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, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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

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

• Rebuttals to criticism [1]
• Removal of criticism [2]
• Addition of fringe POV [3]

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

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

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

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

Actually, no. You started out simply making edits and reverts without any Talk page discussion at all: [4], [5], [6], [7]. When you finally posted on the Talk page, it was in an old section [8]. And your edits since then have pretty clearly been in support of a pro-Lazar POV. And I don't see any support for them from other editors, only disagreement. So I suggest you try to get WP:CONSENSUS for any changes you want to make. Since you ask, I don't think it's useful to say "(he) is a criminal" in the article lead (there are much better and WP:BLP-appropriate ways to summarize such article content, such as "Lazar was convicted of X in 19XX, and Y in 19XX", for example). Neither do I think "whistleblower" is appropriate or useful. The first only attracts Lazar fanboys come to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The second is only a term recently introduced as part of a publicity campaign for Lazar's videos and podcasts, and smacks of WP:RECENTISM. I would prefer a much more encyclopedic lead as previously existed. Thanks, - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Okay, I think UFO conspiracy theorist is the best holding category. I've implemented the change: [9]. Enjoy! jps (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some work on this would be appreciated.

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

Some sources useful for general criticism of various under-criticized or critique-free articles regarding Navy UFO reports, AATIP, To The Stars, etc.: Robert Sheaffer [10], Joe Nickell [11], Flying Magazine [12] and Ben Radford ("Newly Revealed Secret DoD 'UFO' Project Less Than Meets the Eye". Skeptical Inquirer, 2018, Vol. 42, pages 6–7, possibly available via WP:REREQ). - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't have a "possible explanations" section yet. Do any reputable skeptical sources exist that have been published more recently? Most of those sources are old (around 2017 except for Robert Sheaffer which seems recent) or blatantly incorrect (Joe Nickell's article based on a grave misunderstanding). This incident has received most of it's coverage more recently so most of those articles don't mention it (only Sheaffer I think). Would be interesting given all the additional evidence that has emerged.--Gtoffoletto (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. What makes a WP:FRIND source “blatantly incorrect”?

2. ”Additional evidence” for what exactly?

3. What evidence?

- LuckyLouie (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm sure there was such an article in the Portolan Journal.[14][15] Here's his 2019 Advances in Historical Studies paper.[16]. He's frequently referred to as Professor, eg [17] and his Cambridge Scholars' page which also says "He is Laureate of the Prince Albert Foundation and Managing Director of the Ginkgo GmbH."[18] But not on his Researchgate page= Note that this must be his Linkin site[19] as it also mentions {Ginkgo Projektentwicklungs- und real.} which is here.[20] - seems to be a real estate and project development company of some sort. His Laureate of the Prince Albert Foundation comes through this process[21] where he had to "manage a one-year business project for a Belgian company outside Europe". Doug Weller talk 11:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt there was an Portolan Journal article, it kicked off a wave of news stories[22], but also skepticism. From the WaPo article: Chet van Duzer "Where this thing comes from needs to be clarified", “It is an exciting discovery, no question, but I also think that more testing should be done.”, link to Da Vinci "tenuous in the extreme". John W Hessler "a couple red flags that popped up", "the Leonardo connection is pure nonsense." scholar doesn't show much independent review, for what that is worth. Since 2013 all we have is the self published book by Missinne, and the mostly negative review in Maps in History linked above, yet WP is making a bunch of unqualified claims about the globe. fiveby (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are definitely some problems at that article. E.g., I had to remove the claim that a WP:MAINSTREAM OB-GYN's explanation of the inaccuracies in the film's portrayal was "false" [23]. This is not only a fringe belief regarding fetal pain, it's also an egregious WP:BLP violation. I gave an extremely stern warning to the user who did this [24], but I suggest some scrutiny of this user's edits if to see if more of this is going on. There are a number of discretionary sanctions notices on that user's talkpage, but not particularly recent, so someone might want to do that as well. jps (talk) 11:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That did not take long [[25]], so we can point out this is a lie.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The movie's plot should be included regardless of whether or not it includes WP:FRINGE content. The policy is not intended to ban all mentions of fringe ideas. Instead, per WP:NFRINGE, notable fringe ideas can get coverage in their own article or even in articles on mainstream ideas, insofar as the coverage is in accordance with due weight, neutrality, and notability. And it's hard to argue that the plot of an otherwise notable film is not notable. Indeed, MOS:FILM implies that a plot summary is a standard part of articles on films. Jancarcu (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again: Nobody wants to remove the plot. Please read what the other side writes before refuting something nobody ever wanted. See Strawman fallacy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the Guy that started the thread removing the whole plot section, twice.[26][27] PackMecEng (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And he started the thread by saying "should have a "plot" section to be consistent with other film articles, but". That means his preferences are like this:

1. Plot section without WP:PROFRINGE material
2. No plot section
3. Plot section with WP:PROFRINGE material

Got it now? --Hob Gadling (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Background: Siddha medicine and its twin brother Ayurveda medicine are forms of ancient Indian folk medicine that is said to have been conveyed by Lord Shiva to his wife Parvati, who passed it on to her son Nandi, who gave it to Siddhas. The word Siddha denotes one who has achieved some extraordinary powers (siddhi).[28]

A key part of Siddha medicine is giving patients toxic mercury compounds[29][30], causing heavy metal poisoning.[31][32]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Guy Macon: - A reminder: I don't see the names "Mohanabhil" or "Gandydancer" -- the actual topics you brought up -- anywhere in that mini-rant. Perhaps you should actually read what I wrote before attempting to obscure both your lack of relevant commentary -- as well as your your lack of common courtesy and intellectual honesty -- behind rules-lawyering. --Calton | Talk 02:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion: "The government had been vigilant all along to stop such quackery. A number of unqualified, untrained quacks are posing a great risk to the entire society and playing with the lives of people without having the requisite training and education in the science from approved institutions.[...]But in the present case, the appellants herein have failed to show that they possessed requisite recognized qualification for registration entitling them to practice Indian system of medicines or their names have been entered in the appropriate registers after the commencement of this Act." [33]

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

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

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

Quacks can be divided amongst three basic categories as under :

• 1. Quacks with no qualification whatsoever.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Add to that the problem that a large number of allopaths leave India because they can earn more money elsewhere and of those that stay, most of them do not practice in the rural areas. So one thing that the government is promoting the possibility that practitioners of traditional medicine be given rights to legally prescribe around 70 "modern" drugs after a three-month course. From reading the IMA statement that the allopathic doctors have issued one finds, not surprisingly, that they are vigorously protesting any laws that they see as cutting into their own territory. They argue that the Indian health ministry has been so vague as to allow all sorts of ways go get around their concerns (and I'd well guess that they are quite correct in their charges). So that's where things are at. (Though one can add to that the problem that the allopaths and the Indian traditional practitioners are not being educated in both types of medicine as this pharmacist believes is needed and is explained in this helpful link [34] ) But all that said, India accepts traditional med as a legal form of medicine and does not see it as fake or quackery, and our article should not be claiming that it is. We're required to report RS here, not what we think is true or false. Gandydancer (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

jps asks, "I don't understand one point, do you think that just because the Indian government "accepts traditional med as a legal form of medicine and does not see it as fake or quackery" our article needs to follow the Indian government's position?" No, I am not arguing that we should accept the government's position. The problem is that the editors that support the lead as written are using the government's decision as RS to support their position that Siddha traditional medicine is fake quackery. As I have argued, we should not be using primary sources in the first place and what's more, the government source that is being used actually is not addressing Siddha but rather practitioners who do not have university training and are lacking a license to practice medicine. Gandydancer (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the above, Gandydancer says

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guy Macon states, "Some here claim that there exist Siddha practitioners who are licensed, trained, and thus not quacks. Please show me any shred of evidence that any such license or training requires Siddha practitioners to stop prescribing organic mercury compounds. It appears that the same editors who are prepared to argue all day about "properly trained and licensed practitioners of Siddha medicine" not being quacks have fallen strangely silent when faced with the above question." It is not our place as Wikipedia editors to place our personal opinions about the practice of traditional Indian medicine in this article. In all of our articles, medical or otherwise, it is just basic WP practice to use reliable sources to back up everything we write here. Since I've been threatened with a trip to WP:AE, which I take very seriously since I know that I would need to spend even more time than I have already to defend my position, I'd appreciate it if some editors here would not use this as an opportunity to use this page as a grandstand to express their dislike of Indian traditional medicine, even to the point of discussing its non-Christian origins and "have you stopped beating your wife" jokes, but rather to look at the TP discussion and note that the only thing that I've "hammered away" on is to note that the article sources are using and interpreting the primary sources incorrectly. As for the practice of using mercury compounds in their medications, I have not argued here nor on the TP as to their benefits or dangers. I have only addressed mercury when accused of ignoring its dangers where I noted that the links offered were either not RS or did not state that properly prepared mercury compounds were dangerous. Gandydancer (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been following this closely, but I must agree we follow sources rather than users' opinions. Looking at the page just now, I see we cite a Steven Novella (SBM) article which calls Siddha Medicine, in terms, "quackery". Since this is a great source I'm not sure what the issue is. It seems from the sources this "medicine" is obvious bollocks and so its practice obvious quackery - and we have a gold standard source saying so. All else is surely fluff? Alexbrn (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is the fact that I have refused to agree that the current sources are being used correctly. It is good to see someone present an acceptable ref (only I wish you would have done it sooner and saved me all this work...) By all means, please replace the primary refs with this one and note that it is his opinion. Gandydancer (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with a good "have you stopped beating your wife joke when the object of the comment accuses everybody, including you Gandydancer, of supporting the use of organic mercury in victimspatients. Now, you have not shown anything that supports your contention that we are using primary sources incorrectly. Do so, or drop it. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is that funny? Just several competing theories, none yet accepted. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Because "unexplained" means there are 0 explanations, not that there are 12 possible explanations. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: When people say "there is no scientific explanation", most of the time, they mean "there is a scientific explanation, but I don't like it". Or, as in this case, "there are many scientific explanations, but I don't like any of them". --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, an encyclopedia shouldn't indulge creepypasta fans looking for entertainment [35]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A theory, even if it may later turn out to be correct, isn't the same as an explanation accepted by the scientific community. ApLundell (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said it was. Instead, people said other things, and you can actually read what they said, if you want. "Unexplained" ist just the wrong word. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I must add that ”Unexplained” is a poor synonym for “no single hypothesis agreed upon by a majority of experts in the relevant scientific community”. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It literally means that. That's kind of a basic truth of Fringe. ApLundell (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• I found three good sources for his fossil industry funding. Guy (help!) 14:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to make sure every i is dotted and every t is crossed, did he start off publishing the fringe theory and then get fossil industry funding, or did he get the fossil industry funding and then publish the fringe theory? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Guy Macon, I don't know if the sources say. It's pretty clear that he's been receiving oil money since before the last IPCC report, so it's not easy to pick apart whether he's the last of the unconvinced or whether this is a case of Upton Sinclair's famous aphorism. Probably a bit of both.

    Update: I just thought to look in merchants of Doubt. He's been working with Fred Singer since 1991, originally denying the scientific consensus on ozone depletion, then morphing into climate change denial. He called cap and trade "Obamunism" - he's obviously a hard libertarian and he appears, from what I can findm, to be taking the money mainly because he's unemployable in his original job by now due to science denial. Ironic really: climate change denial is vastly more lucrative than what he did before. Guy (help!) 23:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Georges Lakhovsky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Quack bio. No sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AFD.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Worth looking for reliable sources, he's in The Secret Life of Plants for instance, and healing machine results all over in google. Would be nice to have something debunking but i'm finding nothing so far. Best fr:Georges Lakhovsky has is this with one brief mention. fiveby (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that around 2010 the article was shorter too and denounced quackery (Special:Permalink/360046071). —PaleoNeonate – 12:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Bioscience Resource Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's some evidence of COI editing at this article on an anti-science science group. The Controversies section seems designed to frame them as valued experts in their chosen fields, and I suspect cherry-picking. Is anyone familiar with this group? Guy (help!) 12:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just cut that section out. It is indeed clearly meant to promote this group's biology denial and anti-GMO nonsense. Maybe AfD for the article? Crossroads ^-talk- 14:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads, I could easily be persuaded. Like so many of these faux-watchdog groups, they appear to be bankrolled by Big Organic. But since I can't find RS for that it may indicate that the entire thing is, as you say, not notable. Guy (help!) 10:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Protect the Harvest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This appears to be an agribusiness front group, and the article is not great. It could do with some help from anyone who is familiar with its areas of public debate, notably wild horse slaughter. I cut out some stuff that basically looked like both sides lobbing bricks at each other - a neutral description of its actual position would be appreciated. Guy (help!) 13:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this oddly named article covered by the Fringe and alternative medicine sanctions? I haven't found any anti-vac talk pages with notices. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

would have thought so.Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not "oddly named"; it is the name used for this phenomenon by the World Health Organization (see, e.g., "Strategies for addressing vaccine hesitancy - A systematic review (October 2014)") and by professionals in the field (see, e.g., "Journal of Vaccine Special Issue on Vaccine Hesitancy". The term addresses that fact that the largest body of non-vaccinating parents are not those who are actively opposed to vaccination, but those who hesitate because they are confused by the competing claims for or against vaccines. BD2412 T 17:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... and yes, it falls squarely into "fringe" -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well hesitancy is real, but based on fringe/quack ideas. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller, I would say that yes it is covered. The title the result of a move from "vaccine controversies" a year ago (by me). That was motivated by the ambiguity between scientific controversy (which basically doesn't exist around vaccines) and a ginned-up manufactroversy motivated by a priori rejection of immunisation.

It's not necessarily the best title, but it has the advantage of being the one the WHO use. Guy (help!) 10:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's covered by those sanctions. Vaccine hesitancy is based on debunked pseudoscientific and anti-science views. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of this thread: Talk:Vaccine hesitancy/Archive 4 § Cause(s) Missing where while there indeed is pseudoscience, conspiracy theories and harmful media influence (so I agree that WP:FRINGE applies and that it's a sensitive article), there also are other interesting reasons some people may fear vaccination. Of course, epidemiology established that vaccines have a positive effect on populations against disease. —PaleoNeonate – 22:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Race and intelligence#Requested move 4 March 2020. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

• Naomi Seibt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

RfC at Talk:Naomi Seibt proposing to use her self-identification as a "climate change skeptic" or "climate change realist" rather than "climate change denier". Guy (help!) 11:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely unneutral invite. Sources call her climate change skeptic, she identify as climate change realist.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SharabSalam, I did not say anything about what sources say. I noted her self-identification and what the article currently says. And yes, some sources do go with skeptic. Others use denier. Some call her the new face of climate change denial. Another calls her the Heartland Institute's face of its climate change denial programme. Wikipedia has a redirect from climate change skeptic to climate change denial and a pretty robust consensus that we call a spade a spade here, especially when someone is a political activist with no expertise in climate science. Guy (help!) 12:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, Show me one reliable source that says that she identify as "climate change skeptic" and show me a reliable source that explicitly says she is a "climate change denier".--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SharabSalam, wrong venue, that has already been provided at the talk page, but the discussion belongs in the RfC not here. I will just point out again that climate change skeptic is a euphemism for climate change denier. Guy (help!) 12:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe in climate change and I also believe we should follow rules especially in BLP. All sources call her skeptic. She identify as "climate change realist" so when you say that "climate change skeptic" is self-identitication you are not saying the truth.

Washington Post: [36] Naomi Seibt, a 19-year-old climate change skeptic and self-proclaimed “climate realist,” speaks Friday during a workshop at the Conservative...

Business insider: [37] Naomi Seibt, a 19 year old climate change skeptic and self proclaimed climate realist, speaks during a workshop...

Independent: [38] A 19-year-old German climate change sceptic who has been described by her supporters as “the antidote to Greta Thunberg”

--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SharabSalam, wrong venue. This is an invitation to participants at the relevant noticeboard to join the RfC discussion. Guy (help!) 12:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG unfortunately you made a biased misleading invitation so I had to explain.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing biased about this notice.Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven, JzG said proposing to use her self-identification as a "climate change skeptic"

This is not true and misleading. Reliable sources identify her as "Climate change skeptic" not her. She identifies as "Climate change realist" see what sources are saying [39] "Naomi Seibt, a 19-year-old climate change skeptic and self-proclaimed “climate realist,” speaks Friday during a workshop at the Conservative". JzG invitation is false and misleading.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracy and none neutrality are not the same thing. Even this source (we her in fact) acknowledged she is described as a denier.Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven, " Even this source (we her in fact) acknowledged she is described as a denier", what does this mean? Are you saying the source in the WaPo describe her as a "denier"? Where?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No I am saying that in that source she denies she is, you do not deny something no one has accused you of.Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven, what? how is this even relevant? All sources describe her as a "climate change skeptic", she doesnt identify as "climate change skeptic" as JzG inaccurately said. Sources identify her as a "climate change skeptic" full stop.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell, the as-yet-unspoken subtext here is that WP:FRINGE trumps reliable sources. See the essays Yes, we are biased and lunatic charlatans. [I say that as a supporter of the climate crisis] Esowteric+Talk 13:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, in a nutshell, NPOV is central. We do not indulge fringe notions (like climate denial is "skepticism"), because that is the policy. The idea that good editing means we adopt verbatim terminology from sources, is wrong. We summarize sources in our own words in accord with Wikipedia's policies, and NPOV is a core one. Alexbrn (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Points taken thanks. I was just thinking that were this not classed as a fringe issue, the description "denialist" might otherwise be taken as being clearly biased and POV. Esowteric+Talk 15:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Esowteric, the term is indeed biased: towards empirical fact, and against an ideology which finds that fact financially inconvenient. That is exactly in line with Wikipedia policy.

It's worth noting that the documentary evidence also shows that the ideology of climate change denialism was deliberately manufactured by the fossil fuel industry. Unlike creationism, nobody woke up one morning and decided that their religion forbade them from believing in climate change. It was invented from whole cloth by consultants and think-tanks paid by the fossil fuel lobby and then retconned into Christian right dogma. Guy (help!) 19:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deliberately manufactured by the fossil fuel industry and by market fundamentalist think tanks such as Seibt's employer, whose tenet that free markets are always the best solution is refuted by the existence of man-made global warming. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is how I would have phrased the introduction here: In view of differing, contentious opinions, an RfC was opened at Talk:Naomi Seibt proposing to use reliable sources as a "climate change skeptic", rather than her self-proclaimed role as a "climate change realist", or what others see as a "climate change denier". Esowteric+Talk 12:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Argee, this is why I said JzG should have not been pinged. This is why canvassing is bad. We might end up with a BLP violation due to this canvassing.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SharabSalam, The alternative was that you and Esowteric came up with a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that would be speedily overruled as soon as someone from Wikipedia's reality-based community noticed the article. Guy (help!) 16:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. That wording of an RfC would effectively tell editors that they should vote for skeptic. It is the opposite of neutral. NightHeron (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article also belongs under WP:SKEPTIC (which I tagged now), the RFC would have therefore shown up at the top of this page soon anyway. Posting on a public official noticeboard is not canvassing. Some of the sources did use denial or denialism in their headers. In any case, there are plenty of other sources that would call "climate skepticism" denialism. As was also already said, we don't need to quote sources, we can call things what they are per WP:PSCI, as long as the sources use "climate skeptic" or "climate realist", or that they mention that the person rejects the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change or on global warming... —PaleoNeonate – 14:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Esowteric, but you didn't, so I did it in my own words. Which are neutral, regardless of whether you'd have said it differently. My statement was neutral and 100% factual. Yours uses framing language. Guy (help!) 16:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of which is relevant, wp:soap applies to all of us.Slatersteven (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear who this message was addressed to or why WP:SOAP applies here. —PaleoNeonate – 23:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a general notice to everyone who might (for example) be discussing user or off wiki corporate actions.Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Including attributed statements as to what she calls herself is fine, but we've resolved the debate about the synonym between climate change skepticism and climate change denial some time ago. Easy to see by clicking on this wikilink: climate change skepticism.

So we cannot, in Wikipedia's voice, assert that she is a "climate change skeptic". Of course, we also are under no obligation to assert in Wikipedia's voice that she is a "climate change denier" (and really should be cognizant of sourcing requirements if that's something editors think should be done). However, we absolutely can make it clear that there is an ideological category into which she falls and we certainly can link to the appropriate articles and categories as source warrant. jps (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Trial of George Zimmerman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There has been a recent attempt to add some information here about a recent-ish book which seems a bit fringey, using a lot of sources which seem questionable to me. Additional opinions would be welcome as to whether I'm being too harsh, or if this is really no good. Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This promotes a recent book and film by Joel Gilbert. From that article:

"Joel Gilbert (born April 15, 1964) is an American filmmaker, musician, and conspiracy theorist.^[1][2] Gilbert's political films advance right-wing conspiracy theories.^[1][2][3][4] He has been a frequent guest on InfoWars.^[5]"

Sources include a guy from Judicial Watch and the American Greatness webshite. I am happy to block if he keeps this up. Guy (help!) 16:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a self-published book but I see that the editor hasn't mentioned that. If we do mention it, we shouldn't go into any detail or mention any names and certainly shouldn't be using sources such as Judicial Watch. It looks very much like just another of Joel Gilbert's conspiracy theories and if we include it should be presented as such. Doug Weller talk 16:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPA Cjbaiget (talk · contribs) is editing New Chronology (Fomenko)‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) mainly adding material sourced to Fomenko. Most of the article now simply promotes Fomenko's fringe theories. See also New Chronology (Fomenko)‎#Lies in this article maintained by 'administrator' Ymblanter. I'll ping the other editors involved: @Carlstak, Lebob, and Ymblanter: you might also wish to take part here. Cjbaiget has also added the 2019 opening of a private museum called "The Multimedia Museum of the New Chronology" which I find mentioned in only two pages, a website on private museums in Russia and our article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 16:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to reflect on the concerns raised:

-"Most of the article now simply promotes Fomenko's fringe theories."

I don't know if that's the case. If this is true, it's not my fault, as anyone can check by reviewing my contributions. Until now, I've just provided correct and verifiable data for *previously existing claims regarding new chronology in the article*, that is *I'm not providing new sections, considerations, or rephrasing of mainstream perception of the theory.*

I beg to the reader: please check this claim by yourself. Actually, and despite all the opposition to my edits, I've improved the article in some data that was erroneously quoted: place of Peloponessian War according Fomenko (article said "Spain" and now "Greece", edited by DougWeller. Please trace the origin of the discussion and also the talk page), precise dates and places of Christ birthday and crucifixion according Fomenko, precise dates of relevant eclipses according Fomenko, and removal of non existent eclipses attributed to Fomenko. *Mention of all this data was not initiated by me, data existed in the article before I edited it*, please check. But was erroneous and I could provide the correct data and was accepted.

-"Cjbaiget has also added the 2019 opening of a private museum called "The Multimedia Museum of the New Chronology"

I beg the reader again: please check article history. I did mention the opening of the museum *in the already existing section of Russian acceptance of the theory*. The opening of the museum is relevant in that context. Creationism articles point to Creationism Museums which also have their own wikipedia articles, and I thought, and still think, that this is relevant information for the reader to evaluate the current state of the affair.

-Regarding "Lies in this article maintained by 'administrator' Ymblanter]]"

I'm not proud of the title of the section I opened in the talk page. However, after I pointed the errors and provide correct data and verifiable sources, erroneus data become lies if reverted with this knowledge in hand. This information was dismissed with sarcasm and not reasons. I'm not calling Ymblanter a liar, I say that erroneous data are now lies, and Ymblanter tolerates them. Sadly, title of the section is both unfortunate and true. Also, I'm not going to open a section with a similar tone by any means in the future.

Following (what I feel as) harassment, I've also publicly DESISTED on correcting certain erroneous data that currently remains in the article, after providing the correct data and the sources to check them enumerated in the talk page waiting for its time to amend and improve the article.

-"mainly adding material sourced to Fomenko"

True, but only when talking about what Fomenko claims, following the recommended advice of Wikipedia of WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD : "Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are *supporting a direct quotation*"

In my humble opinion, and after having actually taken the time to *impartially read* almost all books of New Chronology, I've to say also that in its current form, the article is plagued with erroneous data and literally misrepresents https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/misrepresent "New Chronology (Fomenko)" to great extent, up to the point of describing a clumsy parody of it, and any activity to minimize this situation is perceived as "pushing Pseudoscience and Fringe theories".

@Carlstak, Lebob, Ymblanter, and Doug Weller: Cjbaiget (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've no time to get into the details right now, just two minor points. I think Cjbaiget will agree that although he initiated the Spain/Greece discussion, which was a good idea, the current edit clarifying the issue was mine. As for the museums, yes, there are Creationist museum articles because there are Creationist museums which have had a lot of publicity for various reasons. I could not find anything similar for the Russian one, only the one website. Doug Weller talk 20:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I do have time to get into the details: of course the current edit clarifying the issue was yours, as I was not allowed to do it after my editions being *systematically reverted*. And you did it only after I dared to edit the wrong statement with this challenge: "Thoroughly explained *two* weeks ago on talk page, without debate or refutation. As a wikimedia *contributor* and *supporter*, I think the time has come for the shame of wikipedia insisting on this *lie* to be assigned to the concrete name of the self proclaimed "truth warrior" reverting this *fact*: war was in *Greece* not in *Spain*.)" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Chronology_(Fomenko)&diff=885358405&oldid=883097853

So the current edit is yours, but *that edit did not change the correct place I edited, only the words surrounding them*, that is, *is another edition* (I remember feeling that the excesively wordly revision was only a way to obfuscate the core matter). Moreover, your edit *did not clarify the issue we are talking (Greece vs Spain)*, only the historical context of it, *that I had to explain to you previously on the talk page as you were not aware of this war until then*, even replying me erroneously: "Of course there was no conflict between the Navarrans and Catalans in Greece" (DougWeller, 16:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC) on New Chronology (Fomenko), talk page)

If you or any other reader do not agree on this, please check dates on both the talk page and history of changes, and its corresponding author.

Surprisingly for me, that lengthy clarification became only 'necessary' *only after factual data was forced into the article in place of the erroneous one*, and the proof is that *the previous explanation was considered satisfactory for a long time although it was giving the wrong place*.

It seems to me, that had I not dared to take that step, the article will continue to say the wrong data and the true one would have remained ignored *as all the other correct data I'm providing now on the talk page now*. Anyway, I think this debate is preposterous, I'm not asking for any recognition, and I prefer your current elaborated edit rather than my simple *one word* change *that you extended*. Now all this circumstances are summarized as me 'having a good idea'? Thanks for those proportionate and comforting words.

About the NC Museum, I think that we are losing the opportunity to pioneer the public awareness of this fact. In any case I think that its mention in the article is inevitable in the short/medium term, but this circumstance will have to be brought by another messenger as yours truly has already been shoot.Cjbaiget (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:PROFRINGE edit-warring. --Hob Gadling (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just read http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/new-owner-of-skinwalker-ranch-previously-advocated-for-mormon-pseudohistory] and that led me to [40]. Some of the people associated with this Ancient Historical Research Foundation may seem reliable on their own if one didn't know about their association with this group. Their home page[41] also has some legitimate news articles, which helps them look respectable. Doug Weller talk 20:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Snake (zodiac) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rabbit (zodiac) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dragon (zodiac) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dog (zodiac) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rat (zodiac) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tiger (zodiac) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Horse (zodiac) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ox (zodiac) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Monkey (zodiac) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Goat (zodiac) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pig (zodiac) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rooster (zodiac) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For some reason, somebody added a section "People born in Year of the *" to all of these. And now an IP is adding lots of links to those. I don't think Wikipedia should do this. Any thoughts?

Since all the articles on astrological signs, Chinese, Indian or Western, are edited frequently in a similar fashion, maybe they should be semi-protected indefinitely? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic pregnancy could probably use better sources and a check to make sure it's not veering off into non-medical territory. It looks to me like the last version that wasn't based on Dr. Phil and reality television shows was back in November 2019. However, I don't know anything about the topic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it permissible preferable or required, in light of WP:CLAIM, to use non-neutral words such as "claim" or "point out" to denote fringe views, such as on Blue Monday (date)? Elizium23 (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23:, yes. The MOS "words to watch" are stylistic recommendations, nothing more. They are not policies and are not prohibitions. In the case of pseudoscience topics such as that article, the only way to describe the subject is to use terms such as "claim" and "purport". Otherwise, we run the risk of stating the pseudo-scientific (or pseudo-historical, pseudo-archaeological, etc.) proposition in Wikipedia's voice. That would be a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR, both of which are policy. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eggishorn, no, the choice is not between saying it in Wikipedia's voice and casting doubt on it, the choice is using neutral terms like "so-and-so says" or "so-and-so writes". And I don't see how that is worse than using POV language in an NPOV encyclopedia. Elizium23 (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:CLAIM is part of a WP:Guideline and more than "stylistic recommendations". Elizium23 (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLAIM says: To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence. In the case of fringe views, WP:FRINGE says that we should call their credibility into question, and we should emphasize any potential contradiction or disregard for evidence. NightHeron (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised my question on reflection. I should have asked, is using POV language "preferable or required" when it comes to fringe views? Elizium23 (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium:, wait a second. You had a question, I answered it, and then you told me my answer was wrong. Why ask the question in the first place, then? This isn't the place for "I was just testing you all" quizzes. If you have a dispute, then coming here and asking a seemingly-neutral question to solicit the responses you want is bad faith canvassing. Especially since you are engaged in a slow-moving edit war on the article in question. There has been no attempt by you or GrindtXX to engage in dispute resolution via the article's talk page. An editor as experienced as you should not need to be reminded of WP:BRD or WP:CONSENSUS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you mischaracterized the situation a bit on your first answer. Elizium23 (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that the mischaracterization was a result of reading your original question as it was written, not as it was intended. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now you realize I am an experienced editor, so why did you lecture me on the rookie mistake of putting POV language in Wikipedia's voice? Elizium23 (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I knew from the beginning you were an experienced answer but you asked a naive, rookie question so I gave you a naive, rookie answer. Please don't play games. Be direct. Take it to the talk page and make your case there. You know the proper dispute resolution policies and procedures. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes people accidentally misphrase questions or statements and don't intend anything by it. They linked to the article where this issue first came up, so they weren't exactly hiding anything. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Just considering which phrasing is more likely to result help, harm, educate, or cause trouble, we should use "claim" to describe false, incorrect, or nonsensical claims; and any guideline suggesting we don't use it would only make sense if the intention was to avoid casting undue doubt on merely contested (but otherwise plausible or at least not-disproven) claims. Blue Monday is a pretty innocuous example but there's still no harm whatsoever in using "claim" to reinforce the existing sourced information calling it nonsensical pseudoscience; while using more "balanced" phrasing could reinforce a superstition for a reader and so should be avoided. That superstition is, again, seemingly innocuous, but we don't need to give anyone any distractions from finding the real causes of their depression. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "Claim" is a word to watch, but sometimes it is the exact right word, particularly for fringe topics. Alexbrn (talk) 05:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 05:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are probably going to find the two intersect a great deal going forward. Our project currently says that MMS is claimed to treat coronavirus, and I’m not gonna edit war. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 05:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just mentioned that at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Promotion of fringe claims. Johnuniq (talk) 06:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indur M. Goklany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

May be worth watching. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Past life regression (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

IP infestation and WP:SPA infestation; advertisements and WP:PROFRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A recent flood of messages about the name of the feature seems to have been solicited from somewhere. These aren't requests in any sense of the word but accusations that the article name is Christian propaganda or anti-Hindu discrimination. The article is semi-protected so most of the disruption is on the talk page but extra eyes would still be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A look through the article’s talk page archives shows that this dispute is a perennial one... going back to at least 2012. Every other thread seems to be a request to move the title, and there have been multiple RMs.

Unfortunately, the only thing we can do is (once again) point editors to the previous move discussions (A full list is pinned at the top of the article’s talk page), and (once again) reject the move request. Blueboar (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic_pollution#Controversy has more than I suspect is due weight for some theories by Engdahl, especially as it doesn't seem to be balanced by rebuttals or alternate theories. Fresh eyes appreciated. ϢereSpielChequers 22:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is the claim that there are genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines a fringe viewpoint? NightHeron (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This would mean, in particular, that sources by Jensen, Rushton, Lynn, Piffer, and Gottfredson are fringe, and statements expressing some degree of agreement with the claim that certain races are genetically inferior to others in intelligence, even if made by someone whose writings are RS for other matters, must also be treated in accordance with WP:FRINGE.

• Yes as OP.

An IP editor who has persistently advocated for lending credence to white supremacist sources recently cited a 2010 discussion on WP:FTN to support their contention that such sources are not fringe. That discussion (see [42]), in which only 5 editors participated, ended with a weak consensus that research into race and intelligence is not fringe. What I'm asking for here is not a statement opposing all research into the topic, but rather a statement characterizing a specific conclusion as contrary to scientific consensus.

Moreover, a lot has changed since 2010. In recent years the internet has been used extensively to disseminate alt-right and extremist views, and there is much more awareness now of the need to resist this. For the most part, fringe views do not infest Wikipedia. An editor who persistently tries to use Wikipedia to promote creationism, Holocaust denialism, climate change denialism, or quack cures for COVID-19 will probably be stopped and blocked. However, some editors have successfully been promoting scientific racism and white supremacist views, notably at Race and intelligence (an article that gets over 1000 pageviews per day) and Talk:Race and intelligence. Attempts to stop this (at AfD, DRV, AE) have usually been unsuccessful.

In 2018, the Southern Poverty Law Center, one of the most respected non-profit organizations in the US that monitors hate groups and extremism, published an article criticizing Wikipedia for allowing the alt-right to advance a white supremacist agenda in certain articles.^[1] The SPLC specifically discussed the article Race and intelligence. Although some might think that we should not be influenced by off-wiki opinion, IMHO the SPLC criticism needs to be taken seriously. (It was partly off-wiki criticism that caused Wikipedia to make efforts to address gender imbalance among Wikipedia editors and among BLP articles.)

Sources:

Here are two recent (post-2010) books that discuss the fallacies of racist pseudoscience:

Angela Saini, Superior: The Return of Race Science, Beacon Press, 2019, ISBN 0807076910.

Jay Joseph, The Trouble with Twin Studies: A Reassessment of Twin Research in the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Routledge Publishers, 2015, ISBN 9781138813069.

Here are two classic books that explain the fallacies and in some cases outright fraud in this type of scientific racism:

Stephen Jay Gould, The Mismeasure of Man, Revised and expanded edition, W. W. Norton & Co., 1996, ISBN 0393039722.

Leon J. Kamin, The Science and Politics of I.Q., Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers, 1974, ISBN 0470455748.

From an article in American Psychologist, the journal of the American Psychological Association:^[2] The consensus among most scholars in fields such as evolutionary biology, anthropology and other disciplines is that racial distinctions fail on all 3 counts-- that is they are not genetically discrete, are not reliably measured, and are not scientifically meaningful.

From the largest professional organization of anthropologists:

The "American Anthropological Association Statement on `Race' and Intelligence"[43] (adopted December 1994) says: The American Anthropological Association (AAA) is deeply concerned by recent public discussions which imply that intelligence is biologically determined by race. Repeatedly challenged by scientists, nevertheless these ideas continue to be advanced. Such discussions distract public and scholarly attention from and diminish support for the collective challenge to ensure equal opportunities for all people, regardless of ethnicity or phenotypic variation. Earlier AAA resolutions against racism (1961, 1969, 1971, 1972) have spoken to this concern. Then in 1998 the AAA released an official position paper that expanded upon the 1994 statement.[44] They explained the background to this expanded statement as follows: As a result of public confusion about the meaning of "race," claims as to major biological differences among "races" continue to be advanced. Stemming from past AAA actions designed to address public misconceptions on race and intelligence, the need was apparent for a clear AAA statement on the biology and politics of race that would be educational and informational. Rather than wait for each spurious claim to be raised, the AAA Executive Board determined that the Association should prepare a statement for approval by the Association and elicit member input.

A similar statement was unanimously approved on 27 March 2019 by the Executive Committee of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists.[45]

From the textbook Psychology: Themes and Variations by Wayne Weiten: In the first half of the 20th century, a strong current of racial and class prejudice was apparent in the US and Britain. This prejudice supported the idea that IQ tests measured innate ability and that "undesirable" groups scored poorly because of their genetic inferiority... However, heritability explanations for ethnic differences in IQ have a variety of flaws and weaknesses.^[3]

From the prestigious journal Nature: A 16 August 2017 editorial (vol. 548) titled "Against discrimination: Science cannot and should not be used to justify prejudice" said in part: Difference between groups may therefore provide sound scientific evidence. But it's also a blunt instrument of pseudoscience, and one used to justify actions and policies that condense claimed group differences into tools of prejudice and discrimination... This is not a new phenomenon. But the recent worldwide rise of populist politics is again empowering disturbing opinions about gender and racial differences that seek to misuse science to reduce the status of both groups and individuals in a systematic way. NightHeron (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes per the above. XOR'easter (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. It's clear that this is at variance with the mainstream scientific consensus. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No At the risk of somebody inevitably yelling at me as being racist, there is a big difference between the above statements by the American Anthropological Association and the quote from the article in American Psychologist and the statement "genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines is a fringe viewpoint". In particular the statement "deeply concerned by recent public discussions which imply that intelligence is biologically determined by race", has to do with the opposite connection; people trying to determine intelligence based on race (which obviously isn't true). On an individual level you can't say anything definitive about a person's IQ based on the groups they come from (there is a normal distribution for all groups, which allows for any IQ). However, there are measurable differences in IQ between groups when discussing statistical averages (the bell curves are different shapes, often have different means). Whether these differences are entirely due to environmental conditions, or whether there is a genetic component has not been solved definitively, largely due to the difficulty in genetically distinguishing 'race' anyway (as there is obviously significant overlap in genetic between groups); note that the statement from the American Psychologist says this as well. Sources are in agreement that there is no definitive proof of a genetic component of IQ between races, but that doesn't mean that there isn't legitimate discussion about it and legitimate research into that exact question. It is known that intelligence in heritable, and also it is known that subgroups of any population that are in any way genetically isolated have variation from other subgroups. Its unreasonable to assume that all sub-groups of a population will have identical levels of any inheritable trait. And it is unreasonable to say that is a fringe viewpoint. That all being said, it might be a fringe viewpoint to say "that there is definitive proof of certain races having higher IQ than others". That isn't what the RfC proposes though, so I have to disagree based on its vagueness. As written, the results of this RfC could be applied too broadly to censor discussion and coverage of legitimate research. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 00:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes And pseudoscience. Race (human categorization): Modern scholarship regards race as a social construct, an identity which is assigned based on rules made by society. While partially based on physical similarities within groups, race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Just about every government in the world uses race in their statistics. While race IS a social construct, social constructs can also have population averages. For example, it is commonly accurately stated that white incomes in the US are higher than black incomes. (Some or all of this difference is surely due to racism.) But the fact that it is possible to say "white incomes in the US are higher than black incomes" shows that socially-constructed categories can still have averages. Another case would be gender; also socially constructed, and yet it would also clearly be true to say that female-gendered people are more likely to be pregnant. MaximumIdeas (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  No, the distinction woman vs man is biologically dilineated, not socially constructed. Men don't get pregnant. There is no biological dilineation between races, and the meaning of racial terms such as "black" varies in different countries and different historical periods. Some racial terms that are used in the US (such as Hispanic or Latino) are not even used internationally as racial designations. NightHeron (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment you are cutting a wide swath here, as was recently tried twice at WP:RSN. The spectrum of fringe theories might be useful reading ...there is an approximate demarcation between pseudoscience and questionable science, and they merit careful treatment. What exactly do you mean by these authors are fringe and treated in accordance with WP:FRINGE? Have you read the guideline: The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policies, Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. Jointly these say that articles should not contain any novel analysis or synthesis, that material likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, and that all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately. Should any inconsistency arise between this guideline and the content policies, the policies take precedence. By all means, treat your article in accordance with WP:FRINGE, but that guideline does not support what you seem to be trying here. fiveby (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify, "treated in accordance with WP:FRINGE" means avoiding FALSEBALANCE. As explained in WP:FRINGE: When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific or fringe theories, editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views. NightHeron (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  NightHeron, People will inevitably point to this RfC to say that discussing race in relation to intelligence or IQ is pseudoscience or 'banned'. That simply isn't empirically accurate. I understand what you are trying to do here, and I support it in principle, but the wording used above is far too vague and will be abused. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 02:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Insertcleverphrasehere: If they just look at my opening statement, they'll read: What I'm asking for here is not a statement opposing all research into the topic, but rather a statement characterizing a specific conclusion as contrary to scientific consensus. Notice that I emphasized not. Avoiding false balance is not the same thing as banning something. NightHeron (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  NightHeron you have a good argument for false balance in that article, but are maybe approaching it the wrong way? The excessive detail and presentation read as if WP is making a case for a viewpoint, rather than describing it. A blanket labeling as pseudoscience would be difficult to support, but it's a no-brainer this is questionable science, which should be handled with care according to the guideline. Tighter summaries and leaving detail to the child articles would probably help, more of an overview of the subject and let the reader follow links if they like. So yeah, treat as questionable science per WP:FRINGE. fiveby (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Insertcleverphrasehere, I am sorry about the length, which I realize comes close to WP:WALLOFTEXT. But I felt that I had to include many sources in order to show that consensus regards racial supremacist claims as pseudoscience. Those claims are not merely questionable science. They rest on a sequence of assumptions. Perhaps the notion that whatever IQ measures should be labeled by the loaded term intelligence is questionable but not pseudo. However, some of the other assumptions -- that races are biologically dilineated, that a gene for intelligence will someday be found, that there's any reason at all to think that when such genes are (hypothetically) found it will turn out that Africans and African Americans have fewer of them -- are definitely pseudoscience. NightHeron (talk) 11:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, there is a good policy-based argument for cleaning up that article, if you want to ignore that and continue with these broad and simplistic assertions you probably won't make any headway. Take the accusations of promoting "scientific racism" and "white supremacy" to WP:AE or WP:ANI, they are not appropriate here and certainly not appropriate for an RFC. If you want to say all these authors are engaged in pseudoscience then provide proof. I assume they have submitted to peer review and are published, have critics and supporters within the scientific community. Not one of your sources above supports the label of pseudoscience, and WP editors are not qualified to make such broad generalizations. You are going down the same path that has made that such a crappy article, engaging in the debate rather than simply describing it. fiveby (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No. While OP mentions books criticizing scientific racism, which we all agree is bad, there is no evidence presented here that all five authors in particular are WP:FRINGE or that they practice scientific racism. That they have recently been published in RS sources is evidence otherwise. In general, we also must hold a particularly high standard for declaring individual persons -- and especially academics -- WP:FRINGE. Additionally: the definition of scientific racism, per Wikipedia, is using science in order "to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority". We can all perhaps agree that the data is clear that different groups differ on average in certain traits such as height and medical predisposition. But we all know that to say that empirically one group is taller does NOT therefore mean they are superior. We should know, also, that to say one group has a higher IQ does NOT mean they are superior. And clearly, to say some groups are more likely to have "sickle cells" which both help prevent malaria but also increase the risk of other conditions does NOT mean that group is superior or inferior. When a scientist comes to any of the previously-stated empirical conclusions, one reaction may be to assume they came to such conclusions in order to make some races seem inferior/superior (scientific racism); but another possible assumption is that they are stating it because they are RS-published scientists and found this to be the true distribution. Therefore, the kind of evidence that would convince me that any of the 5 above-condemned authors are WP:FRINGE would be statements from them along the ugly lines of what we see from neo-Nazis and racial supremacists in general, who are absolutely fringe. But simply publishing data in RS sources (however heated and uncomfortable the subject) does not make all of a person's work inherently fringe. Further, I'd note that many academics know this, and therefore there is still an ongoing lively discussion about this topic in the academic literature: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C39&as_ylo=2016&q=race+and+iq&btnG= MaximumIdeas (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  — MaximumIdeas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • A Google Scholar search is going to turn up "lively discussion" in garbage journals and even non-peer-reviewed material. It's not a particularly helpful indicator in circumstances like these. XOR'easter (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have problem with both sides, some say (for example) blacks are not as good at maths because its "white maths" (this is not being less intelligent, rather the mind works differently (apparently). Yet others say that saying blacks are not as good at maths might be (or is a sign off) racism. Yet both statements are coming from black spokes people. Thus whilst the claim that whites or more intelgent thre may be a case for "different" intelligence.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. The claim that racial lines are genetic is fringe. Full stop. Race is a sociological construct. jps (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. Fringe, but not necessarily "pseudoscience", which is a different, stronger claim. Although some of it is clearly also that. ApLundell (talk) 03:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes per sources listed above by the nom (and some of it is also pseudoscience). Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 06:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes for reasons already stated. I am strongly opposed to no-platforming but even more opposed to pseudo-science. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No OP is right to want to find and label pseudo-scientific alt right views as Fringe. However, I worry that we might be missing the target by considering genetic differences in intelligence between races as fringe. A fringe theory must significantly depart from mainstream scientific views, yet the possibility of racial differences in intelligence is taken seriously by maisntream scholars. Take Oxford geneticist David Reich for example. In his book Who We Are and How We Got Here, David discusses how genetic variants affecting cognitive and behavioural traits are found to differ in human populations, even aligning to the social construct that is race. He makes a similar argument in a piece for the New York Times, a newspaper not known for its support of fringe extreme right theories. More broadly than anecdotes of respected mainstream scholars, there is empirical evidence that the scientific consensus takes the issue of race and intelligence seriously. In this paper the authors sent a survey to scientists who published at least one paper in journal covering cognitive ability between 2010 and 2013. 85% of responders were psychologists and only 13% were right wing. Despite this only 15% of the experts though that black-white differences in intelligence were entirely caused by environmental factors. Given that so many mainstream scientists believe taking the hypothesis that racial differences in intelligence are partially genetic, let alone believe it, suggests the topic cannot be considered fringe. Hayeksplosive (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  — Hayeksplosive (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• No to overbroad RfC It's unpopular, but some of these folks are being published by university presses and in well-regarded journals. That means the academic community is still willing to listen, which almost has to mean it's not fringe. That said, a lot of these folks are fringe-NR, certainly. I think we have to argue these on a case-by-case basis. --valereee (talk) 13:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  ETA: ended with a weak consensus that research into race and intelligence is not fringe. What I'm asking for here is not a statement opposing all research into the topic, but rather a statement characterizing a specific conclusion as contrary to scientific consensus. This makes me very uncomfortable because it seems to be saying we'll report on research, but only if it says what we think it should say. If someone's research goes counter to our beliefs, we declare it to be fringe. --valereee (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No There are two parts to this. The first is understanding why this RfC was filed. A couple of highly motivated editors over at the Race and Intelligence page have been pursuing various legal strategies to win their case. As I explained to an admin recently (Barkeep49), these so far have included: 1) try to delete the sources to the hereditarian viewpoint one at a time citing seemingly randomly chosen or made up justifications, 2) try to get the entire page deleted, 3) try to get the opposing editors blocked or banned, and 4) try to rename the article in violation of WP:NPOV. Their efforts at moves (1) and (2) both seems to have failed. So far with (3), Peregrine_Fisher was indef topic banned, and Oldstone James have been blocked (I think one year). User NightHeron filed a motion against Jweiss11, but it closed with a warning to both filer and accused. With two active editors removed, and one warned, they can continue their work on (1) and (4) with less resistance. As it happens, (2) succeeded and the page was deleted (this is the 4th time this attempt was tried!), but it was then restored after 3 uninvolved admins took part in a deletion review and overruled the deletion. The attempt to rename the article contrary to WP:NPOV was closed as no consensus. So, this RfC is now the 5th such legalistic attempt. While I cannot say exactly what the motivation is of these editors, they are very opposed to Wikipedia summarizing the academic literature on this topic. They would much prefer if Wikipedia did not mentioned the academic literature and instead provided summaries of journalists such as Angela Saini. I am not saying, of course, one cannot find academics with similar opinions, but such opinions are uncommon among the experts, i.e. intelligence researchers.
  This brings me to the second point. There is a wealth of reliable academic sources about what experts think of this topic. Every mainstream statement and textbook on the topic states that there is no consensus about the cause of these population (race, ethnic) differences in intelligence (IQ scores, achievement, aptitude, skills and so on). These sources have been posted many times on the talk page, see e.g. talk page on this proposal to insert a section they removed recently (no consensus was there for the removal, it was implemented by edit warring). Not only are these many textbooks, there is a recent anonymous survey of researchers in the field. This is similar to those carried out in climate science, which has a similar politically related controversy about expert opinion, which Wikipedia covers here. This survey, published in high ranking Elsevier journal by senior academics (Rindermann et al 2020), found no support for the supposed consensus that NightHeron and friends speak about, and which sources like Saini claim there is. Thus, just as the authors say, and has been noted for decades, there is a strong media in who voices their opinion publicly, such that public opinion in newspapers and the like is often saying there is a consensus against genetic causation, but the actual academic literature shows no such consensus. For instance, just a month ago or so, three professors published a new review about the genetic hypothesis in another Elsevier journal (Winegard et al 2020). Wikipedia must follow what high quality sources say. No amount of arguing about whether something is racist or not on page talks can overrule what reliable sources say. This should be clear when recently admin Barkeep49 made a rule that this page now only allows extra high quality sources, academic, not journalistic ones. I welcome such increased strictness as it will make it easier to avoid these useless debates, and focus on what matters: building an encyclopedia, not waging some political war of information. With that said, I hope editors here will see what the situation is so we can return to good work. This article is a bit out of date, there are many newer sources that can be used. ^_^ AndewNguyen (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  — AndewNguyen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  There's one detail that AndewNguyen is leaving out here. When presented with sources such as the two linked above, the argument that NightHeron and others have repeatedly made is that none of these sources are reliable. In this discussion and this one, it was (unsuccessfully) argued that all sources presenting the the hereditarian viewpoint are inherently unreliable, even when they are published by respectable academic publishers such as Cambridge University Press or journals published by the American Psychological Association.

  NightHeron has continued to make this argument even after the RS noticeboard had reached a consensus opposing him. One of the sources discussed at RSN was a college-level textbook by Earl B. Hunt from Cambridge University Press, and NightHeron argued that when this source gives credence to the hereditarian view, "his textbook is not RS for this statement, although it is for other things."

  Now, in this discussion, the argument being made is that the hereditarian viewpoint should be categorized as "fringe" because the majority of reliable sources are opposed to it. Well, you can certainly make it appear that way if you declare (as NightHeron has done) that all sources presenting the viewpoint are by definition unreliable. But if I wanted to, I could try to categorize almost any viewpoint as "fringe" by using this type of circular logic. I doubt this trick would work in most other topics at Wikipedia, but some people seem to get especially emotional about this particular topic, so we'll see whether it works in this case. 2600:1004:B161:9F7C:8C8F:421E:CE7:4052 (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  — 2600:1004:B161:9F7C:8C8F:421E:CE7:4052 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• With the arrival here of two of the most persistent defenders of white supremacist sources on Race and intelligence, I see that we are entering the WP:WALLOFTEXT phase of the discussion. But I will try to be brief, answering only the false accusations against me. First, I did not propose that Wikipedia stop covering white supremacist claims. I do not support censorship; I am opposed to it. Following WP:FRINGE does not mean censoring or banning anything. It means calling it what it is. Second, AndewNguyen falsely states that I filed a motion against Jweiss11. I did not file a motion at WP:AE or anywhere else against Jweiss11 or any of the other editors of that page. As someone who's been editing for less than 2 years, I leave it up to experienced editors to deal with misconduct by the alt-right or anyone else. NightHeron (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. It is well known that racial categories don't have genetic basis. To claim otherwise is fringe. To then attempt to build more theories on top of that flawed assumption is also fringe. - MrOllie (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Were you aware that Wikipedia has an entire article, Race and genetics, about the correlation between racial categories and genetic variation? 2600:1004:B161:9F7C:8C8F:421E:CE7:4052 (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No There is widespread agreement among psychologists who do intelligence research that there are average differences between groups in intelligence. Sometimes they use "race," sometimes "cline," sometimes "population." These are different names for the same thing: groups tend to genetically cluster in interesting ways reflecting their evolutionary lineage. Are the IQ gaps genetic? There is disagreement about this. Disagreement drives science forward. But to label one side of a scientific disagreement "fringe" is a way of attempting to discredit it. As David Reich and Jim Flynn have argued, it is an empirical question whether the distribution of genes that influence intelligence is evenly distributed across all human populations. Only scientific investigation can settle that issue, not Wikipedians deeming one point of view offensive or "fringe." DoctorOfBiology (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  — DoctorOfBiology (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• No A recent anonymous survey of experts on intelligence (members of the International Society for Intelligence Research and authors of papers in journals like Intelligence and Cognitive Psychology) found that only 14% think genes play no role in the Black-White IQ gap in the US (Rindermann et al., "Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence," Intelligence, 2020, vol. 78, Figure 3). Even if the environmentalists are right, it's clear that this is an open debate among mainstream scientists. Pangolin2019 (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  — Pangolin2019 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Yes per OP. Editors have repeatedly cited a certain RSN discussion as proof that hereditarian works by Hunt and Rindermann are reliable sources because they are published by a reliable publisher, however that same discussion concluded that they are also fringe: "... The discussion indicated that there is a lack of sources supporting or opposing the notion that the views in these books are fringe, though when a viewpoint does not have wide support, we do treat it as fringe, and do not give it undue weight. That is, we can give the views of Rindermann and Hunt, sourced to their books published by the Cambridge University Press, but take care not to promote their views as widely accepted unless/until sources can be found which indicate their views are widely accepted." –dlthewave ☎ 15:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No There is no convincing argument for describing the hypothesis that genes contribute to racial differences in intelligence as a "fringe viewpoint". This hypothesis has been discussed in many mainstream sources, including both scholarly books and scientific journals. A viewpoint should not be labelled "fringe" just because it is politically controversial. Mr Butterbur (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  — Mr Butterbur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The International Biographical Centre puts out vanity imitations of Who's Who. The notion that what it does is of value (other than to the self-esteem of those who are profiled, or their chances of success with particularly gullible readers of CVs) is I think "fringe". But recent edits to the article claim that the IBC is valued in Belarus. So far, they do so discreetly enough, but it could be worth keeping eyes on this article. -- Hoary (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]