Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
Before posting, make sure you understand this short summary of relevant policies and advice and particularly the guideline on treating fringe theories. Also, check the archives for similar discussions.

We can help determine whether the topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately and impartially. Our purpose is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but to describe them properly. Never present fringe theories as fact.

If you mention specific editors, you should notify them. You may use ((subst:ftn-notice)) to do so.

Search this noticeboard & archives

Lowercase sigmabot III will archive sections older than 20 days

Additional notes:

To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Article alerts

Did you know

Articles for deletion

Categories for discussion

  • 07 Jun 2024 – Category:Former Christian creationists (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Smasongarrison (t · c); see discussion
  • 02 Jun 2024Category:Female ghosts (talk · edit · hist) CfDed by Marcocapelle (t · c) was closed; see discussion

Good article nominees

Good article reassessments

Requests for comments

Peer reviews

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Jordan Peterson[edit]

The article on Jordan Peterson is clearly written by cultish fans intent on burying his numerous positions which conflict with reality, including his overt climate denial, his promotion of anti-vax ideas, his pro-Putin, pro-Russia stance, his right-wing talking points, and his continuing struggle with mental illness and drug addition. Strangely, none of this is found in the lead section. Viriditas (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gave up on the article, too much of a mess. Doug Weller talk 17:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. While I'm quite thoroughly aware of Peterson I question whether I have the patience, time or willingness to probably end up at an arbcom enforcement discussion that trying to fix that mess would engender. Simonm223 (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can't read the lede without getting the urge to tag every line, sometimes several times.[who?]. Luther Blissetts (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should we at least throw on a NPOV tag? —blindlynx 19:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think maybe an RfC on the article to rewrite the lede might help, and, if issues persist, a WP:BLUELOCK. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of which, there's a particular slant to Ralston College, the place he's chancellor of. Reconrabbit 19:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm carefully making a few small edits to the article to at least push it a bit in the right direction. We'll see what happens. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is way too long. I would suggest to cut all the "views and works" stuff into a daughter article, and just put a summary in the main article - which seems largely innocuous. We can then clean up the daughter article, with a lot of deletion. Wdford (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wdford: I have no stake in this (I'm in the same boat as Simonm223, I don't want to get involved) but here's the section sizes, if it helps. Views takes up 40.24% of the article, so I agree that a split to a Views of Jordan Peterson article (cf. Views of Richard Dawkins, Views of Kanye West, Views of Elon Musk) is probably warranted. — Kodiak Blackjack (talk) • (contribs) 19:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LOL I didn't take my own advice and ended up vaguely involved at Jorpy's page. Simonm223 (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has now led to a dispute over whether the presentation of Peterson's areas of academic focus and overall impact are appropriately structured in a way that is normal for academic bibliography or whether it's violating WP:NPOV by presenting him as having a much broader area of focus and far more overall academic impact than he really does. The page is now fully edit protected. Simonm223 (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


A dietary supplement for vegan pets. Concerns have been raised that the article contains fringe content, WP:OR and lacks independent sourcing. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is one very poorly written article. I removed a search query being used as a source, but it probably needs WP:TNT (talk) 03:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was disappointed to discover that "vegepet" wasn't a term for a houseplant kept by someone who doesn't want to oppress animals by keeping them as pets. Brunton (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Brunton, sounds like a brilliant business opportunity! It could be the 21st century's pet rock. Schazjmd (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosts of the American Civil War and Lincoln's ghost[edit]

Both Ghosts of the American Civil War and Lincoln's ghost describe ghosts and entirely rely on primary and questionable sources. Both articles focus on supposed "sightings" and largely do not discuss anything else. ―Susmuffin Talk 18:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that this stuff was once in the main articles but got tossed out to become content forks. The blatantly credulous stuff is mostly sourced to 'ghost expert' sources, but there are a few travel and local sources that appropriately treat the topic as folklore. A quick fix would be to rename the articles American Civil War ghost stories and Abraham Lincoln ghost stories, and then merge Lincoln into the first. Note that both article creators have since been blocked, one for continual copyright violations, so there may be copyvios lurking. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's the UFO crowd again[edit]

If interested the latest from these peeps is now out. I only watched the first few minutes and they have a stick and aren't letting it go. Possibly they will be making more trouble for the editors they feel are targeting the UFO/UAP disclosure they so want to happen. The interviewee for this specific show says he has a list of editors and their real life names and professions and apparently is planning on exposing them. Oh and @LuckyLouie is Mick West, of course he is. I went on this YouTube channel last month and tried to explain and have a discussion with them, it was a 3-hour interview and they removed over an hour of content. I would say it was a waste of my time, except I'm always interested in trying to help people understand, plus it was fascinating to get a peek into their mindset. You can find it on their channel if you are interested along with their other nonsense about how Wikipedia works, when it is obvious they have no clue how it works. I only raise this issue as of course I know we are attacked all the time, but this seems to be at least for a few people to be escalating. []. Sgerbic (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, they're irrational. They think that Satan + Illuminati are covering up the truth about UFOs, in order to let the Reptilians rule unabashed. E.g. there was a guy who killed his own two children because he thought they have "serpent blood". tgeorgescu (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some are very irrational. But that does not mean that they can be disruptive here on Wikipedia AND cause headaches with their "outing" of editors real life names vs user names. Plus the nonsense when they get it completely wrong like Louie and West. Sgerbic (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So we now have "true" Guerrilla Skeptics going after Guerrilla Skeptics of Wikipedia... Ladies and gentleman, Siphonaptera (poem). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I love it when one of them hits the nail on the head and states "...I notice patterns in everything..." which is the problem, e.g. apophenia, with many fringe theories. Paul H. (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Early history of Palestine making fringe claims[edit]

[1] The early history section here makes some religious claims in wikivoice. (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is a religious account of the history which is not supported by archaeology. It's fine to mention the traditional account but we shouldn't say it's true, especially not over the archaeological account. Loki (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That section was written by one editor.[2], User:Kharbaan Ghaltaan. Out of about 26 sources I see just one academic one. The rest run from poor to dreadful, eg [3] Can anyone read this one?[4] It loads and then I get a blank screen. Lots of use of encyclopedias, Britannica etc.
Just found this[5] that the editor also wrote, in fact they have written 53% of the article editing it 90 times.. A lot of the article is no longer about the State of Palestine but the history of the area and should be removed. Any objections? Doug Weller talk 08:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, go ahead. Loki (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Lightning Process[edit]

I don't edit fringe medical topics often but recent edits, particularly about a BBC Radio 4 piece ([6]), seem very egregious and would appreciate somebody with more experience of this sort of thing to have a look. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, there was some WP:PROFRINGE twisting there. I've poked it a bit. Bon courage (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Maybe this is the wrong noticeboard, but what is TRIZ? The lead is very promo-y and this article cites lots and lots of self-published stuff. Zanahary (talk) 06:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a quick read, I don't think this is a fringe theory...just a very poorly-written article about a quirky/fad engineering-psychology method. Not my field, so I'm probably not the one to improve the article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a method that gained enough prevalence to keep getting works published about it decades after its inception. By definition full of jargon and difficult to define in a way useful to anyone not already embedded in marketing. There are some sources in Russian. Also see Category:TRIZ and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject TRIZ Ontology. Reconrabbit 14:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I'm not normally a contributor but this jumped out at me because my college professor was very heavily involved in this/ the creation of I-TRIZ. It's not fringe as opposed to a framework for rapidly attempting to solve a problem by using past ideas in a modular fashion. From what I'm seeing of the article, it doesn't look great. So please let me know if I can help improve this. (talk) 07:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you can rewrite, for example, the article lead, so that it is comprehensible, that would be great ꧁Zanahary⁠꧂ 13:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will make an account and do my best. Like I said I typically don't contribute and was only here reading stuff on a whim. But I'm like one of the 5 people who's ever actually worked with this stuff so I figured I'd throw in. (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would really be helpful. Feel free to ask me via my talk page if you need any help. ꧁Zanahary⁠꧂ 18:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nano-ayurvedic medicine, again[edit]

About two months ago, there was an apparent consensus that this is a fringe topic, without sufficient sourcing to keep in mainspace, and it was draftified. An IP editor has been repeatedly attempting to reintroduce it to mainspace without fixing the problems. Based on a talk page comment, I tried to change it from a draft, to a "redirect with history" ([7]), but the IP keeps reverting it back into mainspace.

I'd like to get some more opinions about what to do with this page. If it seems unlikely that the content can be appropriately sourced, perhaps it should either be made into a semi-protected redirect, or be taken to a deletion discussion and WP:SALTed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next, relativistic medicine and galaxy-scale water memory. AFD and SALT. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Taken by Headbomb to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nano-ayurvedic medicine. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its self promo. Various IPs have been adding random Lopus, M references for a long while. Check everything the original author of this article (based on the fringe works of Lopus M) contributed before starting the article. Only adding Lopus, M references. Do a search for articles referencing them, and find one where it wasn't added by an IP or an account dedicated to promoting the works of Lopus, M, i.e.[8] (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sentient (intelligence analysis system)[edit]

WP:PRIMARY sources assembled to showcase selected memos and documents discussing details of a classified system used to look for UFOs [9]. I could be mistaken, but unless WP:SECONDARY sources have commented on this, such a lavishly detailed assembly is WP:OR. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted the last section from the Sentient article. All sources were primary, and the whole thing was focused on a redacted document that was nearly incomprehensible, severely WP:UNDUE even if accurate. And we just shouldn't be circulating vague bits of intelligence noise like this, it's jet fuel for the engines of conspiracism. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The more I look at these additions the more I see classic WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Confidence is relatively low...may warrant further investigation..." This is not the kind of content we need anywhere on WP, let alone in a direct quote. Utter garbage, cherry-picked for maximum apophenia. These edits should all be reverted, IMO. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alina Chan[edit]

Alina Chan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Note that the latest entry into "The New York Times focuses on fringe and ignores the mainstream" seems to be extremely well-represented on this WP:FRINGEBLP. I am not sure how much emphasis we are supposed to be placing on Chan's Lab Leak claims (and some of the ones mentioned are exceedingly misleading and others are demonstrably incorrect). There is no attempt to find WP:SECONDARY sources which identify Chan's ideas as being prominent or worthy of inclusion at Wikipedia. Instead, it is all sourced solely to her OpEd. jps (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In short, is this now becoming a WP:COATrack? jps (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fringe claims from somebody with a book to sell, and little relevant scientific standing (and not even in the same universe at WP:MEDRS sourcing required for pronouncements about biomedicince). WP:FRINGESUBJECTS tells us what to do. Bon courage (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of language excusing fringe material on Lara Logan[edit]

On Lara Logan material language was added that looks like trying to soften reporting of fringe material like "Despite some media fuss around the original" and "Fauci's unquestioning support for the experimental vaccine" despite not being in the sources (and also took part of reference name for no reason) 2001:8003:3FB4:CF00:2973:401E:A175:B587 (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note the removal of the "Anti" in "Anti-Defamation League" at one point. Red flag much? - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 07:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the "Anti" that was removed, only the "A". Obviously a misclick/typo. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the difference viewer may have misled me. Their edits are still not constructive, however. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 21:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistics and the Book of Mormon[edit]

Linguistics_and_the_Book_of_Mormon doesn't appear to have any references about the topic of linguistics and the Book of Mormon. I considered removing pieces, but I'm not sure if any of it belongs, and whether the book of mormon is a topic in linguistics at all. Thoughts? 2600:1700:F990:C190:43BD:7A77:E1FF:CC65 (talk) 02:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even when I've contributed in Book of Mormon topics, linguistics and the Book of Mormon is an article I've generally kept a wide berth from because I think the way it's set up draws out apologetics and counter-apologetics that mire the page in WP:OR and back-and-forth. Consider how many citations are either to the Book of Mormon itself (hypothetically fine for verifying quotations, but in too many cases whole paragraphs are supported by it), to texts written by denominational leaders (Studies of the Book of Mormon has a 1985 publication date, but it was written more than half a century earlier, by B. H. Roberts, a member of the Latter-day Saint ecclesiastical hierarchy, as a denominationally commissioned study; there's also a citation to the Journal of Discourses which was a 19th-century anthology of Latter-day Saint sermons), to denominational websites (like, to Evangelical 'countercult' apologetics (like Utah Lighthouse Ministry), and to Guns, Germs, and Steel which is not a book that mentions the Book of Mormon at all (and while popular is an outdated source for understanding early modern European–American contact; Diamond gives altogether too much credit to guns and steel and not enough to local alliances and politics). There's even a paragraph that as near as I can tell is subtweeting an intra-denominational disagreement about what the specific miraculous mechanics of Smith's would have been. (The paragraph including the sentence However, as Whitmer was never directly involved in the translation and Harris was involved for only a brief period of time, Mormon apologists consider it unlikely that either of these accounts is as accurate as the accounts of Smith and Cowdery.; casting doubt on Whitmer's recollection of the dictation process is a subtle 'dog whistle' for lay skepticism of the academic consensus that Smith looked at a seer stone—a folk magical practice in early-nineteenth-century New England—for a significant amount of his dictation of the Book of Mormon.)
Speaking as someone who has read interesting and academically valid scholarship about the Book of Mormon in the history of the 19th century, in religious studies, and in literary studies, published by university presses like Princeton and Oxford and in peer-reviewed journals—what's being cited and summarized in the current version of Linguistics and the Book of Mormon isn't that.
whether the book of mormon is a topic in linguistics at all: I'm not really sure. There's certainly academic observations about its language—intertextuality with the King James Bible and the use of nonstandard English in the first edition, for instance—but I don't know whether that rises to being linguistics. There's the matter of hemispheric interpretations of the Book of Mormon, popular in the Latter Day Saint movement well into the twentieth century, not making sense alongside the reality of Native American language diversity. But that's also not so much a linguistic study of the Book of Mormon as much as an observation about how something known through linguistics renders implausible the historicity of the Book of Mormon under hemispheric premises. Personally, the whole trifecta of archaeology and the Book of Mormon, genetics and the Book of Mormon, and linguistics and the Book of Mormon seem to me like unproductive forks that tend to encourage editors to get into the weeds of restating apologetics and counter-apologetics, rather than concisely summarizing academic interpretations. I'm not sure what an improved version of the article would look like. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 09:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, The relationship between linguistics and the Book of Mormon is two-fold. This is as bad as those grad-student-y LGBT articles. ꧁Zanahary⁠꧂ 13:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
as bad as those grad-student-y LGBT articles: I'm pretty unimpressed with this linguistics and the Book of Mormon article too (see my criticism of it above), but I don't really see what that has to do with making a swipe at either editors who are graduate students or at LGBT studies articles on Wikipedia. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s just an earnest comparison: this reminds me of the LGBT-topic articles I’ve come across that seem to have been written by people with a background in academic writing and not encyclopedic writing. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This feels like one of those articles that's probably deserving of an AfD but is so laden with sources and general inertia that it'd never fly, WP:VERIFY be damned. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned up the intro a little bit, but there's a lot to unpack there. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"With articles, this is the TNT tipping point argument: if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title might be useful"
Would it though? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't Linguistics of the Book of Mormon be better? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Linguistic historicity of the Book of Mormon? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 23:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Open an RM? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what will be gained from moving the article to a different title when the notability, reliability, or due-ness of the content itself remains under question. Is it a sufficiently vast topic that it warrants a split into a whole article? I'm not sure what's of encyclopedic interest in the realm of linguistics and the Book of Mormon beyond the matter of Native American languages having no connection to the ancient Egyptian the Book of Mormon claims or the ancient Semitic languages its narrative would imply, and of being so diverse they could not have emerged in the short time frame the Book of Mormon would require, and those seem like content that can be (and are) summarized in parent articles. (I'm also not sure "linguistic historicity" as a title will be any less likely to attract apologetics in content and sourcing than the current title.) Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, as much as I suggested an alternative title I think the article doesn't warrant being here. We don't have an equivalent one for other major religious texts, and the better place for this is Historicity of the Book of Mormon. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There probably could be 'equivalent' articles for other major religious texts—A GoogleScholar search makes me think Linguistics and the Bible seems very plausible. But with Linguistics and the Book of Mormon, the same approach inspires less confidence in the topic's notability as an independent article in Wikipedia terms, there being only one genuine hit (the top result, "Historical Linguistics", which is to an interview, albeit journal-published but an interview nonetheless, with an author of a book that had been quite negatively reviewed in the journal's previous edition; the other hits below it are to database pages that simply also link to the same article). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 10:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it just would fall into a subset of historicity, personally, but I could be wrong. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think linguistic analysis of the Bible is solely limited to the question of the historicity of its contents; from quickly scanning some of the GoogleScholar hits it seems to play a role in the history of biblical hermeneutics (part of the reception history of the Bible), in study of its grammar, in translation studies approaches, in philosophical metaphysics, and in more. Such are far afield from historicity questions like 'was David a real king'. Meanwhile, with the Book of Mormon it does seem like what's there linguistically be folded into a parent article like historicity of the Book of Mormon, since I'm not sure what there is beyond the two observations about Indigenous languages, which are primarily made in reference to the question of historicity. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 10:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, but cannot confirm, that this article derives from Richard Packham's([10]) article. [11] Decent enough article as far as internet pubs go, but hardly the basis needed for writing an entire article on Wikipedia, in my opinion. jps (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nations and IQ[edit]

Nations and IQ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm currently in a content dispute with an IP over this article which falls under the race and intelligence topic area. For the time being, I'd like to know whether others agree with this editor's revert here. Generalrelative (talk) 04:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would be okay with the article including a statement like that in the lead, but there are too many issues with that particular source. Aside from the fact that it was not summarized accurately, it also is too old. It's from 2001, so it predates all of Lynn and Vanhanen's books, the first of which was published in 2002. The negative reception of those books, and the subsequent research by Wicherts, Rindermann and Becker that sought to improve on Lynn and Vanhanen's methods, are the main thing that caused national IQs to become an area of study. Aside from some very early papers, national IQs have only been an area of study for 22 years, so a broad statement about validity of this field should have a source from less than 22 years ago. 2A02:FE1:7191:F500:1D68:AEEA:EBA5:D751 (talk) 04:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's deal with these objections in turn. Which part of the summary do you think was inaccurate? Generalrelative (talk) 05:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The inaccurate part of your summary was the statement, "comparisons which extend beyond the industrialized West are essentially meaningless." Sternberg's criticism is narrower than that. He says, "despite the magnitude of the predictive power of IQ apparent from the findings presented later, this index might extend itself meaningfully only throughout its own kingdom--that is, only through selected segments of the Western part of the industrialized world." This statement is referring specifically to IQ's predictive validity, and he also includes the word "might" to indicate that this is not a definite conclusion. Later, he discusses how the concept of practical intelligence varies between cultures, and does not always align with the type of intelligence that IQ tests measure. He concludes this discussion with the statement, "scores from tests used in cultures or subcultures other than those for which the tests were specifically created are suspect, and probably of doubtful validity in many if not most cases." Again, this is a more nuanced criticism than stating that comparisons beyond the industrialized West are meaningless. However, I also think my concern about this source's age is the more significant problem. 2A02:FE1:7191:F500:1D68:AEEA:EBA5:D751 (talk) 05:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we can let others decide whether probably of doubtful validity in many if not most cases is adequately summarized by essentially meaningless. In my view the former doesn't contain any more nuance than the latter, just more beating around the bush.
As to the source's age, I agree that more recent critiques should be included, e.g. a summary of the relevant language from the 2020 statement by the European Human Behavior and Evolution Association, that there is a fundamental problem in trying to use Western IQ tests across diverse cultural settings. But the 2001 source, which says the same thing, has the virtue of having been co-authored by two extremely prominent subject-matter experts, Robert Sternberg and Elena Grigorenko. Their perspective deserves to be presented in the lead, alongside the likes of Lynn and Vanhanen. Generalrelative (talk) 05:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may be older than the books, but isn't this article about the same thing? It's not surprising to me that Lynn and Vanhanen's books were debunked before they were written, they are race science after all. The article should not give them a special place in the discussion just because they popularized this pseudoscientific concept. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of clarity, here is the statement from the article body:

In a 2001 review article, Robert J. Sternberg, Elena Grigorenko, and Donald Bundy argued that IQ comparisons between rich and poor nations can be "dangerously misleading", and that IQ comparisons between nations may be meaningfully applied "only through selected segments of the Western part of the industrialized world." They argue that "scores from tests used in cultures or subcultures other than those for which the tests were specifically created are suspect, and probably of doubtful validity in many if not most cases."

And here is the disputed summary of this material in the lead:

Other psychologists such as Robert J. Sternberg and Elena Grigorenko have cautioned that IQ comparisons between rich and poor nations can be "dangerously misleading" and that comparisons which extend beyond the industrialized West are essentially meaningless.

Generalrelative (talk) 05:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The disputed material seems like a decent partial summary of §Objections to national comparisons of IQ. That summary should be restored and expanded, since the point of the lead is to summarize the body. §Potential causes of national differences also needs more mention in the lead. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers: Do you also think Generalrelative's proposed wording is truer to the source than the wording I suggested? [12] Here is the wording I tried to include:

Other psychologists such as Robert J. Sternberg and Elena Grigorenko have cautioned that IQ comparisons between rich and poor nations can be "dangerously misleading" and that IQ's predictive power might extend "only through selected segments of the Western part of the industrialized world."

My suggested version uses Sternberg's exact wording, but Generalrelative insisted on changing it to say "essentially meaningless."
Also, I should mention that although the phrase "virtually meaningless" appears in the "Objections to national comparisons of IQ" section, this wording is based on a misrepresented source. As I said in this edit summary, when Williams uses the phrase "virtually meaningless" she is referring specifically to Lynn and Vanhanen's methods, not to international IQ comparisons in general. The Williams source in fact suggests that international IQ comparisons could be meaningful if they avoided Lynn and Vanhanen's errors. When you say that the lead should summarize the body, be aware that the phrase "essentially meaningless" is summarizing a part of the body that's based on a misrepresented source in this case. 2A02:FE1:7191:F500:1D68:AEEA:EBA5:D751 (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the phrase "essentially meaningless" in my edit is also meant to summarize the passage from Sternberg et al. which you helpfully quoted above:

despite the magnitude of the predictive power of IQ apparent from the findings presented later, this index might extend itself meaningfully only throughout its own kingdom –– that is, only through selected segments of the Western part of the industrialized world.

It's also of course meant to summarize the passage from later in the article, that

scores from tests used in cultures or subcultures other than those for which the tests were specifically created are suspect, and probably of doubtful validity in many if not most cases.

Another phrase like "of dubious validity" wouldn't be terrible, but I think "essentially meaningless" is better writing, and gives the reader a clearer sense of what's being argued here.
It is true, however, that the direct quote virtually meaningless from Williams and Barnett refers narrowly to Lynn and Vanhanen's dataset. Generalrelative (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Essentially meaningless" from that text seems like a stretch. I prefer the directly quoted "meaningful only…" formulation. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that "essentially meaningless" is very close to the wording in the sources, and conveys the same meaning. We're supposed to be paraphrasing, which does not mean using the exact same wording as the sources. NightHeron (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "essentially meaningless" is a good paraphrase. --bonadea contributions talk 13:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i don't see a problem with 'essentially meaningless' as a summary of the source—blindlynx 19:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple chemical sensitivity[edit]

Multiple chemical sensitivity seems to have a lot of issues with in-universe citations and people abusing sourcing standards. I can try to clean it up a bit but it's taking a lot of willpower not to add "See also: ICPMS" [just kidding] Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur of Ta Prohm[edit]

Should this article have a ps contentious topics alert? Doug Weller talk 16:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foundational Black Americans[edit]

This was a redirect to Tariq Nasheed but an article has been created by User:‎Fba-warrior, Doug Weller talk 16:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copied mainly from their website, a bit from[13]. doesn't seem to be an rs. Off to dinner and watching tv with family. Doug Weller talk 17:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot, I blocked a sock who created Foundational Black American. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foundational Black American. Doug Weller talk 17:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]