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. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) Shortcuts WP:FTN WP:FT/N If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so.
Search this noticeboard & archives Additional notes: If your question regards whether material constitutes original research or original synthesis, please use the no original research noticeboard instead. Discussion of fringe theories will depend entirely on their notability and reliable coverage in popular media. Above all, fringe theories should never be presented as fact. Volunteers: To mark a discussion resolved, place {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87

COVID origin[edit]

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

There's been some off-wiki recruiting on this[1] and an uptick in activity regarding the virus origin. More eyes maffy be helpful. Alexbrn (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Today I learned: Wikipedia is owned and operated by Google or Microsoft and or maybe the Alphabet company aka Google. [2] It's good to know that clairvoyants on Twitter are on the case. This whole time I thought I was part of an entirely different cabal. Generalrelative (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Third revert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An article in the British Medical Journal says that "The theory that SARS-CoV-2 may have originated in a lab was considered a debunked conspiracy theory, but some experts are revisiting it amid calls for a new, more thorough investigation."[3] I don't know where that research has led, but if the lab leak theory has again been discredited or has been determined to be an extremely remote possibility, then at least there should be some clarification in a footnote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. [4]
2. [5]
3. [6]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I said the PNAS letter is just one such sourcec and StN and Palpable did not actually call to showcase any alternatives theories in the lead of the article. What the SAGO report describes as a possibility [8], you describe as a fringe theory [9], so your POV might need refreshing with newer and better sources. The SAGO report is clearly the WP:BESTSOURCE now, better even than Holmes et al, which it reviewed. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is Dysgenics a fringe theory?[edit]

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

Generalrelative has removed my citation to PNAS paper [10]:

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

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

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

1) The two individual studies you added (including the Iceland study) were pretty thoroughly debunked by the PNAS study that came afterward: [11]

2) Another of the individual studies you cited, which had been present in the article before, shows the exact opposite of what you claim: [12]: Taken together, these trends provide no evidence that social sorting is becoming increasingly genetic in nature or that dysgenic dynamics have accelerated.

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

For the second point, in the PNAS paper [14], the authors said:

“

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

”

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

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

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

You are misinterpreting the paper. The author want to say the strength of dysgenic selection is not accelerating. Falling down is different from an acceleration in the speed of falling. The secondary sources just tells that some people have a different opinion. There are many other secondary sources support the theory, for example in a reference work [15]. --203.186.250.135 (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No. See my edit here:

Some genetic studies have shown a selection against variants in the genome associated with educational attainment in United States^[1][2] and in Iceland^[3] --203.186.250.135 (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

References
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
References ^ Beauchamp, Jonathan P. (11 July 2016). "Genetic evidence for natural selection in humans in the contemporary United States". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 113 (28): 7774–7779. doi:10.1073/pnas.1600398113. PMC 4948342. PMID 27402742. ^ Conley, Dalton; Laidley, Thomas; Belsky, Daniel W.; Fletcher, Jason M.; Boardman, Jason D.; Domingue, Benjamin W. (14 June 2016). "Assortative mating and differential fertility by phenotype and genotype across the 20th century". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 113:24 (24): 6647–6652. doi:10.1073/pnas.1523592113. PMC 4914190. PMID 27247411. the education PGS shows a very small but statistically significant association with fewer children ^ Kong, Augustine; Frigge, Michael L.; Thorleifsson, Gudmar; Stefansson, Hreinn; Young, Alexander I.; Zink, Florian; Jonsdottir, Gudrun A.; Okbay, Aysu; Sulem, Patrick; Masson, Gisli; Gudbjartsson, Daniel F.; Helgason, Agnar; Bjornsdottir, Gyda; Thorsteinsdottir, Unnur; Stefansson, Kari (31 January 2017). "Selection against variants in the genome associated with educational attainment". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 114 (5). doi:10.1073/pnas.1612113114.

Astrology at AN[edit]

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

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

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

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

Cryptozoology[edit]

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

• Bathysidus
• Bathyembryx
• Bathysphaera

The only possible legitimate reference (weak support for notability) is Robert Ballard's Eternal Darkness.[16] I'd like to get a second opinion: PROD or AfD? Should there be a brief mention in the Beebe article? --mikeu ^talk 23:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Prod is waranted. They are 'real' controversial fish (even if they don't exist). They appear to be controversial outliers (along with "Bathyceratias trilychnus") among the valid species described by Beebe (over 80 fish taxa). They are mentioned but not by name in William_Beebe#Impact_of_work_and_legacy. An article in ICES Journal of Marine Science notes none of the four species (described solely based on visual observations) are currently recognized.^[1] Carl L. Hubbs criticized the methodology of naming species by sight.^[2] An excerpt from Karl Shuker's encyclopedia indicates some of the deep sea cryptids are on a Bermuda postage stamp. Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes treats Bathyceratias as a synonym of Cryptopsaras with B. trilychnus a nomen dubium, and the other genera as available yet of uncertain status. They might all best be redirected to the section of Beebe's article above and fleshed out a bit, or at Bathysphere, or perhaps a single article covering all four cryptids is warranted. --Animalparty! (talk) 08:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Slavic Native Faith articles[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chemical energy and related articles[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's referenced to this paper, which is apparently by the editor in question. Building off his earlier work "Oxygen Is the High-Energy Molecule Powering Complex Multicellular Life: Fundamental Corrections to Traditional Bioenergetics"[17]

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

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

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

I would just like to point out that

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

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

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

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

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

The last paragraph, I think, is particularly remarkable:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Textbooks do not derive that combustion is always exothermic

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

Textbooks do not derive how batteries store and release energy

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

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

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

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

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

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

he is definitely not promoting fringe theories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From that paper:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joseph Eidelberg[edit]

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

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

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

Star of Bethlehem[edit]

This is about [18]. While I don't think that the nativity stories from NT gospels have historicity, I don't think that the authors of the gospels were spewing astrological gobbledygook (meaning that they were secretly adepts of the Christ Myth Theory). Even if we, modern people, regard them as tall stories, it does not mean that they were awarely lying like a dog. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— WP:FLAT

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

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

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

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

Michael Woodley, New York Times Profile[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Woodley (2nd nomination), which I nominated, closed as Delete. Since then, his work was cited explicitly by the shooter in the 2022 Buffalo shooting and now The New York Times has done a profile of Woodley: [19].

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

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

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

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

Ice canopy[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interdimensional hypothesis[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

1561 celestial phenomenon over Nuremberg and 1566 celestial phenomenon over Basel[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Astrology, again[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Webster Technique[edit]

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

Tewodros I[edit]

@Dawit S Gondaria:, is pursuing undue/fringe ideas here imo, they state that despite several sources including the one currently attached to the article is not referring to the Adal Sultanate because of some dating errors. Upon review I tried explaining in vain that the sources are indeed discussing Adal but they wont even compromise instead they're latching onto one source that vaguely states "Walasma princes" killed the emperor. I provided several references that state he was killed by Adal but its been rejected for their preferred interpretation. Would like outside opinion on this, 3rd opinion was already tried and not accepted either by the user. Link to discussion can be found here [20]. Magherbin (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Grey School of Wizardry[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Teal Swan[edit]

There is a current discussion at the BLP Noticeboards[21] about weighing of sources on Teal Swan that editors may be interested in. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sherrie Lynne Lyons[edit]

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

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

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

Cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis[edit]

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

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

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

Yuhwang-ori[edit]

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

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

Detoxification foot pads[edit]

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

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

Friends of Science in Medicine[edit]

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

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

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

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

Science-Based Medicine[edit]

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

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

Robert Clancy and "miraculous drugs"[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Pre-Columbian transoceanic contact theories[edit]

Could use a going over. Of course, there are no theories in the article, just speculation and hypotheses. I'm not sure we should have sections labelled "Disputed evidence", as anything not disputed probably doesn't belong in the article. The Iceland section is a bit confusing. Worse is the "Claims of Norse contact with the Toltec" which seems based on this University of York article[23]. The problem is the author works in the University nursery[24] and is a member of the Visitor Experience Team Member at York Museums Trust, I'm not sure that "5 years of experience in various customer-facing roles alongside the full-time study of Medieval Archaeology, with a specialisation in The Viking Age and it's peripheries; from 535 AD to the mid-15th century" qualifies him as an RS.[25] Doug Weller talk 16:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Polarity therapy[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YEC in the US a conspiracy theory?[edit]

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

Sanat Kumara[edit]

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

Alfred Kinsey[edit]

Need more eyes upon Alfred Kinsey. See [26]. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Mind control protester images[edit]

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

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

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