Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
Shortcuts WP:FTN WP:FT/N Before posting, make sure you understand this short summary of relevant policies and advice and particularly the guideline on treating fringe theories. Also, check the archives for similar discussions. We can help determine whether the topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately and impartially. Our purpose is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but to describe them properly. Never present fringe theories as fact. If you mention specific editors, you should notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so.
Search this noticeboard & archives Lowercase sigmabot III will archive sections older than 20 days Additional notes: Discussion of fringe theories will only depend on coverage in reliable sources. Medicine-related claims must comply with more stringent sourcing requirements, but we also generally prefer academic sources. We are not a forum to discuss fringe theories as such. Our goal is to improve articles about them, or create new ones if needed. For concerns about neutrality in articles not about fringe theories, use the neutral point of view noticeboard. Report article content that appears to violate the no original research rule at this noticeboard. Paste {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section when your concern was addressed. Deploy {{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99

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

This is about [1]. My own take is that Proveallthings is watering down the article. Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm finding this logic fuzzy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're again reverting back to your own essay, which is highly self serving. There is no standard of WP:RS/AC that demands all our sources be published within the last quarter of a century by Cambridge, Harvard, Oxford, or Yale. And yet I don't exactly see you clearing out 25+ year old "stale" books from Yale, Cambridge, Oxford and Harvard. Nor do I see you clearing out non-Yale, non-Cambridge, non-Oxford and non-Harvard sources. By your standards, you can say goodbye to Collins' two works on Daniel and a number of other sources. But you're not going after them. I DO see you using your CHOPSY test to stifle communication throughout a wide spectrum of Bible related pages, demanding that editors you disagree with conform to WP:CHOPSY. It's a very disingenuous approach.

I recall some time ago I produced about twenty some sources regarding various issues in Daniel in another place. I never touched the actual article itself at that time. They're still there, you can go back and look. Among them I quoted Assyriologist Beaulieu, who wrote the current standard on Nabonidus and Belshazzar, from Yale, and who is used in rather extensively in Nabonidus and Belshazzar related pages, and you treated it as though the book had gone stale by age. And Kutscher holds consensus on the Aramaic of Daniel, which again to you is too old (it's still consensus). Collins, who dissents, even notes that. I even quoted him to you. After some length, and summarily dismissing everything, you resorted to this attempt: "You have never pledged to obey our WP:RULES. The moment to do it is now. Anyway, all your edits are performed under the legal obligation to comply with WP:RULES." [2]. I hadn't broken any rules, you just kept trying to frame it up that way. Just like you did recently on my talk page making accusations and then not making them up.

As for sources, if you're really so concerned about getting things correct you should check these article sources sometime and address how misleadingly they are utilized on the pages related to Daniel. I think a lot of them are simply quote mined, because I know all the qualifying information that's omitted. Especially Seow. He's cited on Belshazzar for a historical inaccuracy regarding Belshazzar's father, which he goes on in the work to demonstrate really isn't a problem, see pp. 76,77: "one should keep in mind that in the Semitic languages, 'father' is not limited to that of a biological or even adoptive parent . . . by the same token, the term 'son' is used of a descendant, a successor, or simply a member of the group or class." The Assyrian and Babylonian kings always referred to their royal predecessors as their ex-officio father, "kings my fathers," and their biological father as "the father my begetter" (as with Nebuchadnezzar). It wasn't even an uncommon convention overall in Aramaic or Hebrew, thus "sons of the prophets" simply referred to their successors, not their kids. Seow notes this also. I could go on at length about it from the cuneiform literature, or the Hebrew Old Testament, or inscriptions, and cite examples from Dougherty, Na'aman, Brinkman, Gadd, Grayson, Harper but by WP guidelines I can't quote sources that aren't speaking directly on the matter of the article.

You made a comment to me about "fundamentalists," and seem to be coming at me as a "fundamentalist" with pre-rehearsed rhetoric, which makes me think you have an axe to grind. Your talk page is public, and so are your footnotes, and so is your Romanian page. At one point you had a meme posted showing a Bible with a warning, "Warning . . . exposure to contents for extended periods of time or during formative years in children may cause delusions, hallucinations, decreased cognitive and objective reasoning abilities, and, in extreme cases, pathological disorders." [3] And currently, recommending a program Kurzweil 3000, an assistant learning technology for people with learning disabilities, for Christians in your footnotes (#14). And then on your Romanian page: A nu putea pricepe ca teologia creștină este o credință subiectivă este un handicap mental grav, "To not understand that Christian theology is a subjective belief is a serious mental disability." [4] Did I translate that correctly? And again, Nu vreau să fiu asociat cu absurditățile din Biblie, "I don't want to be associated with the absurdities of the Bible." But you sure spend a lot of time on Bible related pages, when you appear to have an axe to grind.

I don't know where the book of Revelation is coming from since it's not part of the discussion. You're undermining your own point with the "cottage industry" comment. My point is exactly that the historical method has far more tools in it's arsenal than just, "I think this refers to this or that at this time or that, therefore it must have been written after." A captious university scholar might find that criteria enough, but it's not. It's the wrong dialect from the wrong geographical region and the wrong time period compared to the Aramaic of 2nd century Judea. Somebody didn't just concoct it in the Maccabean era. Josephus records that the book was much older, and gives an account of it dating back at least as far as the time of Alexander the great. None of the writers of the first or second centuries AD give any hint that it was a recent work, nor do they produce interpretations that support the Maccabean Theses. The Hebrew itself isn't even Mishnaic Hebrew, which circulated beginning around AD 200. At that time there's a marked shift from verb-subject-object to subject-verb-object, etc. Proveallthings (talk) 04:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think either you or tgeorgescu are likely to be swayed, so I would respectfully suggest perhaps trying to build consensus elsewhere. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks fiveby and Dumuzid. I'm just addressing what tgeorgescu is saying. I'm not a terribly huge fan of the sort of methodology behind writing an essay and demanding everyone follow it. If he wants to mention the historic method, which we technically can't employ on Wikipedia articles (since we can only cite the opinions of others), I can address it in talk. If I want to build a consensus around an article, I have a bibliography of about 179 articles and books so it wouldn't be difficult to cite. But with tgeorgescu, I think it's a fruitless endeavor. I believe I went through about 26 reliable sources for on issue and all that resulted was a bunch of wikilawyering--sometimes as many as 9 rules cited in a single paragraph and most of them either violating the spirit of the rule or just simply scraping the bottom of the barrel. Proveallthings (talk) 05:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And even if you did nothing else but revert and voice reasoned opinions, that would not be a valid reason to reject your reasoning. It's simply ad hominem. Different users have different editing styles, and someone who regularly reverts vandalism or corrects typos deserves to be heard as much as someone who writes several articles every week. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

It might be worth some people watchlisting Mauro Biglino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as the next day IP swept in to make a coatrack. I reverted today. This is a biography that my be worth a WP:CLEANUP beyond its stubby non-information approach right now. Or, alternatively, a merge to some other article that can handle this sort of thing? jps (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

A new editor added this[6] with a misleading edit summary. The edit is based on Linkedin, an article in Junge Freiheit and a book by Moorthy Muthuswamy, the latter two right-wing anti-Muslim sources, also changing his being against Islam to him being against political Islam although his critics state that he is against Islam as a religion.

An editor who has been involved for a long time added [7], which is an interview by an editor of JungeFreiheit and purely self-serving. Warner/French was involved in another attempt to hold an anti-Islam protest in 2018.[8]

The article also discusses his organisation, and see this news article discussing a claim by a member of his organisation[9] I found something debunking this but it's from an anonymous author (clearly not the real August Landmesser in an unreliable source, still interesting at least to me).[10] In any case, I think the article needs more eyes and hopefully someone new editors. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would edit but it is full protected for some strange reason. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

This latest whackiness from certain US politicians being uncritically relayed.[11] Usual WP:PROFRINGE impetus. More eyes could help ... Bon courage (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Both pages have been constantly targeted by IPs pushing for a terminological revisionism that is partly based on racializing arguments. Things like "dark skin pigmentation, "curly hair" are brought into play to redefine the well-established scope of a geographical region (see Talk:Melanesia; note that historically, the term "Melanesia" was indeed coined with racial undertones, but this has long been discarded; the term continues to be used in scholarship and geopolitics, but entirely without the racialist baggage). Austronesier (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know if there's a policy about genetics in ethnicity articles? I've removed bunch of weird haplogroup stuff from a number of ethnicity's articles, because it almost always comes off as genetic essentialism or y-haplogroup is the same as ethnicity, but i don't know enough about human genetics to know if there is a potentially appropriate reason to include it—blindlynx 19:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Blindlynx: As far as I know, there is no policy about the inclusion of such material in general, but at least this RfC about sourcing:

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_249#RfC:Genetics_references.

I'm not sure if we need a dedicated policy, but much of the mess we can see in many articles can be tackled with WP:DUE and WP:SYNTH. There are some editors who focus on group X (an ethnic group, a geographically defined population etc.), comb through all possible sources for genetic data about it and add everything that can be extracted, even it is only mentioned in passing or just one out of hundreds of data points and actually not related to actual topic of the study. Or they read one study, and again extract all data points and distribute them to dozens of articles about ethnic groups, geographical areas etc. without considering due weight, and often linking data in a WP:SYNTH manner.

Usually, genetic studies have a specific spatiotemporal scope, covering a geographical area over a certain stretch of time. E.g. in the case of Oceania, there are good studies that indeed cover the genetic history of Oceania, allowing to build an article about the Genetic history of Oceania; oddly enough, still a red link, but actually not surprising when you consider that the number of ethnochauvinist Oceanians in WP is apparently much lower when compared to the usual suspects in contentious topic areas ;)

A few genetic studies indeed specifically address single ethnic groups for various reasons. Sometimes, they just fall into the great amount of scholarship that has been triggered by identity-seeking (write about the genetic history of Hungary and you can be sure to get lots of public attention). Or there is genuine scholarly interest in an ethnic group that occupies an isolated position from a general anthropological viewpoint (not just limited to biological anthropology), e.g. in the case of this study[12].

Writing a topical guideline (as an essay first) might be a good solution (there is a comaparable project in User:Joe_Roe/Archaeology_conventions#Archaeogenetics). WT:ETHNIC is the best place to initiate something if you're interested (I defintely am, but have little time for WP right now). –Austronesier (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing, thank you! I'll ask around there—blindlynx 23:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

could use a few more eyes as it seems to be a target. Doug Weller talk 20:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please, let's avoid constructions like, "most scientists agree" when talking about things that are so implausible as the misapprehension of this myth as some sort of fact of natural history. jps (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Since RFKJ announced he was running for president, the article is inundated by people who do not understand Wikipedia, NPOV, RS, medicine, conspiracy theories, and several other subjects. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention there is undisclosed paid editing going on. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like people are making a WP:BIGMISTAKE. Seriously though, the extent to which (basically) newbie fuckwits are allowed to run riot with the expectation that clueful editors will clear up, is beginning to cause strain in my view. Especially in anything which touches US politics. Bon courage (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there evidence of more paid editing than that which got reverted? XOR'easter (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None that I'm aware of. So I don't object to the decision to remove the warning template I added. But we need to keep an eye out given that we know that a firm was retained to make edits. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. XOR'easter (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that new IPs are helping to clog up Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr. with the same complaints, I wonder if it would be possible to request that the talk page be protected for a short time per WP:ATPROT. -Location (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: some of the same issues have occurred at Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 2024 presidential campaign, primarily with respect to whether Kennedy should be described (as is well-sourced) as an "anti-vaccine activist". BD2412 T 18:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I just deleted Draft:Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (and blocked its creator, User:Ananakimble ark), which was a copy of the existing Robert F. Kennedy Jr. article plus some nonsense about how vaccines were a Nazi biological warfare experiment. BD2412 T 19:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Talk:October Surprise conspiracy theory#RfC about the article title. -Location (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The Tunnel Thru the Air; Or, Looking Back from 1940 (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Suggestion on Talk page: Delete everything after the Plot section. Sounds reasonable, but maybe people want to watch the article from now on... --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah whoa, that's nuts. Honestly, I'd vote for it to be deleted on AFD. Loki (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ooof! Watching. Donald Albury 13:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reads a bit like a fan wiki. A quick scan of the article left me wondering if the many paragraphs of analysis, commentary, lists, etc. are WP:DUE and can be cited to independent reliable sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfD it. No evidence of notability through significant coverage in non-lunatic sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was bad. I went ahead and deleted everything after the Plot section. It desperately needs some solid sourcing. I will note that the author's article is not much better. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta love that graph of rhye prices plotted against the heliocentric longitude of pluto --Licks-rocks (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've nuked most of the author's article, leaving only the section that had its own article, the part on his writing style, the biography, and the bibliography. I've salvaged the image to my userpage because it made me laugh. --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I deleted a source, an unpublished lecture. Looks like all his books are self-published. Doug Weller talk 10:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

His article is dreadful. Full of self-published stuff or articles from self-publishing houses, eg [13] Created by a user call GANNMAN and then highly edited[14] who seems to have never found a self-publisher he didn't like. Eg[15] This editor created Neville Lancelot Goddard. I nuked a bit with virtually no sources but one self-published book. Doug Weller talk 10:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Crosthwaite, P.; Knight, P.; Marsh, N. (Winter 2019). "The Economic Humanities and the History of Financial Advice". American Literary History. 31 (4): 661–686. WP Library link
• Elder, Alexander (1993). Trading for a living. p. 23. cited by above for wealth, and saw cited elsewhere, but maybe not too useful
• maybe Wansleben, Leon (2012). "Financial Analysts". In Karin Knorr Cetina; Alex Preda (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of the Sociology of Finance. but WP Library Oxford Academic link not working right now
• Crosthwaite P.; Knight P.; Marsh N.; Paul H. J.; Taylor J. (2022). "Chartists and Fundamentalists (1910–1950)". Invested : how three centuries of stock market advice reshaped our money, markets, and minds.

Just following citations and going by the title "Finance Fiction" in The Routledge Handbook of Critical Finance Studies might be useful, but can't find access anywhere. fiveby(zero) 15:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Aquatic ape hypothesis (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Recent edits could benefit from more views/eyes. Bon courage (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Took a look at the article and noticed that, while it's definitely WP:FRINGE science in the sense that almost no scientists endorse it, the two citations listed in the lead as saying that it's pseudoscience did not in fact say that, or even mention the word "pseudoscience". In fact, one of them implied it was an important step in the advancement of the actual mainstream science, even though it's widely considered to be false. Loki (talk) 09:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's such an obvious and "classic" pseudoscience it could probably be called that without a source, but for belt and braces I've added a recent academic book chapter that goes into this in detail.[16] Wikipedia can't be sweeping this under the carpet. Bon courage (talk) 10:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I don't really object to the description per se, especially since it's definitely WP:FRINGE whether or not it's pseudoscience. It's just that "pseudoscience" is a WP:LABEL that we need pretty strong sourcing for. Loki (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, looking at your edits I am not a fan of them. The article as a whole with its current sourcing pretty clearly positions the AAH as WP:FRINGE/QS, not as an unambiguous pseudoscience. We should therefore be attributing the pseudoscience label here unless we can find a lot more and better sources that say it's pseudoscience. Loki (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. We have a super strong source saying it's pseudoscience, and none saying it's not. So WP:YESPOV, WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGESUBJECTS all apply: NPOV in other words. I hope this is not going to be a reprise of the EMDR fiasco. Bon courage (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with loki here. You have a propensity to grab for the heavy artillery quite rapidly when in many cases and I don't think that's necessarily the best solution. Particularly this sentence, which I just removed, was a bit too flippant to my liking. Saying definitively that the adherents are in an echo chamber in wiki-voice is something I would prefer to reserve for the rare occasions where it is actually verifiably true. --Licks-rocks (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is verifiable per the (excellent) source which details this at length. And there's more to add right, about the nature of the adherents and their attacks on scientists?. BTW, your edit summary was wrong so I reverted is. WP:PSCI is policy, and not up for negotation. Bon courage (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you do not have consensus for that change, so trying to edit war with me is not going to be very productive. I also don't see where in WP:PSCI it says that your version of calling a spade a spade is superior to mine. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It says pseudoscience has to be prominently identified as such. You have just removed that very identification from the body of the article and emboldened a WP:PROFRINGE editor into the bargain, based on an incorrect statement in your edit summary. How can you possibly think this is not justified by the extensive wording in the source? Bon courage (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, please don't call editors who disagree with you on policy details pro-fringe. That's not what is going on here. Secondly, I do not particularly care what my actions do and do not embolden in the moment. I care about performing the correct actions. And right now, that was removing the sentence that stated in wiki-voice that people who believe in a pseudoscientific theory live in an echo-chamber based on a single source. And thirdly, as I explained in my edit summary, there are other solutions that I am willing to discuss for the problem you raise, which you appear to be entirely ignoring in favour of claiming that I am violating policy and emboldening pro-fringe editors. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary was wrong (which you have not acknowledged). So you have removed the only designation of this as pseudoscience from the article body. We are bound to follow the WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:YESPOV is policy. What doubts (from the sources) can you possibly have that the source completely supports this pseudoscience designation and the echo-chamber nature of its followers' work?

Research into the hypothesis takes place in isolation, "hermetically sealed", with researchers avoiding engagement with their critics. This results in an echo chamber, where the common misapprehensions of the group amplify each other and make proponents more convinced of their ideas even in the face of a lack of corroborating data. Research cited by aquatic ape proponents is typically dated and obsolete, presumably because current research would not support their beliefs. Moore has noted a tendency to "incestuous citing" where a group of like-minded (but wrong) researchers all cite each other, giving a false impression of widespread support for ideas that are widely rejected. When contradictory evidence is acknowledged, it tends to be misrepresented as if it actually confirms the hypothesis, further rendering the aquatic argument immune to refutation.

Bon courage (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, this says something completely different than "...enjoying only an echo chamber of support among its fervent adherents.", It seems to me like this is saying that all the (pseudo-)scholarly work on the topic is done in an echo chamber. Which I would not disagree with. But I think this belongs in the critique section along with the remainder of the sentence I pointed to as a possible replacement for the one I removed in my edit summary. And with a proper explanation for what is actually being characterised as an echo chamber, as well as attribution. So that would be its own full sentence. I think the "debunked" part I left standing is enough for the introduction of the reaction section, as it already covers the load (I.E. something that is debunked obviously isn't true) but I'm willing to negotiate on that. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was a fair summary what I put, but there's plenty more to add. You also removed the pseudoscience designation and now you've added the fiction that it's not considered pseudoscience.[17] Which looks suspiciously like trolling by mucking up mainspace. You are aware this is a WP:CTOP. Any admins following this? Bon courage (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you look for literally a microsecond to the left on your screen there at your apparent reading speed you'll realise I simply forgot to remove the word "not" when I changed that sentence for the second time. I just warned you on your talk page about assuming good faith. I am not doing so again. Striking the above comment. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I'll say here is that WP:FRINGE/QS does not require there to be sources saying explicitly that a position is not pseudoscience. Admittedly, it does require there to be academic supporters of it, which is also not really true in the relevant field. So we're kinda in limbo between several policies that this situation doesn't quite fit cleanly. Loki (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is to reflect reliable sources, not add weaselly editorial like this[18]. Bon courage (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure is, and if you look at all the reliable sources in the article we have a lot of sources that say it's "false" or "dubious" or "not seriously considered by anthropologists", but not a lot of sources that say it's "pseudoscience". If you think that's wrong, please go ahead and find better sourcing for "pseudoscience". But as the article stands right now, I don't really see it. Loki (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How's it possible to get better than a recent (2022) academic book specifically devoting an entire chapter to the AAH and its scientific status? It says this is a "famous example" of pseudoscience. We are bound to follow such sources, not the reckonings of editors. Bon courage (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing to do with FRINGE/QS; the AAH does not have "a substantial following", as sources make clear; so why use FRINGE/QS to justify softening "pseudoscience"? — DFlhb (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're right at least in the relevant field, but that means we're sort of between two policies here, because while FRINGE/QS only really applies to hypotheses that have substantial academic support, there's also not substantial support for the "pseudoscience" label in the sources either. The mainstream position on the AAH from the sources we have appears to be that it's false (and therefore, by our policies, it's necessarily also WP:FRINGE) but not that it's pseudoscience per se.

Again, I'm open to being proven wrong on this, but so far we have an article that was updated to remove the assertion that the AH is pseudoscience, one chapter in an academic book, and a very brief mention of a panel on pseudoscience at a conference. Conversely, we have tons and tons of sourcing about the fact that it's false and why it's false, and then on the other side a handful of academic support from scientists who are not anthropologists (and therefore significantly less credible here, but they're still academics).

This says to me per WP:WEIGHT that we also should go into great detail about the fact it's false and why it's false, and probably reduce the prominence of some of the supporters from other fields, but also that we should at least attribute the pseudoscience label to some experts instead of making it seem like the consensus of the field. Loki (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. This is just repeating the fallacy that has caused so much disruption already. If something is pseudoscience as described in RS which considers that aspect, Wikipedia asserts it. Bon courage (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You removed this sentence, but it was properly supported by the source as written when it was added: Is the Aquatic Ape Theory fairly described as pseudoscience?... I think that the Aquatic Ape Theory in 2009 fits the description. He also tagged his post with "pseudoscience".

The current version also doesn't describe AAH as an "important step in the advancement of the actual mainstream science" at all. Rather, that's how it describes a certain "feminist strain of anthropology", specifically one that re-theorized women's social roles and mating strategies (which the AAH has nothing to do with). The current version also says that by the time she jumped on the AAH, the evidence was already pretty clearly against it. DFlhb (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if an author has updated their article to remove a claim, we should not deliberately use an out of date version of their article just to include that claim.

I also still read how that article portrays the history differently than you do, in that I feel it positions the AAH as a part of this tradition, but that's not really relevant. Loki (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a world's difference between "updated to remove a claim" (i.e. a retraction, which we couldn't use), versus what happened here: a brand new blog post was written on a new blog in 2022, and just weeks ago (2023), the old blog died and was redirected to the new one. It wasn't a correction or retraction, and the old post is still a valuable and valid source — DFlhb (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The post itself refers to itself as an update of the 2005 blog post. So it's not just a brand new blog post on the same subject. While it's not the same as an explicit retraction, I believe it definitely does obsolete the old version of the post. Loki (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here, Loki says that Wired is not reliable on scientific subjects; but Wired's not the source, Riley Black is; Wired's is just the (reliable) publisher. DFlhb (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So at the time I hadn't realized that Brian Switek was a pen name for Riley Black, and that Riley Black was a relevant academic. I thought it was just an article by an ordinary science journalist. Now that that misconception has been corrected, I agree that source is sufficiently reliable to be included. Loki (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PROFRINGE

And now the watering-down has started.[19] Bon courage (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like you to politely ask you to stop accusing people who don't think that your very harsh reading of WP:PSCI is accurate of being WP:PROFRINGE. Nobody here thinks the aquatic ape hypothesis is true or even that it's not WP:FRINGE. But the sources in the article so far don't really support "pseudoscience", and WP:FRINGE/QS says explicitly that just a handful of sources saying something is pseudoscientific is not enough to describe that thing as pseudoscience. Loki (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just make stuff up. We have a super-strength source (by far the strongest in the article) saying it's pseudoscience and none saying it isn't (though some being even less charitable). You are just replaying the same fallacy that wasted so much time with EMDR. Bon courage (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source you added certainly is strong but I wouldn't call it by far the strongest in the article by any means. We have plenty of expert sources in the article already explaining that the theory is false and why it's false, and the source you added is the only one that explicitly calls it pseudoscience.

(Also, please let's keep this policy dispute to this policy dispute. I have no intention of rehashing every disagreement I've ever had with you right now.) Loki (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What source do you think is stronger? Most of it is pretty old. Bon courage (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that "pseudoscience" really needs to be invoked here. I think "largely rejected" or something similar is enough. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit too kind from what the sources are saying. The theory (though it isn't even a coherent set of ideas) gets practically zero traction in academe, and

Some aquatic ape proponents have compared themselves to misunderstood geniuses who proposed heterodox theories but were eventually proven correct. Aquatic ape researchers often claim their work is ignored or suppressed by "mainstream" scientists, claiming a conspiracy against them. Rather than proving their argument with evidence, they try to shift the burden of proof onto their critics, challenging them to prove the theory wrong. They shift definitions of (what is an "aquatic ape"), "moving the goalpost" rather than confronting criticism. These are all traits of pseudoscience that has led some (e.g., Gee 2013) to argue that aquatic ape researchers should simply be ignored. The problem is that pseudoscience doesn't go away if ignored, it flourishes and does more damage.

Bon courage (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that's a quote from the source you added?

Again, it's a good source, but it's only one source. We have lots of other sources in the article that say the AAH is false and not taken particularly seriously without using the word "pseudoscience", or even synonyms like "unscientific".

Since we reflect all the reliable sources, we should emphasize the things the sources agree on, such as that the theory is not taken seriously by experts in the relevant field, and attribute the things that they don't agree on, like the exact word "pseudoscience". Loki (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fallacy again. This is like arguing "Lots of sources say the earth has oceans, but relatively few say it has a mesosphere, therefore Wikipedia can only say it has oceans." If you're going to make the argument (really?) that AAH isn't pseudoscience because AAH is "wrong" and that being "wrong" somehow cancels the pseudoscience out, you're going to need a source saying just that otherwise it's OR. This is exactly the fallacy that caused so much disruption at the EMDR article. Bon courage (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Loki, you're a good editor in GENSEX, but here, under WP:FRINGE, we need to label it as pseudoscience if it purports to be scientific and is "not taken seriously by experts in the relevant field". It doesn't matter that there are sources debunking the theory that don't use the word pseudoscience. DFlhb (talk) 23:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, we're finding enough sources calling it pseudoscience that I'm dropping my objection here. However, I very much disagree with this interpretation of WP:PSCI: the criteria for calling something pseudoscience in Wikivoice is not just if there are any sources that call it pseudoscientific but whether that's the mainstream consensus of the field.

Otherwise, any expert involved in an academic dispute could call their opponent's theory "pseudoscientific" and we'd have to believe them uncritically. That's not how Wikipedia works in any topic area: the balance of the sources is the important thing, not any individual source. Loki (talk) 00:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to be a reliable source, not just 'any source'. Bon courage (talk) 04:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is it about this particular idea that causes so many problems? I think it's a great test case for how legitimate critique can end up promoting a kind of fetishized nonsense. I really encourage people to read Erika Milam's book if you can get your hands on it. I tend to agree that it is our job to fairly and clearly explain how this idea is roundly criticized as being pseudoscientific basically because of its umbrella hypothesis problems (dig through the history if you want to see some amazing tellings of all sorts of things that proponents believe point to "aquatic apes origins"!) At the same time, the Savannah hypothesis is no longer accepted in its, shall we say, romantic forms for reasons that are not unlike the reasons that Morgan argued. We have an article that does a pretty passible job of explaining that. Why does it rile up people so? jps (talk) 23:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think over the (many) years the problem has been twofold: a procession of True Believers (now largely sanctioned out of existence), and lack of a really good slam-dunk source that puts the whole topic to bed. With the arrival of [20] that latter problem should be addressed. Bon courage (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty good book chapter, to be sure. Love the mermaid connection. I don't know if I'll get time to incorporate some of the more interesting points in text, but someone should (it would at the very least help to move us past the waste of time that is passing for this "disagreement"). jps (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think in this particular episode the issue might be a philosophical objection to WP:FRINGE and looking for a fight rather than really caring about article content. It was just a tiny thread here, by the time i'd found and read Langdon and checked back in it had already escalated to ANI. fiveby(zero) 23:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're not wrong. Bon courage (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bon courage: I am not quite sure what's going on here (I have arrived from AN/I as well), but I really think you ought to consider approaching this more calmly. As far as I can tell nobody here has said that this theory is true, or even credible; I don't think there is anybody with an agenda to "water down" the article, and I don't think there is any risk that we will somehow end up accidentally saying the theory is true. It is certainly not necessary to festoon the article with hyperbolic stuff like "enjoying only an echo chamber of support among its fervent adherents"; I honestly can't think of a situation where this would be an appropriate thing to write in an encyclopedia. jp×g 03:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finding the WP:BESTSOURCES on this aspect and then WP:STICKTOSOURCE is good practice, and a way to avoid POV. 'Hyperbole' could result if Wikipedia exaggerated. So: how would you summarize such sources' material about a 'hermetically sealed', criticism-free research community, 'incestuous' citing, and 'echo chambers' of amplifying error giving a 'false impression of widespread support'? For WP:FRINGESUBJECTS we are explicitly required to be clear about how the mainstream sees the fringe stuff. Bon courage (talk) 04:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how about this: Pol Pot slaughtered millions of innocent people, and we describe him as a "Cambodian revolutionary, dictator, and politician who ruled Cambodia as Prime Minister of Democratic Kampuchea between 1976 and 1979" whose administration "converted Cambodia into a one-party communist state and perpetrated the Cambodian genocide". While he was obviously a turd, nonetheless, we are able to describe his dictatorship without calling it "murderous" (even though it was) or "evil" (even though it was), although it would certainly be very easy to find reliable sources calling it both of those things. Is this not also true of the aquatic ape hypothesis? jp×g 06:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's "genocide", which is substantially worse than "murderous". And so far as I'm aware the WP:BESTSOURCES don't call Pol Pot 'a turd' so that is just a strawman. But what's that got to do with aquatic apes? If AAH "research" is a walled-garden/echo-chamber/circle-jerk or whatever as described by the best WP:SCHOLARSHIP examining it, Wikipedia should reflect that, no? Isn't that the core of NPOV, to reflect what quality mainstream sources say - and not what editors think? WP:FRINGESUBJECTS and all that:

The fringe or pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how experts in the relevant field have reacted to such views should be prominently included.

How would go you about giving prominence to this expert reaction to the nature of AAH research? Bon courage (talk) 06:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But we were already giving prominence to the expert reaction, though. The article was already extremely clear that anthropologists do not take the AAH seriously, and nobody was arguing for watering any of that language down.

What's at issue is the exact word "pseudoscience" and whether it's really supported by the sources or not. (I'm sort of coming around to it, personally, but at the time I saw the page it definitely wasn't sourced sufficiently.) Loki (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a big supporter of MOS:LABEL; "murderous" and "evil" are unencyclopedic, "explosive" words we should never use in wikivoice. But we absolutely should use "pseudoscientific", and "echo chamber" and "fervent" seem fine in terms of MOS:LABEL. DFlhb (talk) 08:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware, the "echo chamber" hypothesis is the purview of social sciences (i.e. mass communication, media studies, etc), and seems to be mostly conjectural; it is at best a claim about the psychology of the belief's adherents, and at worst bulverism. We have better rebuttals to this belief than just calling the people who hold it dumbasses, so I think that to do so is bizarre and weakens our other claims. jp×g 02:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What? It's a statement about the 'research' landscape of AAH: adherents working in a walled garden citing each other and amplifying their errors. I think whatever personal objection you have to this (in fact to straw men you keep raising) is irrelevant here. Wikipedia reflects the expert knowledge as found in the best sources. If editors don't like that knowledge for whatever reason, then tough. Bon courage (talk) 05:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not object to "knowledge", I object to "writing insults in an encyclopedic voice to own the libs aquatic ape hypothesists". If the thing you're describing is that the researchers all cite each other in a circular manner, then why not just say that? jp×g 06:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's more than that per the sources, no? Wikipedia reflects what is in the WP:BESTSOURCES and in this such source there's a lot about the nature of the work done on AAH, of which 'incestuous sourcing' is but one element. There's the self-deception, the distortion of some real research, the resistance to other, disconfirming, evidence, the conspiracy theories, the attacks on other scientists, the amplifying error and so on. I'll work up some longer sentences to make all this clear. Bon courage (talk) 04:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wha? Nobody here thinks the AAH is not WP:FRINGE. Loki (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I came here from ANI. The aquatic ape is something that Wikipedia should clearly label as being far outside of mainstream science, and mainstream scientific method. Call it fringe, call it pseudoscience, or call it anything else that you prefer, so long as our content doesn't mislead our readers into thinking that it is a credible hypothesis. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed. Loki (talk) 02:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Call it pseudoscience, it's the commonly understood way of describing something that still has adherents even though it has been debunked by science. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A descriptive word isn't always a label. If a source says it was a metal box with wheels, an engine, and steering, then we can summarise that description with a commonly understood word. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Puffing Devil?  Tewdar  19:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If a modern source described something as "a metal box with wheels, an engine, and steering", I'd think there's probably a reason they're trying to avoid the word "car", and at least think twice about it. Loki (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LokiTheLiar I don't think AAH is WP:FRINGE. That's a guideline for controlling some problem editors or edits and probably not a good way of thinking about topics. Not overly fond of stating something is fringe or is pseudoscience either. But it's an encyclopedia article, an introduction to a topic for a general audience, and the overall direction to take for science communication is pretty clear: be explicit, direct and don't create a false balance. You identified a weak source in the article, good job there, but please do not approach topics with this goal. Of all the ways of failing the reader that should be pretty high on the list of what not to do.

Also, BC has probably what, five or six years of work on the article and looking at the sources. I'm not sure what reading you've done on the topic but in my opinion based on your approach it looks maybe somewhat superficial. fiveby(zero) 16:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean when you say WP:FRINGE is about problem editors or edits and not topics; it's very clearly about topics. WP:PSCI is closer to being about problem edits but is still rooted in the understanding that some topics are fringe and some fringe topics are pseudoscience.

I agree we should be explicit and direct when the sources are explicit and direct. The sources are explicit and direct that anthropologists don't take the AAH seriously, and so are we. But we shouldn't be explicit or direct about things the sources don't say. And when only a small handful of sources is saying something we should be explicit that only a small handful of sources is saying that thing.

Also, I don't think "this other editor has been editing this page for a long time" is a good argument. This is not a comment on BC or this article specifically, but I've encountered plenty of situations before where an editor who's been working on an article for quite a while is just wrong about policy or even about what the sources say. (e.g. Over on Blanchard's typology a now-banned editor was working on the page for years. Currently most of the active discussions on the talk page are about how to undo all the damage he did in the topic area.) Loki (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And maybe that cycle will repeat in decades to come! In reality though, AAH has been through that, and the sanctions hammer has been applied. Many editors have worked to make it better but frankly it's still not in the best shape, if not the total train-wreck it once was. Bon courage (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way Creatures of Cain jps mentions is available through WP:LIBRARY. fiveby(zero) 02:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Anneliese Michel (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Traditional meetingplace of IPs believing in exorcism and demons. Higher activity than usual at the moment. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

added to my watchlist --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent IP person seems to have access to a wide range, so I've semiprotected for a few months. Bishonen | tålk 15:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]

• Varginha UFO incident‎ (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Brian Dunning good or bad? Edit-warring IP says bad. Well, it is a blog, so I am not sure. But the reasons the IP is giving are sure crap. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 73.88.147.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Werkentagen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They are branching out. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The targeted anti-Dunning edits from both of these users raise WP:BLP concerns and the edits themselves, plus the edit-warring behavior, seem too similar to be a coincidence. In the meantime, Dunning is an established authority on scientific skepticism, and their published comments on the Varginha incident are IMO valid for inclusion. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Werkentagen appears to be on a campaign against Dunning, inserting the same attacks in Ariel School UFO incident and Westall UFO. I have given them a CT alert for BLPs, and also warned them, which was not well received. Bishonen | tålk 09:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Gee, if we're all so corrupt I do hope I'll be getting my check in the mail soon. It appears to be a tad delayed. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just give User:Bishzilla your banking details and passwords and she'll take care of it. Bishonen | tålk 12:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks! I will do so forthwith! --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But why quote and attribute in the content? Does WP:PARITY's WP:ITA really require that? Quoting seems to be the least useful thing for the reader here. If WP:OR and WP:ITA force the content to always be along the lines of "according to skeptic X ..." then it seems to me the reader would be better served by just telling them to go elsewhere for something more informative than WP. Something in External Links along the lines of: "Brazil's Roswell: The Varginha UFO" a Skeptoid post and podcast which discusses how a completely normal event has been embellished over the years by UFOlogists"; seems would be more prominent and useful than burying the link in a citation. fiveby(zero) 16:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External link is a good idea, but I don't think it's "either/or"; the WP:ITA seems useful to preserve NPOV. DFlhb (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are on the subject of painting Dunning as unreliable: Joseph Mercola has an external link to Skeptoid which is marked as a "generally unreliable source". I experimented a bit, and the reason seems to be that the link contains the string "Mercola.com". Any ideas on how to prevent the marking? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you have Headbomb's reliability script installed, it's a known issue see User:Headbomb/unreliable#False positives -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I checked my preferences and could not find the add-in. Yes, that's it. Thanks! --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Junkyard tornado (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I object to the facts that the article 1. calls creationists "critics" of evolution, giving them undeserved credit, and 2. says that the junkyard tornado has been "labeled" a fallacy, calling doubt on its status as such. For those judgments, I hear I am the only one saying [the article is] overly lenient. Which tells me that not enough FTN regulars are commenting there to balance the WP:VOTE that Wikipedia Talk pages are not supposed to be. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can just edit it, you know? I took a look and it was pretty grossly biased. Did my best to neutralize it though, take a look and see what you think. AtFirstLight (talk) 23:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did edit it and was reverted. Just like you were, just now. I am just following WP:BRD.

You should read WP:YWAB. Bullshit is not "philosophy". Well, not all bullshit is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editor continues to move the article towards "some say this, some say that". [21]. Refuses to use the Talk page for article-improvement discussion [22] [23], instead reverts the edits they refuse to argue against. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editor continues to edit for WP:NPOV. AtFirstLight (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia needs to stay neutral on the questions of

• whether evolutionary biologists really say that life as it is really sprang into being in one extremely unlikely single event, as Hoyle assumed, or not,
• whether creationists really use Hoyle's reasoning, as Musgravce documents, or not.

You urgently need to read up on the WP: links people give you. NPOV does not say what you think it does. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i edited the introduction to the page and added several legitimate sources, because despite the fact that it is in the religious philosophy category it is just silly to pretend that this can be called a "theory" and a legit criticism of evolutionary theory RosieBaroque (talk) 01:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have partial-blocked one editor from the article for a month for persistent tendentious and aggressive pro-fringe editing. Bishonen | tålk 08:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]

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

FWIW: Badge Man, an article related to JFK conspiracy theories, is today's featured article. I noted on the talk page something I think should be altered about the lead sentence, but the article is built upon reliable secondary sources and does not appear to run afoul of WP:FRINGE. -Location (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Love jihad (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

It'll be helpful to have some extra pair of eyes on the article, it has been getting a wave of PROFRINGE pov pushing as of recent, some boderline, others explicit and other attempts to water down some of its content. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Mirko Beljanski (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Alt-med guy, being edited into "neutral" POV. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that Beljanski is more a product of his times than "alt-med". He has been dead since the 90s, and primarily worked from the 1950s to the 1980s. He made genuine contributions to science, which are still recognized, but later developed some incorrect theories about the effectiveness of various pharmaceutical concoctions. However, he was certainly not one of those sorts of "moon energy manifesting subsonic psychic harmonies" type of alt-med people. BD2412 T 21:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-vaccine activism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

I have proposed on the talk page to split Anti-vaccine activism (currently a redirect) from Vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy often manifests as doubt and a desire for more information. The anti-vaccine activist movement is more about actively spreading disinformation, and I think that it is problematic to conflate the two. BD2412 T 20:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really good idea - there's so much stigma associated with the anti-vax movement and not everyone who has second-thoughts about it (from my experience) are associated with it. Would certainly help to not tar everyone with the same brush, and acknowledge there's a difference between outright refusal and cautious hesitance. AtFirstLight (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have started Draft:Anti-vaccine activism. There is a wealth of good content available for such an article. BD2412 T 21:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes yes yes 100% was just looking for this exact article yesterday when adding links in RFK Jrs campaign page and was shocked to see it doesnt exist RosieBaroque (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is a good idea. I noted my support in Talk:Vaccine hesitancy#Split Anti-vaccine activism from Vaccine hesitancy. -Location (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current Vaccine hesitancy article does not even mention RFK. BD2412 T 23:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some proposed whitewashing happening at Hallwang Clinic. Also, generally the article could probably use some improvements. ScienceFlyer (talk) 04:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GSHD2023 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps edit warring Chicxulub crater to add reference to a 2021 conference abstract that claims that the Chicxulub impact was not responsible for the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary layer, and that the Chicxulub impactor was an iron asteroid. I've never seen these ideas entertained or even mentioned in any actual scientific papers, and conference abstracts in my experience are a magnet for crank/fringe theories, as they are effectively self-published. In my opinion, including any reference to this abstract is completely undue and PROFRINGE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even clear to be that the author of the abstract, Gerhard Schmidt, is even a published scientist, as the abstract doesn't even list an institutional affiliation [24], and no research papers come up on scholar when I search his name relevant to asteroids (though there is plently of self-published stuff on researchgate). Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've researched further, and he does seem to have published some papers on the topic, but they were decades ago, and all of his recent "publications" are conference abstracts or posters, which is not a good sign. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources, e.g. conference abstracts, posters, and so forth authored by a single author as used in the edits are not acceptable as Wikipedia sources. Wikipedia needs additional independent and reliable secondary / tertiary sources that document and evaluate the the notability of the ideas proposed by the posted sources.

By the way, the user name, "GSHD2023" is uncomfortably close enought to being an abbreviation of "Gerhard ScHmiDt" that there possibly might be a conflict of interest involved. Paul H. (talk) 02:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is good reason to suspect COI. They've also added some stuff to the German wiki article, though briefly looking at a Google translated version of that article it seems to have a multitude of problems. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HD is the car licence tag of Heidelberg and that is where Schmidt works [25] (I think that is him; it is a very common name), which makes for a more plausible meaning of GSHD. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought I knew what "Green Man" meant. Now I'm not so sure after reading this Slate article.[26] where independent scholar (who has a book published by Cambridge University Press) says "I spend a lot of my time trying to debunk the idea that the Green Man is an ancient figure from British folklore. He’s a made-up figure of 20th-century folklore." The article itself calls it "a folkloric or mythological figure" but also says " Lady Raglan coined the term "Green Man" for this type of architectural feature in her 1939 article The Green Man in Church Architecture in The Folklore Journal. "

The history section starts with discussing a book by Mike Harding, "an English singer, songwriter, comedian, author, poet, broadcaster and multi-instrumentalist. Harding has also been a photographer, traveller, filmmaker and playwright." I see it uses a recent letter to the Guardian from a Stephen Green, who published through Cambridge Scholars.[27] I don't have time to look at all the sources, but a quick glance suggests that a lot are unreliable. And am I wrong in thinking the article seems to link different concepts? Doug Weller talk 08:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that it is more of a decorative and artistic motif used on churches than a mythological figure, and the article should reflect that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From Lady Raglan's article, page 47: "Sir Albert Seward, who has made a special study of the chapter-house at Southwall, where there is a number of 'Green Men,' has found a great variety of foliage there, and I have myself noticed a good deal of poison ivy, always a sacred herb." I should point out that Toxicodendron is not found in Europe, being confined to North America and a strip along the East Asian coast from Sakhalin to Taiwan. Mangoe (talk) 01:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, one of the sources (I think the New Yorker article) described her theory as "total bunk", which I'm having a hard time disagreeing with. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My attempt to fix the article has been reverted by @Wuerzele:. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion ongoing at Talk:Green_Man#Article_remains_a_mess... if anyone wants to comment. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a user with about 12 IPs trying to remove references from this article going back 3 months. Basically it was discovered that Maryanne Demasi had duplicated some data based on her PhD dissertation. The paper was later retracted. According to the journal "This article has been retracted by the publisher. An investigation by the Journal determined the following. In Fig 4, the “no LPS” lanes in the GAPDH Northern blots were duplicated between normoxic and hypoxic conditions." [28]. The IP is repeatedly removing "determined" from the article and is claiming duplication is only "alleged".

The same IP is also removing references from the article claiming they are part of a conspiracy to smear Maryanne Demasi. I think some extra eyes are needed on this article because there has been repeated attempts at removing certain sources going back 4 months. Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the short description from "American scuba diver (1936–2019)" to "American scuba diver (1936–2019) and writer about White gods" as that's an important aspect of his work (which wasn't even mentioned in the lead despite having its own section. User:GhostInTheMachine reverted me. In any case, "scuba diver" which GITM had added isn't adequate. Note I also made other changes.[29] Doug Weller talk 11:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's the WP:MOS rule for whether to capitalize "white" in this context? Do most sources capitalize the word? It looks a little cringe to me. jps (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)W[reply]

MOS:RACECAPS, which says to be consistent within an article. Donald Albury 14:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In White gods, it is consistently "white", so I would argue for lower-case in the above case. Donald Albury 14:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And I see lower case in most sources, at least those I could read. My bad. Doug Weller talk 16:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Callahan, Tim (2008). "A New Mythology". Skeptic. Vol. 13, no. 4. wplibrary. But when i see the phrase "white gods" it's this which comes to mind and not pre-Columbian contact pseudoarcheology per Shermer and Callahan.

You might find better sources for Heyerdahl in this review of Thor Heyerdahl og jakten på Atlantis from Kon-Tiki Museum, instead of using an article published in The Drama Review. fiveby(zero) 16:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See you already had Callahan in Marx, but not in white gods. Fritze, Ronald H. (1993). "White God Legends". Legend and lore of the Americas before 1492. Davies, Nigel (1979). "White Gods with Black Faces". Voyagers to the New World. Really don't see "extensive writing on white gods", but one opportunistic Columbus Quincentenary work. Diver, treasure hunter, pseudo/amateur archeologist. fiveby(zero) 18:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fiveby The Kon-Tiki Museum is, I believe, biassed. The authors of that review are Reidar Solsvik who is an archaeologist and Curator of the Kon-Tiki Museum andEirik Stokke is a lecturer and is studying for a MA Degree in the history (of something, I can't see the rest).I agree with your summary description of Marx. I have: Norbeck, Edward (1953). "Review of American Indians in the Pacific". American Antiquity. 19 (1): 92–94 and several other reviews. Not about white gods, but the book Hunt, Terry (2011). The Statues That Walked: Unraveling the Mystery of Easter Island. Free Press sasys "\This is the tack taken by Thor Heyerdahl, who was convinced that Incan colonists from South America were the makers of the ahu and statues. His assumption goes even further, also claiming that the Incans responsible for the cultural florescence on Rapa Nui were ultimately the descendants of colonists with European origins who taught Native Americans the secrets of “advanced culture.”2 For Heyerdahl, simply tracing the “cause” of Rapa Nui culture back to Europe solved the apparent paradox of cultural achievement. Leaving its racist assumptions aside, empirical support for this argument is entirely lacking." p110

Thor Heyerdahl's The White Gods Caucasian Elements In Pre Inca Peru can be downloaded here.[30] Doug Weller talk 16:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just being a best sources snob. Hunt is better than a professor of theater history published in TDR: The Drama Review. But look at the "2" in your quote, he's citing Moore, Thomas (April 2, 1990). "Thor Heyerdahl: Sailing Against the Current". Us News & World Report. Reading that Kon-Tiki Museum article leads me to believe you should be citing Ralling Kon-Tiki Man which i can't find online, and/or Axel Andersson A Hero for the Atomic Age, or "Resan ut, resan in: Den unge Thor Heyerdahl och det mystiska folket". fiveby(zero) 21:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or is it that one source uses the phrase "white gods" where Andersson only says an itinerant race of white and blue-eyed culture-bearers that had journeyed from some centre in the Old World to jump-start the world’s great civilization so it's WP:OR to use the better source? fiveby(zero)

While we're here white gods needs some serious work, it's presented almost totally uncritically in wikivoice—blindlynx 15:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added to Bible conspiracy theory by an IP, I suspect this is vandalism but since my wife has been researching David Barton of late, I just can't withstand exposure to that much idiocy in order to search for this. Mangoe (talk) 00:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Already deleted. Mangoe (talk) 01:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Is the concept of "strong emergence" fringe? That's the claim in this edit, which is part of a large body of BOLD cuts to the article. On the whole I think these cuts are good, and I do not disagree with the edit in questions (because the material removed was unsourced). But a quick search did yield some other sources that do seem to support the idea that "strong emergence" sits somewhere within the mainstream, at least in the philosophical literature. The SEP, for instance, provides a helpful overview of the debate: [31]. And here is David Chalmers, one of the most respected living philosophers, arguing in its favor (it's a chapter from the Oxford UP book The Re-emergence of Emergence): [32]. Even where the concept is criticized, e.g. here: [33], it appears be treated as a more or less mainstream position, or at least as an "alternative theoretical formulation". Anyone else have insight to offer here? Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it a fringe concept at all; we have a very good example of "strong emergence" in the human brain. Roger Wolcott Sperry essentially said as much without using the precise term. There is a pretty good precis on the topic here. Then again, there are very good reasons that my livelihood depends on neither science nor mathematics, so I am of course open to the opinions of others. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, I may have not been as clear as I should have been - I think that philosophical debate for the concept itself is not fringe per se, and there is a robust debate on the topic, which is still in the article and I think should stay there, especially the debate with respect to the human brain. But claiming to have definitively made observations of strong emergence in physics is what I intended to characterize as fringe, which lands fairly closely to the idea of vitalism. - car chasm (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, thanks for the clarification. Looks like we're all basically on the same page. Generalrelative (talk) 05:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to be citing deeply unreliable literature, including this critical criminology piece that claims that attraction to minors is merely a form of sexual orientation akin to being gay or straight. I attempted to BLAR, but was reverted by the page's creator. Additional eyes to review the citations for fringe would be appreciated. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per the result of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Minor-attracted_person, I would recommend creating an AfD for the article. The creator, who only started editing in late March, seems to be a SPA, as all of their edits relate to pedophilia in some way. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

per google scholar the term definitely does have some use in Academia, mostly within the last few years, but I assume this is massively dwarfed by other studies that just use paedophilia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now up for deletion again. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Minor-attracted_person_(2nd_nomination). Not really a good nomination rationale, and seems to be trending towards keep. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You could have tagged me here. I would not have seen this discussion if another editor had not linked it in the current AfD.

Anyway, if you have an issue with the sourcing, consider making a source eval table or something similar to prove your point. Show us HOW the sourcing is bad, instead of just saying that it is; nitpicking a single source does not count as a substantial evaluation of the article. Besides, as I told you yesterday, this Critical Criminology source was used only a single time, to make a single statement, that had nothing to do with saying that pedophilia is a sexual orientation. The the statement that this source was supporting was the idea that the term minor-attracted person had some variations. That source was so insignificant that after the discussion that we had yesterday, in which I tried to be cordial and agreed with you that Critical Criminology did not need to be included there, I removed it from the article and didn't have to change a single word of its body because there were other reliable sources that supported that same claim relating to the variations of the term "minor-attracted person". I already told you yesterday in your talk page that the idea that pedophilia is a sexual orientation is fringe and that I had never supported that idea, it was pretty dishonest of you to come here writting this topic in a way that suggests that I had made a claim that I never actually did, especially after I had already told you in your talk page that that was a position that I never held. If you want to criticise me or the article (both of which fine), please be clear in your critique and don't nitpick a just a single source from the article. And don't accuse me of having written things that I never had. 🔥 22spears 🔥 23:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've repeatedly cited the author of that same piece multiple times in the article, including in the article's use of A Long Dark Shadow, "I Would Report It Even If They Have Not Committed Anything": Social Service Students’ Attitudes Toward Minor-Attracted People, and "I’m Not like That, So Am I Gay?" The Use of Queer-Spectrum Identity Labels Among Minor-Attracted People. This is an extremely WP:FRINGE set of sourcing in the article—it ain't limited to the most egregious one that's been noted above. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's not about the journal anymore, it's about the author? Why do you keep changing you accusations each time I respond? Again, I never used any source coming from this journal or this author to promote any fringe theory, the source was to make statements regarding etymology, most of which could and often are already supported by better sources not related to that journal or author. 🔥 22spears 🔥 16:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Red-tailed hawk, thank you for bringing this up. The article has multiple SPAs involved with it lately, some of which have similar usernames, and feels like a POV fork. See also stigma of pedophilia created by 22spears and other articles in the topic area. It really needs closer eyes on it. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC) PS see also List of pedophile advocacy organizations in which I had to remove links to two different such groups, and in which an SPA described a group as "advocat[ing] for at least some age of consent reform and circulat[ing] alternative child sexual abuse testimony". Mmmkay. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query: it's been a year or two since I've looked at any of the research surrounding this (as it's very tough reading it for obvious reasons), but isn't minor-attracted person just a euphemism for paedophilia? If that's still the case, then shouldn't this at best be a redirect to the paedophilia article or relevant subsection? Because it seems like this is maybe a WP:POVFORK . Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely seems that way to me. That's what I argued at the AfD. It looks like we're dealing with a few highly motivated SPA accounts in this topic area right now, and some pretty glaring signs of socking. If anyone has tips that could be assembled into an SPI case, feel free to let me know by email. I'd be happy to put together cases. Generalrelative (talk) 02:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree with Sideswipe. Roxy the dog 19:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[34] - I've reverted it, the editor has brought it up at Talk:Westford Knight#Why is the new statue WP:UNDUE. There are a few sources for it, [35] Note that both Scott Wolter and Jason Calavito are mentioned in the source used[36] and see also this article by Calavito where he says that the sculptor and Wolter claimed to have discovered another Hooked X (surprise!)[37]. It might be useful for editors to reply on the talk page. Doug Weller talk 15:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic history of Egypt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's been a recent uptick in edit warring and generalized incivility on this article and its talk page, perhaps having to do with renewed attention to the topic in response to an upcoming Netflix series on Cleopatra (see e.g. [38] and [39] for coverage). Uninvolved editors with strong working knowledge of genetics would be most helpful. Generalrelative (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Masrialltheway Seems to have broken WP:3RR, as seen by the string of reverts he has done here.

@24.228.27.179 Casually called an user a White Supremacist on the talk page, this probably also warrants a warning or short block.

The discussion doesn't seem that bad to me, just put some warning templates on the new users' profiles and they will understand the message and start to behave. 🔥 22spears 🔥 00:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a legitimate organization? I have to say I'm very confused at the mere existence of cybernetics after the 1950s, but their website seems really full of woo, such as reinventing philosophy, global brains, pantheism, explaining not just evolution, but also abiogenesis! I'm concerned about the extent to which the content on wikipedia about systems theory and cybernetics seems to mirror this site. - car chasm (talk) 05:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those pages genuinely are concerning, but websites of other small professional organizations sometimes have some woo on them, so I don't think we can go exclusively on that.

My general principle here is that we should never have a page on an organization cited entirely or primarily to its own website. So, the best thing to do is to find some reliable third-party sources to see what their reputation is overall. A quick Google doesn't really turn up much, which is concerning, and makes me suspect they wouldn't have the notability to survive AFD. Loki (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this edit[40] added a lot of fringe material relying on dubious sources. I've dealt with a little bit but it needs more and I don't have time right now. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, it should be the section Pre-Columbian transoceanic contact theories#Claims of pre-Columbian contact with Christian voyagers.

2007 Alderney UFO sighting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Oh dear. This one slipped past our "radar", it seems. Full of absurd credulity and terrible sourcing.

@JMK: who is the main author. Might be worth checking those contributions as well.

jps (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you know what?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Alderney UFO sighting.

I think we should WP:TNT this. jps (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]