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

Categories for discussion

• 22 Apr 2023 – Category:Plants used in Ayurveda (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by RevelationDirect (t · c); see discussion

Good article nominees

• 16 Apr 2023 – The Good News Club: The Christian Right's Stealth Assault on America's Children (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Therapyisgood (t · c); start discussion
• 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

Requests for comments

• 16 Apr 2023 – COVID-19 lab leak theory (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by Adoring nanny (t · c); 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

• 21 Apr 2023 – Mana (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Mana (Oceanian culture) by Joy (t · c); see discussion
• 15 Apr 2023 – Chronic fatigue syndrome (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome by The Quirky Kitty (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

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[1] 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.[2] 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)

where we are

the reader of the current EMDR article will conclude EMDR is a wacko, and move on.

whereas major national medical organisations recommend it for PTSD.

you are damaging wiki credibility and value with this article in its current form. it would be better to delete it.

jcjc777 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCJC777 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not given medical advice. The current as-is article covers what medical organizations say. If you want to delete the article use WP:AfD, but it won't be successful. Bon courage (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Book of Daniel

This is about [3]. 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)

About So as I say, I don't see you contribute. I see you revert. A lot.: while I do revert vandalism and fundamentalist POV-pushing, I have positive contributions to Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy, Grail Movement, Abd-ru-shin, Sun Myung Moon, Ellen G. White, Gregorian Bivolaru, Judith Reisman, Onan, Abraham, and other religious WP:FRINGE subjects, including the intersection between religious propaganda and sexuality, such as Blessing ceremony of the Unification Church, NoFap, religious views on masturbation, effects of pornography, pornography, God and Sex, sexual addiction, effects of pornography on young people, and pornography addiction. I think I am the most important contributor to masturbation (I wrote over 22% of the article, including many footnotes which are not even counted to that extent). And articles about some Romanian extreme right people. Some years ago, I was deeply into citing Bart Ehrman for his views upon the academic consensus in Bible scholarship.

So, your claim that I only revert other people, but I do not contribute myself anything is an incorrect claim. And the reason why you don't see me contributing is that I believe in many little incremental changes rather than major edits, e.g. while editing the Romanian Constitutional Bar in Romanian Wikipedia: there are no big edits by me, but I've slowly grown the article to what it is. I do not regard editing Wikipedia as a sprint (running), but as a long marathon, running for many years. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

And even if you did nothing else but revert and voice reasoned opinions, that would not be a valid reason to reject your reasoning. It's simply ad hominem. Different users have different editing styles, and someone who regularly reverts vandalism or corrects typos deserves to be heard as much as someone who writes several articles every week. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:14, 5 April 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)

Don't synthesize a claim about the politican if there isn't a single source that forges every link from a politican's statement to an academic consensus it conflicts with. If all else fails, the article can simply follow up a quote by saying what the accepted science is. Sennalen (talk) 19:09, 4 April 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)

There's a long list of sources at the top of the talk page that could definitely be better integrated into the article.

That being said, I don't think this really deserves to be here, because I don't really think the topic of the article overall is WP:FRINGE. There are more sources about this topic than I expected and some of them are decent, especially considering this doesn't really appear to be a WP:MEDRS topic per se.

We really should go through and remove the references to tulpamancy and ghosts and stuff (except maybe when directly referring to beliefs of community members), because that's absolutely WP:FRINGE. I also wouldn't object to reframing the article in terms of describing a community rather than a phenomenon, because I think to the extent we have evidence for the phenomenon we don't really have evidence it's distinct from DID. Loki (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Eurasian (mixed ancestry)

I don't even know where to begin with Eurasian (mixed ancestry). While there are a few section that are probably okay the majority of it is at best WP:synth and at worse misreading of research papers through the lenses of 19c race theory. I haven't touched it because i have no idea where to even being...i have half a mind to just send the whole thing to AFD—blindlynx 17:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

What an absurd concoction. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I think this is one for AFD. It gets the definition for eurasian wrong right off the bat, so I'm not sure how there could be anything worth saving in there. --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

There are some comically bad sources i'd hate to see go. I'm not super familiar with the AFD process or what kind of reasoning is needed thought:/—blindlynx 17:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Eurasian not meaning someone from Eurasia but someone who is half "European" and half "Asian"????????????? Lol, thats really funny though. Like some sort of weird backwards portmanteau based on archaic racial concepts? AFD indeed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I've browsed through the history and quite unsurprisingly, much of it was written by the racialist-POV warrior LTAs WorldCreaterFighter and Vamlos. Especially the Central Asia section heavily reeks of their twisted take on human history. –Austronesier (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

i've gone through and got rid of a few super obviously bad sections. There doesn't seem to be to much use of the term outside of a bizarre time magazine article. Academic papers that discuss this tend to place the term in scare quotes—blindlynx 18:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• listed at AfD. Feel free to salvage what you can but I don't really see anything worth keeping here.--Licks-rocks (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you!—blindlynx 19:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The same problems also seem to apply to the Afro-Asians article. Should that one be taken to AfD also? Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Probably, It has a lot of the same twisted genetic essentialism—blindlynx 17:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

That one I think is more a deep clean than a TNT situation. If nothing else the concept of "blasian" appears to have a lot of significant coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Is "blasian" even the same concept as "Afro-Asian" as definied in that article? People like the Malagasy seem like a completely different topic than people usually considered "blasian". Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that blasian has a tighter meaning than what the article appears to mean by "Afro-Asian." The coverage I can find addresses it in the context of intermarriage among immigrant groups in places outside Africa or Asia (for instance in the American and Trinidadian experiences). Coverage of the intermingling of African and Asian groups in Africa or Asia, such as this[4] recent coverage in Smithsonian Magazine, don't use either term. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I correct myself, blasian does appear to be used in a wider context [5] although it still doesn't appear to be as broad as "Afro-Asian" as defined in the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I've started going through and removing bits of the article that talk about genetics of ethnic groups in general —blindlynx 16:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algonquian Confederacy of the Quinnipiac Tribal Council

I think this is relevant here. It's mainly based on material by Iron Thunderhorse, a wannabe Native American. Doug Weller talk 08:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

John A. McDougall

A primary paper "Effects of 7 days on an ad libitum low-fat vegan diet: the McDougall Program cohort" written by McDougall is being repeatedly added to this article. It has now ended up in the "reception" section at the bottom, although we wouldn't normally cite this type of paper per WP:MEDRS. There was a consensus to remove the paper on the talk-page but it is repeatedly being added. Psychologist Guy (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The "reception" section is the last place it should be. That makes it look like it is independent. It is definitely not a reliable source for its content. Whether or not it is worth mentioning as something he wrote is a different question. According to google scholars it has been cited 109 times. That may or may not mean it is a notable publication. But I doubt it and I wouldn't mention it in the article unless it was seriously reviewed somewhere and the reception/evaluation of the paper is mentioned, too. Adding it in the list of publications may be acceptable if it is considered one of his more important works. Given that so far only books are listed, I doubt that. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Metropolitan Homoeopathic Medical College & Hospital

• Metropolitan Homoeopathic Medical College & Hospital (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Probably some undue stuff. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Much of it was copied from the sources used, removed as copyvio. Brunton (talk) 10:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Gungywamp - fringe source the "Gungywamp" society

See [6] for instance. [7] says the source is published in cooperation with the Early Site Research Society] - see [8] for its goals. I don't see why we should be using this source. Doug Weller talk 14:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

See also America's Stonehenge, which seems to be citing some questionable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Yarmouth Runic Stone is worse, a lot of OR/unsourced material. Doug Weller talk 16:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

This "Gungywamp Society" looks completely unreliable. What's more their URL is up for sale and the links to it on Gungywamp are broken. It is unclear whether the "society" even exits anymore. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 13:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The best sources i found so far are pretty old: Jordan, Douglas F.; Poirier, David A.; Gradie, Robert R. III (1981). "The Gungywamp Controversy". Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut. Archaeological Society of Connecticut (44). and Frederic W. Warner "Stone Structures at Gungywamp" Ibid.. Hmm, maybe most of that issue. fiveby(zero) 15:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and Feder cites two of those papers in Frauds, myths, and mysteries. fiveby(zero) 15:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks all. I've removed the unreliable source and tried to reflect Feder more. I've just grabbed a copy now of the Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut, thanks, that looks useful. Doug Weller talk 16:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

John Ioannidis

• John Ioannidis (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• [9]

Is it cherrypicking to omit someone's argumentum ad verecundiam? --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

No. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It is cherrypicking to use a source contrary contrary to its own intention without appropriately balancing it. The article doesn't have to use this source at all, but if it does use it, it should include some conciliatory gesture from the same source alongside the criticism. Sennalen (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

How would we know the "intention" of a source?

The full paragraph reads: On the other hand, Ioannidis’ track record is such that it may not be wise to dismiss his claims too quickly. There really aren’t any solid studies out there that can help settle the question of Covid-19 fatality rates, and what data we do have remains all over the place. Yes, Ioannidis’ results look to be an outlier—but they may be an outlier in the right direction, suggesting a need to revise the infection fatality rate downwards, even if not all the way to 0.1 percent. So, the actual point of the paragraph is the lack of data at the time and not some person's "track record". That one was just an aside. The following paragraphs describe the reaction of the mainstream, which was devastating. Why should Wikipedia articles cherrypick the argumentum ad verecundiam and omit everything else, just because some editor thinks that the a-a-v is the "intention"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The source is not MEDRS, while it's fine for describing how people have reacted to JI, it's not fine to excursions in speculation about epidemiology. Bon courage (talk) 06:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

You know the intention by reading it. WIRED should not be used for epidemiology, but if you take that out, you're left with "fringe scientist who pumped up a bad study that supported a crazy right-wing conspiracy theory" which is text that's in the source, but not really a faithful representation of the source's full assessment of Ioannidis' legacy.

I might go for the paragraph before it, If Ioannidis’ claims even slightly alter the conversation toward a more balanced, thoughtful view of what we really gain, and what we might lose, from the lockdown, then maybe it’s mission accomplished. If he’s even partly right that we’re too biased toward staying at home, and the disease isn’t as deadly as we thought, the resulting shift could ultimately save tens of thousands of lives.

Or the conclusion, Ioannidis’ claims about Covid-19 may be pulled by the gravity of his commitment to being the one who sees where everyone else went wrong. There’s a meta-meta-science lesson in there, too, and one we’ve sometimes seen before: Bias is so powerful a force in scientific research that even a grandmaster of research into bias can eventually trip over it. Sennalen (talk) 03:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

In other words, you want to see pro-Ioannidis text in the article and no contra-Ioannidis text. You "know" the intention by reading your own intention into it. I agree with Bon courage: use it for reactions only (by colleagues, not by journalists). --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@Sennalen I don't think anyone is using that text for a "full assessment of Ioannidis' legacy". Obviously the controversy around his comments on Covid-19 in no way diminish what he has achieved in his career. And as far as his Covid-19 comments are concerned that article is far from being a glowing endorsement. It looks more like a desperate attempt at finding something -- anything positive to say about a friend who didn't know when to concede that he was wrong. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 08:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

A fair way to summarize the source might be something like "Ioannidis' career has been built on questioning established science. He's often been correct in the past, but in the case of Covid-19, Ioannidis' bias towards contrarianism has aligned him more with right-wing conspiracy theories than with the evidence." Sennalen (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The point in question is not how the article evaluates Ioannidis' career, but about how it evaluates a particular study. Of course if it was used to evaluate his career more of the article would have to be mentioned. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I have agreed that the source is not suitable for an epidemiological claim. Regardless of anything else, that should go. You can't just call it a day, though, if that leaves an NPOV problem, especially in a BLP. Sennalen (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand what exactly your position is.

This is the version Hob Gadling reverted to:

"Writing for Wired, David H. Freedman said that the Santa Clara study compromised Ioannidis's previously excellent reputation and meant that future generations of scientists may remember him as 'the fringe scientist who pumped up a bad study that supported a crazy right-wing conspiracy theory in the middle of a massive health crisis'

And this is what Saintfevrier wanted to attach immediately after:

"but also acknowledged that 'Ioannidis’s track record is such that it may not be wise to dismiss his claims too quickly' and admitted 'a need to revise the infection fatality rate downwards'."

Would you remove both, keep both, rewrite? Random person no 362478479 (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

For my part, i would say remove both. Im not sure why David H. Freedman's opinion of Ioannidis is relevant in his BLP. Bonewah (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the point is to show the profound effect the controversy had on his reputation. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I would cut it down to "Writing for Wired, David H. Freedman said that the Santa Clara study compromised Ioannidis's previously excellent reputation." Sennalen (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I think this is reasonable. (Although I still believe that the current version is fine, too.) Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

There is a NPOV issue here. Since the view being discussed (about COVID prevalence and fatality) is a fringe one, WP:PSCI applies and it states fringe views should be clearly described as such. Furthermore NPOV requires us to include prominently an explanation of how scientists have reacted. The direct quotation from the source serves this purpose admirably. Bon courage (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The original rationale here is that WIRED is not suitable for the science. Furthermore, it's a crystal ball statement from a journalist about how students will remember him in the future. There has to be a better source to establish the science. Sennalen (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved as far as this article, but I'm cynical about the usual suspects zeroing in on the phrase "fringe scientist who pumped up a bad study that supported a crazy right-wing conspiracy theory", a definite outlier as far as tone within the article, and fighting against any or everything else in the source. You wanted to know if it's cherrypicking, and it is. Sennalen (talk) 12:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Speaking about usual subjects ... Random person no 362478479 (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Sennalen. Also this seems a Neutrality issue, not a Fringe one, in my opinion. Bonewah (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Same thing. This is a fringe issue because the position being taken fits the definition of WP:FRINGE 'theories' (and it's why it's at this noticeboard). Bon courage (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The issue with that user's edits are that they create a WP:FALSEBALANCE between fringe views and mainstream views, and legitimize Ioannidis' claims despite their repeated dismissal by experts. It frankly has nothing to do with cherrypicking. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I dont think David H. Freedman is authoritative as to Ioanidis's reputation. Further, i would argue that it really isnt Wikipedia's place to speculate as to this person's legacy. Bonewah (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I entirely fail to see the point of the sentence. Ioannidis's claims were against all scientific evidence, which we should state clearly and not water down with journalistic speculation (later proven false). But his legacy is not for a journalist to speculate about either, and Freedman's fuzzy-thinking gossip is not due, nor required by WP:PSCI (obviously). The scientific evidence suffices and speaks for itself. DFlhb (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Hat long digression about scope of WP:PSCI, now also named WP:FRINGESUBJECTS.

@Bon courage: There is a difference between pseudoscience and wrong. Ioannidis's views on Covid were no more pseudoscience than the CDC's original view that masks were useless. Bonewah (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC) Who said they were pseudoscience? Bon courage (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC) You did. diff "Since the view being discussed (about COVID prevalence and fatality) is a fringe one, WP:PSCI applies and it states fringe views should be clearly described as such." WP:PSCI is the section titled "Fringe theories and pseudoscience" Bonewah (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC) Do you not understand simple English? Bon courage (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC) Yes i understand English, perhaps if you think ive misunderstood, you could rephrase what you meant? Bonewah (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC) I did not say this was 'pseudoscience'. So why are you falsely saying that? Bon courage (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC) Then perhaps you could explain why you believe that "WP:PSCI applies" as you stated previously? Bonewah (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC) Can you not read? Since the view being discussed (about COVID prevalence and fatality) is a fringe one, WP:PSCI applies What are you doing? Bon courage (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC) Again, i can read just fine. If you do not believe this is pseudoscience, then how does WP:PSCI, the section of fringe about pseudoscience apply here? Bonewah (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC) It's not just 'the section of fringe about pseudoscience'. And just to make sure that is understood it even says 'This also applies to other fringe subjects'. What I wrote was plain; what WP:PSCI says is plain. So what are you doing misrepresenting these? Bon courage (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC) Plainly you and i disagree as to what that section is about. I would point out that the other shortcut for that section is WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, so if its not about pseudoscience, then it is *really* badly named, as you claim In any event Im simply asking you to explain in what way you believe that WP:PSCI applies. You typed those words, what did you mean? Bonewah (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC) I expect editors arguing from the WP:PAGs to argue from the actual text of the WP:PAGs, not what they extrapolate in their imagination from the shortcut name,. As to what I meant, can you not read? To repeat: Since the view being discussed (about COVID prevalence and fatality) is a fringe one, WP:PSCI applies What's so hard to understand? Bon courage (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC) As i said, what is hard to understand is what part of WP:PSCI do you think applies here? Which sentence or sentences and why? Bonewah (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC) To repeat: From WP:PSCI "This also applies to other fringe subjects". So Since the view being discussed (about COVID prevalence and fatality) is a fringe one, WP:PSCI applies All fringe subjects fall under WP:PSCI. This is explicit. Bon courage (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC) I dont think that all fringe subjects fall under WP:PSCI, its not explicit in the policy page, and i dont think you are justified in simply creating a new shortcut on the fly to match your (in my view) idiosyncratic interpretation of that PAG. Bonewah (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC) Well, you're wrong because the policy is explicit. You can propose the shortcut for deletion if you disagree. Bon courage (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Vikram Sampath

• Vikram Sampath (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

There is a content dispute over a fringe author named Vikram Sampath who is mainly known for writing a biography on Vinayak Damodar Savarkar "to fit the Hindutva politics".[10]

Sampath believes that [11]:-

• history of his country India makes itself a “nation of losers”
• "India needs to reclaim its history" (best talking point of conspiracy theorists)
• “Hindu genocide” (which never happened)
• 80 million Hindus were killed in the "Hindu genocide" (Generally Holocaust is believed to be the largest with 6 million murders)

The WP:LAME edit war over changing "popular historian" to "biographer" has been going on for weeks. It is largely because this person cannot be termed as "popular historian" at all, but "biographer" because that is what a number of reliable sources already describe him as.

Should this person be described as a "biographer" or "popular historian" or something else? >>> Extorc.talk 20:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Context behind this - [12][13]. This user has been engaging in an edit war regarding this topic without achieving consensus on the talk page. Mixmon (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• I think he should be described as a "writer". See: [14][15][16] Editorkamran (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I am honestly tired of engaging with you on this useless argument. I will repeat the gist again. Reliable sources almost universally mention him as historian. [17] , [18] , [19] , [20] , [21] , [22] , [23] , [24] , [25] , [26] [27] , [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] Razer(talk) 20:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

"Sampath’s arguments are animated by perspectives that have been regularly utilised by the proponents of Hindu majoritarian rule in India in order to give their claims a historical basis." Is what your own source notes.[36] He cannot be called a historian because of the crisis with his own credibility. Editorkamran (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Please read the thread on the article talk page. The gist is - MOS:ROLEBIO says, The lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described in reliable sources.. There is a reason why a wikipedia page is a article and not a single line. There is ample of space in the article and his criticism and other controversies can be and are included in the article. Razer(talk) 13:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

MOS:ROLEBIO notes we need to "emphasize what made the person notable". He is notable because of his pro-Hindutva discourses. Dympies (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be about the word "biographer" or about the conduct of an editor? Sennalen (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, it is about refusal to discuss the issue properly on talk page. Mixmon (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Sennalen: Obviously it is about the word "biographer" vs "popular historian" or something else. The attempts to derail this thread (just like the talk page discussion) should be ignored. >>> Extorc.talk 20:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The refs provided by Razer2115 clearly indicate that sources support calling him an historian. (He might not be a good historian, in some people's views, and they might not like what he writes, but that's not the point.) Schazjmd (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

See my reply above and tell about the sources that call him only a "writer". Wikipedia cannot call him a "historian" given the crisis with his own credibility, and his clear-cut promotion of Hindutva fake history. Editorkamran (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, your 3rd link was a 404. And your links simply don't outweigh the preponderance of other refs that use "historian". Schazjmd (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Please see this comment. Also I would request all the participants here to see the talk page arguments to avoid repetition. Mixmon (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: You can use Google cache.[37] In which world you are thinking that I am competing with a comment, posted minutes after my comment, in terms of "preponderance" of links? You are required to address how someone can be called a "historian" after being described has a fake history peddler. Unless you can address this, then I will try bringing up more links to defeat the so called "preponderance" of references that call him historian. One of the posted ref at the same time as clearly defined his arguments to have been "animated by perspectives that have been regularly utilised by the proponents of Hindu majoritarian rule in India in order to give their claims a historical basis".[38] First you have to address how he can be called a "historian" when he is regularly promoting fake history. Editorkamran (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Obviously sources that criticize him professionally should be covered in the article. Schazjmd (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

That is a different topic. There is a clear dispute over him being a "popular historian" or a "historian". That's why I think describing him as "writer" would be correct. Editorkamran (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Vikram Sampath has evidently engaged in plagiarism[39] and he is pro-Hindutva ideologue who employs significant amount of Islamophobia in his discourses as highlighted by OP. It is laughable to stat that he is a historian. I never had this idea before but describing him as a "writer" would be better option for now. Dympies (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, revisionist agenda is very important for a particular set of authors which includes him. Doug Weller can share his view since he also came across many similar revisionists. Azuredivay (talk) 05:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. There does seem merit in looking beyond the facile characterizations of "historian" or "popular historian" that have presented themselves in the sources above. For one thing, such brushstroke characterization does not capture the damning and scathing attacks Sampath has incurred from professional critics in academia for his shoddy efforts at dredging up the focus on a communally tainted, controversial Hindutva leader Savarkar through his dubious, overblown panegyric on him, revisionist, Islamophobic accounts of otherwise apodictic aspects of Indian independence movement, brazen plagiarism and for endorsing Hindutva fairytales in the name of academic research. The imputations of intellectual malpractice are profound and have been brought out by renowned academicians. To exemplify the foregoing, here is what Audrey Truschke, South Asian specialist, observes with regard to Sampath: Sampath and subject his body of work to the scrutiny that he has thus far evaded from academics, in part because his publications are largely in non-peer reviewed venues. While popular historians are a vital part of our profession and discipline, plagiarists cannot be. Dr. Sampath's predations against other academics, including members of the Society and against vulnerable unpublished student scholars, is in breach of both the letter and spirit of the Society's stated ethics.[40] As Dympies above observes, MOS requires us to emphasize the work that made the person notable, it is only discerning we employ other uncontested terms such as a biographer or a writer that have come through reliable sources. He is primarily known for his biography on Savarkar after all . MBlaze Lightning (talk) 07:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Sociogenomics

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

After reading this, I checked if we have an article, and we do. It has not been edited often... --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

My first assumption was that this would overlap with epigenomics, but it looks like it's actually transcriptomics of social stimuli. It sounds like an interesting thing to study. Sennalen (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Answers in Genesis

• Answers in Genesis (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

New account with a COI tries to whitewash. I predict more of the same. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Warned them about coi and paid editing, they weren't impressed, justified their edits. Doug Weller talk 15:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Now indeffed by IronGargoyle. Bishonen | tålk 20:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC).

Battle of Kadesh and Kadesh inscriptions

I'm worried about the material which has been recently added into these two articles, and which suggests parallelisms with the Exodus narrative. Sounds fringe to me, or undue weight at least. Need some expert opinion. Lone-078 (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Whatever that theory is, it certainly does not need to be expressed in that many words. --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Dark energy

Sonofmankind (talk · contribs)

A user is repeatedly pushing a novel explanation, which was described by latest reverting user Parejkoj (talk · contribs) as "nonsense", for the mysterious force that drives the expansion of the universe, without a reliable source to back up their addition and illustrated by this label-free image. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Whatever you choose to call that musing, it definitely does not belong in Wikipedia. —Quondum 20:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

No RS, end of story. Sennalen (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

How can it be considered nonsense, when it is logically and mathematically coherent and fits within the context? Sonofmankind (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Calling it logically and mathematically coherent is in the eye of the beholder. In this case, the eye of the author.

Go publish it in a reliable source. Until you do that, you have not even met the minimum condition for inclusion in Wikipedia articles. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Patently unsuitable for Wikipedia. XOR'easter (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Essay on FRINGE

A new essay by Sennalen on the FRINGE guideline is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Essay on fringe guidelines. Thanks to her for inviting feedback. This corner of the community should of course also be invited to weigh in. Generalrelative (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I didn't bring it here myself yet because it might seem a confrontational choice of venue, and its a draft, but feedback is welcome. Sennalen (talk) 03:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• People write essays all the time and they have zero WP:PAG force, so I'm not sure why this needs to be discussed (unless the essay is disruptive; this one isn't - it's a mix of the rehashed, the garbled and the dubious, but is mostly harmless). The trouble with writing anything about FRINGE is it tends to attract WP:PROFRINGE/disruptive editors looking for something to interpret and use as an attack vector on NPOV or as a justification for their WP:BATTLE. We already see that in the Village Pump discussion: the first "+1" editor is now blocked, the EMDR problems get re-litigated, and some canards resurface. In my experience, the most common thing missed about FRINGE is that it's a fairly discursive guideline built squarely on top of NPOV, where the real teeth and essence of how we must treat FRINGE stuff is set out, Bon courage (talk) 03:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  It will unfortunately always be the case that someone will read policy in light of whatever content dispute is at hand. I'm not immune to that, or you, or anyone. You hit the nail on the head that FRINGE should lead in the same directions as NPOV, which is the gist of my first essay section. Sometimes fringe views should get a due weight that's not zero. The FR/N crowd especially is prone to having an allergic reaction to that, but actually respecting NPOV is not a slippery slope to anywhere. Sennalen (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  By the "FR/N crowd" I assume you mean the excellent editors of this noticeboard, working hard in their free time to keep Wikipedia's fringe topic coverage neutral. That there's some kind of tension between NPOV and FRINGE is a common myth (we hear the same about RS and MEDRS). Views in articles are accorded due weight and yes, for fringe views that is "zero" except as is admitted through coverage in non-fringe sources. Good content that is NPOV is in line with WP:FRINGE; good content that complies with WP:FRINGE is NPOV. They are the same thing in effect (just that FRINGE gives more guidance to help understand the policy). Bon courage (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The FR/N crowd especially is prone to having an allergic reaction That blanket aspersion against multiple, experienced editors in good standing helps, I think, to clarify the motivation behind that essay. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

That's not an aspersion at all. Some of the incredulous reactions and eye-rolling are fun to read. I'm sure everyone here means well, but the bias is clear. Biased editing is the background hum everywhere on Wikipedia, not an exceptional circumstance. I include myself in that, too. Sennalen (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean exactly by "incredulous reactions and eye-rolling"? In your essay and here you've simply made some fundamental mistakes about NPOV and FRINGE (thinking fringe theories get some kind of 'free hit' exposition, it seems). Maybe you are seeking retrospective vindication from some previous dispute? If editors correct these mistakes is that not useful? Beginning to get a bit of a WP:NOTHERE vibe from all this. Bon courage (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I mean mockery. Sometimes fringe ideas deserve a bit of mockery, but lets not pretend this noticeboard is the jedi council floating above it all. You're trying to read some acrimony into this that was not intended.

Anyway, I'm interested in any fundamental mistakes you see. I don't know what you mean by "free hit". Sennalen (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I already said about your "not zero" idea above. Often fringe notions must get "zero" (when there's no mainstream context with which to contextualize them). Bon courage (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree. Often they should get zero, but that's when the source support is zero. Sometimes editors want to give zero when the source support is 10% or even 40%. It should be proportional, not all-or-nothing. Sennalen (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Examples of this problem? Bon courage (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

It would bring more heat than light to drag actual disputes into this. I think that's demonstrated by how many responses are along the lines of "Looks insightful, but what if it gets applied to insert topic area here?" Sennalen (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

That's kind of an important point. Many a topic-focused editor discusses policy without being aware of the breadth of application across the Project. If this is just cultural marxism conspiracism in disguise then it would be good to know how the argument affect (say) cancer quackery or pseudoarcheology. Bon courage (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I suspect a lack of examples will actually push the heat/light ratio of the discussion in the worse direction, but hey, it's not my essay. XOR'easter (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

When the second draft moves into project space, it will be open for the community to add examples. Sennalen (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Why wait? Isn't that just pushing a bunch of vagueness into project space without a clear specification of the essay's subject matter? XOR'easter (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The FR/N crowd especially is prone to having an allergic reaction sounds like an aspersion to me. Following up with Some of the incredulous reactions and eye-rolling are fun to read has, intentionally or not, a "LOL, struck a nerve!" tone that doesn't exactly help the message come across in a civil or cordial way. WP:FRINGE has all along provided advice on when and how to give fringe ideas non-zero weight, and it's good advice that has stood the test of time. XOR'easter (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I think WP:BESTSOURCES pretty much covers all of FRINGE and more, and is all anyone should ever need. But if you can't edit within that simple framework then FRINGE is for you. Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#Marburg is in my opinion a good demonstration of why you should be considering the guidelines more carefully in your editing rather than challenging them. fiveby(zero) 16:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, WP:BESTSOURCES is probably the nub of everything. Well-written too. Bon courage (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:STICKTOSOURCE is very good too, especially its second paragraph. Llll5032 (talk) 06:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

That thread was part of the impetus for the essay section "Criticism of fringe theories can also be fringe", which is based on guidelines and not challenging them. The crux is to always WP:YESPOV about facts, regardless of how those facts can be construed into the context of some larger debate. Sennalen (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NOTTRUTH 2601:18F:1080:48F0:3850:4DD:FC69:51A8 (talk) 12:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Only really applies with the truth can't be found in reliable sources Sennalen (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

If "the truth" can't be found in reliable sources, then it has no place on wikipedia. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Not contested Sennalen (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Basically, Senn is continuing her crusade to be as disruptive and contrarian as humanly possible. Nothing of value to see here. 2601:18F:1080:48F0:25FB:1FF3:C9E4:AA65 (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, Sennallen can be quite unilateral in their editing style, perhaps even WP:TEND in how they often go against, or simply don't care to generate consensus. I pointed out in that other thread how this occurred in the topic area of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (with three failed/dubious RfC's by Sennallen one, two, three). Around that time they were writing their essay; Write the Infinite Article - which can be read as a sort of endorsement of the types of mergers Sennallen was conducting in some of those RfCs, so a user's essays are some times not independent from their actions.

On Sennallen's talk page there's a brief exchange titled 'How to kill the hydra' started by a fellow traveler, the Hydras being Wikipedians who support the current consensus at Cultural Marxism that it's a fringe conspiracy theory. I think that sort of stuff is difficult to overlook when considering their essays (especially on the topic of Fringe Theories)... and of course Sennallen has multiple other content disputes mentioned on the talk page. My concern would be that the fringe theories related essay may later be used as a means to make WP:false balance arguments, sighting a lone reliable source or academic (along side the essay) as a means to claim WP:FRINGE must therefore not apply to a topic - just sort of, you know, pop that policy right off and disregard it. Sennallen is a hard worker, and I see in them someone struggling to find their role on Wikipedia. I wish them the best of luck, and hope they do direct their work towards building Wikipedia in a positive way. 220.235.243.104 (talk) 04:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you going to WP:REHASH your two failed ANI character assassination attempts of me at every thread I'm involved in? Sennalen (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

We both know you're in far too many threads for that. 220.240.181.176 (talk) 11:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "as humanly possible". I'm being a gadfly to a degree, but in a constructive way. I'm trying to hold the community accountable to its own rules. Sennalen (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps let others decide whether and to what extent you're being "constructive"? That's kind of the point of a collaborative project. We have no shortage of folks on vanity missions to "hold the community accountable to its own rules", and it never amounts to anything beyond mundane disruption. Generalrelative (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Point. Picking fights and being contrarian for no reason other than to "to hold the community accountable to its own rules." is disruptive and deserving of a block.

On top of that Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is literally a policy, so your entire argument is invalid. 2601:18F:1080:48F0:857D:FD1D:7C10:C99D (talk) 03:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Though WP:IAR does not apply to NPOV (and BLP and some of the legally-informed stuff), which is explicitly non-negotiable. So far as I'm aware the community is producing content in accord with its own "rules" (wrong word). Sure, we get problems and this noticeboard is a place to get them sorted. But zero evidence of any problem has been produced in this discussion. It's all hot air so far as I can see. I'm applying Hitchen's razor and am left with nowt. Bon courage (talk) 03:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes ignoring a rule is the best thing for the encyclopedia, but in that case there should be an awareness of what the rule is and an explicit consensus to ignore it. Sennalen (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

"trying to hold the community accountable" ← Textbook WP:NOTHERE this. Bon courage (talk) 06:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

You left out "to its own rules", which makes it about as WP:NOTNOTHERE as it gets. Sennalen (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Not really, you're meant to be here to build an encyclopedia, not play at being judge for the "community" based (as it happens) on a false reading of its rules. Bon courage (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

A good effort in the right direction. I expect the development of this essay to be productive. SmolBrane (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

That VP is only for discussion of policies and guidelines. Enlarging it to cover essays would probably be a bad idea. Doug Weller talk 17:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with SmolBrane, except I would sort of prefer an expansion of WP:FRINGE/QS and WP:FRINGE/ALT over a separate essay. I don't think the FRINGE guideline is problematic for topics that are unambiguously fringe. The practical issues only arise when the topic has some strong sources saying it's fringe and other strong sources saying it's not, or few/no sources saying directly that it's fringe but many sources contradicting it indirectly. Loki (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

"contradicting it indirectly." ← what does that mean? Sound like an invitation to engage in WP:OR. This is the nub of the problems at EMDR caused by your repeated harping on this. As a reminder, WP:V is core policy and requires ontent to be directly supported by sources. Bon courage (talk) 04:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

To be crystal clear, that line is not about EMDR, that line is about Blanchard's typology. There are relatively few sources explicitly saying it's fringe, but plenty of sources that describe the consensus in the field as something completely inconsistent with it.

To put it in simpler terms, it's as if there were a small handful of otherwise serious researchers trying to work on perpetual motion machines, while the rest of the field basically never commented on them either way, and yet clearly described the laws of thermodynamics as they currently are and perpetual motion as impossible. Loki (talk) 05:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Then there'd be no independent sources for the "small handful". They get no coverage. Bon courage (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, that depends. Is James Cantor an independent source on Ray Blanchard's work? By current WP:INDY guidelines, he is, because merely being part of the same research clique doesn't mean he has a conflict of interest or any actual tangible affiliation with him (other than coauthoring a few papers). Loki (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Content from people in a fringe "research clique" would not be WP:FRIND. You need stuff from outwith the intellectual milieu. Bon courage (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

But from where are we getting the label "fringe"? Nobody's calling them fringe, is the point. They're just not citing their research or otherwise taking them seriously.

And these are all otherwise respected experts outside of this particular marginal theory. It's closer to a WP:FRINGE/ALT situation, except maybe for the detail that this theory has been around for over 50 years and has if anything lost support over that time. Loki (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

That is the purpose of WP:PARITY, I believe (especially the final paragraph.) Fringe topics, by their very nature, often attract a lot of attention from their devoted believers and very limited attention from outside of that bubble; so it's important that the prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field rather than just the small bubble of researchers who embraces (and therefore publishes a lot about) a theory that has extremely limited acceptance anywhere else. --Aquillion (talk) 06:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this generally, but WP:PARITY only seems to be relevant for that very short section at the end. Blanchard, Bailey and Cantor publish mostly in completely ordinary journals. They're often small or sexologist-oriented or both, but they're not quack journals.

As far as I can tell, the policy that's most relevant here is not in WP:FRINGE at all, it's WP:UNDUE in the overall NPOV guideline. WP:FRINGE/ALT and WP:FRINGE/QS both approach what I'm talking about but neither quite gets at it. Loki (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Just something I've observed over the years, but usually if someone complains about WP:PARITY being mentioned in a BLP, it's usually an indication WP:BLP isn't being followed and scraping the bottom of the barrel with WP:BLPSELFPUB sources. I've seen a quite a few cases where something about a quack BLP is self-sourced, only for someone to say parity level sources can't be used. One of the requirements (#4) of BLPSELFPUB is there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. Instead of having dueling tit-for-tat sources, it's usually better to just outright remove the self-sourced equivalent of "a dog at my homework" comment by the BLP that was originally in the article. Often times what a fringe-BLP says about themselves is not authentic or grounded in reality.

That really gets into the spirit of PARITY though. Even if a policy like BLP doesn't technically disallow something about the fringe-BLP, if it's a case where parity-level sources indicate an issue, it's very likely mentioning the fringe idea in the BLP violates WP:DUE without even having to have a follow-up parity source in the article. KoA (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

This isn't only or mainly a BLP issue that I'm talking about and so I'm confused by this response. Loki (talk) 02:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Just want to endorse Shibbolethink's reply to me at the closed VPP discussion. What I said was not meant to contradict either WP:PSCI or WP:FRINGE, and it's important to be just as careful not to promote false science, as we are to preserving a neutral tone (and funnily enough, our real article at Acupuncture is a great example of what I meant). DFlhb (talk) 10:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll go further: I've noticed a few of our fringe articles are too discursive ("proponents say blah" followed by "XYZ reputable org says not-blah"), when they'd benefit from being purely empirical, with the first section contrasting the practices and the scientific evidence, and later sections describing the practices/movement surrounding that fringe belief, in an almost clinical/sociological way, i.e. focusing more on analytical depth than on proportion (which is how I interpret WP:GEVAL). Intelligent design does that very well, but this would carry over well to even relatively less-fringe topics (for example, in our politics articles, why do utterances by politicians, journalists, and Tucker Carlson often come before actual expert commentary?)

We sometimes lack a strong enough "pro-expert bias", and I think that's what causes the occasional overcompensation with an unencyclopedic tone. DFlhb (talk) 12:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Homo floresiensis down syndrome/microcephaly claims

The Homo floresiensis article devotes a lot of its length to now thoroughly discredited claims that they represented modern humans with microcephaly/Down syndrome. Should this be cut down? Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

There is a lot of space, which might be too much on the whole. On the other hand, it consists of a number of different theories by different people, none of which individually seems overweighted. There is value in having the history of these investigations and the reasons for favoring a new species. A WP:SPINOUT could be a good option. Sennalen (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

What I find more problematic than the space these theories take up is that the section relies directly on individual studies which should be avoided according to WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves" Random person no 362478479 (talk) 03:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The article seems to give preference to the studies that reject the birth defect hypotheses, in which case those are secondary sources on the original theories. It's possible that some of the rejections could be considered primary in their own right, but de-weighting them would not seem to lead in any direction the article ought to go. Sennalen (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I was hoping there would be some kind of review of the scientific discussion that would present and evaluate the different theories. Alas, so far I have found none. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Rudolf Steiner's works

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Sourcing summaries of non-fiction texts (in articles on those texts). tgeorgescu (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

It is a shame that the first WP:FRIND source has been introduced only in 2023. That is, the article The Philosophy of Freedom waited more than 17 years for a WP:FRIND source. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

What is Wikipedia Policy on Uncivil Comments on talk pages?

An unhappy camper posted what I would consider to be an uncivil, unhelpful, and unconstructive rant to the Talk:Ancient Apocalypse page. I have seen similar diatribes simply removed from the talk page. Is this an accepted manner of dealing with such editors given that the comments of others on talk pages are not to be altered? What is the appropriate way that such uncivil and angry comments should handled on talk pages? Paul H. (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The comment at Ancient Apocalypse goes against WP:NOTFORUM as no suggestions are made to improve the article, valid or otherwise. It will be removed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Right. It is just the usual "Wikipedia and I have different views on a subject, therefore Wikipedia is wrong, and the reason why they are wrong is blah blah, and therefore I will not blah blah" bad logic. We revert that several times a day on some Talk page or other. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Salvatore Pais

Link to interview https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5E6QyAhTB3o Part 2, with Stephon Alexander https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PE4C7OI7Frg 2A02:3038:206:3F84:CFE:2152:6D2B:B18E (talk) 06:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

For those unaware, this was discussed at the Physics WikiProject recently; see here. XOR'easter (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

How to handle Armenian genocide denial on Bernard Lewis?

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

Thoughts on whether and how to state in the lead that Lewis's view of the Armenian genocide is rejected by mainstream historiography? And whether the section discussing this controversy in Lewis' work unduly privileges his own perspective by including a long quote? More input would be helpful, I think, before I go ahead and make BOLD changes myself. Generalrelative (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

At a glance, it is concerning to see "Lewis denied the Armenian genocide. He argued that the deaths of the mass killings resulted from a struggle between two nationalistic movements, claiming that there is no proof of intent by the Ottoman government to exterminate the Armenian nation." in the lead with no contextualizing mainstream view. I wonder if buidhe has any interest or thoughts on this? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it relates to WP:FRINGE, but at the time Lewis got publicity for the view, it was not, in my opinion, a fringe one. It became so around 2000 I would say. That said, you could go to Armenian genocide denial and copy over sources that state what the current academic consensus is. (t · c) buidhe 04:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! Generalrelative (talk) 04:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay check it. Generalrelative (talk) 05:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposed edit to WP:PSCI

See a proposal to nerf the current policy here:

• WT:NPOV#Recent addition of WP:FRINGESUBJECTS shortcut to Fringe theories and pseudoscience Bon courage (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

That definitely took out some pretty key parts of policy, though I have to admit Sennalen in that thread is pretty blatantly working to disrupt it with some pretty strong sniping and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that might warrant a look by admins or sanctions if that continues (or if it's been going on awhile already). KoA (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Primary direction

Astronomycal term was replaced by astrologycal term [41]. El-chupanebrej (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Sennalen has created a disambiguation link to Equatorial coordinates for the astronomical term. I think that is fine solution since the exposition of the concept of primary direction there is better than the separate article was. Nevertheless the behaviour of @Alexey Borealis in replacing the article with completely different content is of course not at all acceptable. I'll leave them a note on their talk page. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

We still have the problem of wikilinks in articles now connecting to an astrology article. I will move the quietly hijacked astrology article, and make Primary direction a redirect to the section in Equitorial coordinates. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Good solution. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know the right approach to the modification/creation of the articles. So now, Google is indexing the "Primary direction (astrology)" wiki article in response to the "Primary direction" search request. It is likely because this response better satisfies the user's search intent (according to Google algorithm). It may be better to left redirect to the astrology-related page. What do you think? Alexey Borealis (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

The term is used in science (astronomy) and in pseudoscience (astrology) and you want to destroy all mention of the use in science? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Not at all. I want to help Google to show relevant results for the search query. If you type the "primary direction" in Google, you'll notice that the first SERP page is dedicated to the primary direction in astrology. Google shows these results by reason as a response to search intent - this intelligent search engine understands what users want and delivers relevant content. That is why the astrology-related article appeared at the top of the "Primary directions" search results. The astrology-related article has a link to the astronomy-related article, so anyone who searches astronomy term will find it. Currently, most Google users are redirected to the article, which they didn't mean while searching the primary direction.

So my whole point is to support Google's to show relevant responses to the search query "Primary Direction". Alexey Borealis (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

P.S. If the Wikipedia user searches for the primary direction, the astronomy-related article also appears in search results, so this page will not disappear with the redirect I suggest. The new redirect will primarily help Google search.

P.P.S. Funny, the scientific term  "Primary Direction" originated from the pseudoscience term "Primary Direction," to which astrologers and mathematicians from European Universities like Copernicus, Regiomintanus, Giovanni Bianchini, Jean Moren, and others devoted their time. Alexey Borealis (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Google searches are individualized. They remember what sort of pages you looked at before. My first hit is the Wikipedia page this is about.

Independent of that, the goal of Wikipedia is not to pander to the way Google handles popular pseudosciences. When you google "2012", you find pages about a movie inspired by stupid wacky ideas. Wikipedia's page 2012 is still about the year. (For 2011, Google and Wikipedia agree.) That is because Wikipedia is reality-based and not popularity-based. And that is how it is intended to be. Wikipedia has rules, and one of them is WP:FRINGE.

And bragging about how people still believed in something a few hundred years ago does not change its status today. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Google searches are individualized. They remember what sort of pages you looked at before.

When you google "2012", you find pages about a movie inspired by stupid wacky ideas.

Honi soit qui mal y pense^[Humor] Random person no 362478479 (talk) 07:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

New book by Mauro Biglino being promoted by Hancock

[42] Doug Weller talk 20:17, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Ireland's Vanishing Triangle

• Ireland's Vanishing Triangle (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Has existed since 2012, but just popped up on my radar by being added to Category:Paranormal triangles. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

That does not seem to be a paranormal topic to begin with - serial killers are a very mundane thing and the article is entirely focused on that mundane explanation. I can't speak of the quality of the article otherwise, but this seems plainly incorrect as a categorization. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree. I have removed the categorisation as Paranormal triangle. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 07:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

My mistake. I should have had a look at the article before coming here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Bill Warner (writer) and a statistical approach to Islam

Bringing this here because I think his approach makes him fringe, ie he uses statistics to prove that Islam is really a political ideology. I seem to be the only editor involved in this article who isn't promoting him, and as some of you know I won't be around much longer. His organisation claims that “Statistics show that Islamic politics is what brought Islam success, not religion”.

A new editor added this[43] with a misleading edit summary. The edit is based on Linkedin, an article in Junge Freiheit and a book by Moorthy Muthuswamy, the latter two right-wing anti-Muslim sources, also changing his being against Islam to him being against political Islam although his critics state that he is against Islam as a religion.

An editor who has been involved for a long time added [44], which is an interview by an editor of JungeFreiheit and purely self-serving. Warner/French was involved in another attempt to hold an anti-Islam protest in 2018.[45]

The article also discusses his organisation, and see this news article discussing a claim by a member of his organisation[46] I found something debunking this but it's from an anonymous author (clearly not the real August Landmesser in an unreliable source, still interesting at least to me).[47] In any case, I think the article needs more eyes and hopefully someone new editors. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Assembly theory

• Assembly theory (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Dubious stuff? Serious stuff with dubious connections added to the article? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Is there anything in particular that looks dubious to you? As far as I understand it it is a measure of molecule complexity (I don't know whether or not it is a good one). The application to detecting signs of life depends on the assumption that complex molecules are an indicator of life. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

By "dubious stuff" you mean Beyond Center "The algorithmic origins of life" such as [48]? fiveby(zero) 14:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I fear I have already removed the links to Rupert Sheldrake in the meantime. Maybe there is nothing dubious there anymore. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes. The stuff you removed was -- to quote what Searle said about Derrida -- the kind of stuff that gives bullshit a bad name. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

American Conspiracies

Not sure if this is the right place to report this (I was hoping for a relevant wikiproject and didn't find it). The article on the book American Conspiracies lists the content of the book, but doesn't offer explanation about what the generally accepted explanations are vs what is the "conspiracy theory". I just wanted to get some eyes on it - do let me know if I should have posted this somewhere else. -- asilvering (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I removed the entire second part that presented conspiracy theories as fact. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The article has four sources, including one which is an interview with Jesse Ventura and the other which is Ventura's book itself. The content in the other two sources says very little about the book. Can someone take a look at those, too, to see if this meets WP:NBOOK? -Location (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The first reference spends two sentences on his book. The second is an excerpt from the book. So none of the references is worth much. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it misses WP:NBOOK. It was a best-seller for several weeks, but I couldn't find any reputable book reviews. (I did find a newspaper article in which Ventura complained that the "mainstream" refused to review his book.) I'd recommend a brief summary of the book and its best-seller status on Jesse Ventura and redirect the book article there. Schazjmd (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The MSN source consists of a single, long, verbatim excerpt from the book. No review or analysis. The Star Tribune does mention the book and repeats a few of the more sensational claims in it without comment. Again, no analysis or review. Agree, it's probably best as a redirect to Jesse Ventura.- LuckyLouie (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

FWIW: I'm OK with, too. -Location (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The article creator isn't active (hasn't edited in nearly a year) so WP:BOLD is probably best. I'll take care of it tomorrow, unless someone else does so first. Schazjmd (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I just went ahead and did this. Thanks everyone! -- asilvering (talk) 23:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Aaaaaand undone. By me! Dio! Silverseren^C 01:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

You found several reviews that I didn't come across, @Silver seren, thanks. Schazjmd (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Jeffrey Steinberg

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

There are currently only four sources for this article: #1 is laroucheplanet.info, #2 is a primary source from the CIA published by MuckRock, #3 is larouchepub.com, and #4 is a reliable secondary source, but only a footnote. More problematic is that this article appears to be WP:COATRACK for LaRouche movement in that it seems to exist only to showcase the subject's "Selected publications" on a variety of fringe topics in Executive Intelligence Review. Should this one be passed along to Afd? (FWIW: There has been a lot discussion regarding LaRouche-related topics in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests.) -Location (talk) 06:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

And the laroucheplanet.info link is dead. Oh, and I have two FBI reports totalling over 200 pages with my name in them, but that does not make me notable. Donald Albury 14:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I can't see this coming within 100 miles of WP:GNG, especially with the more stringent sourcing requirements for a WP:BLP article. Yes, sent it to AFD. --Jayron32 14:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I have taken this to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Steinberg. -Location (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at RSN

There is a discussion at RSN that relates to fringe theories; see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Can sources that state that religious miracles actually occurred be reliable sources? BilledMammal (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Magical alphabets

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

Brand new article, still tagged as under construction, maybe not FTN material precisely, but I think there's a good bit of overlap in interests with the folks here at least. I wouldn't be surprised if this is a valid topic, but it's in pretty rough shape, despite still being under construction (needs a move to the singular as well, but that's minor). Might be worth keeping an eye on. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

It is definitely like, a thing, but yeah the article is definitely in rough shape and could use some CE. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

RFC on how to describe DRASTIC over at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory§ RfC: How should we describe DRASTIC?. Thanks! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The Chinese developed a COVID-19 vaccine before the COVID-19 pandemic?

• COVID-19 lab leak theory (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

This latest whackiness from certain US politicians being uncritically relayed.[49] Usual WP:PROFRINGE impetus. More eyes could help ... Bon courage (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

It's amazing to see the United States Congress being lauded as trustworthy.

"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress." —Mark Twain

XOR'easter (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)