This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

Donald Levine, an Orientalist scholar, asserts that the ruling Amhara in Ethiopia were enslaved by the Afar. This is mentioned almost in passing, with no explanation as to which historical text this is based on [1]. He may have been alluding to marauding by the medieval Adal Sultanate (of which the Afar were a key part), but this too is unclear [2]. As such, it appears to be a tiny fringe claim since no other specialist in the field suggests this. Please advise. Soupforone (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, Donald N. Levine is a respected and highly cited Ethiopian scholar. Other sources too mention Afar in conflict with Amhara, for example (see Chapter 10). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It is not a useful source because it does not explain how or when it happened, what qualified them as slaves, how many were enslaved or provide any sources. We should not use sources where something is mentioned in passing. TFD (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @TFD. I will add a second WP:RS by a different scholar who provides more details. I have a few in front of me, and I need to pick one of the better ones. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Per TFD, @Ms Sarah Welch, can you provide links to the citations here. If we insert every content based on what reliable sources say out of context, then the quality of the article will deteriorate. This being as a result that some academic review is not necessarily based on accuracy but generalization, especially when the academic is not an expert in the specific subject. The Ulrich source I provided answers the minimal Five W's. Duqsene (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Duqsene: The 5W's is an article, not wikipedia policy or guideline page on content. You ask me to provide links here... you must be kidding!! That is not the purpose of this "fringe theories" forum. This forum is to invite comments if a theory is fringe or mainstream, not from your personal wisdom / prejudice / opinions, but based on reliable sources. If you claim theory X is fringe, you must be able to present what is the mainstream theory citing reliable sources. Please see WP:FRINGE. Until now, neither you nor anyone else has offered any source that states the mainstream theory, plus the OP above misquotes Donald Levine, and throws in some OR and speculation such as "He may have been alluding to...". An admin and a non-admin editor, with a different view, have already commented on that article's talk page. You are welcome to take this to DRN/AN/ANI, if you wish. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch, can you explain where Amhara is mentioned on the new source you added. [3] The source explains slaves were moved from the Galla, Sidama and Gurage regions to the Amhara zone. Another source was also added to support Amhara was enslaved by the Afar. [4] which says the following [5] Did i misread something here? Duqsene (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed Duqsene. The Adal Sultanate expeditions were likewise in the old provinces of Amhara, Shewa, Dawaro and Fatagar [6] [7]. As you point out, these zones were inhabited by various peoples, so they cannot be extrapolated to the Amhara. Soupforone (talk) 06:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you The_Four_Deuces, that seems reasonable. Soupforone (talk) 06:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dusqene: This is not the right forum for that discussion. @TFD seems to have confused you, with their comment. No, @TFD is not declaring all encyclopedias published by Oxford University Press and others, all textbooks, all high quality secondary sources and all topic reviews that summarize mainstream views in peer reviewed publications are herewith WP:FRINGE. That sort of declaration needs a community wide discussion. Examine @Soupforone's edits in light of their original question above, and you will be surprised with the inconsistency. Let the volunteers in this forum work on fringe topics/sources/etc. The purpose of this forum isn't to replace any article's talk page or other forums. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Just ran into this. I didn't know anything about him until today. Some Mormon history stuff, 9/11, etc. Doug Weller talk 19:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Not to mention being a foil in the Pons & Fleishmann cold fusion debacle. jps (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Remember him well. The man who tried and failed to be the leading cold fusion crank in the world... Guy (Help!) 17:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

hi there. my name is noah kulwin, and i'm the technology editor at vice news. i'm working on a story comparing facebook and wikipedia, and how wikipedia has more successfully kept fake news and misinformation from entering the mainstream. i've already spoken with one wikipedia editor, and have lined up interviews with senior staff at wikipedia/the wikimedia foundation. i'm interested in learning more about wikipedia editors who directly engage with fringe theories (particularly those with a political bent), and i'm curious about your experiences.

my email is listed in the bio of my twitter account (twitter.com/nkulw), and i look forward to hearing more from anyone interested.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.103.131 (talk • contribs)

One would think that a technology editor could afford a keyboard with a functioning "shift" key. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about that. Journalism doesn't pay very well. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Didn't you get the memo? Capital letters are old hat. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

It's really very simple. Wikipedia allows editors of all political persuasions, and we care about the product, so obvious bullshit doesn't get a look in and when it comes to politically motivated stories compromise is the order of the day. We are not afraid to call it how it is. Climate change denialism is denialism, creationism is pseudoscience, but the consensus around those positions was reached by listening to the opinions of those who believe otherwise. Guy (Help!) 17:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

As JzG said, we don't let crap be represented as legitimate. If it's conspiracy nut stuff, that's what we'll put in the article. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Molecular hydrogen therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Written by a WP:SPA, I just pruned a lot of "more research needed" style stuff from a predatory journal. I don't know if this is woo or not. Guy (Help!) 15:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

This is a new biography of someone connected with the Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry‎. It could use looking over by the fringe-sensitive. Mangoe (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

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

I PROD'd this but it got deprodded by an IP who advised me to try it. I'm finding good sourcing hard to come by - anybody know more? Alexbrn (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

This diet looks like it could be quite dangerous... (a personal aside that has no bearing on whether its sourced), but aspects of it might come under MEDRS which would reduce the potential for some kinds of content to be left in the article. Just a thought.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC))

Oh yeah the article is shit and needs a huge prune whatever, but I'm holding off because it might go to AfD and if there's a huge prune some editors start fussing about how the article was "gutted before being AfD'd" ... politics ... Alexbrn (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

An article about a west coast "Alternative Medicine" university that has been the scene of some edit warring. I have protected the page for a week but some extra eyes might be helpful. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Anyone wish to try to fix this BLP? I don't think the article creator undestood what an ABD is. you hardly receive it. His website is here, a site debunking his lost civilization 'find' here. Doug Weller talk 19:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I was lucky. I found papers by the Chinese archaeologists who accompanied Gosline and who refuted his claims. Doug Weller talk 19:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Am I wrong in my argument that an EL recently added is inappropriate? It may not be the only one but it's the newest. I've now also raised it at the article talk page. Doug Weller talk 20:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

No. You are correct. A random Rabbi is not a reliable source for claims about the Torah, let alone for claims about actual historical subjects. Nor does this link contribute anything to the article except a single person's opinion, which is quite WP:UNDUE. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I have decided to collate all these issues under one setting as they are related. For those unaware, Immanuel Velikovsky was synonymous with pseudoscience back in the 1970s as the equivalent to the 2012 doomsdayers or the ancient alien people of today. Wikipedia was early on infected with a number of Velikovskians who have been subsequently sidelined, for the most part, but a lot of cruft remains. I periodically try to clean it out.

jps (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• As a general comment, most of the Velikovsky (imho) stuff falls under 'notable rubbish'. Its fringey/pseudoscience but well known and publicised fringey/pseudoscience that had extensive debunking/comment. The related Journals (at the time) were well-known (Pensee was not *that* obscure, Kronos even less so in its area of influence). I dont particularly have an opinion on their merit as stand-alone articles. A better solution would probably be to merge them into one 'Velikovsky publications' article with a lead clearly laying out the context in which they existed and a small paragraph on each. Given the extensive comment/debunking, it would be impossible to write such an article without including the criticism etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Obscure 10 issue journal

Third time we've had a deletion discussion on this.

Comment please.

jps (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Defunct Velikovsky publication

What the hell, let's do talk about deleting this one too.

jps (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

This article was kept, but I cannot for the life of me see how to write about it. A journal with a maximum circulation of 2000 unapologetically devoted to promulgating pseudoscience and pseudohistory, but so obscure as to provoke essentially no notice. Nevertheless, the Wikipedian debaters who don't deal with this subject day-to-day have spoken. Help in clean-up, please? jps (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Velikovsky skeptic biography

C. Leroy Ellenberger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is an interesting case and I think people here may be able to help. C. Leroy Ellenberger was an important debunker of Velikovsky (supporter turned skeptic) who, somewhat like ex-Scientologists being the most hated by Scientology, has inspired the irate furor of Velikovskians. He also has an account here and has been very helpful in providing content for some of the articles we have that discuss Velikovsky, but he has edited his own biography (and I will refrain from linking to it here out of respect for WP:OUTING).

The thing is, his biography is more of an object lesson in the larger tale of Velikovsky pseudoscience than it is an encyclopedic work. Note that many of the sources in our article on him do not rise to the WP:RS level that we typically require. I don't really know what to do about this.

So just thought I'd post about this here and let you all decide what you think.

jps (talk) 14:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Was? Still is the last time I heard from him. Doug Weller talk 19:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing he is still alive as well. It seems to me that a lot of this content might be relevant to an as yet not created article on independent criticism of Velikovsky or Velikovskyism, and the Velikovsky article itself has a really long section of criticism. Do the degree that Velikovskyism is a separate subject from Velikovsky itself, it might (maybe?) be reasonable to have a separate article of "criticism" which could hold a lot of the material from this article.

The lede is a freaking mess, though, and I find very little real biographical information in the biographical article itself. I'm myself not necessarily sure if a separate criticism article were created that there would necessarily be much basis for this article. John Carter (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Gunnar Heinsohn

Gunnar Heinsohn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Does this neo-Velikovskian pass WP:PROF? I guess so, but it's hard for me to say. In any case, it is very important that we identify his pseudohistory ideas as such, and that is not currently done. Not to mention that the biography looks like a coatrack. See especially: Gunnar Heinsohn#Revision of ancient chronology.

jps (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Footnotes 53 and 56, if in fact the latter is reproduced from Aeon as it seems to be, and if that is an RS itself (is it? - I dunno) might help establish notability, but if they do the article would need to be substantially rewritten to give the appropriate weight to the really independent sources. John Carter (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I would not say that Aeon is a reliable source. jps (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Article has been proposed for deletion. John Carter (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

And, rather remarkably, an IP which has had no previous history as an editor as per here has added a good deal of sourcing to the article, although I have trouble determining how much if any is really significant enough to qualify as an indicator of notability. Opinions? John Carter (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

At a glance, additions like this are undue weight on a single source. And copypasting of the entire text is probably a WP:COPYVIO. This (and any other instances like it) should be summarized and integrated into the article text. - 16:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm apparently very unappreciated for trying to summarize Gorski.

Maybe you can help clean up my "OR/SYNTH".

jps (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Spiritual quotient needs attention, and is currently at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiritual quotient. – Joe (talk) 12:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

For future reference this does seem to be something of a real thing, judging from its trace in the literature. Mangoe (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Have any of you taken a look at 1001 Inventions? It looks like it's written as a promotional piece—award-winning this, puffery-puffery-that. Everything involving 1001 Inventions is portrayed in the most positive light, whereas criticism is downplayed and simplified. There's some serious fringe history going on here, at the very least. See this piece from the New York Times about the exhibit, for example: [8]. In the past, we had a serious problem with a small group of editors promoting similarly dubious notions all over the site (i.e., (Islamic figure) was the father of (x), etc.), despite far earlier examples of the technology in use and so on. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

All the "1001..." books should be merged. They are commercial pot-boilers of no individual merit. This website? Nuke. Guy (Help!) 21:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

What other 1001.. articles are there on Wikipedia? :bloodofox: (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey guys, can I get some input regarding this edit, please? I've already diked out the last paragraph on the grounds that "The Mammoth Book of Unexplained Phenomena" seems to be the antithesis of a reliable source. The remaining text expands on tabloid references that were already mentioned, but not detailed.

I have a bit of a sour taste in my mouth regarding this edit since the rest of the article details how she looked up dead relatives of people she was to come in contact with, and the new section is not contextualised. Vashti (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Mmmm, it is sourced, but yes I can see the issue. But we also need balance, and this makes it clear Holmes believed her. [9].Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Testimonials? Really? For a grief vampire? Bad idea. Guy (Help!) 16:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I just have tried to fix this article. Criticisms of Cayce have repeatedly been deleted from the article.

A lot of the rest of the article is very favorable to Cayce and is sourced to one of his defenders biographies (Thomas Sugrue, 2003). Any idea what can be done here? 82.132.185.11 (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

There are a rather largish number of sources which relate to this topic, including the Skeptical Inquirer and other sources which have less than high praise for a lot of the New Age stuff. What I think might need to be done in this case is determine if only one article on the topic is the best way to proceed, and, if it is, how to structure the content relating to this topic across those articles. I honestly hope that is the way to go in some way regarding Cayce-related material. If it isn't, things might be dicier. This article or maybe Association for Research and Enlightenment might either be considered a core article from which to maybe spin out others, and I think some of Cayce's sons or heirs have probably been notable enough for additional articles as well. John Carter (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Way too much of the article is cited to a book by Thomas Sugrue and published by "A.R.E." which is Edgar Cayce's "Association for Research and Enlightenment, Inc." - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, the business which seems to be the primary occupation and source of income of Cayce's descendants is almost certainly not a really good source for the person who is the company's cash cow. I note that the article is directly included in the Category:Pseudoscience, but that the relevant link to the ArbCom decision regarding DS on pseudoscience doesn't appear on the article talk page. The pages Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group/Prospectus, Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Religious leaders work group/Prospectus, Wikipedia:WikiProject Occult/Prospectus, Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Prospectus, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Parapsychology/Prospectus all include works which have individual encyclopedia-type articles in them about Cayce, and I think they might serve as fairly good sources for material on this subject, as well as solid indicators of what other sources to use on it. John Carter (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I have started a discussion regarding the first sentence of the above linked-to article at Talk:Intelligent design#RfC on phrasing of lede paragraph. The discussion is at this point about possibly framing an RfC about the issue being raised, and I think any input from any parties who frequent this noticeboard would probably be welcome. John Carter (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't apply to a specific article but I know the GMO "debate" is a big fringe topic. So I was in the grocery store the other day and I saw a bottle of water that said "non-GMO". It was "premium" alkaline water, "blk" (getblk.com). Just wanted everyone else waiting for their Monsanto money to know that yes, now we've got non-GMO water. Roches (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Must be some brand-new scientific discovery, that water can be genetically engineered...Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) But is it DHMO-free? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I hope so. Every serial killer and pedophile ever caught has been found to be a daily user of DHMO. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

It's Fulvic. Must be a spin off from the specialist home grow plants industry. Roxy the dog. bark 15:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Great - another homeopathic remedy. Ravensfire (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

To be fair to homeopaths, the placebo effect does actually work, kind of. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Normally I'd be against being fair to homeopaths, but they really do need something to cheer them up now that homeopathic remedies sold in the US will have to carry a label saying they don't work. Roches (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Um, not really, no. Placebo effects include observer bias, natural course of disease, regression to the mean, reporting bias and a range of other effects, but I am not aware of any study that shows any non-transient objective effect from placebo. Feel free to prove me wrong though. Guy (Help!) 00:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Is it gluten free? - Nunh-huh 05:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

That's just trolling. A website that is funded by the same people who fund climate change skepticism is the only source that reported it. It's like saying if there's global warming, why is it freezing in England? Suggest we close this thread as it does not relate to any known article. TFD (talk) 05:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I second this. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Molecular hydrogen therapy (AfD discussion) - Molecular hydrogen therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This reads to me as a bunch of WP:SYN promoting bollocks, but is it notable bollocks? I can't find much in the way of reality-based commentary on it. Guy (Help!) 11:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

This is a paranormal theory that seeks to explain memory lapse in terms of parallel universes. Its page was deleted in September, with a redirect to a section in Confabulation. However, that article is about a psychiatric condition, so that isn't appropriate. Misremembering names, quotations, or historical events is not a psychiatric condition, and isn't in itself notable. What makes this topic notable (if it is) is that some people refuse to accept their faulty memories are just that: normal, fallible memories. Currently, the section is being build up with more information about this non-existent phenomenon. I tend to think the best response would be to remove the section, but is there a better option?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Bring better sources? Guy (Help!) 21:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you'll find them. The theory is only mentioned as a curiosity on a slow news day. It's not worth discussing seriously because the explanation for this "effect" is so obvious.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

that's exactly Guy's point. keep the section to the reliable sources and it will stay small and of appropriate weight in the article. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The applicable guideline for removing the section is WP:ONEWAY, unless significant sources can be found. Manul ~ talk 19:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Only one source, the Telegraph, suggests this is "confabulation".--Jack Upland (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Someone else has removed the section, and I have changed the redirect to False memory. Thanks for your input.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

This has always been a problem but it's become a bit worse lately.

There are several types of fringe archaeology that editors try to insert in biblical articles. One is the woo-woo variety as exemplified by people such as Ron Wyatt, Bob Cornuke, etc. At the other extreme is probably David Rohl. In the middle are the Creationists, some of whom have also managed to publish in non-Creationists journals, such as Bryant Wood, Douglas Petrovich (see Talk:The Exodus#Avaris, and David Palmer Livingston[10]. A new editor, Korvex (talk · contribs) is pushing (going so far as saying what "will" be done) such sources in articles such as Ai (Canaan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Et-Tell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The Exodus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(see the articles and their talk pages) and at Talk:Israel. I'm not arguing that we should never use such fringe sources, as at times NPOV requires their use, but eyes are needed. Doug Weller talk 08:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

There's also the use of websites such as bibleplaces.com[11] - I removed this link from to articles as it claims " Furthermore, the absence of any evidence of inhabitation at et-Tell should compel the honest historian to look elsewhere for Ai." That's a bare-faced like, see these research reports.

Is there any question about this? Definitely root it all out. I understand the particular challenges that come along with dealing with sect-affiliated institutions in these corners but we really should be well beyond this stuff in 2017 on Wikipedia. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I wrote the following at Talk:Ai (Canaan) before noticing that there was a discussion here: Something has to be done about the destructive insertion of material from unreliable sources like Bryant Wood and Associates for Biblical Research all over the place. ABS (Wood's employer) is not a scientific organization. It is a religious organization that describes Woods' position as a Ministry. Amongst other things, ABS and Wood himself support the historicity of the Great Flood. Nobody who does that can claim to be a scientist. Wood openly admits that he starting doing archaeology for the purpose of proving the literal truth of the bible, including miracles and all, and that he doesn't believe the bible contains a single word in error. PhD or not, this might have been mainstream in the 19th century but today it is fringe. We must not present this stuff as if it is respectable. Zero^talk 10:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

According to his article, Bryant G. Wood is a supporter of Young Earth creationism. That says a lot about his qualifications as a source. Dimadick (talk) 09:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

See this comment on a dig he supervised questioning the objectivity of such archaeology. Doug Weller talk 15:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

And to back up my statement about bibleplaces.com that I made above, it's run by Todd Bolen, on the faculty of the biblical literalist [12] The Master's University (and their article needs to be brought into compliance with our guidelines, it reads like an advertising brochure - mission statement, list of departments, names of all their coaches, etc). Doug Weller talk 15:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC) Ah, it's full of copied material from their website, I've asked for that to be removed. Doug Weller talk 15:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Willy Munyeta is an article about a self-proclaimed prophet that needs cleaning up. Deletion might be needed, but I'm not certain that it is. Article needs major fixes, help would be appreciated. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

This is my first foray into FTN-world but I agree. The article contains a lot of unsubstantiated claims (and a total lack of neutral point of view.) Example: "ACMI claims that Munyeta has successfully predicted events in the lives of individuals who attend his church services as well as worldwide events, including a prophecy of Muhammad Ali's death,[5] and and 2016 Zimbabwe protests prophecy by the Anti-Mugabe protesters.[6]" and "A huge debate was stirred within Zambia when Munyeta turned water into wine in the course of demonstrating the power of God.[4]" Both of these things are misleading and patently untrue. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

It's up at AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willy Munyeta. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

...which was a cross, right? Probably not, if you read this article. Starting in the 1800s, maybe a bit earlier, we start to see various people trying to second-guess Christian tradition and re-interpret scripture. The truth is that these are all extremely minority positions at best. I'm inclined to go at the thing with a chainsaw or even ask for deletion outright, but perhaps others would like to put their oars in. Mangoe (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Because Jerusalem was a "fixed base," I can see the argument that the uprights were permanently installed and the condemned carried only the transep. However, that's an argument which hardly rates a page, the result still being a cross. I'd go for deletion.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see what's wrong with this page to warrant deletion. In every and all research areas scholars go to amazing depths of nitpicking on progressively narrow subjects. Of course, this subject is of natural interest to people who like to argue how many angels can fit the tip of a needle. But a cursory look tells me that the article cites people far from being kranks and many of them have wikipedia articles. Of course, as with any wikipedia articles, this one may be asking for a cleanup, but not for a major panic. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

By the way, why jump right here? I see no discussion in article talk page. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

We should have articles about different views of Christianity that have been reported in reliable sources. It is only a problem when fringe views are discussed in main articles, it does not mean we cannot have articles about these theories. TFD (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me but these responses strike me as a bit obtuse. This article exists, it is all too likely, to protect these theories from the scrutiny they would receive if stated this way in the main article. The truth is that they are the pet theories of a few minor schisms or of isolated academics, but here they are put on more than equal footing than the orthodox tradition accepted by nearly every church. Mangoe (talk) 14:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

If the threshold for inclusion were 'Is minor topic A less important than major topic B?' we'd have to police millions of cases. With a threshold of 'Is minor topic A notable enough for inclusion?' though, this does seem to be a topic of debate among Jehovah's witnesses (https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/did-jesus-die-on-cross/) and the details of cruxifiction methods among scholars (http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/crucifixion/roman-crucifixion-methods-reveal-the-history-of-crucifixion/) cshirky (talk) 14:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Two quick points. First we need to be careful to differentiate minority opinions from fringe. This sounds more like the former than the latter. And secondly I believe that we at FTN should take a very deep breath before injecting ourselves into what are often fundamentally religious disagreements. FTN deals with science and fact based issues where we can assert that multiple reliable sources have categorically and w/o credible dissent, labeled something as factually wrong to the point where continued belief in it is fringe. That is almost never the case in religious disagreements. I suggest that this discussion be closed and the issue be remanded to the article talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

  While I agree with the first point from a quick look at the article (it could be a very well disguised POVFORK, but it looks serious), I disagree with the second. "Did Jesus exist" (yes), "Was he crucified" (yes) and "On what device" (???) are factual questions of history, which falls squarely under the FTN domain of expertise. Yes, they will bring more religious drama than e.g. "did Ravaillac exist", "did he murder Henri 4", "how was he executed", but that is a reason for more scrutiny, not less. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 20:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• But the scrutiny would seem to lead to two possible arguments for inclusion: 'There is consensus among the relevant population that Assertion X is true' or 'There is a live conversation among the relevant experts about whether X is true or not.' You'd write the articles differently, of course -- existence of dinosaurs vs. prevalance of warm-bloodedness, for example -- but in this case, Biblical scholars do seem to disagree about the mechanisms of cruxifiction. cshirky (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the article that warrants deletion. I don't think it's a POV fork, because the Crucifixion of Jesus links to it. It does have sources, though these could be improved. It seems to be skewed to a JW or Not-a-Cross point of view, and this could be amended. However, I don't think many Christians or scholars have spent much time debating the issue. This also has relevance to the topic of crucifixion because crucifixion was a common punishment in the Roman Empire. The term suggests it involved fixing people to crosses, and if that isn't true, that is significant. So I think this article needs work to be less narrow-minded, but I think, as has been said, that should happen on the page in the first instance.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Looking closer, the main points of the article are summarized in a section of Crucifixion of Jesus, which suggests it's a WP:SPINOFF rather than a WP:POVFORK. Some of the less well sourced viewpoints could be cleaned out, but I don't see any red flags that would warrant deletion. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

It certainly looks to me like, maybe, based on the lede, the earlier forms of the article might be about the Jehovah's Witnesses' stake idea, and that the lede hasn't been adjusted to take into account relevant changes and additions. I certainly can and do see the JW's stake hypothesis deserves discussion in some spinout, and given the amount of material which has been written about the Bible in all forms I don't doubt that there is more than sufficient evidence of notability for this article. But changing the lede would help a lot. John Carter (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

On further reflection I'm going to merge this into crucifixion. Everything here is really about what crucifixion is in general. Mangoe (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

An anonymous IP editor is of the opinion that, in the article Jacob Barnett, we are not permitted to assert that it is false that Barnett disproved Einstein's theory of relativity, the Big Bang, and is in line for the Nobel Prize, despite claims made on his behalf. Unfortunately, there are very few appropriately skeptical secondary sources that make this a challenge for WP:V, but lots of sources that make false statements. More editors knowledgeable about fringe theories and the sciences, and how to deal with those on an encyclopedia, would be appreciated. See Talk:Jacob Barnett#Verifying a negative. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

These are not the claims in question, and I feel that this comment grossly mischaracterizes my position. The claim I’m contesting is a blanket assertion that Barnett

• was not working on a novel theory of relativity and/or astrophysics,
• would not be in line for a Nobel Prize if said theory existed, and
• had not solved a problem (as he claimed to have done in his TEDx Talk).

I’ll also point out that this is a BLP (WP:BLPFRINGE), and the subject of the article is not the theories themselves (which would fail WP:NFRINGE). —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The article does not actually say any of the things that you are objecting to. Also, in the TEDx talk, he says that he "Created a novel theory of astrophysics". That's a direct quotation. He also says that he "solved a problem". Those are two different statements, one of which is possibly true, and the other is clearly false. Edit: Since you objected to the passage "had solved a problem", I have removed it. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

It says the claims were made positively in Jacob Barnett § Early life, immediately followed by These claims are false. I created that list by copying and pasting from that section (and in this case adding “not” to each item). —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

What the section actually says is that Barnett was "working on a novel theory of relativity that was validated by physicist Scott Tremaine, and that ... would put him in line for a Nobel Prize". That is false, and we have sources. By the way, in the context of astrophysics, saying that someone has "solved a problem" means that the solution has been published and reviewed, not just that someone had a half-baked idea that was never made public. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

How is a blanket statement appropriate for claims consisting of complex sentences? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it might be best if we let other editors in. That's why we're at the noticeboard rather than article talk page. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Edits like [13] (particularly the edit summary) make it seem like we’re trying to discredit the subject and his fringe views as much as possible, rather than trying to write a neutral biography that neither unduly promotes nor denigrates the subject. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

You said that we cannot say that there were or were not ideas on these subjects. There have certainly been no published ideas. Perhaps Barnett has some thoughts in his own mind, but that's not for us to say. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I never said anything about the existence of ideas. You question their very existence, but that’s your POV, not Wikipedia’s and not our sources. We have multiple sources that support the claim that Barnett has had ideas about theories, and we have no sources questioning that claim. Please read and speak more carefully, so as to avoid misrepresenting my statements in the future. Thank you. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

You said: "we can’t say whether there is or is not." Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you confusing the concepts of an idea and a theory? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, there's obviously no theory. So, I am forced to assume that you're using the word "theory" in its colloquial sense to mean "idea in someone's head that isn't written down and vetted by a scholarly community". If you really mean scientific theory, then you are simply wrong. Barnett did not develop a scientific theory, and the article would be absolutely correct in asserting that. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

To asset that you would need a reliable source doing so. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

To assert what? IP wants to assert that there are novel physics ideas. There are no reliable sources for that. But certainly in a discussion we are permitted to say that the is no scientific theory. A scientific theory is something that has been thoroughly tested and scrutinized. In the case under discussion, that is obviously not the case, whether we wish to assert that in the article or not. Any reasonable discussion needs to start with that fact. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sławomir Biały: I don’t think I’ve expressed a desire to assert anything regarding that (though we certainly could, with the majority of sources reporting that Barnett claimed to have worked on a novel theory and/or had ideas for a theory, and no sources claiming he had no such ideas). I contest asserting in Wikipedia’s voice that there is no theory or related ideas, or otherwise expressing doubt as to its existence or legitimacy, without direct sources making a direct claim of same. I contest asserting anything based on editorial interpretation of a source. I continue to argue against this because you continue to appear to be arguing for it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

We most certainly do not have reliable sources for the existence of a theory or novel physics ideas. There are no peer reviewed physics sources available that make this assertion, just borderline fake news. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I don’t think FAKENEWS sources can establish a subject’s notability. If we (by AFD consensus, if nothing else) accept the legitimacy of these sources for notability, we have to accept the legitimacy of their claims of Barnett’s ambitions, regardless of what they extrapolated from there. (For the record, I would argue for deletion in an AFD. But that’s not where we’re at.) No one here is saying Barnett’s ideas had any actual merit or were scientifically sound. But he did have them. Tremaine even spoke of “a YouTube video in which Jake describes his theory.” So, yes, we have reliable sources for this, if we choose to include it.

Since you didn’t respond to them, shall I take it you accept my objections in the main part of my last comment? I have no doubt that you are certain that there was never anything resembling a theory and Barnett never had an idea for how to develop one, but with sources to the contrary, we can’t assert that. We could attribute it, but to the best of my knowledge, Wikipedia editors are the only sources to have made such a claim. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources for scientific ideas are review articles published by reputable scientific presses, textbooks, etc. We obviously don't have that. The only thing we have are fake news sources, which are not adequate for asserting the existence of novel physics ideas by a long shot. I'm not sure what main part you're referring to. I agree that we probably shouldn't assert that there were never any ideas, but I don't think we can assert that there were any novel physics ideas either.

There is certainly no novel theory, because scientific theories are, by definition, extremely well vetted things by a community of scholars and experts. Since the subject has not even published any of his ideas, there is no scientific theory. We know this, not because of WP:OR, but because we know what a scientific theory is. Here are some examples of scientific theories: the theory of evolution by natural selection, the theory of relativity, quantum theory. In all cases, the existence of the theory is easily verifiable by looking in a standard textbook. When that becomes the case of Barnett's claimed theory of astrophysics, we can assert that there is a theory in Wikipedia's voice. But the task of the article should not be to convey a misleading idea that there is such a theory at this time.

Whether we assert this in the article or not seems to be the point of contention. But I do not think that we even have agreement here about the lack of existence of a theory, which seems very strange. Once everyone agrees that there is no theory, then I see a point in continued reasonable discussion. But if editors are going to continue to behave as if the opinions of an untrained 12 year old are in any way relevant to determining the existence of a novel theory of astrophysics, then I cannot see further discussion on this point as remotely productive. Let's at least begin from a realistic scenario, and then discuss how the article should reflect that scenario, not dismiss obvious truth as WP:TRUTH/WP:OR as if being true were an undesirable feature of an encyclopedia. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

By “the main part,” I meant the part that was not set in smaller text and in parentheses, which was all you seemed to react to.

I’ve already addressed the “fake news” point. But do you think Tremaine was mistaken in his use of the word? He called it a “theory” without qualification. Expert sources can be wrong, but it seems like a bad idea to think WP editors know better than they. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Calling Tremaine an "expert source" that Barnett developed a novel theory of astrophysics is taking cherry picked, out of context qoutes, from a private communication the full text of which was never made available, to mean something that they obviously were not meant to. That is simply a gross misrepresentation. If you wish to engage in a serious factual discussion, it's important that you acknowledge this, and stop insisting that Barnett developed a novel theory of astrophysics. If Scott Tremaine were to write a paper (or even a blog) that clearly and directly confirms that Barnett has a novel theory of astrophysics, then he would be an expert source for that assertion. But please let's not make this source something that it obviously is not. Perhaps other editors here would like to weigh in? Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Limit statements to what reliable sources have stated, with attribution if necessary. We dont assert things that are not backed up by a reliable source in a BLP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Please identify reliable, peer reviewed sources that Barnett developed a novel theory of astrophysics, and we can assert that in the article. The claim that he had developed a theory is already attributed (to Barnett and his mother). Also, I am interested in actually having a discussion grounded in reality @Only in death:. So please answer the following question: was there a novel theory of astrophysics developed by a 12 year old child in 2011? If not, please opine on the best way the article should convey that fact. Simply saying "Follow the sources, derp" is not constructive, and it suggests that you have not actually seen the obviously false things that the sources have said (nor the two sources we have that do point out their obvious falsity). For example, sources assert in editorial voice, that Barnett disproved Einstein, that he "developed a series of mathematical models expanding Einstein's theory of relativity", and other red flags for which there seems to be no properly peer reviewed scientific basis. That's why we are here at FTN, because these are clearly fringe claims, but we lack good WP:NFRINGE sources. If the consensus is that we don't have reliable sources for an article that documents the fringe claims in a neutral manner, then I suggest that you should nominate the article for deletion, rather than insist that we follow nonexistent sources, or else present the sources that do allow us to cover these WP:REDFLAG claims neutrally. Thanks, Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

If we are claiming that it is "false" that Barnett developed theory, surely we have to have a source that states that he did not. We seem to be muddling up scientific theory with theory in the more general sense of the word. Is it not possible to develop theory, in the general sense of the word, without peer review? Viewfinder (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

In short, since I am not actually trying to assert Barnett did anything I dont have to provide sources to show such. I have no comment on his theory's existance beyond if reliable sources have commented on it, material citing said sources can be used when attributed correctly. Since you are clearly trying to assert he totally did not do something, you are required to provide reliable sources that state such. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

There has also been a good deal of disagreement over the overall tone, structure, and focus of that article. Some editors feel it’s too deep in the science weeds, not focusing enough on the person. Some feel it can’t be neutral if it’s trying to be too much of an attack piece. Some feel it can’t be neutral if it hints at the existence of a novel theory. Experienced BLP editors would be welcome. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

From you, yes. Most of the editors active there disagree only on nuance. Guy (Help!) 12:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think the whole article is problematic. If he gets a Nobel prize, if he disproves Einstein, that will be notable, but assertions for or against are not very important.--Jack Upland (talk) 13:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I have been active at Jacob Barnett for some time and I disagree with several other editors about its overall tone, structure and focus. The editing there has been dominated by those who, having repeatedly failed to get the article deleted, come across to me to have responded by expanding it into an attack piece. Viewfinder (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

To be a bit more balanced in explanation, I think what has happened is that the minor media sensation of 2011 associated with Barnett has convinced certain AfD watchers to argue that Barnett is notable enough for a biography. Unfortunately, essentially all this coverage contains egregious errors of scientific fact, absurd mischaracterizations and/or falsehoods, and little in the way of careful discussion of the underlying human interest story of a precocious child with an ASD diagnosis. Since Barnett's notability is argued to be based upon the media sensation, it is difficult to write an article without also making reference to these huge errors that occurred in the context of the media coverage. There are a few sources which make reference to this problem, but it's hard to know exactly how to get the level of detail right since many of the media sources go into excruciating detail about certain scientific theories and observations while getting them spectacularly wrong. jps (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I am generally leaning towards the 'this article has been deliberately skewed negatively'. Example: "In a 2011 Glenn Beck Program segment, Beck asked Barnett to solve a calculus problem, but did not check the results. Barnett was asked to establish convergence of a divergent series, to which he incorrectly applied the integral test, and the error went unrecognized in the program." Firstly the source used is the TV show - which as the above shows, did not notice the answer is incorrect (which I am assuming was in fact incorrect) but secondly this serves no purpose other than to deliberately instill a negative impression of the subject. This is not sourced to a secondary source 'Genius on Glenn Beck gets answer wrong!' etc. Its clearly been added just to denigrate the subject. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Almost every source we have on the subject makes egregious scientific errors. The question is, how best to document these errors. Ir, perhaps, the article should be deleted. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The really big issue here is that media outlets absolutely stunk at covering the real story here. The only really good one we have is the one from Macleans. Documenting every mistake/error that Barnett does seem needlessly disparaging, but the notable story here is how shitty Glenn Back is for parading his own ignorance (and how shitty the rest of the media who repeated false claims is). The notable story is that the media blows things out of proportion to the point of making false statements. The article might be better written as, Media coverage of Jacob Barnett. That's what the AfD arguers said was the reason for notability anyway. It would be much the same as if you were found to be notable because a bunch of news stories 5 years ago came out explaining how you discovered the fountain of youth. Wikipedia would have to both explain that's why you were notable and explain that those claims were false. Feels like a denigration, but it's really an indictment of the sources. I'm not fan, but what are we going to do with this article otherwise? jps (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Leaving aside the egregious errors, is Barnett not BLP notable on the back of this, whose reliability has not, as far as I know, been challenged, and the Ruthsatz book? We have had three heated AfD debates. Don't let's have another. Viewfinder (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that bad sources shouldn't be used as evidence for notability. The interesting thing is that the "bad sources" in this instance includes Time, the BBC, among others. Macleans, the two books, and possibly the 60 Minutes piece are basically the only sources I think are even halfway close to being reasonable sources for questions of notability. Under normal circumstances, that would not be enough to qualify for a WP:BLP (see WP:ONEEVENT and WP:TOOSOON). But if other people want us to use shitty sources instead of deleting the article, what choice do we have? Either we have an article that clearly fails WP:BIO if we excise the bad sources or we have an article that explains the bad sources. I don't see what other options are out there. jps (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

While continuing to contest your assertion that the reasonable sources are inadequate for WP:BIO, and assert that we need to clarify the distinction between theory used in a colloquial sense and scientific theory, I think that the Plait and Edwards sources adequately dismiss the "shit". Viewfinder (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I cannot imagine that an article about a physics student would be using the word theory in the colloquial sense. My god, the fellow is a theoretical physics student! That's about as scientific theory as one can get! But here's the thing, if you are going to accept that bad sources make the subject notable (including the sources about the sources -- Plait, Edwards, and, hell, why not throw in Novella for good measure?), then the article is going to have to take on the claims that are false. To do otherwise would be a disservice to the readers. Tell you what, if you are convinced that you could write a better article without disparaging, make yourself a sandbox and try! I don't think it's as straightforward as you might think. jps (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

My solution would be to retain a short article about Barnett himself, similar to the version that was stable for two years until it was last nominated for deletion. I think we need this. Rightly or wrongly, he was widely reported, and people do come to Wikipedia in search of accurate information and are likely to be curious about what became of him. As for the detailed analysis of the claims that have been made, how about transferring these to a linked but separate "media coverage" article? That would appear to me to be the right place to analyse the media claims. Not in the biography. Viewfinder (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Heck, how old was Barnett when he made these claims? He was 12 and had Asperger's syndrome. Never mind the media, but I do think that the biography should be devoid of anything disparaging about Barnett himself. Viewfinder (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

If I could turn the article clock back, this is the place to which I would turn it, before appropriately linking the media coverage article. Viewfinder (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

One more point. Jacob Barnett is covered by several other languages. As far as I can tell, none of them go into the media controversy. It follows that all of them consider him to have sufficient notability without that controversy. Viewfinder (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

If that is the article you think is best, it looks to me like it clearly fails WP:BIO. What makes him significant? WP:ONEEVENT? The argument that one the AfD were that the other sources were worthy of inclusion. Sorry that Wikipedians made the wrong decision, but that's that. jps (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The coverage at Maclean's and in two books demonstrate his significance. My preferred article was similar to what we had at the time of the last AfD, which evidently the closing admin did not think failed WP:BIO. Neither do the writers of articles in nine other languages, I would be happy to have any of them translated and used by us. Viewfinder (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't have fluency in any of the other languages, but I am perplexed as to the existence of those articles. I wonder if this article gets deleted whether these articles turn out to be just transwiki translations of previous versions. In any case, the problem is, as I see it, that the stub article is WP:TOOSOON. jps (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, many of us said that at past AfDs, but the "there are sources" argument always trumped...this article will not be deleted. Of course, the problem is that, if reverted to its stub-but-uncontroversial form, it's a matter of time before a drive-by reader starts adding all this stuff back. Agricola44 (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, I understand your point, you think that the biography should be more substantial than it was at the time of the last AfD. Can we discuss this further on your talk page or mine? Viewfinder (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

This is an odd intersection of topics, but since this has to do with removing certain scientific information on an insect because it can be used to make jokes about a political figure, this seemed like the best fitting board.

Neopalpa donaldtrumpi is an insect named after Donald Trump's hair. In entomology, we use various traits to describe species and how they are identified, especially compared to closely related species. In insects, one of the most common features we use are genital differences (structure size, hooks, barbs, etc.).[14] Interestingly (or unfortunately), this species happens to be described as having smaller male genital structures than the other species in its genus, or fewer hairs in females in the species key, which is where the important characteristics are listed (i.e., WP:WEIGHT). Not long after this story hit the news, people started making jokes, etc. out of N. donaldtrumpi for smaller male genitals. That's come full circle now and we've had editors calling to remove references to genital size in part due to this and associations with previous "small hands" jokes about Trump, while also saying that genital size is not important for inclusion. In terms of entomology to say medicine, that's like saying taking a blood pressure reading isn't important for assessing heart health.

You can see current discussion on the talk page. This part of the content is currently included, but since this only hit the news last week, I'd prefer to have more eyes on the article from science-minded folks as there's likely to be more controversy and calls to exclude some of the primary identifying features of the species according to the source. That could also go for people trying to lay into the genital size topic in the article too much as well where you'd run into BLP issues. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

wow. just wow. watchlisted. Jytdog (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

- LuckyLouie (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I wondered how long this would take when Auntie published it in the 'science & environment' section of their website. -Roxy the dog. bark 01:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. Commented and watchlisted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Auntie? Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Auntie Beeb. -Roxy the dog. bark 21:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Surely, if the article is there, it should not be edit-warred over such information. But I am not sure we should have an article at all; the whole name thing falls at the intersection of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INHERITED; the name was chosen on purpose to make the rounds of the internet. It might still be notable on entomological grounds though. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Species are usually considered notable by default, peculiar naming aside. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

At the Donald Trump page it was said that having a species named after him was not notable enough for inclusion. But species are highly notable. These moths will I hope continue to flutter long after Trump is forgotten.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Depends on the range of temperatures they can tolerate, and whether their habitat is vulnerable to coastal flooding. Guy (Help!) 15:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I see what you did there. Well played sir. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

yikes see map -- Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

You've forgotten that moths can fly.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Species are inherently fulfilling WP:GNG once described, but I thought we used to have a wikilink to a guideline on this (not finding it). Anyone recall it or was it buried somewhere else? Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I am amazed how tireless Kingofaces43 is in spreading false accusations. Which other forums smearing my name did I miss? How come a self-proclaimed entomologist contributed nothing to the article but a pool of venom in its talk page? Staszek Lem (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I am sorry, obvioulsy Kingofaces43 contributed mightily to the public knowledge by assisting the proliferation of the headlines "Blonde-Haired Moth With Small Genitals Named After Donald Trump", "Scientists name moth with golden hair and a tiny penis after Trump" etc., etc... I bet this will soon grow into a sizable Neopalpa Donaldtrumpi#In popular culture section. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I've reviewed that talk page and article history, Staszek Lem, and your contributions there were unhelpful, and you should read the comments above, where your stance is finding no support. I suggest you walk away from the topic, rather than escalating. Your head is usually on pretty straight but it is not, here. Really. Walk away. Jytdog (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

My stance is misrepresented. My contribution to the article speaks for itself. Unhelpful? Oh Really? Jytdog, you usually are pretty smart, but if you agree that penis size was the single distinctive feature to be mentioned, you are starting to lose my respect. I have no problem with walking away from the article (and removed it from my watchlist), because I actually improved it, unlike my opponent, despite not being an entomologist. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I reviewed your contributions. Yes, genital characteristics are a key identifying feature in entomology. Yes, there is risk of this being politicized but you are going way overboard and making too much drama. You can hear me when I say you are going overboard, or not. As you will. (and i have fallen prey to going overboard myself. it happens. :) ) Jytdog (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I have to back up Staszek Lem on this: While his wording was not ideal, the hypothesis that his objection was to the relative weight given this information fits the evidence provided by the discussion at talk, and with the diff he provided. That being said, Staszek: your comment about how tireless Kingofaces43 is was a pretty clear personal attack that has no business here. At the end of the day, everyone seems happy with the current version, so my advice to all and sundry is to drop it. (Like it's hot.) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the current version is good and we should all move on. Jytdog (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits have unfortunately changed that (and I was trying to stay clear of 3RR at least since yesterday). Attention what has been said on the talk page is really needed before putting in these edits. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Mpants, the weight concern was more or less rejected on the talk page. What happened was that early on no one looked at the source (namely the species key), so they thought genitalia weren't mentioned at all. After that was pointed out, we've more or less had a consensus that genital structure size was far from undue. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The weight concern was not rejected, it was misrepresented and ignored. And you again keep misrepresenting/taking out of context. By cherry-picking a single parameter of genitals (which was not even listed among most distinctive features by the discoverer in a separate section "diagnosis", quoted in talk page in full twice) you basically keep insisting that the description "Blonde-Haired Moth With Small Genitals Named After Donald Trump" is a faithful description of the moth. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm trying to disengage from you at this point hoping someone else can explain the issues with your talk page comments, but the problem is that what you call misrepresenting is actually accurately responding to what you've posted on the talk page. As I just posted on the talk page (for I think the third or fourth time), there's a lot more to the description besides just the genitals that we already covered in the article. You're continuously missing those talk page comments and zeroing in the just the highlighted edit diffs. Again, please just slow down and re-read what people have written while refraining from inaccurate accusations of cherry-picking. Also keep in mind that interjecting political comments into the description discussion is not helpful (and gets us into fringe territory). This moth needs to be described like any other regardless of who it is named after due to WP:NPOV. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I see you keep butchering the article. I started a RFC. I have to admit I am an idiot; I should have done this much earlier. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

For aficionados: Baracktrema obamai—a species of blood fluke. Johnuniq (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

List of small life forms named in honor of American presidents is due, I guess. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

We already have List of organisms named after famous people, which includes a few dozen species or genus names from US presidents. (Not all the critters are small, though, Mammuthus jeffersonii for example.) Nobody‘s yet added a column to the table for sorting them by genital size.—Odysseus1479 08:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

But there is no article, List of organs named after famous people...--Jack Upland (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

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

We could use some more viewpoints and research on how prominently "pseudoscience" is mentioned in the article, including the lede. The sourcing looks rather poor at this point for what's currently there. Discussion at Talk:Mehmet_Oz#Pseudoscience promoter, or alleged? --Ronz (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Interesting clash here: it was taken to BLPN and some BLP people with little experience in woo are supporting "alleged pseudoscience", which seems to me to violate WP:WEASEL (the BMJ and the Senate hearing nailed that one). Guy (Help!) 12:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I made another proposal there, but only QuackGuru has talked to me about it and I had a lot of trouble understanding what his issue with my proposed sentence was. But I think we sorted it out and he doesn't like that I said criticism of Dr. Oz is widespread, he said I can only say there is criticism. I don't think that's what the articles cited say - I think they say that the criticism is widespread. Can some people come over and let me know if my new sentence is totally off base or not? Is this the right place to ask this? Or should I go to a noticeboard for sources maybe? 45.72.157.254 (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

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

CIA documents already existing in the public archives have been recently posted online, and this has apparently prompted some recent edit warring at the article to give undue weight "to justify point of view" that Harold E. Puthoff's CIA funded study of Geller showed he had psychic powers. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

couldn't that just be restated that "Harold E. Puthoff's CIA funded study of Geller was so poorly designed that it ludicously suggested he had psychic powers. The CIA's abortive attempt to develop "paranomal warriors" was later mocked in the film The Men Who Stare at Goats." ? - Nunh-huh 12:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

They want the article to be less skeptical and more open minded about Geller's psychic powers. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm curious as to how open those editors are to the possibility that Geller doesn't have psychic powers... MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

This looks like a question regarding the credibility and reliability of Puthoff than about Geller himself. I don't know if Puthoff's been taken to RSN before, I imagine he has, but based on the "Assessment of scholarship" section of his biography article I would have to say that to meet NPOV concerns any content in the Geller article about Puthoff's findings would also have to discuss the serious questions regarding the reliability of his work with roughly equivalent weight. John Carter (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Here's the real-world assessment of whether Puthoff is a reliable source for anything: "Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! No." Guy (Help!) 00:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

See this edit which is pretty much gibberish and poorly sourced. I always prefer to wait for responses and show those as well, but in any case this should be trimmed just to show the various locations suggested. The IP is pushing Diaz-Montexano. The only news stories I see since the broadcast are in the Daily Mail and Sun, British sensationalist tabloids. Doug Weller talk 09:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The whole article is unencyclopedic crap. Needs a major filleting to remove the primary sources, and anything that's left merged into the main Atlantis article. Alexbrn (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Very poorly sourced but isn't it Hypothesis ? 115.186.171.226 (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

"Hypothesis" does not give you a free pass from WP:N and WP:V. Otherwise, we would have numerous articles that are unencyclopedic crap (to use the technical term used above) such as Freemason reptilian army of Donald Trump hypothesis. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, you mock the reptilian army now, in your silicon safety, but tomorrow they shall rise! - Nunh-huh 20:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• I have a problem with "hypotheses" (which is the proper plural form, dear IP) in that it implies a serious pretense at legitimacy. The notions of Atlantis aren't crackpot theories which have been debunked, we've known for thousands of years that Atlantis never existed, and we even know who made it up, when and why.

I think the article should be renamed to "Atlantis location speculation". I do not agree with Doug that this article should be trimmed down to just a list of location: these claims are notable and well-covered; it benefits the encyclopedia to cover them well. And besides, I find this stuff fascinating and WP should cater to my interests. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The trouble is the article is a secondary work, not an encyclopedic (tertiary) one. It it based on primary, not secondary content. Alexbrn (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@MPants at work: I didn't say the article should be trimmed to only a list of locations. My edit summary in the National Geographic section said that we should only list the locations suggested in the program, not go into a lot of detail arguing the cases or telling us where it was filmed. Doug Weller talk 20:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Ahh. My mistake, then. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

No problem, thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, the list of locations is arguably the least important part of the article. What's needed is more emphasis on the absurdity of trying to locate a fictional place in the actual world. - Nunh-huh 20:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

As the editor who suggested inclusion of the Gerhard Herm Denmark hypothesis, I think there are some sources which might not be perfect but would qualify as "good enough" for our purposes. Having said that, I wouldn't mind if we could somehow turn this into a List of proposed locations for Atlantis which might include only those locations which are promoted in works discussed in maybe greater detail in articles specifically relating to the works themselves. John Carter (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Neal D. Barnard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Barnard and his committee are diet advocates, and it has recently transpired that these articles have been the subject of paid editing. Could probably use more eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Portal:Creationism has a DYK section with one entry stating "Did you know - that in the context of Creation–evolution controversy, according to a 2007 Gallup poll,[1]about 66% of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" and 38% believe that God guided the process of evolution?" The source is a dead link, but Gallop does have a page with with the relevant polls[37] and the figure is 43&. Is it possible that there was an original DYK with a false figure? I have no idea how to fix this other than just change it with a new source, but that might be against some guideline. Doug Weller talk 13:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

archive link. Seems verified, if a little cherry picked. I don't see a DYK banner on the article talk page and it looks like the old DYKs section of that portal includes another one for the same poll in the previous year, which suggests this didn't actually appear on the main page DYK? Regardless, here is a more recent version (2014): 42% "God created humans in present form"; 31% "humans evolved, with God guiding"; 19% "human evolved, but God had no part in the process". It doesn't look like they asked the stand-alone "creationism... definitely true/probably true/probably false/definitely false" question that yielded the 66% figure in the 2007 survey. So 2014 is better, but still enough to ruin my morning. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: It's definitely cherry-picked as your source shows the same question asked in a different poll that year getting the 43% that's in the Gallup poll I mentioned. 17:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)Doug Weller talk

@Doug Weller: That portal's DYK section was created on 10 August 2006 by user:Arturo 7. That user's talk page portrays a creationist advocate who had a controversial editing history. Arturo 7 edited only between 13 July 2006 and 26 October 2006, except for this single edit about his user page in October 2007. 342 of his 768 edits are deleted, some no doubt after AfDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evidence of creation (note the consecutive sections on his talk page).

Looking at the archives of DYK (WP:DYKA), I can find no hook that the text matches the portal's DYK section on the talk pages for creation-evolution controversy (redirect page, small dash name moved to endash in 2009) nor Creation–evolution controversy. Looking at the incoming links to the creation-evolution controversy redirect page from from WP space, there are only two from the DYK archive – Wikipedia:Recent additions 225 and Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/August – plus one from the statistics record page Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics/Archive 2008, all of which relate to the hook:

• ... that Science, Evolution, and Creationism was published by the National Academy of Sciences to address the creation-evolution controversy?

from 6 August 2008 (5 600 views). The proper endash article title has no incoming links from WP space relating to the DYK project. Searching further, I can't find any evidence that any of these were ever in the DYK section, and edits like this one strongly suggest they had nothing to do with the DYK project. IMO, Portal:Creationism/Did you know and Portal:Creationism/Previous did you knows should be restructured to make clear they are unrelated to the WP:DYK project or deleted. I'm going to post a link to WT:DYK. Thanks, Doug, for raising this question. EdChem (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I suspect this is not relevant or important at all. If these were ever DYKs, so what? If these weren't DYKs, so what? I'm not sure it makes any sense to make a big deal out of any of it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Many of these would not make it through DYK vetting, and I think portraying these as if they were from the DYK project reflects poorly on the project and its members. There are already enough examples of problematic and poor DYK hooks for which we were responsible, without adding more that aren't real / true. EdChem (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the DYK project has enough issues of its own before it worries about a few rogue DYKs. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Some thoughts on portals I agree with The Rambling Man that we shouldn't make a big deal out of it. I don't think there's any policy against it and if a WikiProject wants to show off content from their scope that for some misfortune or chance wasn't able to be put on the mainpage, we should let them. In one of my more niche contributions, I once tried to get Portal:Linguistics up to featured portal so I actually remember a good deal about portals. The only thing I could never figure out is why we have them at all. I think we should maybe consider why we have portals and the inclusion criteria for what content groupings can qualify for portals, but I digress. Anyway, the spirit of portals, I gather, is to (1) navigate and orient users to basic and important concepts of a topic, and (2) display quality contributions from content within the portal scope. I think that, as long as the DYK links are to articles of quality (in Wikipedia:Portal guidelines it's defined as "above a start-class") and important to the topic, it doesn't really matter if they've been through the DYK process because that's also the spirit of DYK, the time restrictions are just so that they don't get flooded with old content. That being said, this is the fringe theories notice board, so whether it violates that guideline is something different. I just don't want others to think that just because it hasn't been through the WP:DYK process, it automatically shouldn't be included in a portal. That being said, I don't much see what policies the presented hooks are afoul of. They're verifiable, and much "hookier" than a lot of the things put on the mainpage, if the time period or expansion of the articles linked was correct, these hooks would honestly not be the worst submissions to DYK. The only problem is their content. They're meant to support a particular fringe theory: creationism. But that's within the spirit of portals: to promote the content and topic of the portal. To promote content in the scope requires cherry picking facts and misconstruing article content. The portal's topic and therefore purpose is antithetical to NPOV and FRINGE, and, I think, those should win out over the portal guideline. I think the mere existence of Portal:Creationism, not just it's DYKs, violate the spirit and perhaps letter of NPOV and Fringe. I think we should rather give serious discussion to deleting the portal. (edit conflict) The Rambling Wug (Wugapodes) 22:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Wugapodes, I'm not suggesting DYK is any sort of requirement for content, but the portal has a section headed "Did you know" and that to me is implying that the content below it is DYK-vetted. Whether intentionally or not, it implies an endorsement by the DYK project that is not true, and reminds me of the way creationism tries to invoke the legitimacy of science to defend its decidedly unscientific claims. DYK requires facts that are verifiable to reliable sources. Would the DYK project have ever endorsed putting "... that in the context of Creation–evolution controversy, according to a 2007 Gallup poll,[38] about 66% of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" and 38% believe that God guided the process of evolution?" on the main page? The link is dead, as Doug Weller notes, but here is how it appeared on 13 June 2007 which was 2 days after it was posted online. The statistics presented are clearly cherry-picked, and I don't think would have passed a DYK review even though some reviewers do a poor job. It would certainly not have survived a challenge at WT:DYK. No comment on whether the portal should go, I haven't looked into the rules governing them. Certainly coverage of creationism is difficult in that the scientific consensus is clear, so we need to avoid advocacy but maintain NPOV balance. EdChem (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing that it wouldn't have made it through, but I'm saying that the reason it wouldn't make it through isn't necessarily a fault of the hooks. In all those cases it would be because of how the editor was using the sources incorrectly to advocate a fringe theory. A neutrally worded hook could be created for these articles, but it would necessarily not promote creationism. I'm saying the overarching problem is that the portal as a whole, not just the DYKs, are on the wrong side of policy and the purpose of Wikipedia. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 23:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I've done a fair amount of work with portals over the years, and I regret to say that I don't remember ever seeing anything which specifically indicated that something included in the DYK section of a portal necessarily had to have been included as a main page DYK. And, in fact, in some of the portals with smaller topics, there have been, I think, times when the portal DYKs are just articles of significant importance to the topic, sometimes because there haven't been any main page DYK's. Regarding the particular item in question, I don't think that there are any regs regarding what can be done with portals. I can't see changing the DYK in question to accurately reflect the figures first quoted above would be in any way problematic. The changes should probably be made to Portal:Creationism/Previous did you knows though, as that is where the citation is included. John Carter (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but that page cites a 2006 poll. In any case, it seems odd to cite a 2007 poll, if the item is to be changed, it should probably be to the latest poll. Pretty US-centric though. Doug Weller talk 19:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Acknowledging the US-centric aspect, but as per the content of Creationism#Prevalence the US seems to maybe be the area with the greatest percentage of believers in creationism. John Carter (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Frank Olson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Project MKDELTA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• A Terrible Mistake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Three articles pushing fringe POV that the CIA killed Olsen because "he knew too much". - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I nominated the last for deletion based upon my inability to find anyone who cared. Mangoe (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

and it's gone. Mangoe (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Another related to the same garden. Claims White House memos exist, but sources are unconfirmable. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The Frank Olson article seems ok, and a fairly balanced look at what could be a complete bit of wingnut conspiracy stuff. Based on the references and stuff, I don't think there's much case for a zillion articles or substantial expansion of the existing, without getting way outside reliable sources. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Article is mainly based on his own work. Not my field, but clearly promotional. Doug Weller talk 11:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Just to add I ran into him via an argument at another fringe subject Talk:Jordan Lead Codices#Authenticity of Jordan Codices after I discovered an Amazon description calling him " one of the world's foremost psychologists." Doug Weller talk 12:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Recently an editor insisted on using a primary source to describe a fringe view, contrary to FRIND. The arguments given were as follows, with my rebuttals.

• FRINGE is just a guideline.

Guidelines can have exceptions, of course, but that doesn't mean a guideline can be automatically discarded when it stands in the way of what an editor wishes to do. There should be consensus for making an exception to a guideline, as noted in WP:PAG: Going against the principles set out on these pages, particularly policy pages, is unlikely to prove acceptable, although it may be possible to convince fellow editors that an exception ought to be made.

• If independent sources do not adequately describe a fringe view, we must summarize and/or quote primary sources for the sake of fair treatment.

Since primary sources are occasionally permitted (WP:PRIMARY), this may initially seem reasonable, but further consideration reveals a few problems:

• This leaves it up to editors to determine what constitutes a fair summary of a fringe view. Editors may, unintentionally, unduly weight one aspect or otherwise miss the forest for the trees. Summarizing necessarily entails some interpretation, which WP:PRIMARY prohibits.
• Even supposing a fringe view is fairly summarized from primary sources, there is a disconnect: the independent sources brought in for mainstream reception (WP:PSCI) may not match up with the editors' own summary. The independent sources are addressing what they describe as the fringe view, which may not be exactly what editors have written.
• It feels a bit like vigilante justice, like, "Independent sources aren't treating this fairly, so we must step in to make it right." This is especially open to abuse when COI editing is involved. Wikipedia is a tertiary source; if there isn't much coverage by independent sources then perhaps it doesn't belong in the first place.

I would like to establish consensus for these two statements:

• Making an exception to FRINGE (including FRIND) is possible, but requires consensus for doing so.
• If a fringe view has parts A, B, and C, and independent sources only address B, then the article should only discuss B. It is improper to summarize A, B, and C from primary sources, then cite an independent source to address B. (Basically what WP:FRIND says.)

Manul ~ talk 13:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

These points seem to be covered by existing policies and guidelines. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Just going to leave this in your capable hands. TimothyJosephWood 03:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is ongoing at Talk:Stephen Miller (aide)#Note on false claims as to whether claims of widespread voter fraud in the 2016 presidential election — specifically, "tens and thousands of illegal voters" being "bused-in to New Hampshire" — should be described plainly as "false" (as many sources do) or as "widely rejected and described as false by mainstream sources and watchdog groups" (a phrasing advocated by some editors). Comments are welcome. Neutrality^talk 14:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Richard M. Swiderski materials used in the article is disputed frequently by various people from the community, the most recent edits that show a substantial differences in facts by sticking to our acceptable content polices seen are 1, 2. The first one excludes any inclusion of the Swiderski material, maybe a non-cooperative or bold approach. The second one looks like inclusionism. Both this edits originates from multiple statements on the inaccuracy of the material used and with complaints of its non-neutrality due to its fringe nature. The article is protected multiple times for edit warring, there also seems a strong resentment from community members and often annoying statements of "Failure or refusal to "get the point". The problem from history seems to be present for 5 years. Somewhere in the middle there is a truth behind this problem. Major complaints I am able to understand are Wikipedia:Fruit of the poisonous tree, Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes, Wikipedia:Beware grandstanding text and Wikipedia:Ownership of content. The personalisation of the issue also fails to honor anything related to Wikipedia:Negotiation and to a certain extend appropriate Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Etiquette and good faith is seen lost in its history. I think its a better time now to edit out inconsistencies and incorporate neutral materials. Certain neutral materials I found are wedding customs, history-short version, a theological college thesis paper. As I bring this matter to the noticeboard, I vote for less overclassification of this christian group and avoidance of including overly speculative sections as authoritative evidences.

The Swiderski article is a scholarly source. Do you have anything written by a scholar that contradicts him? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Some questions about POV, fringe-iness and sourcing bound-up in recent edits. Could use more eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Discussion is at Talk:Alkaline_diet#Potential_bias. II | (t - c) 18:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Daniel E. Friedmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is an article on a religious fringe writer. Needs watching. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The editor, Reconcilian (talk · contribs), is an SPA whose edits all promote Friedmann (who I've seen described as a "reconcillian") and this is possibly an autobiography or an article written by someone connected to the subject. Here we have a British Columbia IP address adding something by Friedmann, who lives in BC, followed by edits by Reconcilian. Doug Weller talk 09:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I removed most of the material which was promotional. It is questionable to me whether his self-published books warrant any mention whatsoever since the two "public interest stories" from the Canadian press seem to not rise above the flash in the pan kind of coverage we generally say isn't good enough for Wikipedia to mention. At the very least, we shouldn't be WP:SOAPboxing or going into any depth about his peculiar ideas whatsoever since no one seems to have noticed beyond the two niche reports. jps (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

This is about the pseudoscience pusher Robert Sungenis, see the WP:PROFRINGE edit at [39]. Please chime in. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The issue with Robert Sungenis is not WP:PROFRINGE, but WP:BLP. I have placed a complaint on the BLP noticeboard.The editors may consider Robert Sungenis fringe, but this does not mean they get to do their own original research to state so (WP:NOR). The version I posted is fair and balanced relative to WP:BLP (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Sungenis&oldid=764563259). I am willing to work with them on what they consider fringe theories. See BLP noticeboard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Robert_Sungenis Joe6Pack (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, the WP:BLPN topic was the first one, so we will continue our discussion there. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

This is no longer just a BLP issue. It has spilled over into naked advocacy for The Principle. The account in question is trying to promote this movie along with Sungenis's weird beliefs almost as if they were the ones running a publicity campaign. [40].

More help would be appreciated.

jps (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Now moving on to the film page! [41] jps (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

[42] This led me to Michael Voris which has a lot of work that probably should be done on it. Yikes! jps (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The user who commented second in this thread has now been indeffed: [43]. jps (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I decided to try out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Voris. I am having a hard time understanding how Wikipedia can possibly host a biography of this particular fringe person. jps (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Principle (2nd nomination) Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• see also Talk:Robert_Sungenis#Similar_to_ID_and_creationism Jytdog (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• See Talk:Robert_Sungenis#RfC_re_geocentrism Jytdog (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Needs eyes again. Among other things, I'm not sure about the addition of a number of quotes from Fomenko himself. Doug Weller talk 10:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not really happy with the newest developments in the article. The user apparently on a crusade against academics who are not able to disprove everything Fome nko ever wrote, only selected statements.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Right now, the topic itself does not have much in the medical literature like most CAM topics. This has come up at FTN before.

There's was talk page discussion here on three sources where the the first meta-analysis was fairly critical of certain uses of equine related therapy treatments, primarily that complementary or adjunct treatments should not divert from mainstream treatment resources due to poor study designs, lack of efficacy, etc. The second was more positive while still saying research is lacking, but it wasn't an independent source and was weighted as such. The third was pretty conclusively not reliable at all.

That conversation was a year ago, but editors have since been slowly trying to add in content arguing the content should be balanced between the sources by introducing weasel words (i.e. "some researchers")[44] to the first source's overall statement that the practice should not divert medical resources. Others include saying that the practice is a complementary treatment in addition to regular treatment when the first source clearly indicates it cannot be recommended as an actual treatment at this time. There are also some issues with quoting like scare quotes too.

The main issue in that overall summary diff of the current problems is if it can really be called a complementary treatment without making it appear efficacious in violation of WP:FRINGE due to the lack of efficacy found in the meta-analysis even after a year of not having consensus for it. Eyes are welcome on all the other areas too though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Napoleon Hill is the author of the 1937 best-selling self-help book, Think and Grow Rich. I'm having great trouble weeding through the massive amount of New Age and self-help mentions of Hill to find some authoritative, scholarly histories/biographies on him that put is work in a historical context. A gizmodo article about Hill is being questioned for reliability at RSN, and the context that he was strongly influenced by the New Thought movement (especially Law of attraction (New Thought) is being questioned. New Thought and the related articles look like they are suffering from the lack of scholarly sources, and proper weight to such sources, as well. --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

There is a proper way to handle iffy sources and claims. Avoid them. And it is better to "dele" poorly sourced claims than to keep them in while awaiting "real sources" IMO. Collect (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

If any real sources exist, they seem very hard to find. In the meantime we have to contend with the pov of the Napoleon Hill Foundation, Hill's grandson, people who want to see Hill as a prophet of the religion of success (as the New York Times paints Hill here), and people who want to sell their own "secrets of success". --Ronz (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ronz: It's your opinion about the other Hill sources, that they are "people who want to see Hill as a prophet of the religion." And the New York Times piece is clearly an opinion piece. We can't use that either. Whatever opinions that writer has, they don't belong in a biography on Wikipedia. And right now you seem to be forum shopping since you've got an open case on RSN. Your opinion of the Foundation is wide of the mark since they have his personal papers, manuscripts and other written records that Hill left behind. That's like saying, nobody can use the papers in a presidential library, or in a deceased author's papers for information because you think they are biased. I don't think you understand the work of historians and biographers. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

We can't use that either. This isn't the venue to discuss such matters, but thanks for making my point for coming here for help. --Ronz (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Paleontologist Darren Naish has a book coming out called Hunting Monsters: Cryptozoology and the Reality Behind the Myths[45] which is already on GBooks in preview. Anyone editing relevant articles should take a look. Doug Weller talk 11:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Nominated this for deletion per Wikipedia:109PAPERS. Given that the oogie-boogie sites are already discussing it, the people of this noticeboard may want to keep some eyes on the article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The Daily Mail RS flap has now turned up on Loch Ness monster, because the DM was the venue for at least two of hoax photos. As tends to be the case, every little bit of Nessiana has had to be included, and in particular the 2001 DM/Edwards incident has gotten stuck in a time warp in which the hoax admission hasn't happened yet, at least not until the last sentence. That incident needs to be cut to the bone, but the whole thing needs some considerable compression. Mangoe (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Aquatic ape hypothesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Just noticed that this article has totally degenerated into a "sing the praises of AAH" claptrap.

Help!

jps (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I've watchlisted and I'll give it a good once over when I get the chance. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

OMG, it's that time again. The article is a running problem ... Alexbrn (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh come on! It's obviously the right theory, just look at all the blowholes around here.

Oh wait, they're blowhards. Nevermind then. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• This board 50 years ago: of course lizards are dinosaurs - it's right there in the name!
• This board 100 years ago: they doubt the effectiveness of my radium tincture! What fools.
• This board 200 years ago: they deride the expellation of bad humours!
• ...

But with you fine scholars and science having finally reached the point where we know all there is to know, I'm certain this time will be different. Rush and correct Attenborough before gullable readers are persuaded by his nonsense. 107.77.193.113 (talk)

There's probably also a sock problem. Alexbrn (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

What the funny smelling IP doesn't seem to get is that while they're absolutely right, that's exactly what WP is going for. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, will you guys piss off with the sock puppet bullshit? Just because more than one person perceives that an idea is being raped by academic stupidity, it doesn't make them the same person! CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 12:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh well, it proving resistant to improvement. I tried removing the reams of text built on primary source but they've gone right back in ... Alexbrn (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
(add) Looking at the history it's apparent the article had a major re-write a few weeks ago[46] which had the effect of watering-down criticism, giving the "theory" a big free-hit in its own primary-sourced section, and introducing a fair amount of OR and SYNTH. Alexbrn (talk) 09:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The description 'totally degenerated into a "sing the praises of AAH" claptrap' says more about your prejudices than it does about the article. A large part of the article is critical. Do read before you hit the delete button. Chris55 (talk) 10:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Who are you addressing? Alexbrn (talk) 11:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The stated goal of the re-write was to attempt "to present both sides fairly". The trouble is this falls afoul of WP:GEVAL. The fringe theory is given a lot of space to itself and a lot of reinforcing material (with OR and SYN problems) so as to present this as merely a dispute among scientists, or as the lede now mildly observes "The idea remains controversial". In fact it should be readily apparent what the fringe theory is and what the mainstream theory is, and how the fringe theory is rejected by the mainstream. Alexbrn (talk) 11:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

There is the very big problem with this particular fringe theory, that while the entire theory is still rejected by mainstream, it has never been explained by said mainstream exactly why.

To quote, "During the last few years, when I have found myself in the company of distinguished biologists, evolutionary theorists, paleo-anthropologists, and other experts, I have often asked them just to tell me, please, exactly why Elaine Morgan [chief proponent of said theory] must be wrong about the aquatic ape theory. I haven't yet had a reply worth mentioning, aside from those who admit, with a twinkle in their eyes, that they have often wondered the same thing." Unquote, Dan Dennett, "Darwin's Dangerous Idea", 1995, ISBN 0-684-82471-X, p. 244

And to quote, "One of the reasons, I think, for an early hostility to it, was purely a feeling that, “Well, why didn’t one of us come up with that? If it was true, one of us would have come up with it first.” It was a kind of incredulity almost, that this outsider could produce this theory which seemed to pull so many threads together. But there was also a feeling that they were all glancing around the room, feeling, “Well, I can’t personally think of the knock down argument, but surely one of you can.” And there was the thing that, “Which one of us is it that has got the knock down argument?” And it gradually became apparent that none of them had the knock down argument! And so they resorted to this kind of rhetoric about, “Oh, she’s cobbled together a kind of collage of different facts and figures...” Which is exactly what scientific theory’s supposed to do. Why was Newton’s theory of gravity so important? Because it integrated everything from why the moon went round the earth to why apples fall. That is the key thing of a good scientific theory, that it does this linking job on a lot of phenomena, that were hitherto thought to be totally unrelated. And whatever the long term merits of the theory are judged to be, it certainly did that." Unquote, Graham Richards in BBC's 2005 "Scars of Evolution" http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/scarsofevolution.shtml

So the current problem for the Wiki article is the dissonance of how in the hell do you describe said topic and its argumentation, while also getting across that it is to be rejected by learned men, when there's no description of why it's rejected??? Snorter upstairs calls it a "sing the praises of AAH claptrap" to even present its arguments, in any form. And that's exactly the problem on this one topic: You've all been indoctrinated to know it's wrong, but as soon as you'd get presented with the core arguments, the laughter stops. And it's not supposed to stop, that's all you have ever been taught. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 12:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't want to get directly involved, because I am very busy IRL, but I find aspects of the recent article rewrite very problematic. Specifically, most of the features of human morphology and behavior that are "explained" by the AAH, like the diving reflex, finger wrinkling, and vernix caseosa, are discussed only in relation to the AAH, and not in relation to mainstream scholarship. I believe that the article should be restored to the earlier state, and specific edits be discussed to build consensus for them. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

They were discussed, and a consensus was indeed reached. But that wasn't good enough, 'cause rules don't apply, if you suddenly feel like looking through Galileo's telescope. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

True enough, I suppose. But, entire sections and paragraphs from other sections are sourced entirely either to Hardy or to Morgan, and these are far more prominently placed than the criticism. It's hard for someone who hasn't stewed in the no doubt very convincing-and-policy-based discussions that took place over there to get the impression that this is in any way a balanced treatment, as required by NPOV. The WP:PARITY of sources there seems to be way off the mark to me, but I'm sure I must be missing something that is no doubt blindingly obvious to the literati who were present at those earlier discussions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, here's the problem: There's almost no criticism of the aquatic ideas on paper. You're asking for a balanced treatment, fair enough, but this is a very weird fringe theory. I don't know of any other that's derided just as much by mainstream, but where there's almost no quotation available that spells out why. We have all been told, that the aquatic ape hypothesis (and what ever derivatives) is nuts. And... that's it. We're not told why. I have been studying the aquatic ideas for some twenty years, and I only know of one single paper, by John Langdon from 1997, and that is very far from an absolute rebuttal of the concept of water having shaped human evolution as distinct from that of the other apes. So when you try and write an entry on the aquatic ideas, the only things that can really be sourced is the proposal, not the rebuttal. 'Cause the rebuttal is an assumption that has never been spelled out. Years down, you end up being prone to agree with the chief aquatic proponent Elaine Morgan that argued, that the mainstream view of her and other's suggestions being absolute rubbish... doesn't have a case. They just can't argue this idea away, 'cause it never was as unreasonable as they would like it to be. And because the mainstream doesn't have a case, they have chosen to try to be as silent about it as humanly possible. That seems to have been their best weapon against their sort of inconvenient truth. 'Cause then encyclopedias like Wiki can be pushed to not list truthfully about what this idea is, 'cause then "there're no secondary sources summarizing it," or what ever their random excuse is that day. Sadly for them, that part's no longer true. Now a lot of secondary sources are summarizing its status and even defending it. And that makes all the ill-informed people even more furious and at a quick glance delete vast sections, vandalizing the entire article again and again. And de facto, they don't even have to care about acquiring any consensus beforehand, 'cause we all know, that the aquatic ape hypothesis is eternally nuts. We know, that it is nuts. We don't know why, but we know, that it is nuts. So the vandals just get away with it, for years on Wiki now.

I can only see that one sin has been committed by the aquatic ideas to leave it so brutalized: That they're not wrong when expected to be. I can't put into words just how frustrating and depressing it is to observe that aspect of human psychology. I cannot see how we have moved a single step since the days of Copernicus. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

It looks like you haven't looked at the page recently. e.g. I didn't include finger wrinkling in the rewrite and have opposed it being added recently. Chris55 (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Agree with restoration to the pre-rewrite state. The deeper I dive into it, the murkier it gets with OR, WP:PROFRINGE, dubious source selection and misrepresentation of what those sources say (see the Talk page for some threads on this). Alexbrn (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Well I'm glad that a notice was placed on the talk page about the discussion here even if a couple of days after it started. In the past the clique at this noticeboard would discuss fringe article privately and then sally forth en masse to fix things as they saw fit rather than discussing things publicly. That was before the header here even said if particular editors are discussed they must be notified.

Now the point of this is that how fringe theories is dealt with on Wikipedia is not because we have some duty to protect the weak minded like many here seem to think. It is simply so we produce a good encyclopaedia of notable things with proper weight given to the various views, and fringe supporters can be quite vocal in supporting their pet theories. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. In the past the AAH article comprised a whole lot of she said he said - which is very bad style and it was cleaned up to separate the bits. Now a person comes along and wants to remove the description bit and just have criticisms without saying what is being criticized. Might I humbly suggest this is even worse style and as far as the basic aims of Wikipedia is concerned the only reason this is not considered vandalism is because the person doing it believes they are doing right by Wikipedia? Might I suggest they not try and bowdlerize the encyclopaedia but simply try and get a decent article with appropriate weight? Dmcq (talk) 12:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Weight should be determined by secondary sources that represent mainstream scholarship. If no such sources exist for part of the article, then the article should indeed be less detailed on that particular point. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Exactly: censorship has absolutely nothing to do with it, but we must not give undue weight to fringe theories, and we must not give undue weight to primary research. The aim is not "to remove the description" but only to have as much description as has permeated into decent (mainly secondary) RS, and to state it within a proper mainstream context. Alexbrn (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

You are not discussing it with NPOV when you talk about claptrap. You are not trying to produce a decent article on the topic when you try removing a listing of points of the theory even when the points are discussed in criticisms. What you keep trying to do has nothing to do with undue weight. I don't know if you are fooling yourself about censorship but I think if you were actually facing up to yourself you would find a less flippant cite. I certainly know I feel a low opinion of you and have to try hard to counter it and it may be you feel something similar which is why I keep feeling contempt from you in your comments. Dmcq (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean "claptrap"? The points aren't discussed in criticisms, but commentary is hived off to a WP:CSECTION (bad style) where it is far from apparent how/if it applies. And on examination the criticisms turn out to be reinforcements for the AAH, based on bad sources and misrepresented to boot. Alexbrn (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I see it is jps talking about claptrap and you responding by saying it is a running problem which looked like an assent to me. I am not able to figure out what you are trying to say but in the article there is a history, a section listing the points in the original theory, a section giving criticisms of that theory mostly against of course but a number pro and then a section on the cut down waterside hypothesis version. That is perfectly in line with WP:CSECTION. What happened before was that the points were interspersed into the various criticisms in a long mess. Now you're talking about just having the criticisms whether for or against without any straightforward listing of what the various points of the theory were even though they are discussed in the criticisms. I do see that some anti criticisms have been removed recently when I wasn't looking at it - that would be a far better target to tackle. Dmcq (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

CSECTION advises "topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism"; currently this isn't happening. The fringe theory is given a "free hit" in its own section drawnng from primary sources with no indication of weight from secondary sources. I removed criticism too (I am an equal opportunity enemy of primary research in article space) because we shouldn't be engaging in an exposition of tit-for-tat arguments among those inhabiting this topic bubble. To repeat, we need to be giving a summary of accepted knowledge on the topic, and this will been found in independent, scholarly, secondary sources. Alexbrn (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Unless those sources don't say, what you want to hear:

To quote, "The reconstruction of the human past is a complex task characterized by a high level of interdisciplinarity. How do scientists from different fields reach consensus on crucial aspects of paleoanthropological research? The present paper explores this question through an historical analysis of the origin, development, and reception of the savannah hypotheses (SHs). We show that this model neglected to investigate crucial biological aspects which appeared to be irrelevant in scenarios depicting early hominins evolving in arid or semi-arid open plains. For instance, the exploitation of aquatic food resources and other aspects of hominin interaction with water were largely ignored in classical paleoanthropology. These topics became central to alternative ideas on human evolution known as aquatic hypotheses. Since the aquatic model is commonly regarded as highly controversial, its rejection led to a stigmatization of the whole spectrum of topics around water use in non-human hominoids and hominins. We argue that this bias represents a serious hindrance to a comprehensive reconstruction of the human past. Progress in this field depends on clear differentiation between hypotheses proposed to contextualize early hominin evolution in specific environmental settings and research topics which demand the investigation of all relevant facets of early hominins' interaction with complex landscapes." Unquote, "The Savannah hypotheses: origin, reception and impact on paleoanthropology," Bender R1, Tobias PV, Bender N., Hist Philos Life Sci. 2012;34(1-2):147-84, PMID 23272598. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23272598

The only issue is, that an actual encyclopedic article on this grossly misrepresented topic would force you to look through Galileo's telescope. And that makes you sociologically uncomfortable. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to rearranging to a structure like in Endurance running hypothesis where the individual points are outlined. I object to removing any summary of what the points are about and just leaving the criticisms bits. I see in the talk page you have some idea that only sources that would pass WP:MEDRS are allowable in an article like that. Dmcq (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

MEDRS applies to WP:Biomedical information. All Wikipedia article should be based on secondary sources - that is policy. The basis of the currently AAH article is predominantly primary. Alexbrn (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Except for the secondary sources that says, what you don't want to hear: That the aquatic ape hypotheses are perfectly reasonable (see above). CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Take note of all of this nonsense, 'cause we're dab stab in the middle of a paradigm shift. CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you trying to say or imply MEDRS applies to the aquatic ape hypothesis? Dmcq (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Obviously not - except maybe for some aspects like the effect of fatty acids on brain development &c. Alexbrn (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose The Old revision of Aquatic Ape Hypothesis is hopelessly messy, especially the "Physiological and biochemical claims" section with its endless claims, critiques and rebuttals. If most of the original AAH is rejected and failed to generate science, the current minimal coverage in the Hardy/Morgan section is short enough for the rest of the article to be meaningful.

Also Attenborough 2016 radio documentary acts as an important secondary source which reviewed the recent developments, the article deserves an overall rework in light of the new focus and the evidence presented. Or else this article will soon be awfully out-dated, giving a false impression that there is "no hard evidence" or "no progress". Chakazul (talk) 09:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Anyone interested in UFO nonsense? Doug Weller talk 13:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Love it! The article in question appears to be an excellent candidate for AfD -- marginal notability, marginal citations (at best), and a link to the affable pseudoscientists over at MUFON. Is anyone opposed to nominating it? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Miracle of the Sun is listed in the "see also" section, presumably so as to avoid having to source it as a UFO sighting. jps (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFO sightings in Portugal. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

This article currently is up for GA review. The current review process and discussion over this issue is over at Talk:America's 60 Families/GA1.

The first question I have is "Is it a fringe theory?". It seems all parties agree that the book is "absolutely conspiracy-minded", in this case about the USA being a plutocracy. I understand that conspiracy theories would fall under Fringe Theories, but this one in particular seems to have some acceptance or at least some credibility. To be clear the conspiracy theory is not that money has undue influence in US politics, but that money has total control of politics in the USA.

The second question I have is "Do fringe theory works require special treatment to fulfill NPOV criteria?". There's no comment in WP:Fringe specifically about fringe theory works which are notable. I looked around and found a notable creationist book article: The Genesis Flood. It seems to relevantly discuss the relation of the fringe book with the mainstream view. In my estimation a similar treatment would be necessary to pass GA NPOV criteria in the America's 60 Families article. However I am not sure and am hoping veterans of dealing with Fringe issues could help out clarifying.

This noticeboard has very few concerns like this one as far as I have seen. This is GA NPOV criteria as opposed to inclusion in wikipedia. This is about a fringe theory work as opposed to an about a fringe idea. Also this is about the USA being a plutocracy, rather than pseudoscience or creationism, I have not seen this type of conspiracy theory here before. --User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 03:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The ne answer to the second point is clearly no, Fringe theories do not have special criteria to meet to be GA's.[[User:||Slatersteven]] (talk) 09:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

A good article on a book about a fringe theory must provide proper context for the fringe theory. If the article doesn't do that, it's not good. Arguable whether this is "special" or not. I would say it's the same for any work, but if a work is not about a fringe theory, then this sort of framing isn't at all necessary from an editorial standpoint. jps (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The first point is difficult to say because I don't know what the historical context has been for the actual scholarship of the book, what the current status of the academic evaluation of the book's primary claims are, and whether there are any active advocates trying to make the case the book is making. Today, network theory would be the place where such "interconnectedness" would be studied. If anyone has attempted to validate the book, it would be nice to know. The current article is silent on the subject. If no one attempted to validate the work, then it might just be an idea from the past that no one cites anymore. WP:FRINGE tends to be au courant. We don't say that N-rays or Giordano Bruno's more wacky beliefs are fringe theories as these ideas have no present-day advocates, though there are lessons we can learn when looking at current-day fringe theories by learning from those (in)correct ideas of the past. jps (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Not a Fringe Work / Theory - The book was published by a major publishing house, and has been endorsed by two-time Pulitzer Prize recipient Robert Caro (in 1995, and again in 2016), by former U.S. Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes (in 1937 and 1938), by one of TIME's "100 Most Influential Americans of the 20th Century" Ralph Nader (in 1974 and, again, in 1983), was the subject of a convention speech to the American Political Science Association by the Solicitor General of the United States, and was positively reviewed at the point of publication in the scholarly journal Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science and in Kirkus Reviews. This isn't a UFO e-zine or a self-published pamphlet on Morgellon's Disease. If mainstream people and institutions affirm the work it is, by definition, mainstream (which, of course, doesn't necessarily mean it represents a consensus viewpoint or that it's non-controversial). DarjeelingTea (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I have a suggestion (also made at the article talk page): What seems to be missing from the article in question is discussion about the book's influence (which is different from, but related to its "reception"). If one googles "60 families control world" you find that lots and lots of fringe theory websites repeat the claims that were (first?) made in the book... indeed many of these websites directly quote it. This book has obviously influenced an entire genre of fringe theories (question: did it perhaps start that genre?) In other words... whether the book itself should be classified as "Fringe" is perhaps a side issue... it certainly had an influence on subsequent fringe theories - and that seems like something our article should discuss. I would suggest that a section on the book's "Influence" be created. Blueboar (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Blueboar, keeping in mind that a media audit is WP:OR and that InfoWars, etc. are non-RS, can you recommend any sources that discuss its influence in the fringe? DarjeelingTea (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Not off the top of my head... I suggested the section not because I know the topic and can help, but in the hopes that some other wikipedian (one who does know the topic and the relevant sources) would be inspired to help. I fully agree that it would be Original Research to say that the book influenced the modern conspiracy websites without a source that discussed the influence... no matter how obvious the connection might be. Of course we need sources.

That said... I do have a suggestion for where to start looking for sources: Try "Conspiracy Theories and Secret Societies For Dummies" by Christopher Hodapp. I have not (yet) read it, so... no, I don't know if Hodapp directly addresses the book in question... but I do know that some of his other "for dummies" books (such as his one on Freemasonry) trace similar conspiracy theory claims, and discuss where they originated, and how they developed over time... so... I suggest it as a possibility. I would then look at his bibliography, and go on from there. Sure... It is possible that this will be a dead end... but it would be worth it to find out. Blueboar (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The index and contents are viewable on Amazon so just checked. No mention of either Ferdinand Lundberg or the book America's 60 Families. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like me to check as a demonstration of due diligence before we close this angle of inquiry. DarjeelingTea (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to all who commented so far. I did not add this to my watchlist or check back, so I didn't see the discussion here as it happened. It seems it is a tough cookie, a tough issue to discuss. Not all participants noticed my distinction between "fringe theory" and "fringe theory work", which was one of my main concerns. And participants chose also not to respond individually to the questions I posed. But the discussion seems to have been somewhat productive. The article passed it's GA nomination - I also changed my objection to weak objection at some point after the addition of some criticism. I am still interested in the discussion even as the immediate cause for discussion has passed.

I note @Slatersteven: who said Fringe theories have no additional criteria to become GA's. The trouble in part was that the book in question did not meet WP:Fringe at the time as it was a fringe theory book, and WP:Fringe does not talk about works at all, only about the idea or theory itself, or about a mainstream idea which has a fringe theory. I see it as a problem you see, because fringe theory works are then included and fringe theories are substantially described there and no policy seems to directly address the issue. The way I interpreted it was something like what @9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS: described - that a good article on a fringe theory work (unlike a fringe theory itself) would require meeting WP:Fringe, while perhaps a fringe theory work would be notable and be included in wikipedia without addressing it's fringe quality adequately.

I would dispute @DarjeelingTea: claim that it is not a WP:Fringe because notable and influential people have backed it. I think a similar case can be made in regards to creationism, it is still a fringe theory even if very influential people and major publishers back it. The distinction between mainstream and fringe is not that simple - a very cool case I saw was of a Nobel prize winning scientist then becoming a fringe theorist for psychokinesis. He would be considered a very trustworthy source about scientific matters, but clearly endorsed Fringe theories whose status as such did not change by gaining his support. I don't necessarily think it is a fringe theory, mind you, as I said in my opening post here in the noticeboard - America's 60 Families has some credibility and some acceptance - It might be in a gray area regarding Fringe theory status.

I also want to individually thank @Blueboar: for his research and constructive attempts to address the fringe aspect. :) The avenues have so far been unproductive, but maybe future research in the same vein will reach results. I am interesting in similar cases as well where such research might also yield results.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 17:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

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

I recently AfD'd this, but even as that discussion runs the article is in danger of turning into a giant festival of fringe, so could use eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

just FYI. Jytdog (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

My new favorite fringe theory: [47][48]

Also see: [49] --Guy Macon (talk) 07:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Well that proves the moon landing hoax. I´ll update that article right away. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Gosh, I must have been imagining all that moonbounce ham radio crap that I did years ago, or it's a pretty solid hologram.Roxy the dog. bark 11:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It's real. It happens every time I plug in my hair drier, which must be on the same circuit as the hologram projector. Sorry about that. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

What article are you discussing, or are you saying we need an article on this?Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It's a fringe theory making the rounds of crank sites [50] and is fairly thriving on Youtube. It hasn't made it into any articles yet because there's no reliable sources for it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Cnut the Great has a lot to answer for. -Roxy the dog. bark 13:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

So why are we talking about it then?Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Because it brings a new paradigm. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Can somone close this irrelevance it's not about the project, or how to improve it, and Wikipedia is not a forum.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

This is the Fringe theories noticeboard. An editor alerting us to a brand new fringe theory is hardly irrelevant, even if we're having fun with it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Unless you are tied to a chair with your eyes taped open, a monitor showing the Fringe theories Noticeboard in front of you and The Wikipedia Song blaring in the background, it would seem that you are capable of exercising your freedom of choice and not reading that which you dislike.

If, on the other hand, you are tied to a chair, let me address your captors: First, keep up the good work. Second, please take away his keyboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

And I would ask you not to mock other users. It is against policy.Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I apologize if you thought I was mocking you. That was not my intent. I was trying to convey, using some lighthearted humor, that posting multiple comments telling experienced Wikipedians not to discuss a new fringe theory on the fringe theories noticeboard might be seen by some as being disruptive and that a simple solution is to stop reading this section. As for the topic itself, it is a Good Thing for FTNB regulars to keep up with new fringe theories that are getting a lot of attention, and this one certainly is; do a Google search on [ moon hologram ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

And this is not about me, and you have put more effort into that de-rail then I did into asking why this is here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Has the Wensleydale Theory been put to one side then? -Gromit the dog. bark 16:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The moon hologram theory reminds me of the theory that Bigfoots are actually inter-dimensional shape-shifters from an alternative universe that can warp in and out of physical reality. It would explain a lot, wouldn't it? The inconsistency of sightings, no bodies being found, etc.

The inventor of the theory, now sadly deceased, was extremely keen, in 2005-2006, to have it dominate the Bigfoot article. See also our article Jon-Erik Beckjord. Long time ago, but I see the paranormal theory, ascribed to "scientists", got an airing on the Bigfoot talkpage quite recently.[51]) Bishonen | talk 17:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC).

"Bigfoots are actually inter-dimensional shape-shifters from an alternative universe that can warp in and out of physical reality"

Never heard of that idea before. Shapeshifting is a widespead element in mythology and folklore. But I have seriously never seen the concept getting associated with alternative universes. We used to include this in a Wikipedia article? Dimadick (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dimadick: User:Beckjord used to try to include the notion in Bigfoot, without success. But it is in fact included in a Wikipedia article: Jon-Erik Beckjord. :-) I'm glad to think he would have been pleased. As an editor, he was, hmm, problematic, but also colorful and in a way charming. Bishonen | talk 23:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC).

Why can't there be a little lightness of spirit every now and then. Laughter may=happy which often=productive. Just sayin'.(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC))

Indentation suggests that's a reply to me. I don't understand. Bishonen | talk 11:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC).

It was a general remark about the idea that this page should be used only for serious Wikipedia discussions and was not directed at you at all. I thought the non-serious discussion was a nice change from some of the stuff I see. I enjoyed it! Serious family issues - the almost loss of a new born baby in the family and his mother have me somewhat distracted; I missed your reply until today. Believe it or not I would never think of attacking anyone. If I get short its always because I've been attacked myself or see someone else being hurt, and finally lose patience. I'm not condoning my own loss of patience just mentioning this since you often seem to take me in a way that I am not , even remotely. All best wishes and I apologize if I seemed to be making a comment that felt like an attack.(Littleolive oil (talk) 05:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC))

Since shapeshifting has been brought up, it's worth mentioning that the popular British conspiracist David Icke continues to maintain that his evil shapeshifting reptilians live inside the Moon, which is an artificial satellite of their construction. This is the first time I've seen the hologram theory, however. How does this guy explain tides, if there is no Moon to exert gravitational pull? Also coming to mind is the same question I have for the chemtrail nutters -- why would they bother? Why would anyone go to the trouble of creating such a hologram? A related question: Since the Moon has been observed since antiquity, what was up there before holography was invented? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

According to the, er, theory, the moon is real when it's a new or quarter moon, but it's a hologram when it's 3/4 or full "so that the entities behind the hologram can work on projects without Earth knowing". Apparently a "research paper by Russian scientists" has totally confirmed it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Gotta love those wacky Russian scientists. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

This is up for deletion on the position that the members are all hoaxes. There is sentiment towards a rename. Mangoe (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Note one of the articles in that category, Bourne stone, is especially in need of attention from representatives of the reality-based community. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I took a whole section out as it didn't seem to have any useful information, only overly-positive reports of improbable origins. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

IP editor trying to insert some amateur's New Theory— something Babylonian, I gather. Of course it's self-published and nobody has ever heard of it. I may need help Supressing The Truth. Mangoe (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

If it's just an IP, revert and give a warning as a test edit. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately they're being persistent about pushing their POV. Mangoe (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Needs admin action then. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think trying to insert some information twice and then going to the talk page to discuss it is accurately described as "being persistent about pushing their POV", nor does it require admin action. Just address the IP's arguments on the article talk page, and go to WP:DRR if that doesn't sove the problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Things seem to be quieting down. Mangoe (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Bovis scale I believe this article should be deleted, no reliable sources discuss the concept. 31.49.40.248 (talk) 11:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

An article about a metric used in a no-longer-very-notable pseuudoscience? I agree. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

This comes across as perhaps notable woo-woo. See the PSIRAM article as a possible source of better info; I can't link directly to it because some idiot there stuck in their link spammily back in 2012. Mangoe (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

here's an article that could use some independent eyes. Jytdog (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The whole article should be axed IMHO, but most of the problems all seems to come from this guy, who has been adding his bull to multiple articles. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Expressions like "axed", calling my edits"bulls" and "problems" is actually explains your nature and ? place you come from! 74.70.146.1. I am asking you to show some courage and use your real account to do posts like this! Albicelestes (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Personal attacks and assuming bad faith. Yep, I was right. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Another angle: purely from the style, I cannot believe this article is not a copyvio. The style is smooth and sophisticated, and reads like an academic book, rather than a website. Anyway, googling phrases, I found a bewildering array of sites, and I'm unsure which of them are Wikipedia mirrors. (None acknowledge it.) This e-book, for instance, seems a likely candidate for lifting Wikipedia's text. Onlineappsfree.com claims the copyright: "All apps at Online Apps Free known as (www.onlineappsfree.com) are properties and copyright of each developer or owner." I'm embarrassed at being so bad at this, but could somebody smart take a look, please? Bishonen | talk 20:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC).

• • I can't do much tonight but this might help. Doug Weller talk 21:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Doug Weller, Bishonen...Copyvio removed. this part it self is controversial, the editor shouldn't place it there easily! Albicelestes (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, Albicelestes. Please note that when you remove copyvio, it's best to provide the URL to the site the text comes from in the edit summary. Bishonen | talk 18:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC).

• You Are The Universe (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could use eyes; not even sure it meets WP:NBOOK. Not sure that WP:NBOOK isn't another too-weak offshoot of WP:N esp. when it comes to fringe topics. Alexbrn (talk) 10:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

G11 speedied. -Roxy the dog. bark 10:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The Sun Sentinel and Miami Herald *probably* pass the NBOOK threshold (I am not contesting the speedy due to the probably) being two non-trivial mentions. They are however local and as a result of his book tour to Florida. NBOOK itself is not actually that bad for fringe subjects as does tend to weed out the 'notable fringe' from the 'non-notable fringe'. Chopra is a big enough (and controversial enough) person that there will likely be enough coverage of his book to pass NBOOK. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

You could be right, but I've chopped out the copyvio for good measure. -Roxy the dog. bark 12:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes I'm sure it'll be notable in time, but whatever happens we don't want the kind of credulous puff-piece we had at the time I opened this section. Alexbrn (talk) 12:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I realise it's been deleted, but I've always thought the Miami Herald was a local newspaper in the same way as the Chicago Tribune. Disclaimer - I worked for the city editor as a personal assistant for a few months in the early 60s, dealing with the cranks no one wanted to talk to, society women who wanted a big story, and even the state governor one day when no one wanted to talk to him! I spent the night in the office once in the middle of a hurricane, going outside during the eye of the storm to see the waves on Biscayne bay and the gas holders burning. Doug Weller talk 18:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I would give the Miami Herald regard as being a "national newspaper" as well. And I think that maybe the fact that the book has debuted as #5 on the Publishers Weekly religion nonfiction list here might be of some significance as well. I don't know if it specifically notable just yet, but I have a feeling it probably is going to become notable given the sales. At least a few more book reviews seem likely to me anyway. John Carter (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

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

An aluminum object (greatly resembling a tooth from an construction excavator bucket) found buried near mastodon bones is said by Romanian websites to be millions of years old, a mystery, and/or from aliens. Other sources include bloggers, out-of-date Romanian UFO print magazines, and The Daily Mail. Now up for deletion, but some may have other opinions and insights. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

just FYI. Jytdog (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

It's been closed, with the result to merge with Occult. --Ronz (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I came across the Myers article and I see a fringe proponent has many accounts at highjacking the article.

Banned fringe pusher Jamenta who had an obsession with the parapsychologist Frederic W. H. Myers is now back editing that article on the accounts "Myerslover", "Psychicbias" as well as IP addresses 208.194.97.5 and 71.167.134.66 and others. On the talk page he said he is in the process of writing "a very strong pro-Myers article". This is the same person who has also pushed fringe content in the past at Watseka Wonder He seems to be adding undue weight comments from William James about a discredited paranormal book from Myers. He has done the same on the Second sight. This guy was perm banned on Wikipedia. Is there any chance all his socks can be blocked or reverted? He also has a sock called GPel which he edited the Richard Hodgson article. He is probably pushing fringe content on others. It is the same style of editing to remove skeptical sources or quote Myers or William James at length. Any idea what can be done here? I have a big foot (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like you need to open a sockpuppet investigation. Go to that link, read the advice, and there's a box ("How to open a sockpuppet investigation") where you can enter the "sock master" (that would be Jamenta) and fill in the details of who you think the socks are. --Krelnik (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, please do open an SPI, User: I have a big foot. "Very strongly pro-Myers", indeed? (Those are the exact words, in case somebody else tries to search for it — strongly, not strong). We can't have that. I've reverted the latest edits from 71.167.134.66 and put Frederic W. H. Myers under pending changes. Bishonen | talk 16:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC).

Wikipedia administrator Bishonen just applied pending changes protection to the Frederic W. H. Myers article. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

See his comments on the talk-page 82.132.216.220 (talk) 02:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)