Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

"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, whether there may be problematic promotion of fringe theories, 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. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) 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

• 19 Mar 2023 – Disclose.tv (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by SenorCar (t · c) was closed as keep by Extraordinary Writ (t · c) on 26 Mar 2023; see discussion (17 participants)

Redirects for discussion

• 13 Mar 2023 – Amdexyn (talk · edit · hist) →Multivitamin was RfDed by TartarTorte (t · c); see discussion

Files for discussion

• 25 Mar 2023 – File:MichelleRemembersBookCover.PNG (talk · edit · hist) (on 1, 2) was FfDed by Vanjagenije (t · c); see discussion

Good article nominees

• 02 Feb 2023 – Susan B. Anthony (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Bilpen (t · c); start discussion
• 18 Jan 2023 – L. Ron Hubbard (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Feoffer (t · c); start discussion
• 30 Nov 2022 – Jewish astrology (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Davidbena (t · c); see discussion
• 21 Sep 2022 – Roswell incident (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Feoffer (t · c); start discussion

Requests for comments

• 28 Feb 2023 – Anthroposophy (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (t · c); see discussion
• 19 Mar 2023 – Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (talk · edit · hist) RfC by LokiTheLiar (t · c) was closed; see discussion

Peer reviews

• 02 Mar 2023 – Dunning–Kruger effect (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by Phlsph7 (t · c); see discussion

Requested moves

• 24 Mar 2023 – Jake Angeli (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Jacob Chansley by Schierbecker (t · c); see discussion
• 22 Mar 2023 – Teach the controversy (campaign) (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to teach the controversy by Marsbar8 (t · c); see discussion

Articles to be merged

• 20 Jun 2022 – Fringe science (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Fringe theory by Piotrus (t · c); see discussion
• 09 Jun 2022 – Russian disinformation in the post-Soviet era (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Propaganda in Russia by Euor (t · c); see discussion

Articles to be split

• 16 Jul 2019 – Humanists International (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Zythe (t · c); see discussion

Would it be worthwhile/possible to get a filter showing removals of "pseudo"

Today I've found changes from Pseuoscience to science and pseudoscholarship to scholarship. Doug Weller talk 09:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Sound good. We can't police every page. Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

But we do police many… to be useful any filter would have to discount instances where the removal was immediately reverted (perhaps have it wait an hour?). Blueboar (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

As long as we don't get false positives from uses of "pseudo" in other contexts. For instance if someone changing pseudoephedrine to ephedrine is caught by the filter then its overly broad and should not be implemented (insert Pseudo-penis joke here). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

While we are at it, how about a filter showing excessive use of 'pseudo' too? If something is pseudoscience, per reliable sources, say so once. Then present the evidence. You won't convince people of anything much through mere repetition of a word... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to go for. MarioJump83 (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

If the filter just creates a list to watch then some false positives are not a big deal. Warning is probably useless and blocking edits would need a very strong case. A list does the job I think. --mfb (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• The filter doesn't have to disallow any edits, it can be set to only keep track of them. --Jayron32 16:26, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
• I agree that there are too many unrelated uses to track pseudo- alone; for example, random is likely to be changed to pseudorandom (or vice versa). We can, perhaps, track only changes to keywords for pseudo-scholarship, as Mfb suggested. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
• I would definitely be in favor of such an edit filter. I like LaundryPizza's idea of restricting ourselves to key words such as: "pseudoscholarship", "pseudoscience", "pseudohistory", "fringe science", "junk science", "alternative medicine", "quack medicine", etc. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  So shall we request one or find someone who can make one using Shibbolethink's suggestion? Doug Weller talk 11:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

And here is a classic example of why such a filter might be helpful. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

So shall we request one I say, "Yes." But how/where does one make that request? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps at this dauntingly complex page: Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Please excuse the late response. Two of my least favorite words, 'dauntingly' and 'complex.' Excellent. So...before I give it a try, do we have a consensus here on what precisely should be requested? My reading suggests the targeted search parameters should include changes of: "pseudoscience" to science; "pseudoscholarship" to scholarship; "pseudohistory" to history; "fringe science" to science; "alternative medicine" to medicine. (I assume I have missed some.) The result would be a running list posted, uh, somewhere? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The list of terms would be included in the filter's source code, unless it is made private. Your list is a good start, although I'd also add inflections of these words as regex. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@JoJo Anthrax: Also, nobody has yet provided any diffs about this type of change where it's performed in bad faith. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03 Happens all the time with anything relating to Graham Hancock, one off IP edits. Doug Weller talk 07:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: In order to file an EFR request, we need specific diffs where this happens. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03 Like [1]? Doug Weller talk 17:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Or [2]? - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done See Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#Removal_of_fringe-theory_keywords. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 20:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I certainly would have fouled-up the syntax, and probably more than once. Thanks for doing that work. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 11:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Kozyrev mirror

Russian pseudoscience device up for deletion due to marginal notability. Honestly it sounds like something Dr. Matrix would have come up with, so there's no dispute that it is fringe, but people who follow these sorts of things may have opinions about how well-known it is. Mangoe (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

My initial thought is that it's really, really hard to evaluate notability of Soviet Union pseudoscience without speaking Russian and having access to Russian-language sources. I'd say that, as long as it definitely exists (as a thing that was tried), it doesn't try to promote it as working, and it has at least one decent source, assume it's fine. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 00:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Randall Carlson

Keep an eye out for this deleted article to be recreated or him being used as a source. Right now his only mention is at Younger Dryas impact hypothesis#In popular culture. But he's been on Tucker Carlson's show twice this year[3][4] so gaining more attention. Doug Weller talk 11:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I mean, he might reach notability from that. Not to say his views should be promoted: I still like the old 2010 view that we need the sources to discuss a topic well, not merely to prove notability if the sources would only allow you to write an article promoting their bullshit. Skeptics organisations help a bit with that. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 01:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Marzena Ozarek Szilke

There appears to be a discussion about the extent to which the scientific community holds that a particular mummy discovered in 2021 was actually pregnant at the time of mummification. This is way out of my comfort zone, so I am coming here to ask someone here with a familiarity with Egyptology if they would be willing to offer an uninvolved third opinion at the talk page. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The article has been deleted after unanimous consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marzena Ozarek Szilke. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Russ Baker

Russ Baker has argued on his website (and presumably as an IP in Talk:Russ Baker) that Wikipedia editors have cherry-picked sources to negatively describe his journalistic approach and his book Family of Secrets. I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Russ Baker to address these complaints. -Location (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate Location starting this discussion. Yes, Russ Baker has graduated from editing the article personally and through proxies for at lest thirteen years (see [5]) to yelling about it off-wiki, and the article on him does present possible WP:FRINGE issues. But I think an even greater problem is presented by the article on his book Family of Secrets. Assuming the book even deserves an article, which is questionable, it This article is problematic by presenting Baker's fringe views without, I think, making it sufficiently clear that these are in fact fringe views. Yes it does include excerpts from negative reviews, to his great anguish, but I wonder if it requires more context as required by the guideline: in an article about the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be made clear. Is it clear? I don't believe so. Coretheapple (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Dissociative identity disorder

• Dissociative identity disorder (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Is WP:FRINGE relevant here or not? Talk page say it is not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

It's a legitimate diagnosis in the DSM-5, so as an article overall it shouldn't be considered FRINGE. As a poorly understood disorder with a lot of competing theories, some of those views will need to get described in a FRINGE-compliant manner if they're non-mainstream. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Anything may be fringe if there are fringe theories about it. For example, Earth is decidedly not a fringe topic, but there are fringe beliefs about the Earth which should not be presented as though they had wide acceptance. A specific article title is not the relevant thing at hand; rather it is whether or not text in the article is compliant with WP:NPOV, specifically " While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community." --Jayron32 19:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

FRINGE is relevant to this article in a few situations. There is a trend among youth right now of self-identifying as having DID (using "headmates," "alters," and other cute terms for their other identities). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Henriette Mertz - based mainly on fringe sources

It's really pretty bad. I found 4 books mentioning her and stopped. 3 self-published, this one reliably published.[6] There may be more. But I don't think there's enough. Doug Weller talk 12:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Oooh! Adventures Unlimited Press. Funny, it didn't turn up when I searched WP:RS/N. Donald Albury 14:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Note: This article has been nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henriette Mertz (2nd nomination). Partofthemachine (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I mean, it's at least not promotional of her views. She's a kook, but that's not necessarily bad if we have sources. I've seen far worse. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 19:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Blood type personality theory

Could use more eyes. I reverted once, but a newer user continues to add single studies. Diff. This user appears to have been adding single studies to this article slowly for many years. May require a big cleanup. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree, using single studies like this is a big fail of WP:MEDRS Umibe (talk · contribs) doesn't appear to be taking that criticism on-board though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Umibe hasn't been formally informed yet, ever. They'd probably only notice if they read the history tab of the article and read the edit summaries. I'll go ahead and leave a note on their user talk about this discussion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I jusy rolled back their most recent additions, but someone with more medical ability will need to go through the entire "criticism" section and pick apart thr sources as theyve been active on this article for a long time now. 73.68.72.229 (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Your rollback included studies published by Nature journals which is at odds with your claim that this is was somehow "profringe content". There was a section which I manually blanked, because it had nothing to do with the topic, but going to a pseudoscience page and deleting cited text based on it being fringe doesn't help other editors understand your intent. I don't have any stake in this, but other than the part I manually changed, what you did appears indiscriminate and has been reversed. If I'm wrong, please feel free to explain.Oblivy (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

All the text and references supported by studies, including those cited to Nature, probably needs to go. Studies are not reliable per WP:MEDRS. Need review articles, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews, which are academic papers that summarize large numbers of studies. Single studies by themselves are too likely to be junk due to the replication crisis and bad study methodology. This is especially true for studies that have WP:REDFLAG results. I support 73.68.72.229's removals, although the deleted paragraph that cites a meta-analysis can stay if that is WP:DUE, since meta-analyses are reliable per WP:MEDRS. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Obviously I jumped into a debate that is ongoing. In my defense, this debate wasn't not mentioned at all in the comments justifying significant blanking activity. However, the insistence that bad science be removed from an article 'about' pseudoscience is bizarre. The phenomenon is genuine - real-life association of blood types with personality. Studies attempting to prove it are part of that phenomenon. Suggesting that WP:MEDRS should be applied to an article which states in the lede that it's about a pseudoscience is elevating rules over reason. You all are way passionate about this than I am so I'm going to back away.Oblivy (talk) 05:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

the insistence that bad science be removed from an article 'about' pseudoscience is bizarre No, it is not.You got it wrong. The rules are for exactly this situation (among others).

Pseudoscientists claim there is a connection, and we should not quote primary studies supporting that, but secondary studies evaluating the quality of those studies. There is a reason for those rules: Wikipedia should not propagate fringe ideas by quoting fringe sources.

You all are way passionate about this What we are is: experienced in fringe topics. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

That's certainly one perspective. Not sure it withstands a close reading of the relevant Wikipedia policies but you guys can figure it out. Just maybe improve your edit summaries or put a link to this discussion on the relevant talk page so people know that there are experts at work.Oblivy (talk) 11:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Just accept the 'L' and move on, no need to get snarky. 73.68.72.229 (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson

Eg In a January 2023 an episode of Tucker Carlson's Fox Nation show "Tucker Carlson Today]] had a guest who stated that "They didn't build 'em. Someone before them built 'em". Carlson replied "That's right" and saying there was "skeletal evidence of people who bear no genetic resemblance to the current Indians". There's more nonsense in that video and in [7] Maybe some mention in Carlson's article? I'm using it in something I'm writing.

References

Doug Weller talk 14:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

We do not need every dumb ass thing he makes up. Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Only if you can excise 3 paragraphs for the one you want to add. The article suffers from way too much detail for a political entertainer. Slywriter (talk) 14:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd agree, except that millions of people don't consider him a "political entertainer". They appear to believe whatever he spews. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but Wikipedia debunking all (or even a majority) of his false claims won't change their minds. It would leave a bloated encyclopedia article, though. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that we can't change the minds of his viewers. That's why I think "political entertainer" is a polite description and what he pushes is notable considering the power he apparently wields over his audience and seemingly his management. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia: the internet's propaganda factory

Interested in ivermectin, antivaxx, COVID/cancer quackery, guerilla skepticism, homeopathy, or the history of how Wikipedia deals with FRINGE topics? How about all of these things in one article?

• Gorski DH (6 March 2023). "Ivermectin booster Dr. Tess Lawrie goes all-in for homeopathy for COVID and long COVID". Science-Based Medicine.

I don't believe Tess Lawrie is sufficiently notable for an article. Yes? Bon courage (talk) 06:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so just yet, though she may be on the verge of becoming as such, unfortunately, considering these: [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]

I think I need to cue the Futurama "I don't want to live on this planet anymore" gif. Ugh. Silverseren^C 06:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Hm. Good article, though. Science-Based Medicine *is* considered a reliable source, isn't it? That'd be one of the two for WP:GNG Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 07:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It is. And looking at that simply dreadful local news piece[16] makes me appreciate anew why Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines are as they are for fringe science. If somebody creates Tesss Lawrie is would probably survive any AfD. I'm kind of hoping they don't. Bon courage (talk) 07:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It ends up being complex. At the last RSN discussion I remember, SBM had released a statement that some authors (including Gorski and, at the time, Hall) were publishing without review. Other authors are reviewed before publication. I think it is wise to be wary about using articles from SBM as a source about living people when there is no review. That said, there is no reason to question the expertise of the authors overall, just cause to be wary about unattributed statements about living people. - Bilby (talk) 07:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

They only show up in one article right no---World Council for Health---and there seems to be scant reliable coverage in the last year [17] so hopefully the statues quo holds—blindlynx 15:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Archaeology and racism is now live

And could anyone help me with the category I created Category:Archaeology and racism? It needs to cite this as its main article and be put in the proper tree. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Great work, Doug! Bishonen | tålk 18:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC).

I've added categories and set the main article for Category:Archaeology and racism. I also set the WikiProject banners for the article and the category. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien much appreciated. Doug Weller talk 08:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm concerned that most of the articles in the category do not mention racism in relation to archaeological claims, pseudoscientific or otherwise. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03 You'll have to be more specific. If you list them I'll see what I can do or discuss it further. Doug Weller talk 13:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

For example, Leo Frobenius, Adolf Mahr, and Mound Builders do not mention the word racism at all. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03 True. The Mound Builders coverage of the racist myth was terrible. I hadn't gotten around to fixing it but I've added material now I'd found earlier and planned to add. Froebenius's theory that whites were the root of African civilization is obviously racist but I've added the word. I don't think something so blue sky needs a source but I'm sure you could find one. I've removed it from Mahr because I can't find my source about his views on eugenics. Doug Weller talk 16:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I also wish to thank those that helped me. User:Donald Albury, User:A. Parrot and User:Valjean gave me valuable advice on the talk page, User:Hoopes did also off-wiki and added some citations, and User:Nishidani in particular who also gave me valuable advice and some content editing which enabled me to move it to article space. Doug Weller talk 13:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Everyone but a few rare birds was 'racist' a century ago (and not only). Racist with different degrees of intensity (or levity). Frobenius is a mixed bag but he did once write:'Over there in Africa, all of us, all Europeans are one blood, one race ; we have to be one will. We are taming this black beast, each of us the limb that fell to his lot in the distribution' which you can find in one of Kuba's articles. Great job, Doug.Nishidani (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

User wants to remove sentence about DRASTIC harassing people on twitter

See discussion here. Sentence is: Members of DRASTIC have engaged in personal attacks against virologists and epidemiologists on Twitter, falsely accusing some of working for the Chinese Communist Party cited to the WP:RSP "yellow" CNET. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Surely this has been covered by a more reliable source? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

That's what I thought, it's gotta be. I only looked through 1-2 pages of search results but couldn't find any easily. I think there probaly is something out there. I think part of the issue is that it's difficult to search for D.R.A.S.T.I.C. or "DRASTIC" because of the cruft that get's added to the search query. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Same, I got through four pages of google results without finding a single relevant article besides the CNET one. There are just way too many stories which induce the words "twitter" "drastic" and "harassment" from the last two years. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

This 2021 piece in Nature [18] obliquely refers to them as a group that claims to independently investigate COVID, but doesn't mention them by name. Though it's pretty obvious it refers to them if you know the actual context. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

There's also this article in SCMP [19], but I don't have access to it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

oh see below! I got a full text with WP:TWL. It does verify I think, and it's the strongest source so far. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

It does the opposite of verify, it makes a contradictory claim. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I did find these with a bit of creative use of The Wikipedia Library and some google fu:

• South China Morning Post: Critics have questioned the tactics of DRASTIC – accusing them of cherry-picking evidence to support their claims and abusing scientists that have differing views.
• Less reliable: Newsweek: For a long time, DRASTIC's discoveries stayed confined to the strange world of Twitter, known only to a few nerdy followers. The sleuths ran into a fair number of dead ends, got into the occasional spat with scientists who disagreed with their interpretations, and produced a firehose of reporting.

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Well now we have a problem because those sources don't support what CNET said. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

the SCMP does for the most part. I would prefer it if the article were worded more closely to what this more reliable source says, though. such as: ...have abused scientists with differing views on Twitter. or ...have been criticized for abusing scientists with differing views on Twitter. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The SCMP verifies something completely different, which is that these claims have been made by critics. We can change what the article says, but the wording based on CNET isn't at all supported by these new sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

yes, so let's say instead in the article: ...have been criticized for abusing scientists with differing views on Twitter. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

But none of the sources say that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, are you saying the assumption of it being on twitter is WP:SYNTH? Or? I figured it was not, since that article very clearly says they operate on twitter. But what about: ...have been criticized for abusing scientists with differing views. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

None of the sources support "criticized for abusing scientists" one of them does support "Critics claim that DRASTIC cherry picks evidence and abuses scientists who disagree with them" which is the closest you're going to be able to get to your preferred language without OR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Right, I just proposed on the article talk: Critics say the group cherry-picks evidence and abuses scientists who disagree with their conclusions. That's very close without having the copyright concerns of what you just said, which is almost entirely identical to the source. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks great! There is also probably room to say that they've gotten into disputes with scientists who disagree with them in wikivoice, for that part its really only whether the dispute constituted abuse that we shouldn't be putting in wikivoice. Also just a note that what we already had "Members of DRASTIC have engaged in personal attacks against virologists and epidemiologists on Twitter, falsely accusing some of working for the Chinese Communist Party" was much closer to the source than anything I proposed so the barb just seems uncivil. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh my apologies, 100% didn't intend any barbs. That's the sentence that's in dispute! I agree with everything else you've said here, I just think it's best to include the attributed claim and not make the mention overall too long or UNDUE by also including disputes etc. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

BLP on anti-homosexuality theologian -- does FRINGE apply?

AfD on Kendall Harmon. Does it need more than one SIGCOV source? Do his views need to be contextualized with mainstream views on homosexuality (and it has not been established that the SIGCOV source does this), or can they be sourced strictly to things he has said/written/been quoted saying in RS (but without secondary analysis)? JoelleJay (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

If he's notable, it would be in relation to Anglican views. Unless he's making notable scientific claims. Bakkster Man (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

EMDR

• Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

An editor want to remove all mentions of pseudoscience from the article and believes that WP:FRINGE does not apply. The pseudoscience aspect is discussed by two older review articles and more recently WP:SBM. More eyes/thoughts useful. (Note this topic has been raised here several times over the years). Bon courage (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Above editor is not mentioning that essentially every other source on the page is scientific evidence for the effectiveness of EMDR, up to and including a Cochrane review that found it to be effective. In contrast the sources for "pseudoscience" are two twenty year old articles published before much of the research in the article, and a professional opinion that is not a study or any kind of research. Loki (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Has anything changed in the last 20 years? PMID:33638952 says that as of 2021 it remains controversial, even among psychologists. One source we don't cite (but maybe should) is PMID:15943644, which is MEDRS. According to this EMDR is basically good old Exposure therapy to which some gimmicks were added - initially eye movement. As research showed each gimmick to be useless the therapy evolved to add new gimmicks (e.g. finger tapping), and increase its session lengths and training requirements to generate revenue. This reliance on promotion and hype is why sources describe it as pseudoscience, including the influential Herbert review. As PMID:15943644 says, EMDR is not ineffective (in comparison to orthodox therapies without gimmicks, or no therapy). But for us, that is beside the point. We should just follow the sources, rather than engaging in OR which says "it sorta kinda works therefore cannot be pseudoscience!". Bon courage (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

up to and including a Cochrane review that found it to be effective. In addition to the concerns with placing too much weight into RCTs into techniques without a fundamental principle of action identified, and the risk of bias between different studies assessing bias differently, the study itself urged caution in their results: Many of the studies were rated as being at 'high' or 'unclear' risk of bias in multiple domains, and there was considerable unexplained heterogeneity; in addition, we assessed the quality of the evidence for each comparison as very low. As such, the findings of this review should be interpreted with caution. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

We're sort of in acupuncture territory. But *shrug* what can we do but follow the sources. Bon courage (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with being careful with how we describe the evidence, in fact we mention that in the article already. All I'm saying is that the evidence does not justify the term "pseudoscience". EMDR is extremely well evidenced, and the fact that it has so much research into it at all is by definition proof it's not pseudoscience. Loki (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE/PS and WP:FRINGE/QS, it doesn't seem to meet the definition of "obviously bogus" of pseudoscience, and seems more along the lines of note those critics' views; however, such hypotheses should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific if a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that, with the caveat that we already do that elsewhere in the article. The article is already clear that the evidence for the eye movement parts of EMDR is much less strong than for EMDR as a whole.

In my opinion, this is no difference than (for example) noting that EMDR has much weaker evidence for anxiety disorders than for PTSD, or noting those studies that argue that SSRIs don't have clinically significant impacts for mild depression. An ineffective treatment, or a potentially ineffective treatment, is not the same thing as pseudoscience. Loki (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah the existing EMDR has been characterized as a pseudoscience because of its weak underlying evidence and reliance on marketing for promotion seems like the appropriate caveat, versus describing is a "EMDR is a pseudoscientific..." in the first sentence. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The "reliance on marketing for promotion" is completely irrelevant. If that's the true measurement of pseudoscience, then most prescription drugs are pseudoscientific, because the pharma industry spends something like US$7 billion on advertisements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that the evidence does not justify the term "pseudoscience" ← interesting thought. Get it published in a reputable source, bring it back here, and it might be relevant! Bon courage (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Also as far as I can tell, the last discussion on this page had a clear consensus that EMDR is not fringe. And that was over a decade ago, and there's been even more evidence for its effectiveness since. Like, the APA recommends it! Loki (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, we have SBM since then. And that is reliable for fringe science. Also, see above, Bon courage (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

You seem to have an idea that something which is effective cannot also be pseudoscience - that is not true. There is a lot of this in psychology - for example Emotional Freedom Techniques combines distraction therapy with acupuncture points - just because distraction therapy is known to work does not mean that claiming that tapping on meridians is better than other sorts of distractions cannot be pseudoscience. MrOllie (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Exactly: imagine "gold leaf therapy" (ibuprofen wrapped in gold leaf and 10x the price). Might be "effective" for pain relief. Doesn't make it anything other than a scam. Bon courage (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The APA would not recommend something like that, nor would the WHO, nor would the many professional organizations that recommend EMDR.

I'm not saying here that there's good evidence for the eye movement part of EMDR: we already document on the page that the evidence for that is shaky. However, the fact that there are many scientific studies about that definitionally means that it is potentially falsifiable and so not "pseudoscience". Loki (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Bodies like that promote pseudoscience often: APA example WHO example. - MrOllie (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

So then what evidence could there possibly be that something isn't pseudoscience?

Like, "pseudoscience" doesn't mean "there is no evidence for this treatment" but "no evidence could possibly falsify this treatment". But there's plenty of evidence that:

a) The eye movement part of EMDR is most likely not particularly useful

b) Despite that, EMDR as a whole is one of the most effective therapies for PTSD. Loki (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Also wait a minute: your sources are less reliable than the APA! You can't cite an interest group like the Center for Inquiry alone to discredit the APA, that's not how Wikipedia sourcing works. Loki (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sourcing it in an article, am I? You claimed that the APA wouldn't promote pseudoscience in a noticeboard discussion, something which is widely known to be untrue. I just gave an example of that. MrOllie (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

But I don't know that's untrue. Your source claims that the APA accepts credits from a dubious institution, but I don't trust your source: their links to the crucial evidence that the APA ever even endorsed this institution are broken, for one. And for two, the idea that this makes the APA unreliable in general is IMO obviously BS. The NYT has ran false articles before but that doesn't make it an unreliable source. Loki (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

No one said that the APA is unreliable in general. You made a claim about the APA - that they wouldn't promote pseudoscience - without backing it up. The only evidence available says the contrary. MrOllie (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

You may want to learn the distinction between "proof" and "evidence". I don't think there's ever going to be proof that the APA would never promote pseudoscience, but their long record of support for evidence-based medicine (which even your own source mentions) means that their endorsement is strong evidence that EMDR is not pseudoscience. Loki (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

They endorse CBT. They 'Conditionally Recommended' EMDR, which is what they do when the evidence isn't all that great. But it doesn't matter much, because we have sources which are directly on-point about the pseudo-scientific aspects, and we don't need to play OR games with APA recommendations. MrOllie (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

This is called WP:OR. You're reasoning that because of your interpretation of X, Y and Z we can put excellent source A,B and C in the memory hole. Sorry, doesn't work like that. In fact WP:PSCI requires us to record the pseudoscience aspect prominently. Bon courage (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

But the sources aren't excellent. Two of them are older than most of the dis-confirming evidence, which leaves you with one opinion source. Loki (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Old does not mean bad. Still cited, settled knowledge more like. And WP:SBM is a top-tier source for fringe science. We're not even asserting on Wikipedia that EMDR is pseudoscience, but recording the scholarly views on this. Sorry, you're not going to bury that. Suggest we're done here. Bon courage (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

This discussion has been open for less than 24 hours so we are absolutely not "done here". Wait at least a week for people to trickle in. Loki (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I've notified WikiProject Psychology about this discussion, as it seems like we're not getting enough bites here to form a proper consensus. Loki (talk) 04:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

We have proper consensus, and WP:NPOV is non-negotiable in any case. Your proposal (to ignore all the RS discussing the pseudoscience in play) is a direct contravention of the requirement of WP:PSCI. Bon courage (talk) 06:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The fact that WP:NPOV is non-negotiable is the whole reason I object to what you're doing. You're inserting a clear POV that EMDR is pseudoscience, where that isn't supported by the majority of the sources.

• The scientific consensus on EMDR just in general is that it's effective.
• The scientific consensus on whether the eye movements specifically are a factor in why it's effective is "probably not? but maybe?"
• The scientific consensus on whether that means it's a purple hat therapy over CBT or exposure therapy, or whether there's some other difference in therapeutic practice, is that there isn't any consensus and this is still an area of active debate. I would honestly go further and say that it seems to be settling towards "no it's not a purple hat" based on the recommendations from big medical organizations.

Loki (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

What you seem not to grasp in that effectiveness and pseudoscience are orthogonal concepts. Homeopathy can treat dehydration, but that does not make in not pseudoscience, Anyway, we follow the sources to achieve NPOV - and we're getting there. Bon courage (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you understand very well that if homeopathy was scientifically proven to be effective for the treatment of any real illness that would make it definitionally not pseudoscientific. Activated charcoal is used as a pseudoscientific treatment in some cases but is also actually used as a treatment and in that instance is not pseudoscientific. Same for chelation therapy, and same for frankly a lot of real medical procedures that have been repurposed by quacks. This doesn't make the real uses of any of these therapies pseudoscientific.

Also this isn't the case we have here, where it's the actual core use of the treatment that's being accused of pseudoscience, even though it's clearly scientifically validated as effective.

And I agree that we follow the sources for NPOV, which is why I am incensed that you don't understand we have tons and tons of sources proving the scientific validity of EMDR. Loki (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

It's really pointless to continue. You have some funny ideas but the sources are clear. As they observe, if charlatans take an established intervention, mix in some woo, and then say the woo is the secret sauce that makes it work, then that's pseudoscience baby! Bon courage (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I've made an RFC on the talk page about this issue. Loki (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Other sources

This book is pertinent:

• Thyer BA, Pignotti MG (2015). "Chapter 4: Pseudoscience in Treating Adults Who Experienced Trauma". Science and Pseudoscience in Social Work Practice. Springer. p. 146. doi:10.1891/9780826177698.0004. ISBN 9780826177681.

Usefully for this dscussion it explains why EMDR is considered pseudoscience, despite the RCTs:

What sets EMDR apart from most approaches considered to be pseudoscientific is that a number of RCTs have been conducted on EMDR, leading it to be listed as an empirically supported treatment for PTSD by the Division 12 of the American Psychological Association, because it meets that group's criteria of having at least two randomized controlled studies with positive results. Nevertheless, to date, given that there is no evidence that anything unique to EMDR is responsible for the positive outcomes in comparing it to no treatment (Devilly, 2002) and the florid manner in which it has been marketed (Herbert et al., 2000), we are including it in this book. Moreover, systematic reviews for some client groups, such as combat veterans (Albright & Thyer, 2010), have revealed that the evidence for EMDR falls short of labeling it as an empirically supported treatment for that specific form of PTSD.

Also

• Lohr JM, Gist R, Deacon B, Devilly GJ, Varker T (2015). "Chapter 10: Science- and Non-Science-Based Treatments for Trauma-Related Stress Disorders". In Lilienfeld SO, Lynn SJ, Lohr JM (eds.). Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology (2nd ed.). Routledge. p. 292. ISBN 9781462517893.

EMDR offers few, if any, demonstrable advantages over competing evidence-based psychological treatments. Moreover, its theoretical model and purported primary active therapeutic ingredient are not scientifically supported. Accordingly, the scientific status of EMDR characterized by McNally's (1999) maxim, "What is effective in EMDR is not new, and what is new is not effective" (p. 619), still holds today.

If anything, it seems our current article seems a bit coy compared to how sceptically this product is regarded in RS. Bon courage (talk) 07:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I think today's changes take the article in a better direction. XOR'easter (talk) 14:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

And yikes, to my surprise this article gets ~1,000 views/day. Thanks is due to LokiTheLiar for bringing the issues there to the community's attention. Bon courage (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

While I am glad you found better sources for the original claim, I strongly object to your changes to the article as I believe that they violate WP:NPOV. Again, this is something that a Cochrane review and the APA both found to be effective. Even your sources say it's effective. I understand that there are problems with the evidence for the eye movement parts of it, but we already mentioned that. And even there, there is one meta-analysis that says the eye movement parts actually are helpful. This is a dispute over effectiveness, not over whether EMDR is pseudoscience. Loki (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the whole point is it's effective, if at all, only because of the old-fashioned underlying therapy, not because of the gimmicky/expensive add-ons (the "purple hat"). Looking at the sourcing there is an absolute crapload of how this is a pseudoscience. Bon courage (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

But there's significant dispute in the literature over whether it's a purple hat therapy or not, though. See for instance this paper from 2008 defending EMDR against purple-hat style skepticism, also this (admittedly old) paper from 2003. And this is just what I can find quickly on Google Scholar. Loki (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

So far as I can see neither of those sources even mentions purple hats. Meanwhile, red hot off the Cambridge University Presses from 3 days ago we have this[20] which reaffirms the purple hat status and the dodgy nature of EMDR generally. Seems like case closed. Bon courage (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

And now the RfC

Okay so following a premature WP:DRN and discussion at two noticeboards, the editor has now launched a RfC at Talk:Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing#RFC: Is EMDR pseudoscience. Note the editor is now also mass reverting the article to keep the reliable sources out.[21] Bon courage (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

1) I already notified this noticeboard about the RFC above actually. It's above "Other sources", because it's not about other sources. I'm not sure which other noticeboard you're talking about, though I did also notify WP:NPOVN about the RFC.

2) I reverted the article to restore the status quo before the RFC, as is conventional for RFCs. If you'd like to go with me to whatever place you feel is appropriate to get a third opinion from an admin rather than edit war against me here, I'm happy to do so, but as far as I can tell policy is clearly behind me on this. Loki (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

It is common that people don't make radical edits during the RFC, but I do not believe it is a common practice to start a RFC and then use it as a reason to revert. It is certainly not a good reason to start edit warring. MrOllie (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

It is generally accepted practice to keep controversial changes out of an article until the RFC about them has concluded. Wouldn't make much sense to include the changes before there's consensus to do so. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

What we have here is a WP:1AM situation - so far, anyway. One person shouldn't be able to paralyze an article by starting an RFC. MrOllie (talk) 23:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not only me against these changes. Bakkster Man above appeared to be for the status quo before either of us started editing, and the previous consensus from previous discussions was also that EMDR was not pseudoscientific. Loki (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Is there any BLP or other concern that trumps WP:NODEADLINE in this situation, where it actually matters which WP:WRONGVERSION the article sits at for the 30 days the RFC runs? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Not as far as I can tell? It's definitely not a BLP and I don't know what other concerns there could be. I am concerned that having a version that has all sorts of NPOV tags on it (and which I view as having a pretty clear POV) could prejudice the discussion, which is why I want to revert it. But it's ultimately not a huge deal either way. Loki (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I think: blanking the relevant solid RS in the article, and starting a RfC and including a comment "Here's a description of the relevant sourcing about EMDR" without mentioning that RS (or this discussion here) looks an awful lot like WP:GAMING when combined with the belief this can lock the article in your preferred state (it won't). Bon courage (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, I do not have (easy) access to that source, and assumed that you were going to introduce it. Because you are the only one who has access to it. Loki (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Which source? "Trauma" in Pseudoscience in Therapy you should have through WP:Library which is looking very WP:BESTSOURCESy. Here's "Novel can Controversial Treatments for Trauma-Related Stress Disorders" in Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology which you can borrow from archive with a free account. fiveby(zero) 01:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Aha! Thank you, I didn't realize how the Wikipedia Library worked. Loki (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Updated reply to ScottishFinnishRadish: actually there really might be such a concern, as already two different editors have voted for "the status quo" and meant two different things. Loki (talk) 03:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

LokiTheLiar You should probably read the Scott Lilienfeld article, then ask yourself if it is productive to continue making arguments here. fiveby(zero) 05:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, while I believe the best description is to not unambiguously refer to EMDR as a pseudoscience, the edit/revert here makes a significant number of other changes that I haven't considered. I don't think either version is ideal and will need additional work.

But I am in favor of editors who open RfCs avoiding these kinds of direct edits/reverts during the RfC. If it's a good RfC, then someone else will typically make these edits. And the edits being reverted in bulk are by no means close to the exceptions they should be reserved for. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

More than anything, the RFC itself was very poorly designed. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

And an RfC which is effectively "I haven't read the pertinent sources discussed elsewhere, but here's what I reckon the article should say anyway" is kind of WTF ... Bon courage (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

It's a very good example of why RfCs should come after significant discussion that hasn't resolved the underlying concern. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Indeed; while at the source discovery stage, trying to do a process end-run to pre-empt what the article is going to say anyway, stands NPOV on its head. Bon courage (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I have closed the problematic RfC as an uninvolved editor. Please feel free to reverse that closure if you think it, as opposed to continuing the discussion here, has any reasonable chance of generating anything productive or helpful. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, that didn't last too long. Good luck folks. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for trying. Will likely end up at WP:AE or WP:ANI so see you there ... Bon courage (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

And now another RfC

Having re-opened their closed RfC LokiTheLiar has now re-closed it and started a second RfC apparently attempting to lock the entire EMDR article to a fixed state, keeping new sources out; it has already been modified in response to the initial responses. (And: now at WP:ANI#Aspersions by Bon_courage.) Bon courage (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not trying to lock the article to a fixed state. Please add the new sources, if you want. But what you have been doing is not just adding new sources but also a lot of Wikivoice descriptions of EMDR as ineffective or pseudoscience, which are not supported by the full weight of all the sources. Remember, this is a therapy endorsed by: the APA, the other APA, the WHO, the NHS, and on and on and on and on. Loki (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

As others have said your 'wikivoice' description is false. Basically, we've reached the point I think where WP:CIR problems are just burning too much editors' time. Let's see what happens at WP:ANI. Bon courage (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Not to you but just for the record, here are all changes BC has made recently describing EMDR as pseudoscientific or ineffective in Wikivoice:

• Adding it to Category:Psuedoscience
• It has been characterized as a pseudoscience and is only as effective as its underlying therapeutic methods without EMDR's distinctive add-ons., in the lead.
• Unusually for interventions that are considered pseudoscientific, EMDR has been subject to a number of randomized controlled trials.
• It has been called a purple hat therapy because its effectiveness stems from the underlying therapy, not from is distinctive features [sic]

Loki (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Facepalm. I've already explained this once. Somebody else can try if they have the patience. Bon courage (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Jean-Émile Charon

• Jean-Émile Charon (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Guy believes electrons think. Primary sources only. Is he even relevant enough to have an article? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

After a GS and JSTOR search, I'm dubious. XOR'easter (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Now at AfD. XOR'easter (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Let's ask the electrons Sennalen (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Chiemsee Cauldron

• Chiemsee Cauldron (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

People doubt this article on the Talk page. Is it a Celtic artifact? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The recent additions were made by the author of the works being referenced, and they appear to have used the article as if it was one of their works. The article before the additions could have used a lot of work, but the current article is a mess. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office

• All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Should mention of the conclusions of a Harvard “pre-print” paper by Avi Loeb [22] and the head of AARO be included in the article? - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure, it seems to be significant in the context of the AARO. Sennalen (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, external work by leadership of an organization, even related to the organization's mission, isn't necessarily notable to the organization itself. Particularly the portrayal that the AARO is the one who "released" the draft, which does not seem to be the case (despite erroneous press reporting). Bakkster Man (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I removed the section from the article for the above reasons. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Why do they have to rename that thing every few years? Just call it "Ministry for Weird-Looking Clouds and Venus" or something like that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Eh, this one's a defense department initiative taking military reports and removing the UFO stigma that limited them, because identifying either sensor issues or actual foreign adversaries is a legitimate national security activity. It's definitely not "weird looking clouds and Venus", the only fringe bit is the jump from 'we don't know what military sensors detected' to 'alien motherships are hiding in the solar system'. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

"Pentagon Officials Say Alien Mothership Possible" IMO, even reliable sources can indulge in this kind of clickbait, so sources using alien mothership headlines should be ignored per WP:SENSATIONAL. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

From what I saw when I looked a few days ago, very few sources which can be consider RS have even talked about this anyway. In fact, the only one I've seen which is likely an RS is The Independent. Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:PREPRINTS we should wait until the peer review process is finished. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 15:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

On any other page Sennalen (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Not yet. There is no rush. Once the article is reviewed and published there is no question whatsoever that it will be cited, despite the lead author's clear COI and pro-fringe inclination. I note also that the argument immediately above - On any other page - is groundless. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The cherry picking of the juiciest/most misleading quotes has begin. We could definately use eyes on the article and talk page, to avoid a replay of all the nonsense that went on at Talk:Pentagon UFO videos/Archive 3 - MrOllie (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Nicola Scafetta

• Nicola Scafetta (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Climate change denier; article seems to contain gobbledigook. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Article seems to be from a neutral point of view - even academics can be climate change deniers. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

This is the fringe theories noticeboard, not the NPOV noticeboard.

Maybe I should be more specific: The article says, Scafetta's climate model is based primarily on a numerological comparison of secular periodic changes of global surface temperature and the Sun´s periodic movement around barycenter of the Solar System caused by the revolving planets Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune

So, numerology combined with the tiny movements of the sun caused by planets? Looks like fringe to me, and fringe ideas need to be presented within their context - which means, with mainstream criticism. "Failing to disclose code" is independent of that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't trust what you read on Wikipedia. The word "numerological" was just randomly added by an IP one day and has nothing to do with what the paper is about.

From a 2 minute glance, here's the TLDR of what I think it's about: Scafetta looked at historical records for global surface temperature and the orbits of some planets, said "hey they look similar on a spectral plot", and made a simple phenomenological model of orbital cycles driving surface temperature. And then said if you applied that model to astronomical data from the 1970s onwards you get a solar forcing which would account for about 60% of the heating over that period.

How useful or meaningful or accurate that analysis is is up to you decide, but it certainly has nothing to do with numerology. Endwise (talk) 09:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

OK, that is one fewer problem. But still, that silly cum-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc idea should be put in mainstream context or deleted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Because all observational studies are worthless, rather than a sound starting point for future research? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Święciany massacre and others

User Cukrakalnis removed a number of categories from the Święciany massacre article ([23]), including the Category:World War II crimes in Poland category, despite the fact that it was a village located in pre-war German-occupied Poland. When I asked him about this he stated: Švenčionys is now Lithuania and there was no Polish state there after 18 September 1939 ([24]). When I replied: This is a fringe theory, according to the legitimate Polish government and the Western Allies it was part of the occupied Polish state. The claim that "there was no Polish state there since September 18, 1939" is a repeat of the Soviet interpretation. An absolutely scandalous statement. Category:World War II crimes in Poland contains crimes comitted on territory of Poland in 1939 borders, he repeated it saying: What? The Polish state objectively collapsed during the Invasion of Poland. Few if any of the things that characterize a state could be attributed to Poland from mid-September 1939 to basically the end of World War II. No more control over borders, no monopoly of violence by the Polish state, etc. That's a fact, not a fringe theory or Soviet propaganda. AFAIK the Western Allies never said that it was part of the occupied Polish state, otherwise the Tehran Conference would not have decided what it did, where the Western Allies obviously had a 'flexible' view towards Poland etc. He also did it on Koniuchy massacre article ([25])

In my opinion, there is no problem for an article to be simultaneously in two categories Category:World War II crimes in Poland and Category:Massacres in Lithuania during World War II, or maybe even three taking into account the current occupation regime. But in my view, removing such a category under the pretext that "the Polish state did not exist" is promoting fringe theory, since states do not cease to exist while under occupation.Marcelus (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

My actions were according to WP:CATSPECIFIC, which is why I removed some categories which were the parent categories of others. Święciany massacre happened in Švenčionys, which is in Lithuania, not Poland. Same goes for Koniuchy massacre, which happened in Kaniūkai, which is in Lithuania, not Poland. So, that is why I put the categories only in Category:Massacres in Lithuania during World War II and removed Category:World War II crimes in Poland. It is illogical to put an article simultaneously in two categories concerning location in different modern countries because that is a highly unnecessary duplication which only causes unclarity and further problems.

Polish state, in the sense that it had existed for roughly twenty years until then, no longer existed during most of WWII after it was destroyed in September 1939. That is a fact. However, it seems that Marcelus thinks that the destruction of the Polish state/Poland in 1939 never happened and that this is somehow fringe. This would mean that what Marcelus himself is saying is WP:Fringe and thus clearly a WP:POV-PUSH. Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

It is certainly not WP:POV-PUSH nor WP:FRINGE. There is no reason for it to NOT be in both. It actually causes more clarity, as it was an area that was Polish, where Poles were killed, and now it is not. Makes sense to me. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The territory was not Polish at the time that the massacre was committed. It makes no sense to say that it happened in Poland when it was no longer part of that state. There is good reason for it to not be in both - see WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION. Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

How was it not Polish if Poles were living there? Arguably it was a part of Germany at the time. Should we list it there instead? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Ostland was not really a part of Nazi Germany, even if obviously subservient to it, but it was intended to become part of the Greater Germanic Reich.

How was it not Polish if Poles were living there? This is ridiculous - it's the same as asking "How was the Volga region not German if the Volga Germans were living there?" The ethnicity of the inhabitants doesn't mean that the area is automatically part of the state that the ethnicity is generally associated with (e.g. Germans with Germany). Cukrakalnis (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The Volga region was German, just not a part of any German state. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

That argument would make sense if you'd inserted a cat like World War II crimes in Germany, it doesn't actually explain adding the cat Massacres in Lithuania during World War II. That would appear to have the exact same issue as the one you raised about World War II crimes in Poland, it wasn't Lithuanian territory when the massacre was committed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Those categories are about where the massacre's location is in modern countries. If we would add a category for who was the contemporary ruler there, it would be a separate category like Category:Massacres in the General District Lithuania (Generalbezirk Litauen) or something similar, as we already have categories like Category:Massacres in the Independent State of Croatia. Cukrakalnis (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately the category system here itself is largely at fault. The category is not "World War II crimes in territory historically claimed by Poland" it is "World War II crimes in Poland" which to any reader will imply "this crime was committed within the boundaries of the country currently known as Poland". It probably belongs in the current category of Lithuania because the category naming implies current boundaries, not historical ones. But it doesnt change the fact it was committed in a territory that was occupied by Germany that previously was claimed by the Polish state. And until we have a category that covers that, the best we can do with the category system is cater to what the category title means to the reader rather than what the historical perspective is, or we can IAR and put it in both. Personally I think it should be in both, as the situation is a)complicated, and b)should anyone click on it, the relevant article will no doubt explain its geographical issues. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Not to any reader, i would just take it as a best effort to help me find information and not implying anything beyond that. At a stretch might even be able to read the article to and learn more. fiveby(zero) 17:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

the category is not "World War II crimes in territory historically claimed by Poland", but it wasn't "claimed by Poland", it was a Polish territory under a German occupation, the same way eastern Ukraine is still part of Ukraine today; Polish border changed only after Polish–Soviet border agreement of August 1945, which internationally recognised agreement. Marcelus (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

On the IAR point I'm not sure what rule we would be ignoring, as far as I know there isn't anything which says that for historically complicated topics we can't use multiple categories. We do that all the time when there is shared history. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Which this is a prime example of. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Infectious Diseases Society of America

I have reverted persistent fringe edits on the page of a medical society by a WP:SPA attempting to legitimize pseudoscience and conspiracy theories with respect to the long-discredited chronic Lyme disease. I laid out why the sources were unreliable on the talk page. ScienceFlyer (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Spirometry at Race and health

A student editor named Misosoupley has just added substantial content on spirometry (lung capacity measurement) at Race and health: [26]. I took a look and couldn't make heads or tails of it. The sources look good but there is a lot to untangle, and anytime we are dealing with the conjunction of 19th-century racial ideas and modern medicine, potential FRINGE concerns arise. At the very least, the language certainly needs a good copy edit. On the other hand, the main source for this content, Brown University professor Lundy Braun, appears to be 100% legit, and she won an award for her work on race and spirometry. Anyone who has a bit more familiarity with the topic is invited to take a look! Generalrelative (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Vyas, D. A.; Eisenstein, L. G.; Jones, D. S. (2020). "Hidden in plain sight—reconsidering the use of race correction in clinical algorithms". New England Journal of Medicine. 9 (383): 874–882. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiveby (talk • contribs) 17:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Fiveby: what are you adding to the discussion with this reference? It doesn't appear to discuss spirometry at all. Generalrelative (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  They are supposed to have ten sources, but only got six so far, so let's give them a hand. The spirometry content looks a little out of the blue without a more general introduction to the topic. fiveby(zero) 17:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Aha, sounds good. Generalrelative (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Book of Daniel

This is about [27]. My own take is that Proveallthings is watering down the article. Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Please note that tgeorgescu has repeatedly accused me of pseudohistory and POV-pushing for this particular edit, and has not substantiated the accusation. Proveallthings (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

It is incontestable that you removed the fact that it was written in the 2nd century BCE. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Because it's not a fact. It's the mainstream opinion. I didn't remove it, either. I rephrased it as "Ostensibly written in the 6th century, modern academic scholarship usually places its final redaction shortly after the Maccabean Revolt, the main phase of which lasted from 167–160 BC." Which is the 2nd century BC, and is perfectly acceptable and accurate.

Ostensibly means purportedly. Redaction means a final editing and compilation. There's literally nothing wrong with the sentence, nothing inaccurate, nothing "fringe" and nothing that has anything to do with pseudohistory.

Since the Aramaic elements, comprising roughly half the work, predate the second century, it should be stated accurately, which the word "redaction" allows us to do. Mainstream consensus is that the Aramaic sections belong to Imperial Aramaic and were not composed in the second century. Proveallthings (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

There are i think some issues to consider here, and was going to raise them with tgeorgescu last time: divisions in Daniel not being clear throughout the article, and i like reading about the history of the scholarship. But that is a great deal of work and this is completely unacceptable. fiveby(zero) 18:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm a team player, but honestly I'm not getting anything in the way of anything constructive here. If there is a suggestion about an alternative wording, I'm all for it. And I'm not trying to frame the book in the way you have said it. What do you feel is unacceptable about it?

I was trying to draw a distinction between the elements of the work itself and the final redaction, which even you yourself say is not clear in the article. I actually had all the sources prepared to lay it out. But I think simply reverting everything we don't immediately agree with doesn't allow anything to develop. Proveallthings (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually, you edits in the article were hours apart from each other, so it did not look like you were in any haste of editing the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I was many hours into the edit. I had to add all the bibliographical references for the sfn footnotes, which I'm slow at, and the core of everything was already written. I couldn't post the update because it would have overwritten you. Proveallthings (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a mind reader. There was no way to know that you were editing that article. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I only see you ever to revert. I rarely see you contributing. Reverting is easy. Research is laborious. Simply reverting turns off editors and promotes stagnation in the articles. They may have spent five hours but you spent two minutes and undid all their work. You could have proposed an alternative wording or compromise. Instead, you reverted and went straight into attack mode. After spending that much time, then being at zero progress, do you think it's now worth it for me to go back in and try to contribute? It isn't. I have better things to do with my time. Proveallthings (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I have strict conditions for reverting someone's edits, these conditions are explained at my own talk page.

If you would not revert some edits, fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals would maim all historical articles they find inconvenient to their own religion. But, surely, I am not alone in doing this. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I've seen your talk page. Even though I don't edit much at all in the last fifteen or so years on WP, I've seen you in talk, too when I pop in. You simply hurl whatever rules you can at various editors and it just stymies discussion. Someone could provide 20 sources, and it's still not good enough. So as I say, I don't see you contribute. I see you revert. A lot.

In my opinion you've missed the spirit of the rules, and just use them for the letter in many instances where your personal opinion is clear. To be clear, I agree with some of your reversions. But you can also realize that, with history, there are very often two sides and they can both be presented. Traditional proponents hold this. Modern scholars say that. The consensus is this. You'll spend far less time trying to control everything that way because at least it's treated fairly. And why revert 200 characters when you disagree with a word? You can edit after the fact. Someone spent fifteen, twenty, thirty minutes. Two hours. Five hours. You could have worked with me on a compromise. Instead, you generated animosity. Proveallthings (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I am a wiki-conservative. I believe in Conservata veritate. But these being said, the wikipedic truth is the WP:CHOPSY truth, i.e. the Ivy League truth, for everything else use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

CHOPSY is an essay you wrote. It's very self-serving to cite it. Just what bias are you talking about?

If mainstream academia says Daniel was most likely compiled in the 2nd century, and I actually state that in writing, there's no opposite view being presented.

This is literally absurd. Proveallthings (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

You were watering down the article. Dumuzid agrees with me hereupon. fiveby told you to be attentive when editing something looking like WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

He may agree with you, but at least he addressed it constructively and in a way that it could be talked out and come up with a solution. You went straight conspiracy and accusations, and that's what I find so bizarre.

Maybe I didn't realize it would be interpreted in a way I didn't intend. Hearing constructive feedback helps me think about how to say things better and more clearly.

I'm saying it again, that this is getting ridiculous. Normal human discourse and collaberation doesn't rely on WP:THISRULE and WP:THATRULE every other sentence in constructive conversation. Proveallthings (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Again? IIRC the last time editors bringing in 6th century were confused over the tales vs. the prophecies? Using the legitimate uncertainty of the one to imply uncertainty in the other? fiveby(zero) 17:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The article starts with "Daniel is a 2nd century BC apocalypse." The consensus of mainstream opinion is that the final redaction of the work occurred during that period but it is comprised substantially of older works written prior to the 2nd century. My understanding is that depsite it being the consensus of mainstream opinion, it still should not be stated as a fact in Wikipedia's voice. Particularly in that there are a substantial number of scholars that disagree with it. But I didn't want to get into that debate. All I did was soften the wording from presenting it as a fact to presenting it as the consensus of mainstream scholarship, so that the proper distinction could be made by the reader.

I didn't push any alternative view, nor did I propose any other POV. So the accusations immediately hurled at me took me by surprise, and I believe were unwarranted. Proveallthings (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

You are seeking to re-frame "Daniel is a 2nd century BC apocalypse" into "everything contained therein was originally created in the 2nd century BC". Anyway, seen what Fiveby and Dumuzid wrote, this is looking more and more like you are in a case of WP:1AM. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

No. I was trying to lay out an accurate picture of the books composition. A casual reader will enter the article and think precisely what you wrote above is the case: "everything contained therein was originally created in the 2nd century BC" Proveallthings (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

That's your reading, not our reading. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

When you write, you assume what the audience will take out of it. I'm pretty sure if I asked anyone uninitiated to read that synopsis, they would come away with the idea that the book is wholly written in the 2nd century. My problem is that is not an accurate presentation. I don't care if it conforms to my opinion or not. I think you do. Proveallthings (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

In other words, lay out the facts and sides correctly and let the reader make up their own mind. How many sources are on that page that have qualifying information that is not presented in the article? I know, because I've been through them. Proveallthings (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

According to WP:YESPOV, we do not twist facts belonging to mainstream history. If one denies that the book was written in the 2nd century BCE, they are not a mainstream Bible scholar. There is a definition by Shaye J. D. Cohen at my user page of what "mainstream Bible scholars" mean. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't twist any facts. You're not giving examples of me doing that. You can state a mainstream opinion as fact. It's still an opinion. You're basically saying that I'm twisting a fact by not allowing an opinion to be stated as a fact. Proveallthings (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

A legitimate point that 'apocalypse' might not be clear to some readers, but the talk page archives are full of editors taking a similar approach as you seem to be with the same arguments. The text in the article will not imply any doubt in the dating of the prophesies. The sources are very clear here, and anyone changing the text needs to know where it belongs on the fringe spectrum and be prepared for a lot of work and consultation with other editors. Please, at least slow down a little bit. fiveby(zero) 18:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm being misunderstood here. It had nothing to do with dating the prophecies, just distinguishing the various elements of the book. I think I'm being viewed through a lens of past disagreements I wasn't even involved with. I don't have a lot of time to keep trying to explain. I'll leave the article alone.

I'm not convinced a lot of editors have actually read the source material they cite. Proveallthings (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Ostensibly means apparently or purportedly, but perhaps not actually. Proveallthings (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no indisputable evidence that any part of Isaiah was written after the prophets lifetime—I mean: how would such evidence conceivably look like? There can be no such empirical text disclosing it for a fact. It is all a matter of epistemology, not one of finding a magical manuscript which would prove the claim.

Mainstream historians do not accept real predictive prophecy, so the view I have reverted is WP:PROFRINGE. The historical method razes predictive prophecies with Occam's razor. The existence of predictive prophecies is a matter of metaphysics or theology, not one of epistemology (there are no such things as supernatural prophecies in epistemology).

There is no proof that the book of Daniel was re-written to align with times of the Maccabees—quite correct: in ancient history and archaeology there are no proofs like in mathematics and physics. But the unanimous verdict of historians and Bible scholars from the Ivy League is that the Book of Daniel was written in the 160s BCE.

Stated otherwise: proof is for math and whisky. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Are you just regurgitating prefabricated responses like a bot? Like I said above, you both are looking at me through the lens of past agreements with others and not listening to what I'm saying.

I have no idea where all this is going, and it's getting weird. I'm talking, but you're not listening.

I didn't edit the article to show anything to the contrary concerning the authorship or date of composition to what was written according to mainstream academia. If I had, we could have this discussion. But to me, you sound ridiculous, and this is all going way over the top and is a complete waste of time.

"Ostensibly written in the 6th century" means "Though it has the appearance of being written in the sixth century." It doesn't mean, "though written in the sixth century." Again, had I said that, we could have this discussion and we could hash it out. Because all I see here is someone arguing with me over semantics. Proveallthings (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to teach me English. It is now clear that you are in a WP:1AM situation. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not one man against many. It's really just you here right now. I simply don't understand where all the nonsense you're spitting out is coming from, because it's not actually addressing the position I took up at all. It's addressing a position someone else took up that you conversed with sometime here or there.

Normally, you respond to what people write for what they write. You seem to be writing against someone else entirely. Proveallthings (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, you misconstrue the article that all that book was written in the 2nd century BCE (i.e. the older tales). And you seem to lack WP:CIR to understand that you misconstrue the article.

Every mainstream Bible scholar agrees that the book includes older tales. But citing that as an argument for your POV is a non sequitur. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm finding this logic fuzzy.

All this is a lot of saying, "What you said is technically correct, but I don't like how you said it." Then suggest something better and we can talk about it. What didn't you like? "Ostensibly"? Do you not like stating opinions as opinions and facts as facts?

WP:NPOV: "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc." I made an edit based upon a literal understanding of this simple rule. Proveallthings (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you ignore the extent to which the 2nd century BCE dating is for mainstream historians the only option on the table, or the only game in town, simply because the historical method does not allow for any alternative to it. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

What about the historical method doesn't allow it? We look for the earliest attestation and testimony and form a picture from there.

By the first century, the Jews had already identified prophecies of Daniel with Rome and were anticipating an prophetic conflict with the Romans based upon them. When the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple, they wrote about it as fulfillment of Daniel 9 and 12 after the fact. See for example Josephus, Antiquities, 10.11.7, "And indeed it so came to pass, that our nation suffered these things under Antiochus Epiphanes, according to Daniel’s vision; and what he wrote many years before they came to pass. In the very same manner Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government; and that our countrey should be made desolate by them." This is a fact you can find this in their extant literature. So should we now try and date the whole book to AD 70? We can't, since we have copies older than that, and it is attested before that. Some trace the prophecies all the way up to the fall of the Western Empire and its dissolution by the barbarians. Should we put it at 476?

I'm being absurd to make a point. Interpretation is only one element. A document written in an eastern dialect of Imperial Aramaic would not be expected to be found written in a region where the spoken language is a western dialect of post-Achaemenid (Biblical) Aramaic. In the historic method, we call that an anachronism.

The book was canonical in Qumran, canonical among Jews and Christians, and still canonical until it was removed to the writings in about the 4th century by the Masorites. That requires a process of rapid canonization.

So no, it isn't the only interpretation in town, and it isn't the only game in town. They can date it based on their view of the prophecies, but that interpretation is not infallible. Scholars say the prophecies failed at Antiochus, the ancient Jews and Christians said the prophecies continued to be fulfilled under the Romans. Proveallthings (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, you make the mistake of thinking that for us there is in this matter any other authority than mainstream, present-day historians. They judge the arguments, they evaluate the evidence, not us (Wikipedians). And you make the mistake of thinking that WP:CHOPSY makes partisan demands, instead of merely describing what is reality of Wikipedia almost since its inception. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I am a historian, so I'll speak to you as a historian rather than an editor. Having read the broad scope of literature I am aware of many counterarguments and differences of opinions over the authorship in this case. It's certainly not as wholesale and unanimous as you express. The Maccabean Thesis took a huge blow from the redating of the Aramaic, and now there's a new paradigm of opinions emerging that is trending toward distinguishing the sections of the book. There are a LOT of different views.

The methodology used to connect the dots to the Maccabean era is very thin. Very little is devoted to the actual circumstances of 2nd century Judea in the book and many of the associations are forced and unconvincing. Most importantly, Antiochus IV is consistently addressed in Daniel 11 as "the king of the north," i.e., Seleucia. The prophecy that supposedly foretells his death, which scholars say failed, is not written about him. In Daniel, it's actually a different king: "And the king shall do according to his will . . . And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and *the king of the north* shall come against him like a whirlwind" (Daniel 11:36, 40). He doesn't fight against himself. Historically, it's the Romans who stepped onto the scene. It means the terminus ad quem is based upon a flawed reading of the text.

This is an important issue that needs to be addressed. Historically also, we have a problem. The reconstruction holds that the Jews wrote the work against Seleucus. But the earliest evidence from Jewish and Christian sources contradicts this reconstruction. The Jews and early Christians saw it as the Romans. However, this leaves us with a dating problem that we are entering an era where we have extant copies and extant historic quotations. So we can't date it any later. We have to look at other means. A huge part of that is the language in which it was written, of which we know more for more than we did a hundred years ago. Josephus also remarks on its existence going back at least as far as Alexander the Great. So according to the historical method, there are legitimate objections and we are not confined to one view. We rarely are, since history is messy.

Am I going to put my opinion on WP? No. To be clear, I'm specifically addressing *your* objection, as distinguished with how things are presented in Wikipedia, since you brought up the Historical Method. FYI, we can't follow the Historical Method in WP, because that method requires the presence and usage of primary sources. We deal in secondary and tertiary sources, meaning we are wholly reliant on the opinions of others. So I am not in disagreement with you over how WP should be approached.

As I recall, you're the one who devised the CHOPSY test from the essay and again it's a self-serving reference here. As it relies purely on what you feel would be accepted by them, it has no real value in the discussion. It's subjective. If you want to discuss things, we can do it without the WP:KITCHENSINK. Proveallthings (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Arguments such as this will not influence editors or lead to changes in the text. A Wikipedia argument goes something like this: Collins, John J. (2002). The book of Daniel : composition and reception. pp. 1–2. fiveby(zero) 17:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, here is the deal: WP:CITE any book published in the past 25 years by Cambridge University Press, Harvard University Press, Oxford University Press, or Yale University Press which contradicts that there is a solid WP:RS/AC upon the 2nd century BCE dating.

And, yup, interpreting the Book of Daniel or the Revelation of John as meaning "our own time" is a cottage industry, since thousands of years ago. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

tgeorgescu would an article FAQ help, or maybe even a contentious topics consensus required from WP:AE for the page if that's possible? fiveby(zero) 18:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@Fiveby: I asked the arbitrators if pseudohistory falls under the remit of WP:ARBPS, and the answer was that generally speaking it doesn't (unless specific pseudoscientific methods are employed for it). tgeorgescu (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, because I don't want to keep getting inundated by tgeorgescu here, and on my talk page, and in the Book of Daniel talk page, with a lot of nonsense, I'll state it one more time: I didn't dispute the academic consensus of the book in my edit. At all. And I didn't present an alternative viewpoint. And I didn't advocate for (as tgeorgescu seems to be hinting at) a "fundamentalist" position.

The word "ostensibly" has a very specific meaning that something looks one way but may not be so. Daniel, on its face, is written as though it occurred in the sixth century. But scholars dispute that and believe it was written in the mid-2nd century. It's all I said. If I wanted to dispute the actual date, I would have started that topic in talk. As it is, all I basically do on WP is correct occasional inaccuracies and misrepresentations of sources. In fourteen years, I've never witnessed this same level of nonsense over an edit made earlier in the day. I've never had an issue at all, in fact. Proveallthings (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Proveallthings - I do apologize if the discussion has been more vituperative than you expected, but all topics regarding religion have a tendency to trend toward tendentiousness, and it can wear on those of us who regularly contribute. Suffice it to say that I don't see a current consensus for your changes, but if you'd like to try other changes (preferably one at a time or suggesting them on talk), that is of course always welcome. Happy Friday to one and all. Dumuzid (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:PSCI as it applies to statements by politicians when coverage of the statements don't provide context

Over at the Florida Parental Rights in Education Act talk page there is a discussion about how to characterize some statements by politicians who support the law. Some editors have argued that the statements as rooted in pseudoscience/fringe theories about homosexuality and sexual orientation, and that's the way they're currently treated in the article text. If we assume they are rooted in fringe theories (which is something that's up for debate on the talk page), and if the sources covering those statements don't provide the scientific context, what is the proper way to apply WP:PSCI?

Put another way, is my understanding of PSCI, as explained here, accurate? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Your understanding matches mine. But when it comes to that article, I have to side with Iamreallygoodatcheckers. If fringeness is something that's up for debate on the talk page, then PSCI hardly justifies SYNTH. And the Don't Say Gay bill receives extraordinarily thorough media coverage, so we shouldn't need SYNTH; if we do, we're likely doing something wrong.

The solution is staring us in the face: don't quote proponents at length, simply summarize these claims in accordance with secondary sources. That's what we do for fringe claims, and it's what we do for non-fringe claims if doing otherwise would require SYNTH. DFlhb (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

^ Precisely this. Generalrelative (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with all of the above. My question was more hypothetical, taking for granted that we're talking about a fringe claim. I don't mean to say that those claims are absolutely all qualify, but I'd still be wary of a PSCI problem if we simply remove all context while leaving all those claims to stand by themselves. Putting aside the hypotheticals, I entirely agree it would be better to just avoid the issue with better summaries and descriptions. I've started to rewrite that section a couple times over the past week, but it's tricky and more fun articles keep beckoning. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• A LOT depends on the specific article in question and the context in which it is being discussed. Quoting a politician‘s fringe statements might be appropriate in the article on the politician, but totally inappropriate in some other article. In a third article, it might be appropriate to summarize but not quote. And in all cases where we do mention it, we use in-text attribution to make it clear that this is the view of the politician, and not accepted fact. Blueboar (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Isaiah 53

A pretty similar conflict to #Book of Daniel is taking place at [28].

While I am prepared to admit that the claim that the Book of Isaiah has only one author is fine and dandy as theology, it is WP:CB as history. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Watchlisted the chapters, but they all have: ...book contains the prophecies attributed to the prophet Isaiah so you've already told the reader there was one author. Looking at it from the point of view of a reader with no background, and expecting the lead to be a self-contained intro to the topic, I don't see how pointing back to SI really helps that reader.

By the way 44 and 45 should have, the same language in the intro shouldn't they? Nothing different about those particular chapters? fiveby(zero) 13:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

...book contains the prophecies attributed to the prophet Isaiah does not mean that Isaiah is the author, just that the prophecies got attributed by we-don't-know-who to Isaiah. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Templates Cite bioRxiv, arXiv, CiteSeerX

What are the legitimate uses for these templates? in the sense of moving those that should be to {{Cite journal}} what should be left over? Poincaré_conjecture#Solution per here?

For instance arXiv:2105.10088 in Apollo 11 should be a citation doi:10.1016/j.pss.2021.105304 and Planetary and Space Science with a convenience link to arXiv. But if i can't find any journal publication, what should i leave alone? fiveby(zero) 14:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

There might be, for example, lecture notes by a notable mathematician that explain some uncontroversial mathematical topic. Because journals don't always have room for a leisurely expository style, arXiv posts might be the best sources for some aspects of a topic, like heuristic arguments for why definitions were chosen the way they were. This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics, which John Baez has been putting on the arXiv, would be suitable under WP:SPS for many such purposes. Then there are publications that attract sufficient attention and commentary before officially appearing in a journal that they are noteworthy. Maryna Viazovska's paper on eight-dimensional sphere packing appeared on the arXiv in March 2016 and wasn't officially published in the Annals of Mathematics until April 2017, but there was no doubt about it during the interval. Not citing arXiv:1603.04246 during the year before it became Ann. Math. 185(3), 991 would have been downright silly. XOR'easter (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, was thinking of removing something like arXiv:1503.04376 (which cites Star Trek, Star Maker and Ringworld twice) as i went, but maybe just focus on finding those that should be moved to {{cite journal}}, don't know that i would recognize all the ones that should be kept. fiveby(zero) 20:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Robert Baldauf

Robert Baldauf has several extraordinary claims about Ancient texts that lack in-line citation though does have general references. A quick glance at de-wiki suggests our article may be too optimistic. Bit out of my expertise, so dropping here for other eyes. Slywriter (talk) 05:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Multiplicity (psychology)

I stumbled upon this article and it doesn't seem to pass the smell test. It seems to present multiplicity as a real "psychological phenomenon" in which "a body" can have multiple "distinct consciousnesses". This is an article which purports to be a discussion of psychology, but cites mostly newspaper articles. And the scientific sources it does cite don't seem to really support the central claim of the article? E.g. the first source is a study of internet forums dedicated to people who identify themselves as multiple. But to quote from the discussion/conclusion of that paper:

Extended content

People who identify with this group believe that, instead of having one self with altering mood states and behaviors, there are several distinct selves, each having their own unique behavioral pattern... Our findings support the notion that multiplicity is a social construct where identities are established and maintained through social interaction and follow rules supporting the concept of multiple personality disorder by Spanos. From this perspective, multiplicity or plural self is the “modern” manifestation of a minority of people who tend to develop several selves (i.e., in the form of spirit possession or by being highly susceptible to social cues of “having” more than one personality); thus, multiplicity is a social creation... Systems generally like to give a narrative and describe their resident persons, their preferences, interests and dislikes in great detail. Defining themselves in the search of stable identities appears to be an ongoing process for many systems. It is remarkable how the common identity of “being multiple” aids in the process of coping with the alterations of the personality. Clearly, because of the online community and frequent interactions, people who consider themselves multiple begin to use common terminology and construct their own reality in ways similar to one another. Multiplicity is a relatively new concept that encompasses people who consider themselves multiple by nature; that is, they have a group of individual selves who share the same body. It can be concluded that multiplicity is a label and a self-organized support group for people with severe identity disturbances, in some cases with symptoms of dissociative disorders...

Sorry for the wall of text (I've collapsed it). For sure a community of people who describe themselves as multiple exists. But it doesn't seem like the existence of such a psychological phenomenon in which "a body" can have multiple "distinct consciousnesses", is really supported by the scientific research. The conclusion of that first source seems more like how we should be describing it: multiplicity is a label and a self-organized support group for people with severe identity disturbances, in some cases with symptoms of dissociative disorders. Endwise (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Avi Loeb still looking for proof of aliens under water

[29] Doug Weller talk 15:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

CNEOS 2014-01-08? fiveby(zero) 15:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. I still don't see how they're going to find anything, given the suggested 60 km/s impact speed (about 3x the speed of the Chicxulub impactor) would obliterate basically all of the rock present. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

As time passes, I become more confident that a RSN discussion regarding the reliability of anything Loeb writes or says will become necessary. Their "Prove me wrong!" approach to sensational data interpretation is becoming suspect. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 11:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Can't find anything if you don't look, I guess? Sennalen (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I was wondering if there is enough doubt of "confirmed by Space Command" expressed in the article based on this in WGN? fiveby(zero) 13:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

That's another issue. Is the USSC really in the business of publicly confirming/calculating natural objects' orbital and physical characteristics? That organization, I thought, existed to conduct military operations in space, not to provide physical data that the astronomy community typically receives from the MPC, JPL's solar system dynamics group, or their own labs. Lastly, I have a pretty good idea of how Loeb would react to the Vaubaillon paper, seeing that it doesn't exactly fit with the sensational "Look at all these artificial devices from extraterrestrials!" message he is selling claiming. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Space Command collects that data and sometimes shares it. e.g., https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/us-space-force-releases-decades-of-bolide-data-to-nasa-for-planetary-defense-studies Sennalen (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Padre Pio

This issue has been raised before on this noticeboard [30]. The user SanctumRosarium who has been blocked in the past for edit warring on this article is adding credulous information to the article including entire sections of Pio's alleged feats such as bilocation, celestial visions, demonic attacks etc without any rational coverage. It seems he has re-written much of the article in February 2023. In the Stigmata section, there is also dubious content such as Raffaele Rossi being quoted citing Pio's stigmata as genuine and a "real fact". There seems to be some serious NPOV issues here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Also see Gemma Galgani. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

There is a {{More citations needed}} banner on the article, but it looks like the problem is cherry-picking from the good sources already cited. Example: summarizing Peter Jan Margry's "Merchandising and sanctity: the invasive cult of Padre Pio" (available elsewhere if you can't get the T&F content) with only Padre Pio has become one of the world's most popular saints. Can't find Luzzatto but i'd bet that is a case of cherry-picking also. fiveby(zero) 01:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

fr:Padre Pio has Sur cette base et celle des autres dénonciations mentionnées, l'auteur prétend à un truquage des plaies par Padre Pio from [31][32] but that's maybe an overstatement. Says in the prologue he isn't setting out to disprove the stigmata. Found the full Italian but only see the google preview in English. fiveby(zero) 02:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The other big issue is Castelli which is for the most part a primary source from our Vatican historian being put on a he-said-she-said basis with Luzzatto who is taking a critical look and giving much more than the details. Straight biography here, Gemelli this and Rossi that will probably always be unsatisfactory. Just a quick glance at Margry is enough to show this should be much more than biography with the stigmata and miracles a smaller part. fiveby(zero) 05:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes this is part of the problem, SanctumRosarium has been citing Francesco Castelli's biography almost exclusively like a religious script. The reference is used far too much and taken at face value. It is not a critical source and contains little to no skepticism of Pio's claims. The Odor of sanctity section and the others should be removed because they only cite Castelli. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe WP:Summary Style in the main article, and confine the quoting of primary sources to an "Investigation into..." article? fiveby(zero) 13:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Fasting and longevity

There are some fringe concerns about this article as unreliable content is repeatedly being added, also see the related afd. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Paul Bennewitz

Page currently describe absolute terms that there was a government misinformation fed to him about UFOs whilst the page for the source of the claims is more ambivalent, is there a way to get the two to sync up?2001:8003:34A3:800:30A4:5115:2B06:4977 (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The book Mirage Men is obviously not a reliable sources but is used 11 times on the article. I agree that some major clean-up needs to happen there. Perhaps editors involved in this topic area can help. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

CO2 Coalition

• CO2 Coalition (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

User with a WP:COI tries to whitewash the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Hob Gadling's accusation refers to me. (He didn't notify me that he was making this accusation, but, fortunately, another editor noticed it and informed me.)

I have no conflict of interest which would prohibit me from contributing the the article. I'm just a member and an unpaid volunteer for the very worthy 501(c)(3) scientific educational charity which is the subject of the article.

The reason that Hob Gadling knows that I am a member and an unpaid volunteer for that charitable organization is because I revealed it, per the WP:COI guidelines.

Because of my connection to the organization, I reviewed WP:COI before editing the article. I concluded that my unpaid volunteer work for the organization did not make me ineligible to contribute to the article, but that I should be open about my connection, which I was.

Hob Gadling's post here is, itself, a false accusation, on two counts:

* First, because the CO2 Coalition does not support or promote fringe theories, and

* Second, because I'm not trying to "whitewash" anything.

There's nothing to whitewash, with respect to that very worthy charity. I'm just trying to bring the article into compliance with WP:NPOV, and make it accurate. The fact that someone reading the current article might mistakenly conclude that the CO2 Coalition supports or promotes fringe theories is simply a reflection of how inaccurate and misleading the article currently is.

It is clear that Hob Gadling despises the CO2 Coalition, but he has not revealed why. I've repeatedly asked him work with me, to improve the article, but he just reverts and insults. Examples of his name-calling and insults include: "ravings," "anti-science ideologists," "pseudoscience," "pseduoscientist," "pseudoscientific," "crazy," "bullshit," "misinformation," "lies," "stupid," and "disingenious."

His violations of WP:Civil are so extreme that I thought that he must be new, and didn't know the rules, so I gently directed his attention to WP:Civil and WP:Respect. But it turns out that he is a very experienced editor, who has made over 14,000 edits, and who has been editing Wikipedia since 2004. Obviously, his rule violations are intentional. NCdave (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem with anyone (individual or organization) saying that they "don't support or promote fringe theories" is that they really mean they "don't support or promote things that they believe to be fringe theories".

So the more practical question would be: If you could survey a thousand scientists in the field of environmental science, randomly chosen by a magic genie from all around the world without regard to political standings but always choosing people who are considered well-qualified in the specific, relevant field, and you asked them about an organization that says "There is no 'climate crisis' and there is no evidence that there will be one," what would they say? Would you expect them to say something closer to "Oh, that's right; the climate crisis is just a fairytale, sea levels aren't rising, storms aren't getting more violent, and even if they were, it has nothing to do with pollution" or would you expect them to say "What a load of nonsense"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Maryanne Demasi

Serious white-washing going on this article by an IP claiming Maryanne Demasi is being smeared by the scientific community. The IP who has about 4 different IP addresses is repeatedly deleting sources. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)