stated without peer review can be dismissed without peer review. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@Knowledge Contributor0: Here is a reliable source (The Guardian) explicitly calling the Barrington Declaration a "fringe view" on Oct 7 and Oct 18 quoting from the latter: "The truth is that a strategy of pursuing “herd immunity” is nothing more than a fringe view. There is no real scientific divide over this approach, because there is no science to justify its usage in the case of Covid-19." --Krelnik (talk) 12:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
@Krelnik: Main stream theories in Science and academic consensus are not determined by newspapers or websites. As per Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Reliable_sources, WP:FRIND, WP:RS/AC, and WP:NOR; the only situation when it is acceptable to establish academic main stream or consensus using mainstream newspapers is if the newspaper is quoting systematic reviews. If a non-peer-reviewed statement from a scientist is considered original research and can't be used as a WP:RS then a journalist word is actually worse. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 03:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Notice how the GB Declaration specifically advocates "Focused Protection", which is the inverse of herd immunity. Your quote has no relation to the topic at hand. It is curious you have dismissed this as a fringe view when it has the support of several quite mainstream figures. Which other "fringe theory" can claim this? John Ioannidis, the person who founded meta-science, has been a harsh critic of prolonged lockdowns. Are you seriously maintaining that he is fringe?
Is the Earth 6000 years old? Was the Holocaust really as bad as is thought? Are white people cleverer than black people? You can find "several quite mainstream figures" to support any nonsense you care to think of, if you're so motivated. (And coincidentally, I notice these fringe topics make natural bedfellows[11].) We know from good RS this is a fringe position promoted by a small extreme group, and that characterisation is what Wikipedia follows. Alexbrn (talk) 13:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Can you answer the question: is John Ionnidis on the fringe? The answer to this question is really telling. Just a yes/no answer will suffice.
I'll answer: In epidemiology, he is fringe. Your attitude reminds me of those Knights and Knaves brain-teasers set on the island where everybody either always tells the truth or always lies. I got news for you: The real world is not like that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
@Hob Gadling: First John Ioannidis is the C.F. Rehnborg Chair in Disease Prevention, Professor of Medicine, of Epidemiology and Population Health, and (by courtesy) of Biomedical Data Science, and of Statistics in Stanford University. He chaired the Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina Medical School in 1999-2010. [1] So how exactly is he fringe in epidemiology?
Second, John Ioannidis is co-Director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford, which gives his opinion on the level of certainty in evidence of COVID-19 research weight when he calls the claims of scientific evidence on lockdowns an "evidence fiasco". [2] Not to say, that his opinion by itself is evidence, but the peer reviewed studies published by him showing that that the early mathematical models used to justify the lcokdowns were overestimated cannot be called fringe. [3]
Third, I don't think this discussion is relevent here unless we are planning to do a head count of scientists to evaluate whether the focused protection approach is a fringe view or not, which won't be helpful because it will be WP:OR. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
He works in epidemiology. So what? Nobody said that all the fringe of a field works outside that field. Richard Lindzen is a climatologist, and he holds fring views about climatology.
You are right in one respect: this discussion is not relevant. We have reliable sources saying that the position he holds is fringe. The reliable sources are stronger than you and your original research about why he cannot be fringe in your opinion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Which other "fringe theory" can claim this? Just off the top of my head:
All those are Nobel-level mainstream in one specific area, fringe in another. Lower-level scientists who do fringe stuff outside their expertise are far more numerous. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
@Hob Gadling: Did you forget:
Rupert Beale has said of the Nobel laureate signatory "a bad case of Nobel prize disease". GPinkerton (talk) 06:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
No, I didn't forget him, I just didn't know how exactly to call that, and it was not supposed to be a comprehensive list anyway. Astrology Kary Mullis, Alien abductions Kary Mullis, Climate change denial Kary Mullis... the list goes on.
"Old school racism", huh? Add William Shockley to that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
And this just in from the BMJ. What we're talking about is a small group with extreme views. Alexbrn (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Apparently, you didn't look at the top to notice that this is under views and reviews not even a scientific paper [4]. Please review the BMJ's article provenance and peer review policy [5][6][7] to know that this represents just the view of the writers that was not peer-reviewed and may not even appear in the print. So following the same path of quoting opinions, I can quote news from the BMJ saying that scientists are divided in 2 camps giving equal weight to both of them[8]. Or better, I can quote the BMJ's commissioned editorial that quote the current state of the knowledge about COVID-19 saying that there is no certainty in both the "Let it rip” or “Zero covid now” camps. [9]. Actually the BMJ was the first journal to publish the focused protection approach in its editorial in May under the name "Stratified Shielding".[10] Does this mean that the BMJ commissioned a fringe view? Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 03:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@Knowledge Contributor0: Your non-argument is absurd. Spiegelhalter and Smith are writing in April, and what they proposed is very different to the AEIR; they certainly never use the minimalist now-buzzword "focused protection". Moreover, this editorial is based on a "“risk of dying if infected” score" which might have made sense back when it was (wrongly) believed Covid-19 was mortality vs recovery binary, whereas we now know, and the AEIR and their pet zoologist have chosen to ignore, that the disease seriously affects as many as most of the people that survive it, and that there are as many as 600,000 people in the UK alone who have been infected, have not died, but have not recovered, and may never do so. It should also be noted that like Gupta, Spiegelhalter is neither a medical doctor nor an epidemiologist of human disease. GPinkerton (talk) 03:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Agree the argument is absurd. We have good sources saying this is a fringe idea and not even its proponents are claiming it's mainstream (if it were, they wouldn't have needed to pull this stunt anyway). We don't require "scientific papers" to call something fringe since such a judgement is outside the realm of science - and in any case the GBD is not science (but politics) so WP:PARITY applies. Overall, what we currently have with the GBD article is a good advertisement for Wikipedia's policies on neutrality for fringe topics. Alexbrn (talk) 06:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
You are very wrong. It is the fringe theories guideline, and we require scholarship and the views of those most qualified to assess such theories. The authors made at least two claims in the declaration, concerning 'herd immunity' and the viability of a 'focused protection' strategy that are covered by the guideline. In order to have an article on the declaration, which is a public policy proposal, we must describe the degree of mainstream support for those theories. If it were, as you claim: "not science (but politics)" then the fringe theories guideline would not apply to the article. fiveby(zero) 13:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
The fringe guideline broadly covers all non-mainstream ideas (as does the policy from which it derives, WP:PSCI). The GBD is political but - sure - has a science-y veneer. In that sense it's analagous to climate denial "science". Such stuff does not need full-weight scholarly refutation - indeed it would be ridiculous to demand that a single side of paper with no peer-review, no references, and no publisher requires "scholarship" to oppose it. We merely need to give the mainstream response to, and framing context for, the fringe ideas ... and in this case we have plenty of response from mainstream science, so the point is academic anyway. Alexbrn (talk) 13:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
The fringe guideline does not cover all non-mainstream ideas. Do you really think it should apply to such as ethics or moral values? Religious beliefs? (where there is no claim of support from science) You're right tho about being academic for the article, i think it's mostly well done in a difficult subject area. fiveby(zero) 14:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
The term fringe theory is used on Wikipedia in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. This doesn't just mean science but includes history, economics, artistic attribution, and so on. It probably can apply to "moral values" (around pedophilia e.g.), and it does sometimes intersect with religious ideas yes (e.g. that Christ was not a historical figure). Alexbrn (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "John P.A. Ioannidis' Profile | Stanford Profiles". profiles.stanford.edu.
  2. ^ "In the coronavirus pandemic, we're making decisions without reliable data". STAT. 17 March 2020.
  3. ^ Loannidis, John (14 October 2020). "Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data" (PDF). Bulletin of the World Health Organization. Retrieved 21 October 2020.
  4. ^ McKee, Martin; Stuckler, David (19 October 2020). "Scientific divisions on covid-19: not what they might seem". BMJ. doi:10.1136/bmj.m4024.
  5. ^ "Authors". RMD Open.
  6. ^ "Publishing model | The BMJ". www.bmj.com.
  7. ^ "Article types and preparation | The BMJ". www.bmj.com.
  8. ^ Wise, Jacqui (21 September 2020). "Covid-19: Experts divide into two camps of action—shielding versus blanket policies". BMJ. doi:10.1136/bmj.m3702.
  9. ^ Smith, George Davey; Blastland, Michael; Munafò, Marcus (19 October 2020). "Covid-19's known unknowns". BMJ. 371. doi:10.1136/bmj.m3979. ISSN 1756-1833.
  10. ^ Smith, George Davey; Spiegelhalter, David (28 May 2020). "Shielding from covid-19 should be stratified by risk". BMJ. 369. doi:10.1136/bmj.m2063. ISSN 1756-1833.

Relatedly[edit]

Criticism of the British government response to the COVID-19 pandemic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) now exists and appears pro-fringe. Gupta, Toby Young, Peter Hitchens all rife, with a for-and-against layout and Screaming Lord Sumption going unopposed. Some apparent attempts to smuggle the Mail in through third-party sources. Worth looking over; it certainly needs overall improvement. GPinkerton (talk) 08:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I have blanked and redirected it back to the main article, as it would be a blatant POVFORK. Alexbrn (talk) 08:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
@Alexbrn: Surely the correct main article is British government response to the COVID-19 pandemic GPinkerton (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes that would be better. Alexbrn (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Was Trump "potentially infectious" on October 10 (the day of his balcony speech)?[edit]

On White House COVID-19 outbreak, I added mention of the White House rally on October 10 where Trump spoke unmasked to a 2,000 person crowd. I characterized his status as "potentially infectious" based on The Independent. NYT goes even further, saiyng "might be contagious to those around him".

This change has been objected to, because "President Donald Trump’s doctor said Saturday the president is no longer at risk of transmitting the coronavirus." I have argued we should include the Oct 10 event along with the doctor's claim, but that suggestion has been rejected. Feoffer (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Feoffer is WP:FORUMSHOPPING because he didn't get his way at Talk:White House COVID-19 outbreak#Edit request: Oct 10 event where the consensus was overwhelmingly against his change -- mainly because he tried to insert a claim that "According to medical experts, Trump was potentially infectious during the speech" when the attached source said "President Donald Trump’s doctor said Saturday the president is no longer at risk of transmitting the coronavirus". There are no fringe theories involved in any of this and thus this section should be hatted as being completely off-topic. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Reliable sources agree Trump may still be infectious. Sources:
  • WaPo headline: "Trump says he’s not contagious. Health experts say that’s not certain." source
  • Snopes/AP: "Trump Still Contagious? Experts Say It’s Impossible to Know"President Donald Trump said he doesn't think he's contagious anymore, but medical experts say that's impossible to know. "source
  • "Trump flagged by Twitter after tweeting false claim that he's not contagious and is now immune to COVID-19" source
COVID denialism falls squarely within the rubric of FRINGE. Feoffer (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, there is speculation by people who have not examined Trump about whether he is infectious. The best source about that it here:[12] but speculation that the actual MD who performed the tests is wrong is not "COVID denialism" nor is it a fringe theory. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Native white Australians[edit]

Would welcome any input on this from the fine people at FTN. It looks like a WP:POVFORK of Currency lads and lasses, but I'm not sure. (I posted at WP:AUSTRALIA as well.) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Looked like it was an attempt at writing an article like Old Stock Americans as it pertains to "Nativism" like American ethnicity....however the concept is not developed at all in the article and uses a loose connection to the term.--Moxy 🍁 15:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
We already have Anglo-Celtic Australians and European Australians, which is surely plenty. GPinkerton (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
FYI: Moxy, GPinkerton, redirect now removed … AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Put up for deletion or merger of about 10% of content?.--Moxy 🍁 04:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Honestly not sure. There is indeed a book apparently about the subject, but all other uses of the term in reputable scholarship seem to be generic/non-technical uses from which WP:SYNTH would be the only way to build an article. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

New York Times article on overcoming anti-vaxxers[edit]

First lesson: Don't say "anti-vaxxers". In all seriousness, the Vaccine Confidence Project is not just an exercise in double-speak but one in information delivery. That is something we should be good at. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Eggishorn, Nah. Just ban them. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Food aid and overpopulation[edit]

I'm not sure what to make of Aid#Food_as_a_means_of_increasing_carrying_capacity_and_undesirable_population_growth. (Or, rather, [13], as I have at least temporarily removed the relevant content.) It looks either WP:UNDUE or WP:SYNTHetic, but at least some of the sources do seem to have been legitimately published. Would appreciate any comments (and apologies for spamming FTN lately). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Last time I checked the idea that there isn't enough food to feed the world's population is a fringe view, and the idea that food distribution is often disrupted in an attempt to commit genocide by starvation is mainstream.
Genocide by starvation does reduce global population, but then again so does thermonuclear war and plague -- heck,[14] every serial killer and suicide cult are doing their small part to reduce world population. The idea that this is a Good Thing is about as fringe as it gets. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
No that's wrong, overpopulation is a serious problem and consideration of it is not fringe. Any relationship to food aid is obvious nonsense though. GPinkerton (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Guy said that the idea that starvation, thermonuclear wars, plagues, serial killers and suicide cults are good things is fringe. Not that consideration of overpopulation is fringe. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
What Hob Gadling said. Just because something is a real problem. that doesn't mean that every proposed solution to it is good. The logical progression "Something must be done about overpopulation. Genocide by starvation is something. Genocide by starvation must be done" is flawed.
It turns out that there is a solution that doesn't involve murdering millions of innocent people:
"A broad consensus has developed over time that as incomes rise, fertility tends to fall. There is little debate about the causal relationship between rising prosperity and declining fertility. Generally speaking, there has been a uniformly high correlation between national income growth and falling birth rates, and between family incomes and fertility. Economists and demographers for the most part agree that important ingredients of improved living standards, such as urbanization, industrialization and rising opportunities for non-agrarian employment, improved educational levels, and better health all lead to changed parental perceptions of the costs and benefits of children, leading in turn to lower fertility. In other words, there is no longer much debate about whether or not improved economic conditions, whether at the family level or at the societal level, lead to lower fertility."
Source: Population, poverty and economic development Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2009 Oct 27; 364(1532): 3023–3030.[15]
--Guy Macon (talk) 08:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Consensus[edit]

I'm looking for editors who deal with difficult content disputes, and I thought of y'all. Please see Wikipedia talk:Consensus#No consensus in article pages, recent edits. The main concern is that WP:NOCON and WP:ONUS might be telling different stories about what to do when the discussion results in no consensus (i.e., a true no consensus, with an evenly divided discussion, resulting in neither a consensus to include nor a consensus to exclude – not a consensus against inclusion).

AIUI, ONUS says that if someone wants to include some content, and that content is disputed, and the result is discussion there's no consensus, the disputed content is removed, but NOCON says that under exactly the same circumstances, editors should revert to the WP:STATUSQUO (which could be either inclusion or exclusion, mostly depending upon how long ago the information was added).

It would be good for policies (a) to match each other and (b) to represent best practices. If you can help us achieve these goals, I would be grateful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Trump administration political interference with science agencies - notice of requested move discussion[edit]

FYI, there is an ongoing requested move at Talk:Trump administration political interference with science agencies. Input welcome. Neutralitytalk 18:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The Anatomy of a COVID-19 Conspiracy Theory[edit]

‘Film Your Hospital’ – The Anatomy of a COVID-19 Conspiracy Theory

Key quote: "The pandemic has fuelled at least ten conspiracy theories this year. Some linked the spread of the disease to the 5G network, leading to phone masts being vandalised. Others argued that COVID-19 was a biological weapon. Research has shown that conspiracy theories could contribute to people ignoring social distancing rules."

--Guy Macon (talk) 02:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Gopi Warrier[edit]

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

is a best known as an expert in Indian Ayurvedic medicine. For some reason, lots of his YouTube videos are linked, and also quantum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks like COPYVIO from the website about section. establish which came first, egg or chicken. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Some of the material from there only seems to have been added to the article yesterday. Brunton (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
What is the current status of the Ayurvedic Charitable Hospital? See footnote 14 of this. That’s over ten years old, so there may be more recent info available. Brunton (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Is it worth listing it at Copyright problems? Seems to be a bit of a backlog there. Brunton (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
There is still something fishy going on with Mr. Warrior, but my spidey senses are failing me. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

ALLATRA[edit]

New article on some sort of NRM. Looks fringe but what do I know about this sort of thing. Doug Weller talk 19:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not convinced from the article that it's notable. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Doug Weller, I have pruned some of the dross (much self-sourcing) but don't read Russian or Ukrainian so can't establish whether the remaining sources are RS or not. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Jeremy Griffith[edit]

We have an article for this guy Jeremy Griffith whom I suspect is some kind of quack/fringe scientist. His website www.humancondition.com just screams SCAM to me. His article here is completely uncritical of him and feels like it was written by a paid stooge. I would like somebody to take a closer look at this, I don't trust it. Kurzon (talk) 08:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

He is far from being a household name, but he is known in Australia in certain intellectual circles. The article seems ok to me and covers the territory. Probrooks (talk) 08:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
@Kurzon: Looks like yet another fringe scientist, with a fawning Wikipedia article based way too much on editorializing around primary sources. Although one decent source - a review in the Sydney Morning Herald - is cited [16] none of its extensive criticism makes it into our article. Funny that. Perhaps Doug Weller might know more ... ? Alexbrn (talk) 09:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
According to the article talk page the article was edited extensively by a paid sock farm who seem to have inserted a lot of the promotional material into the article.
I'm also slightly suspicious of Divinecomedy666, who's contributions seem to suggest a single purpose account focusing almost exclusively on Jeremy Griffith and anthropology. This same user has previously made a number of edits where they have inserted very promotional material about Jeremy Griffith into a number of related articles: [17] [18] [19]. It seems they have a conflict of interest with the article's subject? 192.76.8.82 (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Worth watching, and this edit[20] to Roger Hallam, which is still in the article, is a bit troubling. It was discussed at Talk:Roger Hallam (activist)#Holocaust comments and POV but that discussion fizzled out, and the latest discussion on the XR site is this. You wouldn't know from our article Extinction Rebellion that there had been any problems. Doug Weller talk 10:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Building biology[edit]

This is presented as an academic discipline in the article, but as far as I understand, it is a loose set of beliefs and services, probably combining some scientific measurements and findings (such as air quality) and pseudoscience (such as "electrosmog"). The sources are various "institutes of building biology" and even business websites, often in German. The criticism section has been gutted due to lack of citation. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to proceed: It seems like the whole article should be completely rewritten or even deleted, but I wouldn't know how to word it (Is it a movement? A (partially) pseudoscientific belief system? A service? Some combination?) or how I would go about sourcing it. Pink pipes (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Not a single usable source in the article, i especially like the multiple chemical sensitivity citation: "See MCS referral service at http://www.mcsrr.org/resources/articles.html" There's [21][22][23][24], but i'd just redirect to sick building syndrome. fiveby(zero) 13:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
The problem is that there is a group of people calling themselves "Building biologists" which are associated with alternative medicine, especially in Germany and Switzerland. I'm not even sure if they're notable enough outside of these countries to warrant an article here. Either way, the article should be rewritten or deleted, but that proposed redirect seems to miss the mark. Pink pipes (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
This is some far out, whackadoodle stuff. My inclination would be to delete it. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Brandenburg stone[edit]

I've just reverted some pov, but it still has fringe nonsense in it from Blackett and Wilson and Lee Pennington. Doug Weller talk 15:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

How can you doubt, when a community college creative writing instructor has "endorsed claims of the artifact's ancient Welsh origin"? fiveby(zero) 19:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
It appears that there is a small sock farm inserting fringe nonsense into a number of related articles, e.g. Iolo Morganwg : [25], [26], [27] and Coelbren y Beirdd : [28], [29] 192.76.8.82 (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Photobiomodulation[edit]

Low-level laser therapy: science or pseudoscience? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Would quite like to know that myself. Ask WP:MED? GPinkerton (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
[30] --Guy Macon (talk) 07:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

--Guy Macon (talk) 08:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes but radiation and UV were all the rage for quack treatments in the 1920s and 30s but they ended up having genuine medical use, and at some point there must have been confusing co-existence of useful vs carcinogenic which would have looked like this. Anything calling itself photobiomodulation is surely a scam, but that doesn't mean all the laser stuff isn't science. Many of the claims read like the lists of ailments cured written on a acupuncturist's window, so clearly 90% of it is pigswill. GPinkerton (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
The combination of "we have no idea how this works" and "we have been unable to show that this works in a double blind clinical trial" makes me think "pseudoscience". Light therapy, on the other hand, appears to be science. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Argh. I looked into this a while ago, and I ended up frustrated. The answer is that it depends on exactly what's being talked about. Some of this is pseudoscience; some of this is bad science; some of this is good science. And all of them are use some of the same terms to describe their stuff, and some of them confuse low-level laser lights with red light therapy, which I guess would be fine, except for the tiny little problem that LEDs aren't lasers, no matter how Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red light therapy ended. If your doc is injecting you with some Photofrin on Monday afternoon, shining a red laser down your throat on Wednesday, and scraping away the dying cancer cells on Friday, then that's conventional medicine using low-level lasers for a therapeutic purpose. If you're feeling stressed, so you decide to sit down in a room full of red lights, or if Grandma's finger is sore, so she shines a cheap red laser on the joint that hurts and feels better afterwards, then that's nice. She might have gotten just as much benefit from getting watching her favorite funny movie, but it's lot less dangerous than what many people do when they're feeling bad (e.g., alcohol, opioids), so whether it provides statistically significant benefit above control doesn't really matter. Grandma feels better, even if it's entirely due to the placebo effect. On the other hand, there are people telling the world that it's a panacea, and all of them are dangers to humanity. Many of them are engaging in pseudoscience, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Mary Midgley[edit]

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

[Richard Dawkins] nonetheless slides over to saying that "we are born selfish"

Philosopher misrepresents biologist. Wikipedia repeats misrepresentation without refutation. Calling FTN. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

That sentence begins "Midgley argued that". Are you saying that Midgley did not say this, or that you think she was wrong to say it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Misuse of the notice board. The article reports the debate between two significant and much referenced British academics, and reports both sides of that debate. Neither are fringe thinkers. Hob Gadling want Wikipedia to take sides in a debate rather than report it. Somewhat ironically one of Midgeley's arguments against Dawkins (Science and Poetry and elsewhere) was that he was creating a new religion which she terms 'Scientism', acolytes and all-----Snowded TALK 04:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
If that is really what the prose is trying to illustrate, it is doing a terrible job. I do not understand what Midgley is actually upset about vis-a-vis The Selfish Gene from the statement. jps (talk) 09:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The point here is really whether the article on Midgley should present Midgley's ideas about science uncritically. I say that, as with any other article, misrepresentations of science (/reality), however dearly held and however qualified the philosopher that has made them, should not go unaddressed or unremarked in the encyclopaedia's voice. We can't just let Midgley get away with representing evolutionary biology that way. "Altruism is an evolutionary strategy" ≠ "everyone is innately selfish". GPinkerton (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
    • The article presents Dawkins response to Midgely so it is not 'unanswered' and to be clear she is not attacking evolutionary biology, she is talking about the approach to the subject that Dawkins assumed in the Selfish Gene. Dawkins does not represent the whole of that field by any means and is challenged by Gould, virtually everyone involved in epigenetics and others in various scientific fields. The article deals with, and represents a dispute between two academics and her view is that Dawkins misrepresents science. You will also find the view that altruism is an evolutionary strategy in recent publications by Jablonka (whose credibility as a scientist cannot be challenged) and others. -----Snowded TALK 21:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
      • she is talking about the approach to the subject that Dawkins assumed in the Selfish Gene This might be the case, but the prose right now does not say that. It doesn't say anything close to what you are saying here. It would be better if the prose said what you just wrote than its currently tortured arrangement. jps (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
        • @Snowded: "the view that altruism is an evolutionary strategy" is precisely the main point of the Selfish Gene. If Midgley disagrees, then that's what the article should say. GPinkerton (talk) 03:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
          • We need to separate a few things here. (i) this is not the forum to discuss inprovements to the article as this is definately not a fringe issue (ii) imrpoving the wording in the article to reflect the sources is always a good idea (iii) Assuming that Dawkins is THE authority on evolution is wrong (iv) Asserting that we should censor an assertion by a respected academic in a dispute with another academic because some editors fall on one side of the debate is wrong (and that is where this all started). The treatment of altrusism by Jablonka and Dawkins is very different and Midgely is more towards the former than the latter but that is a different if interesting question. The overall point being made by Midgely in a series of works is, to put it simply, that Dawkins is defactor taking a political and ethical position even if he things he isn't. I have my views on that but they are not relevant here, what matters is that the article accurately represents the debate, not that we take sides as this is not creationism v evolution, it is different views within a field and none of those involved are 'fringe' -----Snowded TALK 06:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
A good example of how not to use WP:FRINGE and WP:FTN. fiveby(zero) 16:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm agreed with GPinkerton and jps. It's way too one-sided on her views and effectively puts undue weight on misunderstandings of certain ideas in evolutionary biology. Maybe adding more of Dawkins' and others' responses would help balance it out. Crossroads -talk- 04:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Satanic ritual abuse[edit]

Sounds rather dubious to me. Does anybody know more? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

FYI, the article on Argos itself was attributed to a translation of the Dutch Wikipedia version, which the intro does seem to be, but the whole bit about ritual abuse is completely absent from the Dutch version. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't know more, but I thought it looked dubious in SRA too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Looks like a straightforward investigative journalism radio show. Obviously there's two points of view here, the government and the opposition parties, but on the face of it the source looks good. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Plants do not have consciousness[edit]

There seems to be some fringe claims on a few articles claiming plants have consciousness or are sentient. For example, at Plant cognition and on the Plant perception (physiology) article an IP added to the lead "According to research, plants could perceive the world around them ("Earth - Plants can see, hear and smell – and respond". BBC. 10 January 2017.) and might be able to emit airborne sounds similar to "screaming" when stressed. Those noises could not be detectable by human ears, but organisms with a hearing range that can hear ultrasonic frequencies—like mice, bats or perhaps other plants—could hear the plants' cries from as far as 15 feet (4.6 m) away.(I. Khait; O. Lewin-Epstein; R. Sharon; K. Saban; R. Perelman; A. Boonman; Y. Yovel; L. Hadany (2 December 2019). "Plants emit informative airborne sounds under stress" (PDF). bioRxiv. doi:10.1101/507590. Cite journal requires |journal= (help))." This content should be removed or at least put somewhere else.

There is an academic field of study called "plant neurobiology" (which is a silly term because plants do not have neurons) that studies the idea of plant "intelligence" (see plant intelligence), but this is not a mainstream view and contrary to what is sometimes reported in the media its proponents are not claiming plants have consciousness. I think we need to sort some of these articles out and make it clear what the consensus is. I have spoken to botanists over the years and they do not hold these views. Plants lack a nervous system, they do not have consciousness which is obvious. We do have an article on Plant perception (paranormal) which is very much a field of quackery. I think we need to make clear the fringe field of plant neurobiology is not actually claiming plants have consciousness. Any ideas about what to do here? The plant cognition article is not in a good way. The consensus view is not stated. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

  • If we look at the plant cognition article it says "Plant cognition or plant gnosophysiology is the study of the mental capacities of plants". This appears to be nonsense. The term "plant gnosophysiology" is used in only one paper, that term is found hardly anywhere else. And the second reference on the article is a philosophical book [31] Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC) I suggest the term "mental" should be removed from the lead. Nobody is studying the mental capacities of plants. Plants do not have a mind. The article admits this. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
It's also worth pointing out that bioRxiv preprints aren't peer-reviewed sources and should generally be avoided. XOR'easter (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I just asked all of my house plants and a couple of trees outside, and after thinking about it a while they all agreed that plants do not have a mind. If that doesn't convince people I don't know what will. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Speak for yourselves, my houseplant is not only sentient, but it demands human blood. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
You need a stronger variety. I talk to my plants all the time. Sometimes they reply. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 21:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Psychologist Guy, I think HRH Sir Prince Charles would disagree. I should have asked my lad, he spoke to him the other day. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Serbs of Croatia[edit]

According to Serbian archaeologist Đorđe Janković, the western boundary of Serbian Cyrillic tombstones reached the Split–Benkovac–Kordun line in the High Middle Ages.[32]

  • This is information from book of ("Trifkovic, Srdjan (2010). The Krajina Chronicle: A History of Serbs in Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia. Lord Byron Foundation for Balkan Studies") but I can't find confirmation of this information in Croatian sources(archaeological, history sources) also in the sources of Serbs from Croatia(history books etc), Serbian sources(history, archaeological sources) as well as foreign English sources. Is this information fringe theory information? Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 11:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
If it is the view of one person, and goes against what everyone says, yes.Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
That's what I thought because I've been researching it for a long time. We'll wait a little longer to see if there is anything else about that fact. Mikola22 (talk) 11:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
This does not even rise to the level of needing the WP:FRINGE guideline. Look at the publisher Lord Byron Foundation for Balkan Studies (see their blog, with Robert Spencer and Jihad Watch, i think this Thomas Fleming) and author "Trifkovic Slandered by the Leading Serbian Daily 'Politika'", "The Trials of Trifkovic". Trifkovic is executive director of the foundation which published his work. Janković may or may not be reliable, but he would have to be published elsewhere. fiveby(zero) 20:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=985600528"