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

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

WP:RSNP says there is a consensus that it's reliable. However, it's on Headbombs list of unreliable and shows up that way with their script. Take a look at this YouTube video and others[1]. I think it has to go to RSN again maybe for deprecation. Doug Weller talk 07:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecation would be overkill. NatGeo has gone down the toilet in recent years and no longer has any full time writers, but much of their historical written content is good. Anything covering fringe topics like crystal skulls, the illuminati, or ufos tends to be terrible though, both recent and historically. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia Maybe. I was never sure about using them for DNA. In any case, RSNP needs to be changed, right? Doug Weller talk 11:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking about National Geographic (American TV channel) or National Geographic? fiveby(zero) 14:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fiveby Both. I'm not sure when the magazine lost its credibility, maybe quite a long time ago, see National Geographic#Controversies. Doug Weller talk 15:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A handful of incidents over 40 years doesn’t seem too damning. We should look at the normal indicators of reliability, like do they have editorial standards, or do they publish corrections, or do other reliable sources cite them. Their TV content is probably a distinct entity from their written magazine article content. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since Disney took over, National Geographic has change. The print edition has been discontinued and there has been widespread staff layoffs. This certainly reflects a change in standards and reliability of which the video series can be used as an indication. The past cannot now be used as a indication of the present. The reliability of a source can change with time with their editorial policies. Paul H. (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So have their editorial policies changed? Going online-only isn’t a sign of unreliability, and neither is laying off staff. Are there reliable sources which debunk National Geographic articles? I don’t know, I haven’t looked into it in detail, but I don’t think it follows logically that bad TV content automatically means the written content should be equally suspect. I do agree that reliability can change over time and that the RSP entry should be updated if a decline in standards can be demonstrated. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barnards.tar.gz It is. Doug Weller talk 18:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not if the scandals generally have nothing to do with reliability (dead thread I know) Dronebogus (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Along the lines of what others have said... There's the magazine, which should be considered generally reliable (doesn't mean always reliable, of course); there are the maps, which probably don't come up as sources often but I don't think I've seen any problem about them; there are the tv specials/films that were produced before or independently of the tv channel, which I think are as respected as their peers Nova, Nature, etc.; then there's the website and tv channel, both of which should probably be considered "yellow" at RSP for being popular science content that is at times too credulous of fringe ideas. A simple note at RSP that it's not a reliable source for fringe subjects might be sufficient? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites I think that needs a discussion at RSN. Doug Weller talk 15:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller and others, I posted the following at Talk:Younger Dryas impact hypothesis § 2013 National Geographic Article - Quotes from Walter Broecker asking if specific direct quotes from the renowned climate scientist Wallace S. Broker could be used in the YDIH article. Please consider including this in the RSN discussion. Thank you. Dmcdysan (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"However, it's on Headbombs list of unreliable and shows up that way with their script."

My script doesn't touch anything related to National Geographic. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb Apologies, I thought I saw it but unfortunately didn't come here with a link. Obviously I must have been wrong. Doug Weller talk 08:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least you've confirmed something I was thinking though - see Talk:Edward V of England#The Princes in the Tower by Philippa Langley. Deb (talk) 10:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Neal D. Barnard (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Diet guru, and the usual problem of whether everything they wrote gets listed in Wikipedia (regardless of whether it gets attention in RS). IP editor now at 4RR pushing this, and more eyes needed. More generally, I do think we need something - maybe in WP:FRINGE - about bibliographies. Bon courage (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the big list of publications was not due on this article.

To the general point, it seems like comprehensive bibliographies of publications with no secondary source coverage must be based on the publications themselves as primary sources, to which the following bit of WP:PRIMARY might apply: … be cautious about basing large passages on them.

I do think there are cases where a comprehensive bibliography is encyclopedic, such as for highly notable authors whose body of work as a whole is discussed by secondary sources, even if not every work receives secondary source coverage.

I’m not sure there’s anything specific to FRINGE subjects though - unduly self-serving bibliographies could be found on any bio. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. I actually think the yardstick should be whether a topic/person has received 'bibliographic' treatment in RS, but that's maybe too subtle a concept for Wikipedia. The usual compromise is to say 'selected works' may be listed where they have received at least some attention from WP:SECONDARY sources (more then just being cited, that is). Bon courage (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We also need to bear in mind MOS:WORKS which says "Lists of published works should be included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists. The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles. Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged..." This applies equally to all authors; there are no separate guidelines for authors on fringe topics, although it isn't clear (to me, at least) how to interpret the phrase "...appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship..." --Gronk Oz (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And also what is an 'author', especially when invoked alongside 'other artists'? James Joyce yes, but somebody who publishes journal articles or cook books is not an 'author' in that sense. Bon courage (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with both of you. And for journal publications that generally means listing only the works that are both highly-cited and have the subject as first or senior author. JoelleJay (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mormonism seems to be a hot topic at the moment. I happened across

• Origin of the Book of Mormon (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Tell me, is there not a WP:FRINGE issue here? Is this article not pretty much en embodiment of WP:GEVAL? Bon courage (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest versions of the article present differing views within Mormonism of the book origins. Mormon scholars disagree with other Mormon scholars; that's a pretty straightforward article. However over time non-Mormon sources were introduced, so the premise is flawed, i.e. religious claims and independent analysis being presented as equally valid. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ain't great. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS). Levivich (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are sources that uncritically present an in-universe view of religious events reliable? For example:

1. Sources saying that Jesus did raise Lazarus, rather than that Christian believe that Jesus raised Lazarus
2. Sources saying that Muhammad traveled to Jerusalem in a single night on the back of the winged steed Burak, rather than that Muslims believe that he did
3. Sources saying that an alien dictator committed genocide in Earths volcano's, rather than that Scientologists believe he did
4. Sources saying that Mormon scripture originated in ancient times, rather than that Mormons believe it did

I don't believe they are; sources that push positions that have widely been discredited is a strong indication that they are unreliable. Further, it is an indication they are unreliable for the rest of the content in their work, such as on matters of faith that have received less coverage in serious sources.

However, I believe this position is somewhat controversial, so I want to see if I am alone in holding it, and if not how we can get it written down somewhere - perhaps on WP:RSP? BilledMammal (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Said sources should be treated as non-independent and hence to be used sparingly and not to demonstrate notability, IMO. There's a lot of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS about this versus other Christian and religious analysis, but we're not a theologic work; if sources independent of a church hierarchy isn't talking about stuff, it shouldn't be included, and if the only sources talking about it do so with an "in-universe" standpoint (analysis of the Lazarus story that asserts its truth) they should be discarded when crafting the overall structure of an article. Specifically to the LDS stuff it'd be best to get this discussed at RSN/listed at RSP because otherwise it's going to be a talk page/merge discussion/AfD piecemeal effort that's going to get nowhere. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I made this point a couple times and just got pushback from the same editors with claims that BYU/LDS authors are just as NPOV regarding LDS topics as non-adherents, and that a book by an adherent constitutes "mainstream secular attention" if it's published by a non-LDS publisher (and that having such a publisher transforms a non-independent source into an independent one!). JoelleJay (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BYU is a very interesting case. On most matters, they are completely mainstream scholars, but their honor code means their scholars of religion and history don't have full academic freedom. On LDS history, they're Bob Jones, not Havard Divinity. Feoffer (talk) 08:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given BYU biology prof Michael Whiting's statements on Native American genealogy, we might want to expand that list of fields lacking academic freedom... JoelleJay (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an attempt to draft an RfC on this, how does the following wording look?:

Sources that present an in-universe view of religious events should be considered reliable only for what adherents of the relevant religion believe, and should not be considered independent of the religion.

I'm concerned it may get shot down as too broad? BilledMammal (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first clause is OK, and the second is problematic and ought to be dropped because it tends to imply that outsider sources are independent, which is rather frequently not true (an awful lot of them are frankly adversarial). This isn't going to solve the notability issue, though. In @JoelleJay:'s examples, it seems to me that the problem is that these aren't important figures even within LDS theology, not that nobody outside the church has head of these people. And of course narratives taken from a single source need make it clear it's the source that's talking, a principle which applies to all texts, not just religious ones.

I looked at our article on the raising of Lazarus (which is actually a section of the article on Lazarus himself) and note that the narrative is entirely "sourced" to the KJV, which surely counts as a primary source on this. Be that as it may, the theological import is entirely sourced to believers. And that is as it should be; any outsider cited had better be sourcing reliable believer authorities in order to be credible. Mangoe (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that implication about outsider sources; it makes no comment on them, and their independence would need to be assessed separately. Can you explain further why you see otherwise?

I also think this will solve the notability issue, because if we assess these sources as either not being independent or not being reliable they won't count towards WP:GNG.

Looking at that article on Lazarus it seems to say he was risen by Jesus, not that Christians believe he was; I've added an NPOV tag. BilledMammal (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BilledMammal, would you comment on an example here? The article Nahom came up on this noticeboard awhile back. It's probably a pretty important concept within Mormon scholarship, probably something that WP should cover, but once an individual editor goes out and creates an article like that the set of sources get pretty limited. There are a bunch of your "in universe" sources, and only Dan Vogel and Jerald and Sandra Tanner as "independent". Vogel is just a single footnote, and the Tanners are probably a good example of JoelleJay's "outsider" sources which should not be cited. S. Kent Brown does a fair job of laying out the problems and here he says what should be made very clear to the reader for that article:

For those who believe that Nephi’s narrative is authentically ancient, the possibility of a connection between the area of the NHM tribe in south Arabia and the Nahom of Nephi’s narrative is credible. For those who do not believe that the narrative of First Nephi authentically goes back to a record written in the early sixth century B.C., any proposed link will lack merit. It is a matter, in my view, of one’s beginning assumptions. Since I believe...

But that is just some post he made and the URL is expired. I doubt (but don't know for sure) if he would publish that remark in one of the journals in question, either it's just WP:BLUESKY or maybe not something he would say to the audience reading those publications.
For Nahom, to write the "excellent article" per jps below i think pretty much requires the "in universe" sources (and some allowance for original research). An Afd based on your GNG argument is probably unlikely to work. Maybe a merge to a parent article such as Proposed Book of Mormon geographical setting would be appropriate, but offhand that article looks to have quite a few problems itself. fiveby(zero) 16:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Wikipedia principles we already have outlined work fine (though it is absolutely clear to me that there are a lot of editors here -- even fairly well established ones -- that are confused by this). It is true that there are some articles on some religious beliefs which stray from best practices. We encounter them from time-to-time on this board and elsewhere. But best-practiced scholarship does not really lend itself to hard-and-fast principles. I have no doubt that it is entirely possible to write excellent articles on Mormon beliefs using many Mormon sources (yes, even scriptural or devotional ones!) with an appropriate framing provided by secondary and tertiary contextual commentary to establish WP:PROMINENCE, notability, and the like. This approach seems to have been lost at many of our articles on Mormonism in favor of a weird "Professor So-and-so at BYU says that this verse in the book of Mormon is about Jesus." Wikipedia should be documenting how widely held such beliefs are and what the consequences of such beliefs are. For example, Mitt Romney was only asked pointed questions about his beliefs a few times on the campaign trail and there is a fascinating thread to follow from that to declaration of the LDS church clarifying (or muddying the waters, according to some) what "strong drinks" were which coincided with a proliferation of self-made soda stations in Utah and now the Stanley cup fad, apparently. Wild stuff -- well documented by third-party sources. There are discussions of Mormon eschatology that sprung up around Mitt Romeny's presidency as well which provide a glorious way of describing how Mormons match and diverge from classic low church beliefs in the same. Oh, there is plenty of excellent article fodder to be had about these topics for Wikipedia. I think our fundamental principles let us know that this is a good approach to these subjects and, indeed, most subjects about religion. jps (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that it is entirely possible to write excellent articles on Mormon beliefs using many Mormon sources (yes, even scriptural or devotional ones!) with an appropriate framing provided by secondary and tertiary contextual commentary to establish WP:PROMINENCE, notability, and the like. This approach seems to have been lost at many of our articles on Mormonism in favor of a weird "Professor So-and-so at BYU says that this verse in the book of Mormon is about Jesus." Agreed with this. What we need is to ensure that these topics can be contextualized by non-adherent perspectives, both to comply with NPOV and FRINGE and to demonstrate notability through attention from independent sources. For the same reasons we can't write an article on an ayurveda or Scientology topic sourced only to reliably-published works by practitioners/adherents, we shouldn't be relying only on LDS authors for appraisal of LDS content or its broad notability. JoelleJay (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So where would that leave transubstantiation? There are barely any sources which aren't religious, and the rest are histories of religious movements. It's importance is because of its importance in Catholicism and its general rejection in the rest of Christendom. It doesn't matter whether it's a subject of interest to anyone else.

Conversely, I think we can look at (for example) these obscure figures from the BoM and determine that, even within Mormon circles, they are unimportant. My notability test can be summed up as "why should I care?" and the article ideally should give such a reason. When someone writes an article on one of these figures and can't give more than a summary of the textual narrative, the "so what?" light starts blinking and I suspect that the passage has no import in actual Mormon religion. But I don't need non-Mormon sources for that; indeed, it would be Mormon sources that would sway my verdict, or at least sources citing Mormon sources. Mangoe (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe: You wrote: My notability test can be summed up as "why should I care?" and the article ideally should give such a reason. Based on this statement, I believe you have provided a very good notability test that can be applied generally. In the future, if I come across a Wikipedia article and find that the "so what?" light starts blinking, then it's time to start critically assessing sources in that article. Regards, Steve Quinn (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with sourcing to histories of religious movements? And again I think it's fine to source to Catholic scholars (even the actual church orgs can be used to the extent that any primary sources are allowed), there just has to be some broader, independent interest in the topic that treats it dispassionately. The concept of transubstantiation has been a central part of major historical events in human history and is well-documented and discussed by modern non-religious historians, as are the interpretations of and writings on it by Catholics hundreds of years ago. Those are both elements that provide additional distance between modern scholarship and straight exegesis of scripture, something that is much more lacking in new religious movements like LDS. JoelleJay (talk) 05:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JoelleJay. New religious movements like LDS just don't have the scholarship that surrounds Catholicism (for example). Obviously, this due to the very short existence of LDS. I think sourcing to LDS's history as a religious movement make sense. Off-handedly, I think using non-LDS and non-adherent sources for this history are best. As an aside, I didn't know that transubstantiation has historical importance, nor did I know that it is discussed in modern scholarship. When I have come across transubstantiation I have thought of it as simple symbolic act and nothing more than that. I guess it is more interesting and somehow has more impact than a simple symbolic act. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One problem to note, re: Mormonism, is that there are a lot of articles on characters from the Book of Mormon, many of which are of very questionable notability. It's one thing to have an article on Nephi, son of Lehi, who I gather is a key figure in the book and who seems to have attracted a fair bit of analysis—a lot of the sources in that article are Mormon-affiliated, but not all. It's another to have an article on Nephi, son of Helaman, whose article is nothing but a summary of the Book of Mormon narrative. A. Parrot (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually tagged Nephi, son of Helaman for notability a while back... It was removed by this questionable edit[2] (the added source which allegedly supports notability is not independent so doesn't actually count towards notability... Just more bad scholarship from inside the walled garden). Thats a classic pattern in fringe topic area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There seems to be a lot of strawmanning in these discussions, with new religionists invoking a non-existent version of Wikipedia where Jesus is 'allowed' to have been resurrected, or Muhamed is 'allowed' to have flown on a horse. In fact, Wikipedia's (settled) religious article tend to split beliefs from scholarship; for example we even split Authorship of the Bible and Biblical inspiration as distinct articles. In other words, we say what adherents believe as one thing, and what scholars/historians say as another thing. The problem with the current Mormonism discussion is that some proponents seem to want to set intermingle, rather than separate, such aspects of the topic. So, for example they want Wikipedia to say that maybe Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, but maybe it was written by God. This is not good as encyclopedic, or any sort, or writing.
  As far as WP:FRINGE goes, when "what adherents believe" spills over into explicit claims made about the real world, Wikipedia will call out nonsense. It happens all the time with (for example) young earth creationism or faith healing. Bon courage (talk) 07:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If religious material is presented with in text attribution (ie “adherents believe that…” or something similar) then a source written by a note-worthy adherent can be very reliable - as a primary source for that belief. What we need to look out for are authors who hold fringe beliefs within the religion. Blueboar (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, there's that too. A lot of problems can be swerved by avoiding primary texts and relying on the WP:BESTSOURCES (surprise surprise!). Bon courage (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure... but also almost certainly undue unless it gets mentioned by a secondary source, after all by definition their opinion isn't noteworthy unless a reliable independent secondary source find it worthy of note. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia is not a source that establishes truth on these matters. Notability is established by there being a number of reliable sources on the matter. In general NPOV policy helps guide through these kinds of claims. In general, attribution helps so that the claims rest on the sources, not wikipedia's voice. For these things, secondary sources, introductions from textbooks or even tertiary sources like handbooks help separate the views of the laity and scholars, which sometimes overlap and other times diverge. Scholarship fluctuates and is not static, and religious traditions also vary through time. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia is a source that only reports in Wikipedia's voice the truth of these matters. If it is not correct, it should not be in Wikipedia's voice, should be attributed to the person who is making the claim, and explained that it is not true. jps (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The answer to OP's question depends on context. Our reliable sources guideline states that "The very same source may be reliable for one fact and not for another". To speak by way of example, the historian Mark Noll writes about Christianity and the Bible and his books are favorably reviewed as reliable. Noll also has said that as part of his religion he believes in the virgin birth of Jesus. Does the latter make the former become unreliable? No; it just means reliability varies in different contexts. It would be entirely wrong to cite Noll to assert something about immaculate conception in Wikipedia's pregnancy article, or to aver in the Jesus article that he was actually virginally born. By contrast, it's entirely appropriate and relevant to cite what Noll reports about the Christianity, Christians, and the Bible in the relevant articles Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course we can cite Noll et al's work in articles. The problem here is when Noll et al are the only scholars citable for a topic. If there's no discussion of it from a mainstream perspective by mainstream sources, we have no idea at all if Noll et al's coverage actually is NPOV and we have no way of contextualizing it without committing OR. JoelleJay (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  when Noll et al are the only scholars citable for a topic. If there's no discussion of it from a mainstream perspective by mainstream sources

  To obtain that mainstream perspective, I look at publishers and coverage in reliable sources. Noll's In the Beginning Was the Word and his The Civil War as Theological Crisis were published by Oxford University Press and the University of North Carolina Press, respectively. These mainstream, scholarly publishers provide a filtering effect: if Noll's findings were fringe, his manuscripts would have been rejected and not published. As for coverage, to continue with this example, Noll's A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada was published by Eerdmans, a publisher of histories that have received positive reviews but also a religiously affiliated Christian press; to determine with dueness and utility of the coverage, the review in Reading Religion, a review outlet run by the secular American Academy of Religion, provides such mainstream context. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 16:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Mainstream publishers do not change the context or perspective of a work. It's perfectly reasonable for a reliable mainstream publisher to publish an academic book by an ayurveda practitioner surveying the modern practice of ayurveda, but such works absolutely cannot be the only sources on the topic because they will not appropriately address the mainstream consensus that ayurveda is nationalist pseudoscience. People's beliefs are a valid subject of research, but when those beliefs necessitate a fringe understanding of the world, scholarship on them by believers is inherently non-NPOV and therefore must not be the sole source. JoelleJay (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Mainstream publishers do not change the context or perspective of a work. If publishers were this irrelevant, we'd have no reason for guidelines like WP:SPS. A practitioner who writes about their practice for a mainstream or academic press is expected to check their beliefs sufficiently to speak to, with, and within the mainstream/academic conversation. To use another example, Hannah Gresh's Habbakuk: Remembering God's Faithfulness when God Seems Silent and Mark Noll's In the Beginning Was the Word: The Bible in American Public Life are both books about the Bible written by Christians, but the former is a Sunday School manual published by the Moody Bible Institute, and the latter is an academic reception history published by Oxford University Press. To treat these as somehow similarly "fringe" because their authors both happen to be Christian without considering the publisher as a valid context that selects and shapes content—without considering that Oxford University Press would not publish a book that Moody would—is to misunderstand both books. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Publishing through a reliable mainstream publisher does not confer anything beyond reliability to a source. It does not transform a work from non-independent to independent, or primary to secondary. Simply being reliably published does not make a biased work NPOV. Publishers readily work with content written from biased and even fringe perspectives (e.g. OUP and this manual on acupuncture or anything in their "integrative medicine" series), they are catering to specific audiences, not trying to maintain a comprehensive and neutral corpus aimed at the general public. There are plenty of academically-published books about the history of CAM written by CAM apologists, publishers certainly aren't rewriting them to reflect the mainstream scientific view because that's not what these books are for. It's when they are being used in what is supposed to be a neutral, mainstream treatment of a topic, where readers don't know the biases of the underlying sources, that we have to provide context from the mainstream perspective. JoelleJay (talk) 04:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We seem unlikely to persuade each other about the relationship between publisher and publication or about how to interpret WP:IS. And with Ad Orientem having pointed out below that OP's question and controversial position (to use OP's words) were launched in the wrong thread, I think we won't be served by further reiterating ourselves. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Publishing by a mainstream publisher does not necessarily mean it is reliable. It's unusual but I've seen wildly fringe material published by reliable publishers. Doug Weller talk 07:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I deeply regret that I missed this discussion, which is now fairly along. The subject is outside the purview of this forum and belongs on WP:RSN. This noticeboard deals with fringe beliefs that contradict established science or historical fact (i.e. Flat Eartherism or Holocaust denial). Religion, which deals with a belief in the supernatural, is by its very nature something that cannot be proven or disproven through the ordinary processes of examination of historic and scientific facts. As such it is a topic that is almost never appropriate for this forum. I generally close religious discussions when I find them here and point the concerned parties to the correct forum. Unfortunately, this discussion is probably too far along for that. Mea culpa mea culpa... -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been busy removing Creationist sources from the article[3] most if not all added by User:Leo1pard. This included 8 external links, 3 to other languages, not sure why, and 5 Creationist sites. Leo1pard has added an EL and removed some text with the edit summary “ topic of Noah and his ark, which this mountain is connected to, isn't acceptable to atheists anyway. “ That of course isn’t true, what is true is that atheists and many Christians don’t believe it ever happened. Also it still discusses the Ark. Anyway, if others could take a look, maybe see if it could be improved, that would be great. Doug Weller talk 18:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DougWeller Which Christians don't believe in the story of Noah and his ark? Now you're promoting a fringe theory, because all Abrahamic religions (including Islam and Christianity) affirm the story of Noah and his ark, and not just that, other religions like Hinduism have similar beliefs about a great flood! The only people whom I've seen denying the idea of a great flood are atheists or irreligious people, which basically means that the idea of a great flood itself isn't fringe, if not that those who deny it outright are themselves a fringe group! Leo1pard (talk) 04:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC); edited 05:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Christians don't believe in the story of Noah and his ark, by and large. Biblical inerrancy is a minority view among Christians in the US (25%) according to Gallup, Inc. polling [4], even among Evangelicals (40%). Levivich (talk) 05:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, a fringe group among Christians don't believe in the story of Noah and his ark! This is the first time in which I have heard of this, after all the literature (Christian, Islamic or otherwise) which I have come across regarding Noah and his ark! Leo1pard (talk) 05:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC); edited 05:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The views of the country with the most Christians might be shared in other Christian countries. Levivich (talk) 05:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might be, but still, Christians who don't believe in the story of Noah and his ark are a fringe group, so this discussion is hypocritical! Leo1pard (talk) 05:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 *hysterical Levivich (talk) 05:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christians who don't believe in the story of Noah and his ark are a fringe group According to you. You will certainly need some reliable sources to support that novel claim, along with your desired content at Mount Judi. Really, click HERE and read the material therein, as it is a Wikipedia guideline that you need to understand and follow. And by the way, including an exclamation point at the end of every sentence you write does not strengthen your argument. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 09:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Per the links above, Christians who don't believe the bible is literally true make up a majority of those in the US; it can't be called fringe even among them. Of course, what we consider fringe depends on high-quality WP:RSes, which are even more critical, not on polling of the faithful, or on religious authorities or advocacy groups; but it can't reasonably be called a fringe view even among the Christian public. Catholic Answers, for instance, describes both a literal and non-literal interpretation of the event in question as acceptable even under Catholic teachings. It is possible that your perception otherwise may be affected by a no true Scotsman approach to Christianity; if you only consider those who believe in biblical inerrancy to be "true" Christians then naturally you could characterize any opposition as fringe within the faith. --Aquillion (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a belief is fringe or not isn't determined by the number of people who believe in it, but by how it is assessed by reliable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 10:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Heyukaji and Iskandar323: For the first time in my life, after all the literature which I have read about Noah and his ark (Christian, Islamic or otherwise), somebody tells me that "many Christians" don't believe in the story of Noah and his ark, but the statistics given here (like that 25% of American Christians believe in Biblical inerrancy) demonstrate that this a fringe group! Leo1pard (talk) 07:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC); edited 07:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who don't believe in Biblical inerrancy can still believe in Noa's Ark, right? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And our guidance on fringe says ": To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. Additionally, in an article about the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be made clear." Doug Weller talk 09:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think what @Gråbergs Gråa Sång is saying is that belief in Biblical inerrancy isn’t a neat proxy for belief in specific stories or parts of the Bible. But of course that doesn’t give us enough to go the other direction, as well. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gråbergs Gråa Sång Exactly. JoJo Anthrax So you're saying that I need WP:RS to prove that Christians who don't believe in this topic, which is mainstream in Christianity and other Abrahamic religions, are not a fringe group. Well then, let me ask you, which RS do you have about Christians not believing in the story of Noah and his ark, which is mentioned in Christian and Abrahamic scriptures (namely the New Testament Bible, the Old Testament Bible, and the Quran), and has thus been covered extensively in Christian and Abrahamic literature (which at least means that any Christian denying this topic is not in the majority)? Leo1pard (talk) 12:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's the belief that is fringe, not the group. For instance, I wouldn't call the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints] fringe, but their beliefs obviously are fringe. Doug Weller talk 12:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noah's flood is a myth. It did not happen. It contradicts lots of facts from geology. Therefore, even if every non-geologist in the world believed in it, it would be fringe. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field.

Mormon beliefs: LDS Church theology includes the belief in a Godhead composed of God the Father, his son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost as three separate persons who share a unity of purpose or will; however, they are viewed as three distinct beings. This is in contrast with the predominant Christian view, which holds that God is a Trinity of three distinct persons in one essence.

So Mormon beliefs, like regarding the nature of God, are WP:FRINGE among Christians, because they depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream views of Christians, but which WP:RS says that belief in Noah and his ark is fringe among Christians (who are the world's largest and most widespread religious community, with roughly 2.4 billion followers, comprising around 31.2% of the world population), not to mention that many other people also believe in the story of Noah and the Great Flood? Leo1pard (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC); edited 12:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Leo1pard Did I miss where our article on the main LDS church calls the church fringe? Again, it is ideas that are fringe. You can't be a fringe person but you can hold fringe beliefs. Doug Weller talk 13:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless people do answer to the point, which is: the Wiki definition for "fringe theories", the discussion lacks any relevance. Opinions and examples are not proper arguments if they diverge from the topic. Doug Weller has summed up what the Wiki definition is: unless you think he misquoted, or that scholars (anthropologists and geneticians, geologists, climatologists, geographers) believe in the biblical flood and Noah & sons as the sole survivors, this thread must be ended. It's an unwarranted nuisance for those who have this topic on their watchlist to be constantly notified, and find - nothing, really. The private talk can always be continued on user talk pages or project pages. Personally, I am interested in what people think, so putting those links back elsewhere under, say, "supporters of biblical inerrancy", would be of specific interest. But not here. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I landed here via Wikilink and thought I'm on the Mount Judi talk page. The idea remains the same, but part of what I wrote only belongs there, sorry. Arminden (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Belief in Noah's ark is fringe in the sense of being limited solely to individuals with few critical thinking skills. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some details are disputed (like whether or not the flood was global), but a basic search through the internet (like 25,900,000 results on Google) shows that the very idea of Noah and his ark and the flood is quite the opposite of WP:FRINGE! Leo1pard (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Google search is irrelevant on Wikipedia. Quoting from WP:V "The University of California, Berkeley, library states: "Most pages found in general search engines for the web are self-published or published by businesses small and large with motives to get you to buy something or believe a point of view. Even within university and library web sites, there can be many pages that the institution does not try to oversee. Doug Weller talk 17:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's the view of there being a worldwide flood that's fringe. Other details (like that there was a flood at all), not really. Leo1pard (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to start bringing sources. This should probably be hatted if you don't per WP:FORUM/ Doug Weller talk 17:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a curious thing. Civilisations that arise on floodplains often have flood myths. Nobody has ever given an adequate explanation as to why. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t have sources to hand… however, I am positive that an overwhelming majority of Christians DON’T believe that the biblical story of Noah’s Ark is factual. I suspect that the majority of Christians believe that it is a myth - At most a cultural memory of a much smaller (but locally devastating) flood that (possibly) occurred in the Tigris/Euphrates River system… and of an ancestor who survived by putting his family and farm animals on a raft. Most understand that the value of the biblical story isn’t its factual accuracy, but the allegorical lesson it teaches (God will stay true to you, as long as you stay true to God - even in adversity). Blueboar (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump, Doug Weller, and Blueboar: Here's an interesting article by the National Geographic on the subject:

Noah’s Ark is among the best known and most captivating of all Old Testament stories: After creating humans, God became so displeased with them that he struck Earth with an all-encompassing flood to wipe them out—with one noteworthy (and seaworthy) exception: the biblical patriarch and his family, accompanied by pairs of each of the planet’s animals, who rode out the deluge in an enormous wooden vessel. ... Stories of destructive floods and those who survive them predate the Hebrew Bible, the oldest parts of which are thought to have been written in the 8th century B.C. ... Could these flood myths be based in fact? “There does seem to be geological evidence that there was a major flood in the Black Sea region about 7,500 years ago,” says National Geographic Explorer Eric Cline, an archaeologist at George Washington University. But scientists disagree on the extent of that event, just as historians of the era differ on whether writings about a deluge were inspired by real life. It seems likelier that floods were simply experienced in different places and at different times—and that those events naturally made their way into the world’s oral and written lore.

So basically, what is particularly controversial (hence WP:FRINGE) is the idea that there was a global flood which wiped out every creature, except for Noah, his family and the animals on board his ark. That a major flood happened at all, inspiring the story of Noah, Manu, Utnapishtim, Ziusudra, Atra-Hasis or Deucalion, cannot be scientifically disproved, because massive or catastrophic floods do happen. Leo1pard (talk) 04:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC); edited 04:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you call a "come to Jesus moment" but when it's a scientific realization? "Come to Darwin"? Levivich (talk) 04:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some people believe that there was a global flood which wiped out most creatures, that's the WP:FRINGE which doesn't have scientific evidence, not the basic idea of a man (like Noah, Manu, Utnapishtim, Ziusudra, Atra-Hasis or Deucalion) building a vessel to save himself from a natural disaster like a flood. Leo1pard (talk) 05:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every time there's a flood anywhere, some bloke will get on a raft or floating object - that's not really a specific story. We have the page flood myth for the recurring theme. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You keep talking about "a flood" when it is actually lots of floods, in places where floods are expeced to happen. Can you please stop using this page as a forum to argue the "you cannot prove I am wrong" canard? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, you just changed your argument. Earlier, you denied it, and now, you're talking of it as being one of many floods. Let's just agree here that the WP:FRINGE is not in the mere idea of a flood, or that a man built a vessel to protect himself from it, but the idea that there was a global flood which killed most creatures! Leo1pard (talk) 07:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier, you denied it is true. I, along with all of science, deny there was such a thing as a world-wide flood survived by a guy named Noah.

now, you're talking of it as being one of many floods is untrue.

This is not Learn-how-to-be-a-lawyer, this is an encyclopedia. Stop the unconstructive disruption. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has been adding Creationist nonsense to articles for years.. Doug Weller talk 08:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also getting into pretty clear WP:BATTLEGROUND territory at this point, I think perhaps we need to not humour this as much. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON also. Doug Weller talk 10:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard not to humor this when it's so entertaining. For example, earlier Leo referred to "whether or not the flood was global" as "some details" 😅 pretty sure whether or not the flood was global is the detail in that story.

But sadly you're right, this is all bludgeon, forum, and CIR, and Wikipedia is not here for my amusement.

("Some detail" though 🤣) Levivich (talk) 13:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still hankeren for more details. Isaiah 11:12 'from the four corners of the earth’ presupposes a flat earth. How did them thair fludwhoretars stop from fallen offa the earth?Nishidani (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: You just explained how the flood ended and you think it is evidence against the story? Zero^talk 01:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, eh, well, what about this? Nishidani (talk) 10:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I meet some of them fludwhoretars? I'll set 'em straight. Carlstak (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well it all makes sense. It's easier to flood the earth if it's flat, you just pour the water on top. For a round earth, you have to do it twice to get both sides. Levivich (talk) 06:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brant Gardner. Please comment. jps (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Black legend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Black Legend of the Spanish Inquisition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Black Legend (Spain) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please, can someone make sense of this? I'm pretty sure the Spanish Inquisition happened and was horrible. Compare Holocaust denial, I guess.

jps (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a good comparison. Here's an encyclopedia definition:

The Black Legend (“La Leyenda Negra”) portrays the Spanish people as more cruel, greedy, and ignorant than other Europeans. A Spanish journalist, Julián Juderías, coined the term in 1912, but the literature on which it is based dates to the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. Spain was at that time Europe's greatest power. The Revolt of the Netherlands, Spain's war with England, and the Thirty Years' War provoked a flood of anti-Spanish propaganda, while Spain's commitment to the Counter-Reformation terrified European Protestants. For more than a century, Dutch, English, and French writers produced scores of books and pamphlets that tried to arouse popular sentiment against Spain and its people. Some of these works were pure fiction, but most drew their inspiration from reports of Spanish atrocities in the Netherlands or, above all, in the conquest of America.

— "Black Legend". The Oxford Companion to World Exploration.

But also here is Henry Kamen's opinion in The Spanish Inquisition :

The anti-Spanish attitudes are sometimes referred to as a “Black Legend,” but no such notion existed in the sixteenth century or even later. The term was invented in 1914 by a Castilian nationalist writer, Julián Juderías, who felt that Protestant foreigners and progressive Spaniards had systematically been defaming his country; in defense, he sought a label to pin on their attitudes. Persistent employment of the label for ideological ends in order to rebut any criticism of Spain’s imperial record has made it both unsuitable to use and inaccurate.

You've probably dug up quite a bit of work there in checking sources to make sure WP is not slipping into that mode of employment. A further problem tho is that the article should have never been split off to Black Legend (Spain). Black Legend as some kind of general "historiographical phenomenon" is from Elvira Roca Barea's Imperiofobia y Leyenda Negra. I haven't looked for any reviews, but this is almost certainly a minority definition in what is pretty extensive La Leyenda Negra literature. fiveby(zero) 01:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After looking more at the articles, maybe the split is an opportunity to make some lemonade? Ignore the useless trash at Black Legend (Spain) and Black Legend of the Spanish Inquisition, confine Roca Barea's damn Imperiofobia to her own biography, then write a best sources article at Black legend. Think that would fly? fiveby(zero) 04:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are we going to do about this? AfD?

This is a lot thicker than most fringe problems I've encountered.

jps (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that @Boynamedsue: has spent a lot of time trying to clean up the Black Legend (Spain) article, I think asking them for their input on what to do with these articles is advisable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tagging me Hemiauchenia. Black Legend (Spain) is the one I have had most contact with. It is really unwieldy and the sections on the "origin theories" are just crap, but it does need to exist. I personally share the view that the Spanish Black Legend is largely not a real thing, but the theory has been written about a lot by respectable historians of Latin America. I would argue for Roca Barea's inclusion in that article, due to her current prominence in Spain and the comparative quality of her critics. The fact that she damns herself with her arrant nonsense is actually quite useful for putting the whole thing in perspective.

Strangely enough, I had never seen Black Legend of the Spanish Inquisition. It's quite bad, seemingly taking the existence of the legend for granted.

I would tend to agree that splitting the articles was a mistake, I could even see the value of merging all three articles. Contrary to what I said about Black Legend (Spain), I think Roca Barea's theories are given far too much prominence in Black Legend. She is a published writer on history, but not an academic historian. Her theories are generally discussed by serious historians only with regard to Spain, and only critically. I have actually added quite a lot of criticism to the Spain page, but more has been published since then. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that one article at Black Legend should exist, but also thinking there are maybe three major intertwined ways the term has been employed. Might call these 'Old World', 'New World' and 'Theory'. William S. Maltby provides the description for The Oxford Companion to World Exploration and i think this is an 'Old World' look, his The Black Legend in England, 1558-1660 was 1971. This is some support for Juderías' argument, all this polemical Reformation literature and Spanish stereotypes. The 'New World' look, in Latin American studies, dealing primarily with the record of conquest and with Las Casas as the focus. Hotly debated more than fifty years ago, with apologies, hagiographies, nationalist writings, revisionism, and 'White Legend'. This is important content tho it may look dated to us. Can you imagine an historian using 'legend' or a title containing "...Spanish Struggle for Justice in the Conquest of America" today in the context of colonialism?

The 'Theory', is seemingly that there is ...no consensus on whether the phenomenon persists in the present day. This looks to be the way the two split-off articles have been structured, making an argument and just using selected quotes in support. Did we expect to see a "consensus" among serious historians and those expounding the 'Theory'? I'm satisfied that there is not. fiveby(zero) 16:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Made a merge proposal, see Talk:Black_legend#Proposal_to_merge_Black_Legend_(Spain)_into_this_article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre of the Innocents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

[5] I'm pretty sure we shouldn't be including biblical literalist commentary in any page on biblical scholarship. Please, someone explain why a Young Earth Creationist deserves to have his views detailed in long paragraph style as though they are "counterpoint". jps (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The murder of the innocents, so far I am aware, is a folklore trope. That our Wikipedia article has it as specific to solely one of its recyclings, and dallies with the idea that this one might be the Truth is classic WP:PROFRINGE, and editors rushing to defend wikivoiced sentences like this really make you wonder ...

However, while the author seemed to model the wording of the narrative on the story of Moses, this does not explain whether the Mosaic model was the origin of the episode, or a comment on a historical event.

Bon courage (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I have a WP:WRONGVERSION version. [6] I thin it is far better than the one the editors are reverting back to while sticking their fingers in their ears about literalism. Would love any input on the matter on the talkpage or in the article history. Maybe you can crush it down better? jps (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are they a noted expert, wait its not an SPS, maybe this needs to be at RSN, and not here. Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are a noted apologist. They are not a noted expert on the evidence for what parts of the bible are historical. They have an agenda as a biblical literalist to prove the entire bible is true. jps (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are an academic who was a professor of ancient history. That seems to me to be a pass, so take it to RSN. Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can have fringe professors (especially when they move outside their field). You can have fringe nobelists (as we know)! So this would seem to be a fringe question. Everybody is "reliable" for their pronouncements, but is it fringe/due? Bon courage (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that's not at all rare. Carlo Rotella explained this well in "Pulp History". I wrote a brief synopsis for Wikipedia at WP:PULP. Someone's work in apologetics does not become reliable because of their work in a different field, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry what? It only needs to go to RSN if the talk page discussion has been exhausted without reaching a consensus, this one literally just began. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mind, Slatersteven. He approaches things in an idiosyncratic legalistic way that can often safely be ignored. He's much better at Wikipedia-ing than when he started years ago, but sometimes the old officiousness breaks through. :) We'll stay talking about it here, no problem. It's definitely a fringe matter. jps (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slow-mo edit war continues: [7] Seems some people really want there to be a "yeahbut" about whether or not this thing happened. jps (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a collection of fringe linguistics. I suspect it needs heavy TNT Big Money Threepwood (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is some good stuff there, though some of it isn't "linguistics" but instead "word choice". I put a cleanup tag up and started the exhausting process of trying to see what to do about this. jps (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Denis Rancourt (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Deleting bad sources is "ideologically motivated" now. More eyes would be useful. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article reads like a list of bad actions, rather than a biography of the individual. Maybe it needs a change of scope, such as Denis Rancourt legal disputes. Otherwise, I think this needs WP:TNT and rebuilt from scratch. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this basically reads as a recount of his legal troubles rather than as a biography. Any fix won't be easy though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But if he hasn’t done anything else notable, what else is there to say about him? Dronebogus (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem. If the only notability is the controversies, then the article should be focused around the controversies. Not billed as a WP:BLP about the subject himself. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic WP:FALSEBALANCE user does not want to listen to me. Seems to think that the low quality of sources is my WP:IDONTLIKEIT problem. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He's edit warring too. 208.87.236.202 (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And PG has shown up to spew his usual crap towards climate science. 208.87.236.202 (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Lugavere is a social media diet influencer similar to Steven Gundry who is known to promote pseudoscientific claims about supplements. An IP is repeatedly trying to remove this source from the article [8] Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is false, supplements are not core to Max Lugavere's message. Psychologist Guy appears to be biased (he edits vegan/vegetarian articles) and Max Lugavere routinely warns about the potential risks of veganism. Max is a regular guest on many mainstream TV outlets, has published books and scientific reviews, is generally credible as a health and science journalist, and does not sell supplements of his own unlike Steven Gundry. The editor is attempting to make this a top-line critic of Max's, which is inappropriate. The editor also removed edits that were pertinent to Max's biographical information for no apparent reason. 76.50.244.14 (talk) 04:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the CoI of promotion and selling supplements is a problem, it doesn't particularly matter in the end. Anyone claiming supplements do stuff for which there is insufficient evidence is likely to be criticised. A famous example of this is probably Linus Pauling. AFAIK, he never got particularly involved in selling supplements, but his promotion of them is quite rightfully called out extensively in our article as it's a commonly touched on a great deal in sources on Pauling. And Pauling also did a lot of other good and significant work which doesn't seem to be the case for Lugavere. Incidentally, I find it incredibly unlikely Lugavere has actually published any scientific reviews, at least in any credibly peer reviewed journal. Nil Einne (talk) 11:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Lugavere is not published in peer-review, so the claim that he has published "scientific reviews" is false. He has no medical or nutritional training. He is not a neurologist but makes many false claims about neurology and nutrition. If you check his YouTube channel he promotes the carnivore diet. For example only yesterday Shawn Baker was on his podcast [9]. Here is Mark Hyman on Max Lugavere's podcast [10] "How To REVERSE AGING, Prevent Disease & Live to 120+! YEARS OLD". Say no more. This is the sort of pseudoscience this guy promotes. The claim that he is a "credible" health science journalist is obviously not true. If you check other fad diet "influencers" he promotes on his podcast, it's is like a Who's Who of the low-carb pseudoscience world - Steven Gundry, Dave Asprey, William Davis, Mark Hyman, Jason Fung, Mark Sisson, David Perlmutter are all regular speakers [11] on his podcast which he hosts. Here is Max Lugavere promoting functional medicine [12], a well known pseudoscience. Let's not pretend this guy is promoting nutritional science, practically everything he says about nutrition is inaccurate or wrong. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a highly biased take. Max having different voices on his podcast is not a damnation of his own recommendations, and his work has been evidence-based. He promotes omnivory, not a "high" meat diet, and does not sell supplements. Further, the claim that he has not published a scientific review is false, as you can see here: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-93497-6_14. Psychologist Guy is clearly emotionally triggered by Max, which simply should negate his ability to edit Max's Wikipedia page, if this is a site meant to share objective facts and truth. Max has also had many credible, evidence-based guests on his podcast - Alan Aragon (multiple times), Layne Norton, to name a few - and has contributed lots of good work into the field, including his scientific review, advocacy on TV and beyond. Further, a podcast is an entertainment platform, and should not ultimately lead to "guilt by association" for Max's apparent desire to have interesting conversations. 76.50.244.14 (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to take most of this to the talk page and the IP user, who appears to be a single purpose account, needs to disclose any COIs if any exist and knock off the personal attacks. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

76.50.244.14 all misinformation. Max Lugavere is not "evidence-based". Here he is on Paul Saladino's podcast [13] promoting all kinds of nonsense. A book chapter is not a medical review. This IP should be blocked per WP:3RR per their own edit history [14], as they are still making the same reverts. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote specific claims that Max makes that are not evidence based. The mere appearance on a fringe podcast is not sufficient to deem Max Lugavere is "not evidence based". Further, many of your links are multiple years old. The supplement claim link is 6 years old. The functional medicine link is 7 years old. Let's remain neutral and objective here. 76.50.244.14 (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only yesterday Shawn Baker appeared on his podcast promoting the carnivore diet and Max agreed with it [15]. If he is evidence-based why is he enabling and promoting the carnivore diet? Pretty much everything he says is against the clinical and health guidelines of medical organizations. He often tells people there is no link between red meat and any negative effect [16]. For example, he claimed on Twitter "The evidence linking red meat to poor health is exceedingly weak" and often tells people to eat a steak everyday and organic meats [17]. Max also promotes the consumption of beef testicles [18]. The link between cancer and red meat is not weak, we have decades of research on this. All the leading cancer organizations world-wide tell people to limit red meat, not increase it.

We have an article on red meat. There is good evidence that high red meat intake increases bowel cancer risk. Here is the World Cancer Research Fund International, "There is strong evidence that consumption of either red or processed meat are both causes of colorectal cancer" [19] and the American Cancer Society, "evidence that red and processed meats increase cancer risk has existed for decades, and many health organizations recommend limiting or avoiding these foods" [20]. The World Health Organization have said the same.

Max Lugavere like other low-carb advocates also claims incorrectly that vegetable oils and seeds themselves are toxic for health [21], Joe Rogan & Max Lugavere discuss that SEEDS ARE A MAJOR PROBLEM [22]. This is typical misinformation found in the carnivore diet community. Neither seeds or vegetable oils are toxic or a "major problem". All health guidelines around the world recommend vegetable oils and seeds. There is no evidence they are bad for health. Here he claims rapeseed oil is a poison [23]. Rapeseed oil is far from poison, it's recommended by the American Heart Association. This guy is the opposite of evidence-based. He promotes all kinds of conspiracy theories about food. He believes he is correct and the entire medical community is wrong. He doesn't have one sensible suggestion. I have studied fad diet promoters for 20 years. I can tell you this guy ticks all the boxes. Let's not waste time discussing this anymore. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Lugavere now complaining on his talk-page [24] and on Twitter [25] Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The geoglyph itself isn't fringe, but recent additions are[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paracas_Candelabra&action=history]

Suddenly this Peruvian geoglyph is being edited to claim it was made by "Lord Indra". 3 IPs add this, then a brand new editor adding copyvio, then another IP followed by an editor who's been here since 2009 but this is only their 65th edit. So I'm wandering into content edit-warring country myself trying to deal with this fringe as except for User:Discospinster I'm the only one reverting. Doug Weller talk 09:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That article has some pretty noticeable issues even without the weirdness from the IPs and copyvios. Looking now, the history section cites not a single source for any of its statements. 50.234.188.27 (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I've been looking hard for sources for months. Doug Weller talk 16:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

A sentence summarizing a number of RS articles on fossil fuel and tobacco causes promoted by the Atlas Network has been removed from the second paragraph of the article. Atlas Network has been mentioned in passing previously on this noticeboard. Cited RS describe Atlas as important in the climate denial movement. I began a talk page discussion here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llll5032 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This guy was an alternative medicine, low-carb influencer and cholesterol/statin denialist who wrote a bunch of pseudoscientific books. Article needs to be cleared up and fixed, any help appreciated. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a new page called Liverpolitan identity. I would prefer to call it Liverpolitan but the page is currently the subject of an AFD as a candidate for deletion and I am not able to change the title. Could anyone please help if this is the right place to flag this article? Can it be flagged whilst it is under an AFD? I would like someone to determine whether this article is strictly a fringe subject. A few editors have suggested it might be. If that is the case, what is the best way to deal with its content. The article explains the history of the word 'Liverpolitan' and concludes with the modern interpretation that this words represents an identity within a wider Liverpool area. This has caused a few editors to suggest that this goes against the prevailing view and is not noteworthy enough for its own article. Happy to explain more for those not familiar. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a fringe issue here, it's more that it's just an uncommon synonym for "Liverpudlian". There doesn't seem to be a real distinction. It should probably redirect to Liverpool, as for "Liverpudlian" and "Scouser", if it's needed at all. Brunton (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has caused a bit of a stir amongst a handful of editors. Unfortunately one editor has flagged it for deletion. I just need to know what to do and if there is an 'authority' on Wiki that can say definitively either way. Do you think the article is fair, well sourced and notable enough in its presentation? Are you suggesting a redirect and keep the page title as it is? Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 08:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no 'authority' of that sort, decisions are taken by consensus and with reference to Wikipedia's policies etc. Many of the sources just seem to be about Liverpool generally, so it has issues with WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. If an article on the Liverpool cultural identity is to exist at all, it should be at Liverpudlian or Scouse identity, as these are the synonyms more often used. Brunton (talk) 09:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, the reason I introduced this article is because as much as Scouser is more well known - Scouse is an accent and a dialect - which has its own separate page. The term Liverpolitan is much older and predates the Scouse identity by many decades according the sources. I didn't think it was fair to unfairly portray the Liverpolitan term as a synonym for Scouser since the term predates it. I think this is what has caused some confusion amongst editors. The article also explains how the term differs to 'Liverpudlian'. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 09:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From the sources (and indeed the article) there doesn't seem to be any real distinction between "Liverpolitan" and "Liverpudlian", other than the former having apparently been used to refer to 'posher' Liverpudlians at some point in the past. If no such distinction can be made by reference to WP:RS then there shouldn't be a separate article.

As I said, I don't think there's a fringe issue here, but if there is then, per WP:FRINGE, the encyclopaedia should reflect the mainstream position, which is clearly that the commonly used terms are Liverpudlian and Scouser. Brunton (talk) 10:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This aligns with my thinking Brunton (previously put on the deletion page). "Liverpolitan" on its own is a DICDEF. "Liverpolitan identity" as a subject lacks sufficient sourcing to give the name Liverpolitan primacy over more common terms of Liverpudlian or Scouser. Its only novelty is very recent attempts to use it as Demonym for the populace of the Liverpool City Region - but there's a dearth of sources actually supporting it, instead most articles being a rejection of it, or discussion of its historical origin. Koncorde (talk) 11:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article does portray the main demonym and makes that clear. I would like other people to contribute to it so it reaches consensus, not just a sole contribute. There are also differences between Scouser, Liverpudlian and Liverpolitan. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 12:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a noticeboard. It is a board for posting notices. Sometimes discussions happen here too, but if there is no connection whatsoever between the discussion and the subject of the noticeboard, as in this case, the discussion does not belong here. Can you please continue somewhere else, preferably on the article Talk page? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is clear forum shopping. as this matter was addressed recently at AN/I I would suggest that Liverpolitan1980 should drop the WP:STICK. Simonm223 (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's an IP at the talk page complaining about lack of sources. It looks as though it needs more and may be slightly tilted towards his views. Doug Weller talk 17:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that his assertions about how the pyramids were built might be discussed by other sources in the article. I think the question is, does the mention or discussion in the sources amount to significant coverage? I started a discussion on the talk page if anyone is interested in helping to analyze the sources. Also, is there evidence that Davidovits received the Ordre national du Mérite? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed that. Doug Weller talk 13:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been looking at what publications exist in terms of reliable, third-party, sources that review the idea that the pyramids / great pyramids of Egypt consisting of blocks of casts geopolymer. So far, I have found a deafening lack of recent third-party reviews. The main peer-reviewed sources consists of parts of a "pro" and "con" discussion that was published during 1992 and 1993 in the Journal of Geological Education. Subsequently, there is a 2007 conference paper and a report by Dipayan Jana that dispute this concept. On the "pro" side, there are several conference papers; a few papers in ceramic / material engineering journals; and numerous self-published articles and books all by a very small handful of supporters of this idea.

After 1992 and 1993, I have so far been able to find very few publications by a third-party archeologist, geoarchaeologist, or geologist who have recently published anything about this idea. The publications citing the publications of the "pro" side of use of polymers in building the pyramids, seem to be in the introduction to ceramic and material engineering papers that only state so-and-so proposed that the pyramids are constructed by blocks of geopolymers and go on to discuss other unrelated aspects of geopolymers. Outside of the proponents of fringe ideas, it seems after 2012-2013, the only people interested in this concept have been a small group of its supporters. Finding reliable, third-party, commentary and reviews of the pyramid - geopolymers connection might be problem as there seems to be a lack of interest in this topic by third-party archeologists, geoarchaeologists, and geologists. Paul H. (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul H.@Johnprovis@Steve Quinn Thanks to Paul for finding this which looks like a brilliant source which discusses Davidovits... [26] Dietrich Klemm, Rosemarie Klemm THE STONES OF THE PYRAMIDS Provenance of the Building Stones of the Old Kingdom Pyramids of Egypt/ Doug Weller talk 13:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Paul. The dearth of discussion in sources probably means that this hypothesis has gained no traction in the mainstream scientific community. It most likely a hypothesis or a theory with a potpourri of shortcomings. And of course the theory has a certain aura about it because it connects with the pyramids of Gaza. And that kind of aura often leads to unsound and even irrational ideas outside the scientific community, if you get my meaning.---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geopolymer

Who wrote that? returns "JDavidovits (talk | contribs) added this on 18 January 2013 10:36 AM. I have replace the old content with a new one that is an actual update and represents the wishes of the geopolymer scientists community.+27,571 They have written 61.0% of the page. Found that at Talk:Joseph Davidovits#Adding details on my scientific career — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 13:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where can we post this to get people who know about geopolymer? Doug Weller talk 16:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller. Offhand I am thinking of the WikiProject Engineering talk page. But I am wondering if it would be OK to post at the Village Pump for more visibility. What do you think about the Village Pump? Too over the top? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know,which one? Doug Weller talk 17:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me take a look over at the Village Pump and see if this fits into a section over there. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else who has a suggestion, please chime in. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller:, I think this will be OK in the Village Pump Miscellaneous section. Do you want to open the thread there because you know what you are asking? Or do you want me to open the thread? If I do then you will have let me know what you want to ask, because I am not entirely sure. It seems you are concerned that JDavidovits wrote 61.0 percent of that page. So you want editors who know about geopolymers to judge the accuracy of the page or to edit or something else? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Steve Quinn judge the accuracy, sources, pov. If you could do it that would be great, I’m off to sleep. Thanks very much. Doug Weller talk 20:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: - I don't mind doing it. But it will be in about a day or so. I want to take a closer look at this article and the Joseph Davidovits biography. In the meantime please rest as much as you need. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller:. Sorry to ping you again. Just want to let you know I might have found someone to help out. I haven't tried the Village Pump yet, but I discovered this editor who may be able to help. I left a message on his talk page. Here is the link: [27]. If they don't respond in a few days I will send them an email. And we still have the Village Pump option if this doesn't pan out. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you have more to add over at their talk page feel free to do so.----Steve Quinn (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just tagged the article for factual accuracy based on the talk page discussions and the fact that Davidovits edited 61 per cent of the article. He was indefinitely blocked in 2016. However, while he was editing on that article he had some serious WP:OWNership issues, among other issues. That's what I gather from the talk page discussions. I am tempted to simply stubify it and start over. If I knew about Geopolymers I certainly would do that. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He also edited with a sock. Subbing may be necessary or maybe a merge with Geopolymer cement. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I will look at stubifying or a merge. Either of these may be the best solution at this time.---Steve Quinn (talk)

I am linking to the sock investigation for reference: JDavidovits sock investigation results. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article really does need a lot of work (it's got some major scientific flaws as well as some more broadly misleading or weird content), but there was a huge bunfight last time I tried to do anything about it - I'm a researcher who works on these materials (and have done so for 20 years or so - https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=1mwmcwYAAAAJ&hl=en), which someone last time around said was too much of a conflict of interest for me to be doing much editing on the article?

I'm happy to put some time into it if it's appropriate, though - please let me know.

Either way, I think merging is definitely worth doing. Johnprovis (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnprovis:, @Doug Weller:, I changed the article back to its February 13, 2016 version. In that edit summary Joheprovis Undid revision 704588689 by JDavidovits and wrote: "You can't just revert a year's editing by all sorts of people (not just me) - needs to go through appropriate dispute resolution." Here is the diff for that: [28]. And here is the diff for today's revert: [29]. I am guessing this is the most accurate version available at this time.

John, if you think a merge is the best option then I agree with you. Doug also suggested a merge as an option. So this what I recommend. John, do you remember who told you that editing that article would be a conflict of interest? We may need to have a discussion about that before the merge. I don't want you to get into trouble. And yet, you are the most capable of doing the merge. So let's just take it one step at a time. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnprovis@Steve Quinn A merge makes sense. I've just deleted more material, eg from something called the "Australian Geopolymer Alliance" that doesn't even exist any more. John, being an expert definitely does not give you a conflict of interest. Repeatedly adding your own articles might, or something that you get paid to do, but not just expertise. Doug Weller talk 14:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: - John, I agree with Doug. I don't think you have a conflict of interest. Being an expert does not mean you have a COI. I believe that is a misunderstanding on someone else's part. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I'll start bashing at it then - this is actually quite a major class of cements and needs a proper Wikipedia article. As a starting point, I've run through the Geopolymer Cement article and retrieved the text of the one section there that wasn't already a duplicate of stuff that's here (on "Workability issues"), and pasted that in - which is fairly painless as far as a merge goes.... I think the Geopolymer Cement article can safely be deleted now by someone who knows properly how to do this? (I'm not really up to speed on that side of things, so sorry if there's any lack of Wikipedia etiquette/process/acronyms/etc. that come up here).

And it's been long enough that I can't even remember who commented on the conflict of interest thing, but if you don't think it's an issue then I'll happily start progressing a few edits. It won't happen overnight, but hopefully some helpful improvements will be visible before long... and if it's possible to enlist other interested folks as you mentioned about the Village Pump, that would also be handy, I think. Johnprovis (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Doug, see John's post just above. @Johnprovis: Thanks very much, John. This is much appreciated. I will post something over at the Village Pump in a day or so. Also, if you have any problems, please feel free to let me or Doug know so that, hopefully, we can smooth things out if necessary. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnprovis@Steve Quinn Thanks. I think just turning it into a redirect might be ok? Not sure we need to go to the VP. Doug Weller talk 17:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: I agree that a redirect will do. I also agree that maybe we don't need to go to the VP. Let's see how things go from here. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALTERNATIVE EGYPTOLOGY Critical essays on the relation between academic and alternative interpretations of ancient Egypt Edited by B.J.L. van den Bercken | 2024 free to read online at [30] Doug Weller talk 17:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_CNN_for_transgender_topics This discussion may be of interest. Partofthemachine (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This feels wildly inappropriate to post here, to be perfectly honest. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's now been WP:SNOW closed. XOR'easter (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just would like to also briefly chime in to say that I really don't see a fringe connection there. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Andrew Huberman (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

is a very hot topic[54] at the moment, especially with recent published material referring to his podcast as containing pseudoscience/ More wise eyes could help. Bon courage (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the usefulness of including David Berson's input on this guy's podcast in the end there. Reconrabbit 18:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but it's in the WP:RS and the Huberman fans go rabid if you only cite the negatives from a source. It's better to throw them a bone than encourage edit warring. A few additional watchers on the article are good though. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If 'you only cite the negatives from a source', you are engaged in cherry-picking, and all Wikipedians with a good-faith understanding of WP:NPOV should oppose such. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a misreading of NPOV. We are not required to balance "positive" and "negative" parts of a source. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Gokhale Method (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• Previous FTN discussion: [55]

An interesting one this, maybe one of those cases where it's not possible to write a neutral article on a (probably) FRINGE subject as there is no neutral/mainstream sourcing.

An editor has raised concerns that the scientific sourcing cited in this article is not relevant to the subject, and they may well be right. Removing it would leave no independent assessment of the method's claims. What to do? Bon courage (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Getting consistent attention from IPs removing the pseudoscience designation for the pseudoscience-specific bits of the training. Could use eyes. Bon courage (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It's happening again. Should Wikipedia just give this up? Bon courage (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Wolter Says He Won't Reveal Oak Island Secrets without a Big TV Payday] Doug Weller talk 16:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully they won't pay up, and he'll keep his 'secrets' to himself, thus leaving Wikipedia with less credulous bullshit to deal with. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, they call it the "money pit" for a reason, I guess, just not then one we thought. Dumuzid (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Havana syndrome (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Just taken a look at this after a while, and ...

My view

... am troubled to see what appears to me to be a rambling mess, including a huge "chronology" section which seems to be a collection of every possible WP:NEWSPRIMARY source airing speculation. Needless to say there's a now a clamour to include the latest "it's the Ruksies!" news tidbit that's doing the rounds. Meanwhile the most authoriative sources haven't switched from their position of Havana Syndrome probably not being a real thing caused by external factors outside the imagination of those who have it. More eyes probably could help. (Update: Now the article says "The March 2024 60 Minutes installment [sic] offered the first direct proof of the Russians' culpability ...") Bon courage (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC); 18:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it seems some editors are taking the 60 Minutes report [56] as ultimate vindication for their own long held beliefs. The fact that the show made claims appears to be well sourced and deserves a mention, but representing its conclusions as compelling, authoritative, or the new mainstream position...is not justified. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone tell those journalists that a weak correlation is not necessarily indicative of causation? It all seems very circumstantial. Simonm223 (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct to revert edits alleging the 60 minutes report is definitive but you shouldn't keep reverting edits that simply quote the claims in the report and the responses from a WP:NPOV using WP:SECONDARY. The development clearly belongs in the article given that it was significant enough that both the Director of National Intelligence and the Russian Government responded to it. ChaseK (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 23:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My edit never made out the 60 Minutes report to be absolute truth, I detailed that it contained allegations by fairly reliable sources, but did not claim it as authoritative or the mainstream position. The article already contained content of similar substance and it wasn't challenged. — THORNFIELD HALL ^(Talk) 22:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just glancing at the reports in question, asserting a cause of a medical condition would definitely need secondary WP:MEDRS sources. I'm seeing a lot of common misconceptions trying to zero on on the news reports being secondary sources and entirely missing that point. Definitely good to hold back attempts to insert those sources from a weight perspective, and especially WP:NOTNEWS policy. KoA (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News reports as secondary sources for attributed claims, in the absence of high quality medical sources is entirely acceptable. No causes for this disputed medical condition were "asserted" as fact. FailedMusician (talk) 08:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News reports as secondary sources for attributed claims ← huh? primary sources do not magically become secondary (or usable) by attribution. The last editor who tried this line of argument (about another fringe subject: lab leak) ended up blocked. We can't allow fringe material into Wikipedia just by trick of putting "Dr X says ..." in front of it. Bon courage (talk) 08:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not claim primary sources become secondary sources. Only that they are usable for attributed claims, in the absence of high quality medical sources, in which is a part medical and political subject. FailedMusician (talk) 08:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They may be useful for occasional careful use to touch in details, but the basis of the article must be secondary sourcing, particularly to establish any themes which are discussed. Bon courage (talk) 08:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that, through a combination of recency and the involvement of the notoriously non-forthcoming US intelligence apparatus, there is a dearth of WP:MEDRS compliant secondary sources. I'm increasingly of the opinion that the best solution is likely to stubify the article. Because right now a lot of people are calling for one standard for journalists stories of magic Russian guns and another standard for people saying, "the subjects of this condition don't appear to have any sort of injuries." Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how MEDRS works at all. News sources are generally unreliable for medical topics. You might use a news sources as a supplement lay description when secondary medical sources are already used for a specific piece of content. It's a common misconception that news sources satisfy the secondary source requirement for MEDRS content. KoA (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally agree with you. My concern is what has emerged at the article talk is to treat WP:MEDRS as strictly enforced for medical claims but as irrelevant for political / espionage related claims. This is creating an undue focus on journalistic speculation as to possible causes excluding what academics and doctors might have to say about them. For instance: the recent collaboration between three media outlets that led to increased attention on this page includes claims that Russian assassins! are responsible for Havana Syndrome on the basis, largely, of flight logs, and the speculation that a microwave weapon might be possible. The general consensus of the studies of people who have suffered Havana Syndrome is that any microwave weapon that would be sufficiently powerful to cause the indicated symptoms would also cause other symptons but because these are primary sources they're being disregarded for medical evidence while the other story is being highlighted as non-medical / political content. I simply want consistent standards for the article. Simonm223 (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's why I suggested leading with a draft of just a MEDRS summary of the subject at the article talk page. Hopefully that would ground and anything that would come in from the political aspect. If something from those news sources contradicted or wasn't covered by MEDRS sources, it wouldn't matter if they also had a political angle because it's still (usually) focusing on claims about a medical condition. There could be brief mention of those latter aspects, but MEDRS would be determining weight for that periphery as well. Basically, develop a MEDRS core, then let that anchor all other content discussion, and you wouldn't need to stubify for that either.

Edit warring is part of the issue there too though. I'm seeing a lot of restoring content in violation of WP:ONUS policy that's hampering content development. I would have been a bit more prone to help out there more when I have some spare time, but it looks like it would take significant effort to get the article improved with that compounding factor. KoA (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The general consensus of the studies of people who have suffered Havana Syndrome is that any microwave weapon that would be sufficiently powerful to cause the indicated symptoms would also cause other symptons but because these are primary sources they're being disregarded for medical evidence while the other story is being highlighted as non-medical / political content. I think that this is a situation where WP:PARITY would apply, allowing us to cite sources we usually wouldn't use for medical claims (but which are still better than the news sources in question) in order to establish that the perspective in the news sources is medically fringe. --Aquillion (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That would be a good case-by-case approach for parity, though I'd be wary about feeling the need to debunk something through parity (not necessarily commenting on microwave weapons here) compared to just not mentioning the subject at all from a weight perspective. The latter is often a better option to avoid some rabbit holes when possible. I think that's why the focus there needs to be shifted to the MEDRS sources that grounds conversations to determine where cases like you mention should be included. That's opposed to including something just because a lot of news agencies picked up stories and trying to weight that without letting the MEDRS content lead development instead. Obviously easier said than done, but doable with time at least. KoA (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it as a MEDRS issue if all theories about causes are properly attributed. The problem only arises when editors latch onto one theory and start claiming in wikivoice that the problem has been solved. This can be addressed by editing properly, with every claim that isn't accepted by expert consensus being attributed to whoever is making the claim. Zero^talk 13:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This presents another problem though as such an action would be giving equal weight to the primary-source medical reports put out by a variety of neurologists, epidemiologists, specialists and even the CDC and... journalists who don't know that correlation != causation. Because this is the thing. WP:MEDRS prefers secondary academic sources, not journalism. And what we have is a preponderance of primary academic sources, which are still more reliable than newsmedia. Simonm223 (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If something isn't covered in MEDRS sources or is covered differently in non-MEDRS sources, then that becomes a WP:WEIGHT issue. In cases like you mention, that's a likely case for not including the content at all. KoA (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How's this for a start? Proposed draft Simonm223 (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Lugavere has put out recent public statements on his Facebook and Twitter account telling his keto and paleo diet fan-base to edit his article because it is biased against him. We now have new IPs and accounts inserting a NPOV template on the article. This is a false consensus. I am not convinced this should be added only if we have a valid consensus decision on the talk-page. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Nano-ayurvedic medicine (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Full of dubious claim. Author reverted redirecting to a better article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"This combination allows for targeted delivery of herbal remedies at the cellular level," Oh boy. So they strongly dilute something to make it more efficent? Isn't it difficult to get a herb into a cell? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the herb is around the size of a protein molecule it shouldn't be hard. That's how homeopathy works, right? By making the herb so dilute it fits through the channels in the cell membrane? Seriously though, if an ayurvedic remedy had an appreciable effect on any specific part of the body, this could be a decent method of delivery. All that needs doing is the secondary sources. Reconrabbit 13:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong about homeopathy. That works with dilutions so extreme that not a single molecule of the active ingredient remains. The solvent is supposed to "remember" it. Magic, in other words. Zero^talk 13:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use of nanoparticles for drug delivery is mainstream, but this combination with herbal medicine is fringe and only seems to be promoted by its True Believers. The article, if it is notable enough to be kept at all, needs a WP:TNT. Zero^talk 11:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been moved to Draft:Nano-ayurvedic medicine.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had BLARred and have now draftified. Many (maybe all) of the sources do not meet WP:MEDRS, and there are entirely unsourced sections, including §Potential Benefits. If there are strong sources out there about nano-Ayurvedic medicine, I would hope to see them summarized at Ayurveda. If we end up with too much about it, we can then split. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A merge seems the obvious solution. Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a bait-and-switch. Only one of the sources uses the term "nano-Ayurvedic", and even that is just talking about using chemicals from herbs that are used in Ayurveda rather than "the principles of Ayurveda", and the others are just talking about phytochemicals delivered by nanotechnology. I really don't think there's an article here at present, and possibly nothing much to merge without indulging in WP:SYN. Brunton (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something weird going on here with all these new editors.[57] Doug Weller talk 17:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I love this comment: "...which is ad hominem (i.e., a logical fallacy)"! Deb (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]