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

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

Oh gee. Guess where I've seen this argument before?

[1]

Can someone else clarify whether skeptics and deniers are the same thing when it comes to climate change?

jps (talk) 12:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned no A sceptic is a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions. A denier is a person who denies something, especially someone who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence. The difference is that a sceptic does not ignore evidence, a denier does.Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

It's a matter of sources. I won't bother you with the voluminous discussions we've had on this matter but you can see where climate change skepticism redirects to. jps (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion on that redirect target was interesting with the closer noting I also find consensus in this discussion to redirect, while noting that skepticism ≠ denial per the opposing comments.[2] PackMecEng (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

That skepticism ≠ denial is one thing. That climate change skepticism = climate change denial is quite another. jps (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

That closing statement was talking about climate change skepticism ≠ climate change denial. That is why it was the closing statement on climate change skepticism redirecting to climate change denial. PackMecEng (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

That you are misinterpreting this and using the word "cereal" [3] makes me understand that you should be topic banned from climate change articles writ large. Begone denier. jps (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Ha! Kids these days. Grow up. PackMecEng (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you upset that your cover was blown? Or do you just revel in your pseudoscientific ignorance? WP:CIR, after all. jps (talk) 01:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

List take me to ANI or quit whining. I could not care less which way you go but this is the last reply for me to you on this subject. PackMecEng (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, climate change deniers brand themselves as "skeptics". This is pseudoskepticism. We do not use euphemisms. Guy (help!) 22:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

You asked "whether skeptics and deniers are the same thing when it comes to climate change" I provided a definition of the two based upon what the words mean (an then an interpretation). To answer your question more directly then. It is not true that skeptics and deniers are the same thing when it comes to climate change (after all the source appears to be something of a sceptic), however (to complicate matters) many who are deniers (that is they deny the truth of climate science) use the sceptic label as it makes them sound more reasonable and neutral. So we have to answer this question on a case by case basis.Slatersteven (talk) 08:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I think that may have been true ten years ago but is no longer true now. There is virtually no informed dissent from the consensus view that the climate is changeing due to global warming caused by human activity. There is some debate over the exact degree of warming, precise projections etc., but the last literature review I saw found no actively publishing climate scientists finding anything else (though to be fair this only looked at the professional literature so would have excluded the professional climate deniers funded by right-wing think tanks, as they have acute difficulty getting published). Guy (help!) 08:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

And that is where the problem comes in, and why we must be careful. There is (as you say) "some debate over the exact degree of warming, precise projections etc", so a "sceptic" will be part of that debate, they may not agree with the exact figures but agree with the overall trend. Whereas a denier will question the general trend, the problem comes in when the deniers use the language of genuine scepticism as a cover for what is in realty denialism. Thus we have to exercise caution and operate on a case by case basis.Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

People who are part of the conversation in climate science are generally not referred to as "skeptics" anymore because of how these labels have been politicized. In discussion, I suppose we can refer to some legit climate scientist who disagree with some colleague or another as "skeptics" if we like, but we basically cannot use the term in Wikipedia's climate change article-space without causing confusion. jps (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, pretty much everyone who calls themselves a "skeptic" is pushing predictions outside the 95%CI of aggregates of other models. One tell is that they critique "alarmists". Another is that they publish outside the climate literature. And a third is that they are funded by dark money. Guy (help!) 16:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

This might be a little off topic, but don't you call yourself a skeptic? PackMecEng (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The specific question was to distinguish between on the one hand

Curry is known both for her emphasis on scientific outreach in general and for her willingness to communicate with climate change deniers in particular.^[1]

and

Curry is known both for her emphasis on scientific outreach in general and for her willingness to communicate with climate change skeptics in particular.^[1]

with me preferring the follow the source more closely and jps arguing to change the wording from that in the source. But this has now apparently been resolved by using different words and sources so the question seems moot. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I think this is about the wider issue of how we generally deal with this issue.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

My own view is that it's not possible to give a hard and fast rule on this question (note also the comment by PackMecEng above) which is why I prefer to follow the sources in each case. Of course there's another argument about which sources should be used, but when a single source is under discussion then we should just do what it does or not use that source at all. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The fact that all the styled "climate change skeptics" are climate change deniers is not really up for debate. jps (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

But that is not the case, so yes, it is up for debate. Are we being cereal right now? PackMecEng (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

You do not decide whether that is the case or not. Reliable sources decide that. Read our article Climate change denial to find out what they say.

Climate change skeptics have died out decades ago; only deniers are left. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I tend to go by sources, heck one is listed above. To say there are no skeptics left only deniers is flat out ridiculous. PackMecEng (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, no, it's true. But journalistic sources are more deferential to the both sides" bullshit. Guy (help!) 22:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah so sources recognize skeptic is not the same as denial but we know the Truth™. Got it! PackMecEng (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, not as such, no. Our article titles reflect the scientific consensus. Journalists... not so much. Guy (help!) 22:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Jonathan A Jones, deniers is the more accurate here. You'll note that climate change skepticism is a redirect. Guy (help!) 22:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

A reasonable approach for the example at the top of this section would be to go with what the AP style guide says to do: "To describe those who don’t accept climate science or dispute the world is warming from man-made forces, use climate change doubters or those who reject mainstream climate science. Avoid use of skeptics or deniers." source Obviously still pipe the link to Climate change denial.

~Awilley (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC) Note: edited to remove the word "mainstream" from "mainstream climate science" for brevity ~Awilley (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not part of Associated Press, Wikipedia is not part of the press in general, and we do not use journalist false balance here.

Instead, we go to scientific sources when scientific sources are available. See WP:SOURCE.

In this case, scientific sources are available, and therefore we use those. The scientific sources say it is "denial", and the journalistic sources can go fuck themselves. End of story. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Awilley: Charming right? PackMecEng (talk) 04:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: Sorry, you lost me at "false balance". Are you saying that people who reject climate science ≠ climate change deniers? Would the phrase people who reject the scientific consensus on climate change resolve your concerns? We have our own Manual of Style and it favors clear direct descriptions over contentious labels. Labeling someone a "denier" might feel satisfying, but it might be more helpful to readers to use straightforward language that describes what the deniers are actually doing (i.e. rejecting science). ~Awilley (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Not "≠". But it is too long and not the common term used in science. There is a reason you had to write [[climate change denial|who reject mainstream climate science]]: the article is called that because the phenomenon is called that.

People who reject Second World War history, people who reject biological science and people who reject orthodox geography, we call Holocaust deniers, Creationists and Flat Earthers. Those are the common terms. Actually, you will find users in the archives of Talk:Holocaust denial who have exactly the same problem with the term "Holocaust denial" as you people have with "climate change denial" - they think it is a contentious label. But we use the common term.

And you do not need to convince just me, but practically everybody who is familiar with the subject. And that includes the people who write the reliable sources our articles are based on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

If length is an issue it can be shortened, for instance, by removing the word "mainstream". I'd note that the article is titled "Climate change denial" (which is undoubtedly the correct title) not "Climate change deniers" (a label for people who engage in the denial). And with the other examples you gave, when you're writing about actual people it is also more encyclopedic to write straightforward prose rather than slap a label on someone.

Awilley, point of order: she's not known for scientific outreach., She's known for enabling climate change deniers. I doubt if anybody much has heard of her for any other reason. Guy (help!) 08:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Label	Description
"So-and-so is a Flat Earther"	"So-and-so promotes flat earth conspiracy theories"
"So-and-so was put on administrative leave because he was a Holocaust denier	So-and-so was put on administrative leave for teaching Holocaust denial.

~Awilley (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

In general, this is how we handle a lot of the text in Wikipedia articles including the one that started this ludicrous discussion. The problem is we have users who absolutely refuse to let the term climate change denial in any declension show up in articles. Almost as if they take personal offense. jps (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Nothing is as black and white as you describe. Deniers are always skeptics but skeptics are not always deniers. PackMecEng (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@PackMecEng:, I don't think that is true. A lot of deniers are well aware that the science contradicts their position. If you look at the documentation from some industry archives, you will find people who have been entirely cynical in promoting denialism purely to protect profits. Some deniers are also pseudoskeptics, pretending to be skeptical but in fact merely promoting a precocnived view - rather like vaccine "skeptics". Guy (help!) 08:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I can see where you are coming from that it is more nuanced. Going more into the reasons and motivations more than a yes or no aspect. In broad strokes I do not think it is far off though. The question seems to be what kind of denier or skeptic and why they hold that position. I moved your comment up to get the indents back in order, I hope you do not mind PackMecEng (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Go tell that to Naomi Oreskes and her colleagues. They will doubtless be impressed with your reasoning, and they will immediately change their writings accordingly. Wikipedia will soon follow because WP:SOURCE. Until then, bye. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I take that to mean you have no actual argument? Fair enough. Toodles! PackMecEng (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I used that actual argument several times now. You just did not listen. The argument is WP:SOURCE. Wikipedia follows the sources.

But if you want an outside-of-Wikipedia reason: here goes.

Climate change deniers are market fundamentalists: they believe that the free market will always do the right thing. This ideology is conclusively refuted by the fact of anthropogenic climate change: the market failed to do the right thing in a really bad way. Since they are fundamentalists, they cannot accept the demise of their dogma, so they have to deny the fact. And indeed: follow the denialist reasoning to its source, and it will always be a free-market think tank such as Competitive Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute, or another inhabitant of Category:Libertarian think tanks. Add the Koch brothers, the fossil fuel industry, and other similar money sources for whom deceiving the public is a profitable investment, add Fox and a few bloggers and other mouthpieces, add the GOP and other henchmen, add Trump and other conspiracy theorists, add all those homo oeconomicus wannabes who are interested in their own short-term-profits and not in future generations, add a few market fundamentalists who happen to have science degrees, to lend the whole thing an academic facade, if not much actual understanding, and you get the denial industry. They have the motive, they have the opportunity, and they left their fingerprints everywhere.

Science does not come into it, science is their enemy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The image and personal commentary aren't helpful here. ~Awilley (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
]] This is not a conspiracy theory. First, it is not a conspiracy between all these people, they just all suffer from the same ignorance-selfconfidence-ideology combination and spread the same false rumors they copy from each other (echo chamber). Second, there is actual evidence for who spreads which lies, which you would know if you were familiar with the subject. Read Merchants of Doubt before mouthing off about subjects you do not understand. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC) before mouthing off about subjects you do not understand Says the ranting conspiracy theorist. I cannot tell if you are serious or trolling. Either way I think we are done here with your nonsense. PackMecEng (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC) Stuck comment. PackMecEng (talk) 02:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC) Hob Gadling has been very clear in his explanation of the WP:MAINSTREAM understanding of this subject. That you disagree with him and call him a conspiracy theorist looks like classic projection to me. jps (talk) 14:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC) Yes, that is how it is, obviously. Obviously, to every single one of the regulars here, the deniers are the tinfoil hat wearers, not the scientists. See, for example, Global warming conspiracy theory. The connection between market fundamentalism and climate change denial is a well established fact, not a conspiracy theory. But the problem is that anti-science users like PackMecEng have a far higher opinion of their own opinion than of reliable sources, and this one, like many other pro-lunacy editors, has consistently ignored every single link to articles where he could have learned something. This is the Fringe theories noticeboard, and pretty much everybody here knows more about loons and their tricks, about conspiracy theories, and about denialism than you, profringe editor, ever will. You are not fooling anyone, profringe editor. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: You said above, "Deniers are always skeptics but skeptics are not always deniers." I think that lacks nuance. Deniers are not always skeptics in the context of scientific skepticism. I think the quote from the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry sums it up better. "Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics." ~Awilley (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I see so instead of Deniers are always skeptics but skeptics are not always deniers you would go with Deniers are not always skeptics and skeptics are not always deniers? PackMecEng (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

That's technically true but not very helpful here. I think the quote in my previous comment is more relevant. So given the binary choice in this section header of "denier" vs. "skeptic", "denier" is probably the better word because it's less misleading. But the point I'm trying to make above is that it doesn't need to be binary. ~Awilley (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, it is never an always X kind of thing which I was trying to illustrate. PackMecEng (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Your philosophizing is worthless and meaningless. Again: We use reliable sources. You are just two random guys on the internet, and you can publish your opinions wherever you want. But! Not! On! Wikipedia! Because! Wikipedia! Uses! Reliable! Sources!

Why don't you understand that simple concept? Is it because, as I said above, "Since they are fundamentalists, they cannot accept the demise of their dogma"? --Hob Gadling (talk)

Hob Gadling, maybe take it down a notch. You make it sound like anyone who disagrees with you is stupid or evil. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Levivich I think by only identifying one person here you are missing the problematic WP:POVPUSH that PackMecEng is encouraging. Does that not bother you at all? jps (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I already took it down two notches from my original wording idea, and the result is "profringe editor". I am being very generous here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Another thing: Read WP:PROFRINGE. The vast majority of profringe editors is neither stupid nor evil, and WP:PROFRINGE does not say they are. They are just people who hold positions contradicted by science, and they think that their opinion is better supported by facts than the scientists, which just takes stubbornness and ignorance. I never thought that "profringe editor" was an insult, just a description of specific behaviour.

Climate change denial is a subject which has been thoroughly promoted by the denial industry, and as a result, it is very popular in the general public - but not in the climatology community because they recognize bad reasoning within their own expertise. Therefore, climate change denial is one of those cases for which WP:SOURCE was made: a case where journalistic sources have, in average, much lower quality than scientific sources, because the people who wrote the former are part of a population that has been misinformed, and the people who wrote the latter are part of a population that has not. So, those users who claim that the existence of climate change, human-made climate change or a scientific consensus about both, is an open question and that people can stand on any of the sides in that "controversy" and still be reasonable and knowledgeable, and want that opinion in Wikipedia articles are profringe editors, although they do not know it. Astrologers and flat-earthers know that science is not on their side, but thanks to the denialist echo chamber, those people do not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• Skeptic = heretic, denier = infidel. Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• I see what you did there, you heathen! PackMecEng (talk) 19:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not care about HIM!, SHE! or THEY! If you do take it their talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

convenience break

PackMecEng, Think of the bell curve. Virtually all current scientists with relevant expertise lie within the 95% confidence interval. Reviews of recently published papers have found, essentially, nothing currently being publsihed in the professional literature that falls outside a pretty tight range of agreement. Those predicting the lowest values withint hat group are nto skeptics and do not describe themselves as such; those who predict near the top are not alarmists, Those who describe themselves as skeptics are - with, as far as I can tell, no well-known exceptions - (a) not professionals in the field; (b) not publishing in the professional literature, or (c) funded by the fossil fuel lobby (or in some cases more than one of these).

I have yet to see a case of anyone who has gone into the science with an open mind and decided the predictions are wrong (which is what skepticism means). Virtually all of them have philosophical or financial reasons for not wanting the science to be true, and have worked from there. Guy (help!) 17:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

See I think that is where we differ. To me a denier is someone who says nope its not happening in the face of all reason and evidence. That it is a hoax and whatnot. A skeptic is more a long the lines of someone that, within the bell curve as you put it, can disagree with what actions to take, what the effects will be, and what will happen as a result. (You still have no said if you call yourself a skeptic) PackMecEng (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure this really is what skepticism actually means. In my view, skeptics hold that the case has not yet been proven to be true, whereas deniers hold that the case has been proven to not be true. Skeptics are still open to possible future data tilting the balance either way, but deniers are adamant that the case is closed. I don't know who Curry is willing to engage with, but probably she is engaging with some of each? Possibly her objective is to engage with everyone, irrespective of where they fall based on the above definitions? Open-mindedness is a big part of science, so where should the cut-off line be drawn?

Curry is a decorated scientist, and the article already states that she does not herself deny anthropogenic global warming, but is opposed to the "tribal nature" of the current debate. We seem to be seeing some of that tribalism here too. Perhaps Wikipedia should be extra careful about neutral tone here, and maybe change the sentence to read: "although 95% of recently published scientific papers hold that climate change is both man-made and a looming crisis, Curry is willing to engage with climate change skeptics." My $0.02. Wdford (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Wdford, no, she's willing to pander to deniers. She's not engaging in the scientific debate, she's publishing outside of scientific discourse, and in doing so, giving aid and succour tothe last gasp of fossil fuel funded dneialism. Guy (help!) 20:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

"Pandering" is a very loaded word. Furthermore, Curry does not seem to be denying global warming per se, but she is seemingly contesting the projections etc. Projections can never be certain, so this is hardly pseudoskepticism. The distinction between skepticism and pseudoskepticism is one of intention, which can be difficult for external parties to identify objectively. Wdford (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

So she believes in microevolution but not macroevolution. Because of gaps in the fossil record. You can never be certain that species evolve from other species. Etc. Etc. jps (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this has to do with climate change? Please lets also remember WP:BLP. Wdford (talk) 11:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The analogy seems clear to me. Pseudoscience is as pseudoscience does. Anyone else confused? jps (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, denialism is a form of motivated reasoning, and that is exactly what is going on here. Skepticism is the default in the scientific method: the burden of proof lies with the person making a claim. But every competent professional has, by now, acknowledged that this burden has been met. All that's left is pseudoskepticism. Guy (help!) 20:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

That does not really address what I was saying. There is no firm agreement on the examples I brought up, just that it is happening and something needs to be done. To what extent and what should be done are still under discussion. PackMecEng (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, sure, but climate change "skeptics" are not saying that, or at least are not within the realm of the consensus position (in that "nothing" is clearly not an acceptable answer to what should be done), and the evidence strongly suggests that few, if any, are arguing in good faith. Guy (help!) 17:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

If that can be proven that moves them to denier. Though that is hard to prove. PackMecEng (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, actually it's very easy. If they have taken money from any conservative think tank or made money appearing in the conservative media bubble, they are a denier. If they restrict their activities to the professional literature, they are a skeptic. Guy (help!) 20:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng I'm sorry, by what standard are you making these demarcations? A citation would be nice. jps (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Skepticism and denial are two different English words, with different accepted definitions. If scientists have started using them to mean the same thing, then you will need to provide reliable sources to that effect please. Wdford (talk) 11:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The sources are clear. Climate change skepticism, you will see, redirects to climate change denial. They are synonyms. jps (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

That argument is debunked above. The discussion that lead to that redirect specifically denied that it meant skepticism = denial.[4] PackMecEng (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Awilley can you come get your climate change denier here? jps (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Wdford: See what happens when you call them on repeatedly misrepresenting the facts? Like I said this has been discussed by many people many times and all found the same result. PackMecEng (talk) 14:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

You had JzG explain to you the problem and yet you don't seem to have learned the lesson. I encourage you to take several seats. jps (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Again misrepresenting what happened. Me and Guy were talking about the concepts. What you were falsely presenting as facts is past community concensus. There is of course a difference. Also really, have a seat? What does that even mean? PackMecEng (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

ජපස, no need to rope me into this, I think, PackMecEng and I are converging on common ground. Guy (help!) 20:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad you think so, but it does not appear that way from the discussions below. The problem is that at the rhetorical level there is a difference between "denial" and "skepticism" as concepts/words, but when we talk about the subjects of climate change skepticism and climate change denial, as they are seen in our world, there does not appear to be a single "climate change skeptic" who is not a denier. The best you can do is point to people like Richard Lindzen who steadfastly maintain that they are not "skeptics" and that instead they explicitly deny that the scientific consensus on climate change is correct. So there are are deniers who reject the skeptic label. I have asked for an example of one person who embraces the "climate change skeptic" label who is not part of this denial machine. No one has been able to point to such a person. jps (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

That you continue to double down on your propagandistic WP:ADVOCACY is appalling. We have showed you sources. We have pointed out the specific problems with your rhetoric. And still you seem to think that there is some sort of demarcation between climate change skeptics and climate change deniers based on, what exactly? I assume it is your own fantasies at this point. jps (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Please accept community concensus. PackMecEng (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

What?! The community consensus is clear. Climate change skepticism redirects to climate change denial. It's as simple as that. jps (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

This is getting to ididnthearthat territory. Read the closing statement for that discussion that created that redirect. I even quoted it to you above. PackMecEng (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I already explained to you that in spite of two words being different, you cannot use Awilley's off-handed comment about two words being different to declare that climate change skepticism is different from climate change denial when we have the preponderance of sources saying they are the same thing. It's as clear as that and there is nothing more to be said. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT indeed! jps (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Listen, if you want to have a discussion on the overall meaning of the two and all that, fine. If you want to say the result of this discussion means community consensus is skepticism = denial even though the closing statement says the opposite then you are wrong. PackMecEng (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

You've already been shown to be wrong, so we're done here. If you continue to push this view in article space, I will ask for a topic ban at WP:AE. jps (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: The community consensus that matters here is a clear community consensus that the term climate change denial is preferred over climate change skepticism. There is evidence of that consensus both here and in the redirect discussion for climate change skepticism → climate change denial. Of course the words denial and skepticism don't mean the same thing. They're different words. And although the full terms also technically have different meanings, the term skeptic is usually misapplied as many have pointed out. A majority of the people who call themselves "climate change skeptics" are misusing the word because climate change skepticism implies scientific skepticism and that is not what is going on. The Venn diagram to the right allows for a sliver of people who are genuinely skeptical but who aren't engaging in denial. Or maybe it's not a sliver...maybe the true "climate change skeptics" are the "climate change scientists" because a good scientist is always skeptical. That this reversal works further illustrates why the term climate change skepticism should be avoided. I can sympathize with your distaste for what might feel like a rabid push to brand anybody who has ever expressed any doubt about any aspect of climate change as a "denier", but I don't think continuing this discussion the way you are is helpful.

@ජපස: In fairness I should point out that it is a flawed argument that the existence of the climate change skepticism → climate change denial redirect proves that the terms mean the same thing. There are a plethora of counterexamples for that...Arsenic mining is clearly not the same thing as Arsenic the element, yet the redirect Arsenic mining → Arsenic exists. ~Awilley (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just pointing out it was a wrong argument not based on facts that a redirect means anything, especially given the discussion that was had at the time. So we agree it sounds like. I appreciate your personal drawing though, its cute. PackMecEng (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Citation needed, Awilley. Is this original research? All the sources I've seen indicate that there really aren't any self-styled "climate change skeptics" who are not in the "denial" category (in other words, I cannot think of a single person in the blue sliver on your diagram). What sources do you have which indicate that your Venn diagram is correct? jps (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@ජපස: The Venn diagram reflects this quote from Climate_change_denial#Terminology In December 2014, an open letter from the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry called on the media to stop using the term "skepticism" when referring to climate change denial. They contrasted scientific skepticism—which is "foundational to the scientific method"—with denial—"the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration"—and the behavior of those involved in political attempts to undermine climate science. They said "Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics. The bolded part directly supports the Venn diagram. (Although admittedly the diagram would be more accurate if the circles were closer to the same size to reflect the "virtually all" bit.) ~Awilley (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I've read that six-year-old piece. If I knew of one person to whom that description applied, I would be happy to entertain this as an option. As far as I know, there is none who do, to the point that reliable sources that lovingly detail so-called "climate skepticism" only discuss denialist talking points. We have had this discussion a lot: there is no one in that little blue sliver. jps (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Awilley At this point I think this discussion has reached its useful end. Shall we close this now? PackMecEng (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Either admit the blue sliver is a null set or identify a single person who occupies that space. Then we can close. jps (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd offer up Judith Curry, but I already know what the response will be - in classic No True Scotsman fashion she will promptly be labeled a "denier" by you, as will any other name that I or Awilley or PackMecEng will propose. There no arguing with a True Beleiver. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Or, you know, we might look at what reliable sources say about Curry's denial? The fact is that these two ideas have been synonymous for sometime or, at the very least, the "self-styled skeptics" are all part of the denial-sphere. Curry denies basic facts about climate change up to the point that she no longer even engages in peer review. She fell down the rabbit hole, and we have the sources that show it. What do you have, speaking of "true believers"? jps (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

You didn't actually read that article, did you? Let me highlight for you the parts you missed: "Curry (2014), a professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology, does not dispute climate change " But like I said, No True Scotsman etc... JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

And you didn't read climate change denial, did you? Not all deniers deny that the climate is changing. They just deny aspects of the scientific consensus on climate change. Try to keep up. jps (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Circular reasoning - climate change denial was written by you and people like you, to reflect the above view point. But let's try to put the shoe the other foot, shall we? I think we can agree that at a purely logical theoretical level, since skepticism is not the same as denial , there could be some people in the silver-blue area. What, according to you, would be the defining characteristics of someone in that sector? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Lol! By claiming that Wikipedia's article is wrong, you have completely umasked yourself as an WP:ACTIVIST. The issue we have here is that climate change skepticism has simply been co-opted by ideologues as a term. They are part of the denialist machine. Wikipedia has recognized this status quo for years now. jps (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not an activist, and don't need to be unmasked, and if we're descending to that level , the same can be said of you. But I asked you a question, and would like an answer: What, according to you, would be the defining characteristics of someone in that blue-silver set? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Your edit history speaks for itself. I honestly do not think there is anyone in that blue sliver. What would their defining characteristic be? Well, they would call themselves "skeptics" but not deny the fundamental points that are included in scientific consensus on climate change. I don't know anyone who fits that definition. If we were having this discussion years ago, Richard Muller might have fit that description, but no longer. He doesn't meaningfully object to any of the consensus points. jps (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

As does your edit history speak for itself with regard to your status as an WP:ACTIVIST who is unmasked - I suggest you drop the name calling and labeling, as stick to arguments. So you don't think there could be anyone in the blue silver set (not is, could be)? What aspect of current consensus could one legitimately question or challenge without being a denier, in your view? It seems to me that your view is that the moment you challenge anything which is in current consensus, regardless of the merits of your challenge, you are automatically a a "denier". JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not interested in hypotheticals. If someone can point to one example of someone who is in that sliver, I would be fine with this. In spite of the the claims of the right wing, there are plenty of skeptical disagreements within the climate change literature. The arguments happen all the time. They are not outside the bounds of our article on scientific consensus on climate change, crucially, and because of the politicization of the term, not a one of those scientists would call themselves "climate change skeptics". Like it or lump it, the denial machine has simply engulfed this term and co-opted it to the point that it is a poison pill. You can wail and gnash teeth as much as you want about this, but that's the situation. We aren't here to right great wrongs. Go to Conservapedia if that's what you want to do. jps (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, tobacco industry playbook. Deny there's a problem, then, when the problem becomes undeniable, deny the scale and consequences. Guy (help!) 20:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

If you have no substantial reply, kindly stay out of this. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, so are you denying that the oil industry uses the tobacco playbook? Before you go there, check out the history of professional denialists like Fred Singer. Guy (help!) 14:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that regardless of what oil industry is doing, that comment is unresponsive to my question, a Red Herring intended to divert and hijack the discussion. Either answer my question, or stay out of it. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• The Conversation (website), which is listed green at WP:RSP, published "Climate sceptic or climate denier? It’s not that simple and here’s why" in 2019 (links in the original):

  Several papers with reliable methodology unchallenged in the literature show an enormous majority of climate scientists agree that the planet is warming and humans are largely responsible.

  But contrary positions are not unknown. Some questions regarding the credibility of some aspects of climate models, for example, exist for some working academics.

  While these scientists do not necessarily doubt all aspects of climate science, issues of reliability of methodology and validity of conclusions in some areas remain, for them, alive.

  Whether they are correct or not (and many have been responded to in the literature), they are at least working within the broad norms of academia. We might call these people “climate sceptics”.

  * * *

  In summary, three categories of climate science disbelief are: sceptic, agnostic and denier. Three subdivisions of deniers are: naive, conspiracists and opportunists.

  Granted that's just one source, but it's reliable. – Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  The Conversation is only as reliable as the author. This author is not a scientist and it shows. The so-called "skeptic" that he refers to in this dubious article is Nicola Scafetta. Scafetta is consistently and without shame a member of the denialist machine: [5] jps (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  Levivich, As noted above, Scafetta is a perfect example of a denialist. He is publishing outside his sphere of expertise (which is engineering), and doing so for money. Guy (help!) 20:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  The Conversation article I linked/quote isn't written by Scafetta, it's written by Peter Ellerton, who is not publishing outside his area of expertise (critical thinking)

  Richard A. Muller: I draw a distinction between sceptics and deniers. The sceptics are people I respect – they have raised legitimate issues and, from my experience, are open minded. The deniers are people who start with a conclusion and only pay attention to the data that support it. I do think that our results could change the minds of some sceptics about the reality of global warming. [6].

  David Brin: Not every person who expresses doubt or criticism toward some part of this complex issue is openly wedded to the shrill anti-intellectualism of Fox News ... What traits distinguish a rational, pro-science "skeptic" — who has honest questions about the AGW consensus — from members of a Denier Movement that portrays all members of a scientific community as either fools or conspirators? After extensive discussions with many AGW doubters, I believe I have found a set of distinct characteristics that separate the two groups. [7]

  The point is: there are non-woo academics who believe the blue sliver in that venn diagram exists. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  Ellerton is publishing outside his expertise. He is citing Scafetta as an example of a skeptic who isn't a denier. That's ludicrous. I am aware of Muller's distinctions, and largely think the world has moved way past this. As for Brin's distinctions, I have no idea who he is talking about. Do you know who he is talking about? He kinda claims that he is a climate change skeptic, but as far as I can tell that means that while he admits all the science is on the side that humans are causing global warming, he still doesn't think humans are causing global warming(?) which strikes me as straight-up denial. Am I missing something at the end of that piece? jps (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  Levivich, What jps just said. A genuine skeptic is one who is publishing in the professional literature, and is not funded by the fossil fuel industry. Curry is publishing outside the professional literature and boosting those who are both publishing outside the literature and on the payroll of big oil. Guy (help!) 14:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

  She's published more than 100 peer-reviewed papers in relevant academic outlets, and is not on the payroll of the fossil fuel industry. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

  She admits to getting money from the fossil fuel industry: [8]. jps (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

  What that source says :

  '“I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry. My company…does [short-term] hurricane forecasting…for an oil company, since 2007. During this period I have been both a strong advocate for the IPCC, and more recently a critic of the IPCC, there is no correlation of this funding with my public statements.”"

  .

  Care to answer my question now, which I have asked 3 times now - What aspect of current consensus could one legitimately question or challenge without being a denier, in your view? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Let me try to be as clear as possible: It does not matter what I think is legitimate or illegitimate. The problem is that there aren't people who question the scientific consensus on climate change who reliable sources don't put in the category of global warming denial. Crucially, in spite of what it may feel like when we state the simple fact about the world as it is, I am not making any value judgement about the situation by stating this. The fact that, to a person, those who object to the consensus are all part of the climate change denial apparatus is just what we've got. jps (talk) 02:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

A few final observations:

• Using phrases like "climate change denial apparatus" sounds like you are ranting about an apocalyptic conspiracy. I'm sure Wikipedia can find better wording.

• We aren't in article space here. Sorry that this upsets you so much. jps (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• DeSmogBlog is run by a PR company, and they openly brag about their POV, so they are hardly a reliable source.

• Did you find any mistakes in their list? jps (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Do you have actual citations for the claim that everyone who does not adhere to the consensus is branded by every reliable source as a denier rather than a skeptic?

• Already provided. jps (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• I'm sure that WP:BLP is relevant here too.

• And WP:CRYBLP. jps (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Wdford (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, no. WP:BLP is policy, that applies everywhere (talk pages included). WP:CRYBLP is someone's personal musings. It does not apply here, or anywhere except the author's page. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

It applies here, puppet. jps (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't, young grasshopper, but thanks for playing. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 03:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The fact that climate change deniers in the past have used BLP as a cover to claim that we couldn't identify deniers like Curry in discussion is well-trodden ground. We can and will identify deniers like Curry in discussion. What we do in articlespace (and how) is another matter. This is why WP:CRYBLP exists. jps (talk) 11:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Remember that WP:CRYBLP is an WP:ESSAY. By constrast the need to avoid WP:SYN is a WP:POLICY. Please do not make statements about named individuals which are not backed up by explicit sourcing which does not require synthesis to reach the conclusions you are trying to support. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Pretending that we haven't provided sources that explicitly label Curry as part of the denialist machine is either WP:IDHT or it is WP:POVPUSH. Either way, not becoming. jps (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Our own article on Judith Curry shows it and we have plenty of sources which identify climate denial machine. I think we're fine here. jps (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

That article contains some very carefully chosen phrases, which were chosen explicitly to be well referenced and avoid WP:SYN. She isn't called a "denier" there, despite the wishes of some of the more enthusiastic and less thoughtful editors, precisely because there weren't reliable sources supporting that specific characterisation. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

No, she's not "called" a "denier" there because it's not necessary for the text. The text makes it clear that she's a denier. If you don't think it does, I think it's just your own comprehension issues. jps (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• The usual wording is "climate change denial industry". You should really read the literature, starting with "Merchants of Doubt", before taking sides here. And yes: accepting denialists as "skeptics" is taking their side, because that is all they want: making the facts seem less factual by pretending there are still disagreements within science about the basic questions of "is climate change happening" and "is is caused by us".
• "Their POV" is identical with the scientific consensus. It is like "bragging about" having the POV that the Shroud of Turin is fake - the situation is pretty much the same: The facts are clear, it's just that some people will not accept them. You, Wdford, know that the Shroud is fake and that all objections can easily be proved wrong because you have looked at the data. Other people here know the same about climate change because they have looked at those data.
• This is not about "every reliable source". It is about scientific reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Struck comments by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 19:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion is continuing at [9]

Should this have a DS alert on its talk page? There's also a cn tag. Doug Weller talk 14:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, it's the go-to source for accrediting your pets as nutritionists though. Whether it's better to consult a dead cat or TAPL is left as an exercise for the reader. Guy (help!) 22:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Sophia Mirza was the first of a tiny number of people in the UK to have CFS listed as a cause of death. The article was largely written from affiliated and activist sources; when those are removed there are only a couple of RS left. The text claimed that she was acutely sensitive to electromagnetic radiation and chemicals (massive red flags) and that relatives believed her mother was contributing to her condition - although this is claimed as final clinching proof that "ME" is a physical illness, this one case looks overwhelmingly psychological, but I can't find any dispassionate analysis that reviews the story in its entirety, only the couple of news items around the inquest finding.

Which leads me to ponder: is this actually a notable case? Guy (help!) 12:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Well there seem to be a least three RS, so yes it seems just about notable. Its rather complicated by there being (at least) 2 Sophia Mirza's.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: There is also the pathologist's comment that she had ganglionitis that probably affected her spine. Not proof ME killed her, but something quite a lot more neurological than "overwhelmingly psychological". I had thought chronic fatigue syndrome was well accepted (if poorly understood) as physiological complaint - is this not so? GPinkerton (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, Chronic fatigue syndrome is a diagnosis of exclusion, a catch-all for unexplained persistent fatigue. A small but vocal subgroup of activists insists that is is really "myalgic encephalomyelitis", though there is no pathological evidence that it is a form of encephalomyelitis. Moreover, they reject absolutely that there is any cause other than a form of encephalomyelitis, so attack with unmitigated savagery anybody who treats patients with palliative psychological interventions.

This girl was claimed to have "ME" and also electromagnetic sensitivity and multiple chemical sensitivity (both fake diseases). So very likely a strong psychological component in this case, possibly even Münchhausen's by proxy. Guy (help!) 08:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't it just be Münchausen's? JoelleJay (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: @JoelleJay: This is much too harsh. There is pathological evidence for neurological damage in this case! I don't think either Münchausen's nor "overwhelmingly psychological" complaints would lead to the ganglionitis identified in the post-mortem. As I say, it's not evidence for fatal CFS but definitely not a "fake disease" or "overwhelmingly psychological" like t'others in mentioned Mirza's case. I don't think the wider politics of diagnosis is very relevant to my point that Mirza had physiological damage from whatever she was suffering from and this is not a purely psychological case, howsoever the proponents or detractors of ME use the case. GPinkerton (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton I was just being pedantic about Münchausen's (it is distinct from Münchausen's by proxy), I wasn't commenting on whether it could be applied to Mirza. JoelleJay (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, see my comment. There is no such thing as electromagnetic hypersensitivity. She undoubtedly had some kind of problems (she was sectioned at one point), but the presence of nocebo (MCS and EHS) suggests also serious problems. Guy (help!) 22:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: I'm quite aware of that, but I'm not sure which is less credible: fatal CFS or fatal nocebo. The ME issue is not dependent on the electromagnetic hypersensitivity claim so I'm not sure why the non-existence of one condition affects the existence or aetiology of another purportedly neurological condition. (The WHO has labelled it neurological in 1969.) Obviously she/her mother made some dubious claims, but I don't think that has much bearing on the CFS diagnosis or the coroner's report and so on. There are a number of interesting letters published in the New Scientist after the initial article was published, one of which says that Sophia Mirza was not the first person to die of the condition in the UK; the correspondent's late wife had apparently had CFS entered by the coroner as cause of death in Wales in 2003. (Not picked up by the BBC report in 2018 about the "2nd" death. [10], which briefly mentions Mirza.) The NICE will publish their updated CFS/ME guidance in December this year, but the [11] (2007) guidance is ambivalent about the WHO's classification. Some background reading reveals ME was originally "benign myalgic encephalomyelitis" in the UK, then had the "benign" dropped and named CFS by the CDC in the late 1980s, and is since 2015 to glory under the name "systemic exertion intolerance disease" (SEID), since as you say encephalomyelitis is not supported by evidence. Take-up since 2015 of the SEID label has been slow, apparently. [12] GPinkerton (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, I am familiar with the arguments on both sides, well beyond what I would ever have wanted to be, thanks to years of POV-pushing and BLP violations here by "ME" activists. You are missing the point, which is that an article on a girl with at least two fake diseases was used to assert the validity of a third, questionable one, primarily based on minority activist sources. Guy (help!) 12:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

There is also this Times article about Mirza's and Wilson's account. January 30, 2010, p. 29 (Yes it's copied on an ME advocacy website but I've checked the archive and it's a real article, I just can't find a working link to it.) GPinkerton (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Article.[13] I enter information from book "Neighbors at War: Anthropological Perspectives on Yugoslav Ethnicity" from 2008 editet by Joel M. Halpern, David A. Kideckel and published by Pennsylvania State University Press. The editors wanted someone neutral on the issue and selected two American scholar which are Elinor Despalatovic^[1] and Andrei Simić.^[2] My edit is information from this source I quote: "According to the latest demographic studies and Elinor Despalatovic number of Serbs killed in the NDH is about 100,000 while according to Andrei Simić number is between 800,000 and one milion."

• Deletion of this information by one editor is marked as (WP:FRINGE) and second reason is ("Figures are not supported by serious scholars and the general consensus. One is ridiculously low, the other ridiculously high."). My answer was ("number of 800,000 and one milion in the book has been proven with four sources of historian mentioned by Andrei Simić and clame that many others prove this(see Balen 1952; Martin 1946: 47-67; Paris 1961; Pridonoff 1955: 79, among many others, It is RS, they are not all together fringe sources ").
• My opinion is that it is not (WP:FRINGE), Elinor Despalatovic claims that this number is from "latest demographic studies". Both two scholars have their claims in this RS and as additional information on the number of victims I think they should find their place in the article. Please tell me if this informations are Fringe theories or not. Thanks.Mikola22 (talk) 07:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Fringe as hell, not only fringe but forcing this source on a number of articles reflects that there is a point-scoring going on (!), and it may be seen as cherrypicking the sources as well. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

There is a general consensus regarding the number of Serbs killed in the NDH and that is ~300,000—350,000. This is cited by Balkan experts such as Tomasevich, Hoare, Ramet and others. Yeomans gives the lowest estimate at 200,000 and highest at 500,000. There is no value in including two figures which clearly deviate from the norm. Another issue is that the ones cited for the 800,000—1 million figure are non-experts who gave their figures shortly after the war when casualties by the Yugoslav government were exaggerated and have since been debunked by all serious historians. --Griboski (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Information from another source I quote: "There is little consensus on the total number of death."(Balkan Holocausts?: Serbian and Croatian victim centred propaganda and the war in Yugoslavia, page 161,162)^[3] And in this book there are various claims of historians up to 750 thousand killed. Therefore something cannot be Fringe as hell if there is no final consensus among historians. Andrei Simić on the basis of four sources and many which are not quoted draws a conclusion about the number of dead, on the other hand Elinor Despalatovic based on its sources draws a conclusion. They are respected and neutral scholars, they draw conclusions in a book which is RS. Therefore something cannot be Fringe as hell if consensus does not exist and the sources prove numbers of both American scholars. Mikola22 (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually it can, if 3 experts say X and 999 experts say Y X is a fringe.Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, probably. Another issue: this work is a collection of essays and might intentionally be including works farther outside the mainstream. Mikola22, got any reviews of the collection or the particular chapter(s)? fiveby(zero) 21:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, based on just the subtitle and the introduction available at books there is good reason to consider fringe without other evidence. fiveby(zero) 22:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Review. @Fiveby: "MacDonald’s book offers a highly original interpretation of myths in Serbian and Croatian nationalism with an extensive bibliography based mainly on English-language and internet resources. The book provides thought-provoking and innovative research on significant political events spanning from the Second World War to the present day, emphasising the creation of myths and symbols in the tumultuous nationalism of Serbia and Croatia. MacDonald’s study is a welcome contribution to the broader analysis of nationalism in the Balkans and its particular case studies" (Lucian N. Leustean is a Research Student in the Department of Government at the London School of Economics and Political Science ^[4]I supposed that Elinor Despalatovic and Andrei Simić did not present myths but that they presented historical events from their point of view and based on their sources. I thought it was RS. Mikola22 (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Questions of reliability should not have an all-or-nothing answers. The editors of Neighbors at War are anthropologists, and the introduction leads me to believe they were trying to bring in and contrast a wide range of views. Simić is an anthropologist and Despalatovic likewise looks more involved in the basket weaving side of things. MacDonald in a political scientist and reporting secondhand the entire range of views. The context in which thing are said and in which they are published are important. For such content we should not be trying to cast as wide a net as possible, to have a range of X to Y given equal weight or bald statements of numbers by random scholars without context. Per the WP:FRINGE guideline we should look to the best sources, with the most rigorous standards and widest acceptance to present the mainstream view.

Because something is outside the mainstream does not mean that content must necessarily be excluded, but needs care in the crafting of content. The edits i've seen proposed are not careful handling. Maybe suggest and revise some content on the talk page of an article directly addressing the subject? fiveby(zero) 14:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not au fait with the ins and outs of this issue but the 2018 The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945, vol. III: Camps and Ghettos under European Regimes Aligned with Nazi Germany chapter on Croatia says: "Between 1941 and 1945, the regime murdered no fewer than 310,000 ethnic Serbs, up to 26,000 Jews, and up to 20,000 Roma in mass atrocities and camps", (p. 46) "the civil war caused by the Ustaša’s brutal persecution of political opponents and ethnic minorities— predominantly Serbs— that claimed the lives of some 500,000 people", (p. 47) and "The Croatian authorities also committed mass murder in concentration camps, including the Jasenovac camp complex, where at least 70,0000 victims perished. Estimates of the total number of Serbian victims range widely from 25,000 to 1,000,000, but most experts now place it in the low to mid-300,000s." (ibid.) Figures that are very much higher than these numbers, or any lower, should probably be treated with suspicion. The rationale is explained thus in a footnote:

"These numbers are at the low end of most current estimates of the victims of the Ustaša genocide. They are based on Korb, Im Schatten des Weltkriegs, pp. 432–433. Tomasevich provides extensive analysis and explanation of the wide range of “Alleged and True Population Losses” reflected in scholarship, media, and popular perception since the end of the war. Official Yugoslav estimates for Jasenovac victims, mostly Serbs, ranged from 600,000 to 700,000. Private Serbian estimates often exceeded one million Serbian casualties. Some of these numbers are based on estimates generated during the war; for example, those issued by Tito, who reported on April 4, 1942, that the Ustaša had already killed some 500,000 people, mostly Serbs. At the end of the war, Tito reported to the InterAllied Reparations Agency in Paris a total of 1,706,000 casualties, including Serbs and all other victim categories. In the postwar period, both scholars and Yugoslav officials gave a figure of 700,000 people murdered at Jasenovac. Tomasevich ultimately sides with low-range estimates calculated by Bogoljub Kočović and published in his Žrtve Drugog svetskog rata u Jugoslaviji (London: Naše delo, 1985), pp. 172–180. According to Kočović and Tomasevich, the losses of population in Yugoslavia between 1941 and 1945 include 209,000 Serbs for the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina and 125,000 Serbs and Montenegrins for the territory of Croatia. See Tomasevich, War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, pp. 718–750." (pp. 51-52)

I have found this encyclopaedia extremely helpful in furnishing details on the various but obscure misdeeds of eastern European states during the war. GPinkerton (talk) 00:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: Book from 2007 (Identity Politics in the Age of Genocide (Routledge Advances in International Relations and Global Politics, page 167) I quote: "The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum gives a figure of between 300,000 and 400,000 victims of Jasenovac alone.^[5]Mikola22 (talk) 05:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Mikola22 I would not trust a book from 2007 about statements by a museum over the 2018 book produced by the same institution. If the Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos is contradicted I would rather see more up-to-date material on which the contradiction is based rather than a quote of a quote from a decade before the Encyclopedia was released. GPinkerton (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton This is not right. It is the same institution in 1995 and 2018. I don't think there should be a problem quoting a book from 2007 which has 1995 source for this clame. This institution and information from 1995 are not (WP:FRINGE). Something (according with new historical findings) can always be changed but not so drastically that 1995 information should not be used. That's my logical thinking. Mikola22 (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Mikola22 No it's not the same institution. One is postulated quote purportedly from a museum in Washington DC in 1995, another is a book, the Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, vol. III, published in 2018 in association with the museum. An indirect alleged quote from two decades earlier can't overturn the conclusions of a direct quote from a more recent reliable academic source from two years ago. GPinkerton (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide the quote where MacDonald supports this edit, as I cannot find it?Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

How do you mean support? He brings information(300,000 and 400,000 victims of Jasenovac alone) "Historians, using a variety of statistics, give a range of between 200,000 and 750,000 deaths. The USHMM gives a figure of between 300,000 and 400,000 victims of Jasenovac alone". It is based on source "Genocide in Yugoslavia During the Holocaust, Washington, DC: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 1995". While @GPinkerton cites data from the same institution "The Croatian authorities also committed mass murder in concentration camps, including the Jasenovac camp complex, where at least 70,0000 victims perished. Estimates of the total number of Serbian victims range widely from 25,000 to 1,000,000, but most experts now place it in the low to mid-300,000s." Therefore, where is this information(RS) visible, in which article?Mikola22 (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I suggest then you propose a new text that does not mention Elinor Despalatovic or Andrei Simić.Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Help me with this edit. Mikola22 (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

"MacDonald gives a figure of between 200,000 and 750,000 deaths".Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

And what about the data for Jasenovac and 300,000 - 400,000 thousand killed? It is RS.Mikola22 (talk) 12:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Why do we need that, as it sits neatly between MacDonald's figures?Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I thought about article concerning Jasenovac, it is very well grounded information in MacDonalds book.("Genocide in Yugoslavia During the Holocaust, Washington, DC: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 1995").Mikola22 (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The why are we talking about this article Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia? This .... I will reply on your talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The Balkanization of Wikipedia... —DIYeditor (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

As we now seem to be talking about something other that either the article or the edit the OP posted about can we close this, they have had their answer.Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Netholic and haunting-related disruption

Talk:List of reportedly haunted locations: We have several such lists (and BTW, we have heaps and heaps of categories below Category:Reportedly haunted locations by country‎), and it has been proposed to change the "reportedly haunted locations" into "haunted places" in the list article names. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, you're kidding. Mind you, I think changing "locations" to "places" would be an improvement, but obviously that's not the controversial part, and it's indeed not getting much attention in the Requested move discussion. Bishonen | tålk 14:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC).

Participants at this RM are running into a WP:BLUDGEON issue. I'm not sure if it's sincere belief that ghosts are real and that WP can't be seen to express skepticism about them, or if it's just wikilawyering over an idiosyncratic misinterpretation of WP:FRINGE and MOS:WTW.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I literally just abandoned a post there ! -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 14:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Consensus is pretty clear regarding the RM proposal. It's impossible to reason with someone who thinks WP:MOSWTW is a suicide pact, so it's best just to walk away. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

He started editwarring to delete my posts, so I've moved this to ANI.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

It's nonsense, but is it historically significant nonsense? XOR'easter (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I am less shook over that meaningless page than I am over William Delbert Gann. Apparently, "opinions are divided" as to whether his methods are effective or not. ::ROLLEYES:: jps (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the notability yet, but my impression was that it's unnecessary for the article to expand on the ridiculous methodology. On the other hand, it does demonstrate its obvious flaws... —PaleoNeonate – 22:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

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

While searching for sources after some recent activity at Rolfing, I ran into the related topic of Postural Integration and find we have an article on it (which has been tagged with ((fringe theories)) for six years!). This gets a brief mention at Quackwatch, which I've added, but otherwise RS seems hard to find. The present article is very in-universe. Anybody know more? Alexbrn (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I knew of claims about postures for "energy to flow" including related to the spine in various meditation systems (i.e. mudra), but didn't know it formalized as "Postural Integration" and didn't know of Painter. —PaleoNeonate – 22:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

It appears to be different branches of the same thing, all schismed off like branches of merkian xtianity. This is the parent topic, as far as a mainstream view of the whole thing. imho, of course. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 22:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

(I had a strange edit conflict that somehow after resolving it and adding ((ec)) got lost). It might make sense to merge it in one of the related movement articles or into Rolfing (similar to acupuncture but without needles and relies too on subtle nadi (yoga))... —PaleoNeonate – 22:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Omigod. I did not know this was a thing. It seems to have esacaped our notice:

• William Delbert Gann
• Louise McWhirter
• Financial astrology
• Planetary Stock Trading
• Bill Meridian
• The Tunnel Thru the Air; Or, Looking Back from 1940
• The Arcana: Or Stock And Share Key

This WP:Walled garden needs weeding, folks!

jps (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The example for the "Price-Zodiac conversions" section is about as intelligible and arcane as those parcel auction descriptions in newspapers (e.g) JoelleJay (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

As someone who trained to trade financial instruments for a living for several years, yes indeed it is a thing, and generally considered fringe even in trading circles, even though "Gann Lines" are still taught in technical trading classes and many successful traders use astrological indicators not for decisions but perhaps for weighting. The observations that planetary alignments often coincide with market trend changes isn't a new thing, but those who know enough about it also know that most of these coincidences are, well, coincidences, obtained through "curve fitting" of data. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

We need Wikipedia to say this. Right now our articles read like, "Here's the technique! GO OUT AND MAKE YOURSELF RICH!" I also like your implicit jab, "even in trading circles". Gave me a chuckle. jps (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

A user has made a denialists category, then added subcats for countries, then noticed that this may be contentious: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 22#Category:Climate change denialists

Opinions about that? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Didn't we already have this discussion for Category:Climate change deniers? Is there a categorical benefit to identifying specific people as deniers in this fashion? jps (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

A few times apparently. It was deleted here and then a RFC here just 9 months ago reaffirmed it. PackMecEng (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

This is about subdividing the denial cat into countries or not. Sorry I didn't make that clearer. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

As expected, the new categories have been deleted, with the consequence that Category:Climate change denial has been depleted. I have reinstated the category to a few articles where it clearly belongs and made a list of the remaining now-not-categorized-in-it-any-more articles in Category talk:Climate change denial. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

For the last few days, Category talk:Climate change denial has been about whether any biographies should be included in the category. The usual users interested in preventing such things are heaping on me, and I am starting to lose my cool. I will take a break from that now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The article Miraculous plague cure of 1522 has been nominated for deletion here. NightHeron (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• International College of Dentists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Legit or not? I found a draft packed with predatory journals that listed the subject as a Fellow. Guy (help!) 11:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• It's just an honor society, does not look very exclusive. I don't see a reason to believe it's not legit for it's purpose outside WP. Fellowship definitely would not confer any notability if that's what you mean by legit. It's not a professional body, hardly see any reason to mention in WP outside it's own article. fiveby(zero) 14:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Seems to lack notability though.Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

PMID 21739865 might be acceptable as a source, but i don't think it stands on it's own. Press release type coverage (best found) and authors mentioning affiliation is all i can find, but bet it would probably make it through an Afd. Special:WhatLinksHere/International_College_of_Dentists is just puffery. fiveby(zero) 15:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Fiveby, there's some COI going on there, for sure. Guy (help!) 15:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  Started going thru the links, but saw Ian Furst's name in a few places and he looks active so thought would ping in case he wants to comment. fiveby(zero) 17:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  It's an honor society that does some humanitarian work and provides scholarships. I created the page a long time ago. I am a fellow (but otherwise uninvolved) so a COI exists imo. Best I stay out of any discussions re deletion. Thank you for pinging me though. Ian Furst (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  Ian Furst, thanks for that. I think the problem is addition ion marginally-notable biographies, especially of people in India. The India project create articles on everybody who is awarded the Padma Shri in any degree, and that leads to a lot of articles that are based entirely on information provided or controlled by the source. Guy (help!) 09:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Still needs attention. Doug Weller talk 12:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

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

"They drink Kool-Aid instead of doing research. They parrot stuff from the IPCC and Al Gore"

Is that encyclopedic? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

We are reporting what he said, with sourcing; we are not embracing his appalling views. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

How notable is this viewpoint he has expressed? jps (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

To Burt Rutan's article? Pretty notable. It's an opinion he expresses frequently, and is a significant aspect of the recent press coverage of the man.

To the Climate Change article? Not at all. He speaks no particular authority.

Climate denial is a notable aspect of Burt Rutan, even though Burt Rutan is not a notable aspect of Climate Denial.

ApLundell (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

ජපස, there's been talk about this on the article's talk page. Rutan is kind of an icon (I remember his name from Aeroplane Monthly when I was a lad), and his promotion of climate change bollocks has significantly changed perception of the man. Guy (help!) 09:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Me too. The question is how to describe this in the article. When old people start to fumble around in their ignorance, the question is how much do we pay attention to it? I don't know the answer to this question. jps (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Usually, when we report what a fringe proponent says, we add voices from mainstream science contradicting him. And if there are no such voices because nobody cares, we delete the exact wording of his empty propaganda, to avoid propagating it, and just say what he thinks generally. So "he opposes the scientific consensus" is enough. We do not need to repeat his nonsense word for word. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, on that article there's a history of people removing reality-based critique. There's plenty out there. Guy (help!) 09:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• World Day Without Wifi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It takes a lot to leave me speechless. There you go. Guy (help!) 09:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Well it got a flurry of publicity, and then what? I think an AFD is in order (I was thinking of a merge, but with what?Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Day Without Wifi. I think all the publicity was just sensationalism. The thing seems to have died since 2016/2017 when it was first announced by an Argentinian group. jps (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

See WP:RSN#Court sentence being used in an article on archaeology, this edit] and my edit summaries and edits to the article. The claims, now deemed fraud by a court, were for " These included what would have been the oldest non-onomastical texts in Basque, which were hailed as the first evidence of written Basque. Also, it was announced the discovery of a series of inscriptions and drawings on pottery fragments, some of which refer to Egyptian history and even some written in Egyptian hieroglyphs. Finally, it was announced the finding of the earliest representation of the Calvary (crucifixion of Jesus) found anywhere to date." Doug Weller talk 14:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

There's a RfC on the Piers Robinson page about whether he describe his promotion of conspiracy theories in the lead.[14] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

For those who are unaware, Piers is known for supporting fringe theories about the Douma chemical attack Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Bejan Daruwalla (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Indian astrologer, died recently, of COVID-19 or something else (the IP jury is still out). I just had to delete a list of his right guesses again, but it will probably grow back. I am not sure if he is even notable - notability is not my field. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

My deletion of the facts that he is a great man, world-renowned and revered, has been reverted. I do not want the reverter to get the impression that opposing such epithets is just an idiosyncratic quirk of mine, which would happen if I reverted again, so I will not insist. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I reverted to the most recent version that looked halfway worthwhile, but I'm skeptical that the notability case is there. XOR'easter (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Update: the state of the article is more stable lately, —PaleoNeonate – 19:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Vinod Verma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This showed up in the new-article robot report; notability does not look well-established to me. Lots of books, but did they make any splash outside a small, fringe pond? XOR'easter (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

XOR'easter, the original creator moved it form draft without indpeendent review. I have put it back in draft. Guy (help!) 09:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, JzG. XOR'easter (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Aerial Phenomena Enquiry Network was recently PRODed due to lack reliable sourcing and then dePRODed with a vague mention of the existence of sources. This is an alleged UFO research group that members of another UFO group, BUFORA, claim to have been contacted by; there doesn't seem to be any confirmation or significant coverage of this in reliable sources so it probably isn't even a notable hoax/fictional entity. Thought I'd mention it here before going to AfD. –dlthewave ☎ 22:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Dlthewave, I did some googling and have sent to AfD. The only person I can find talking about this in any detail is Nick Redfern. Guy (help!) 09:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Jacques Vallée[15] and some librarian [16] investigated, Vallée calls it a hoax and the librarian names some Cambridge University student as the perpetrator. Neither usable as sources. fiveby(zero) 14:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Dlthewave have you seen Psychosocial hypothesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? References and all the inbound links look a little troubling. fiveby(zero) 16:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I might be more worried by Extraterrestrial hypothesis ! Alexbrn (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding ((Complete bollocks)) to that article now... Guy (help!) 17:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I knew I could count on FTN to lead me down another rabbit hole. Is Interdimensional hypothesis the end or are there more? What if the cultural constructs responsible for UFO myths were influenced by beings from another planet that also happened to be in a different dimension? –dlthewave ☎ 22:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Bizarre article with Russian-only sources on a yet more bizarre subject. Alyoshenka is one of those aberrant human deformities that people who like that sort of thing allege are aliens (think Starchild skull). Problem is, the remains no longer exist, and may never have been "real" at all. The article is not clear what was preserved, or how old the (now-vanished) remains allegedly were. Something to be looked at by editors experienced in dealing with such (non-notable?) fringe subjects. GPinkerton (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Sun, Star, and Komsomolskaya Pravda. great. fiveby(zero) 16:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

From cite in ru:Кыштымский карлик, a local paper has probably the best account up to 2003[17](Russian, can't get google to translate the link). Aliens and UFOs, twenty years of tabloid journalism, sad and disgusting. fiveby(zero) 18:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Another Chelyabinsk Worker 2005: ruen. fiveby(zero) 18:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Still relevant today isn't it —PaleoNeonate – 07:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

This user saw Bigfoot and a Mokele-mbembe cured by Magnet therapy at a Reportedly haunted location while debating Climate change denial with a UFO piloted by an Aquatic ape at the Fringe theories Noticeboard.

Now updated to capture more of the majestic sweep of topics covered here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

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

I redirected this last month.

Apparently, not everyone is happy with this: [18]

I reverted, but if others want to opine as to whether we have to go through the torturous AfD process, be my guest.

jps (talk) 01:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Centralized discussion here: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_20#Vile_vortex. jps (talk) 11:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

European Society for the Study of Western Esotericism Needs a look, unsourced.Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

N.B. not a fringe group, but a bona fide academic research group on fringe matters and their history.

I've added a big bibliography of their books, which, dealing with fringe subjects, might themselves be of interest to editors on this noticeboard and useful for editing their subjects' respective articles. GPinkerton (talk) 11:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Though Wouter Hanegraaff, who is linked to them, becomes rather aggressive when skeptics like Hartmut Zinser are mentioned... --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

To get a best sense of the problems with our article Legends of Alcatraz, go directly to the references, which include multiple citations of the Weekly World News, and then treat yourself to the astounding bibliography, which is full of such academic tomes as "Ghost Hunting: How to Investigate the Paranormal", "They Came Back: Tales of Reincarnation, Ghosts, and Life After Death", "Hell House: And Other True Hauntings from Around the World", etc. --JBL (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Weighted in favor of the supernatural, definitely written by a fan of the paranormal. Would take a major WP:BLOWITUP to straighten things out. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Is there really any reason why we should even have such an article? Mangoe (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I left a note on the Talk page to that effect. However the most recent AfD concluded as Keep. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Sadly I think the basic keep argument (this is a thing people have widely noted) is correct. But it is hard to see how it could be written in an acceptable way :(. --JBL (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

A majority of the news articles are dated from October, the traditional Halloween season, when every news outlet runs some “spooky” story, and can be considered WP:SENSATIONAL. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, LuckyLouie, you have inspired me to believe I can do this. The AfD is here. --JBL (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Matt Ridley (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Ridley says that increasing CO2 will do more good than harm. Is that fringe or not? --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Definitely fringe. XOR'easter (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, I presume the question was rhetorical? Guy (help!) 13:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Since I asked it here, yes. But on Talk:Matt Ridley, someone told me, "You have presented nothing to show that's a fringe statement", so I wanted to show him it's just a quirky idea of mine. It seems to have worked, thanks to User:ජපස. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Tucker Carlson (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

More of the same. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

See Talk:Theory of Phoenician discovery of the Americas#Recent research updates. I wonder if they plan to use this Secrets of Ancient America Archaeoastronomy and the Legacy of the Phoenicians, Celts, and Other Forgotten Explorers. The publisher page on him[19] says he has published in Ancient America, a racist journal of pseudohistory. It's also published by Bear and Company, a fringe publisher.[20] The book expands " upon the work of well-known diffusionists such as Barry Fell and Gunnar Thompson". Very disappointing, just shows that not all publishers get an automatic pass. Doug Weller talk 14:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Nope, they've already edited and haven't use it.[21] I'll bet the DNA stuff is from Donald Panther-Yates of DNAConsultants. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Yates and this old discussion on this board.[22] Doug Weller talk 14:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

This page needs to be improved. The lead fails to clarify that they engage in climate change denial. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Tom Van Flandern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has unduly weighted text and poor sourcing. If someone with an interest in fringe physics from more than a decade ago would like to help clean it up, that would be appreciated.

• [23]

jps (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: I restored the new version ([24]) after it was undone ([25]) by user StarHOG (talk · contribs). Also pinging ජපස (talk · contribs) and PaleoNeonate (talk · contribs). User StarHOG immediately reverted my undo ([26]) - DVdm (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Kinda hard to have a discussion when someone just says that "each edit deserves discussion". Uh, what do you want to discuss? jps (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Me, nothing in particular. AFAIAC your trimming operation looked good, and was just fine. User StarHOG might want to discuss. - DVdm (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Relatedly, I removed some fringe physics claims from our biographical article of Xin-She_Yang:[27] jps (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

It continues! jps (talk) 23:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

With comparisons to Newton, no less! jps (talk) 12:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

It was published in Nature! No. It wasn't. There was an observation that was subsequently shown to be erroneous published in Nature. Van Flandern and Yang were not published in Nature. A little help, please? This looks to me like a potential WP:SOAP issue. jps (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Jade Books in Heaven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I know nothing about the Jade Books in Heaven but when I see wording like "Numinous book of the Nine Heavens of Cavernous Moisture of the Treasure Kalpa" without sufficient (any) context it may as well be fringe. Having read the article, I am none the wiser on what this stuff means, or is supposed to mean. The section ""Heaven"-related books composed of other semi-precious stones" is dubious at best. Labelled with "insufficient context" since 2015. The short-description gives the best clue, but I don't know how accurate it is. GPinkerton (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Are two PhD dissertations really reliable sources here? You'd think whatever references the dissertations used would be better... JoelleJay (talk) 00:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I've never run across this one before, but regulars here might be interested to keep an eye out for some fringe ideas that got added to Hawaii (island) with these edits (since reverted), and requested at Hawaii with this edit request (since declined). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Past discussions on Bates method:

• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_4#Bates_method
• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_6#Bates_method
• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_8#Bates_method_sources
• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_12#Bates_method_/_Meir_Schneider
• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_15#Sungazing
• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_36#Bates_Method
• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_45#Fringe_eye_treatments

I believe Wikipedia and Belteshazzar (talk · contribs) would be better off if Belteshazzar were banned from the topic. I wanted to some eyes on the article and other viewpoints on Belteshazzar's behavior before going to ArbEnf.

Belteshazzar started a discussion here, Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_69#Bates_method_sources.

@Jmc: has attempted to get Belteshazzar to discuss edits before making changes, to little or no effect.

My recent attempts to work with Belteshazzar (User_talk:Belteshazzar#May_2020, User_talk:Belteshazzar#Edit-warring, and the current article talk page) have left me with the conclusion that Belteshazzar is unable to work cooperatively with others on this subject. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The current issue concerns listing well-known (enough to have their own biographical articles on Wikipedia) proponents of the Bates method in the Infobox's list of proponents. Seems pretty obvious that they should be listed there, unless it's someone like Daniel A. Poling, whose public support was perhaps fleeting. Belteshazzar (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

E/C I saw IRWolfie on that trip down memory lane. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 20:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: previously commentd [28]Belteshazzar, the primary issue is your tendentious editing at the Bates Method article. I am minded to topic-ban or partial block here. What do others think? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked 31h for edit warring, and I am up for a topic ban if that has general support. Guy (help!) 22:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• In 18.5 years of WP editing, I have never before encountered such an obsessively single-minded editor. Belteshazzar does not play well with others. A topic ban would be to everyone's benefit. -- Jmc (talk) 09:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

My biggest shortcoming involved the article's first sentence. "The Bates method is an ineffective alternative therapy aimed at improving eyesight" seemed not to quite reflect decent sources which indicate that such training does sometimes result in measurable improvement, albeit which is usually temporary and not due to any change in refraction. For example, [29] by Elwin Marg, and [30] from The College of Optometrists. I tried several different alternatives, first changing "ineffective" and then qualifying it somewhat. I now see that I went on too long with that, and the opening sentence is not likely to change.

Other than that, I think my contributions to the article have been positive. I have fixed some disjointedness, and removed redundancy and excess verbiage. I think the section on "Possible reasons for claimed improvements" has now been trimmed too thin and neglects the biggest reasons for claimed improvements, but if consensus disagrees, that is that.

The most recent issue concerns the proponents listed in the Infobox. If an author or practitioner has strongly supported the Bates method and is notable enough to have a biographical article in Wikipedia, that person would seem to belong on any list of proponents. I tried to discuss this, and got no clear explanation for the removal. My last edit was probably too quick, but at least provided an explanation in the edit summary after my previous lack of an edit summary was noted. Belteshazzar (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe the Infobox proponents list issue has been resolved. It turns out that many instances of that template don't include subsequent or even any proponents. Perhaps this could be prominently noted in the template somehow to save others the trouble. Belteshazzar (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that Eliot source contradicts the idea that the Bates method is "ineffective". It attributes the alleged improvement to placebo effect and "blur adaptation".

Improvements from placebo effect don't count as an effective treatment, and, as I understand it, "blur adaptation" is not actually a result of the Bates method, it's simply a thing that happens if you don't wear your glasses.

(I guess you could argue that "don't wear your glasses" is part of the Bates method, but if that's the only part of the method that provides a benefit, it's a real stretch to say the Bates Method is an effective innovation.) ApLundell (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

And just so we're clear, The "benefit" we're talking about is this : Your vision will still be blurry, but you'll kinda get used to functioning with blurry vision.

Stripped of its quackery, that's all that's left of the Bates Method.

"Ineffective" is being kind. Changing that to "Ineffective, discredited, and dangerous" would be an improvement to the lead.

ApLundell (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

While we're at it, the article William_Bates_(physician) is also rather kind, saying only that "efficacy of the method is questionable".

ApLundell (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I acknowledged that the first sentence of Bates method likely won't change and I went on too long with that. But since you made these points, let me point to the other source I mentioned, by Elwin Marg. Some people will attack the date, but if "flashes of clear vision" happened then, presumably they can still happen now. Marg indicated that these flashes did not simply happen randomly, and were in fact associated with Bates training. Discussion of such flashes has been removed from the "Possible reasons for claimed improvements" section, wrongly in my opinion. Belteshazzar (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

A seventy year old monograph relaying a handful of anecdotes and lamenting that they couldn't be properly studied is perhaps not a rock solid source.

I mean, if the Bates Method had been definitively proven back in 1952, the age of the studies wouldn't be an issue. People knew eyeballs back then. But the conclusion of this monograph is simply that the method "can not be dismissed entirely". That'd be too weak to use as a source in a medical article if it was published last month, and the fact that it's the most flattering thing published about the Bates Method in the last seventy years is a lot more damning than you seem to understand. ApLundell (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

It was not merely anecdotes, as pages 11-15 indicate that subjects were actually observed while having such flashes. I was simply saying that this merits some mention in Bates method#Possible reasons for claimed improvements. It could also be argued that "ineffective" should be changed or qualified in part because of this, but that is clearly not going to happen. Belteshazzar (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

If "observing subjects" is all you do, that is called a case report, a type of anecdotal evidence. So, yes, "a handful of anecdotes" is right. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Nevertheless, this phenomenon pretty clearly is a big reason for claimed improvements. Belteshazzar (talk) 09:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

There no way any of these transient side effects can be labelled "improvements". Alexbrn (talk) 10:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I said claimed improvements. There is a section of the article titled "Possible reasons for claimed improvements" which the aforementioned phenomenon is currently excluded from. Belteshazzar (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Edits by Belteshazzar

@Jmc:, @Alexbrn:, @Hob Gadling:, @ApLundell:

I am concerned about Belteshazzar's recent edits which I do not believe are good-faith based. This user originally joined Wikipedia to promote the Bates Method, he didn't get his way and now he has does a 360 degree turn and is doing the complete opposite. But I believe this is a form of WP:DISRUPT and WP:POINT.

• 1942 in literature
• The Art of Seeing
• Aldous Huxley
• Margaret Corbett
• Darst
• Corbett (surname) ‎
• Aldous Huxley bibliography ‎

We all agree the Bates method is discredited but adding "which Huxley wrongly claimed improved his eyesight" is bizarre [31], [32]. He is now also calling Corbett a "charlatan" which is not sourced [33]. He is now doing that on multiple articles [34], [35]. This is problematic editing which some may consider vandalism.

This user is now adding Huxley's non-fiction book The Art of Seeing to Fiction lists [36] [37]. I do not believe these are good faith edits.

If someone wants to take this to the correct avenue I would support a topic ban for this user. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted some of his edits. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

This does indeed savour of their being WP:NOTHERE. Alexbrn (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. El_C 12:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

El C, and I suggest this is the last chance saloon now. The combination of single-purpose account and disruptive editing is not a good one. Guy (help!) 12:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy,  Already done. I've already specified in the block notice and log that this is a "last chance block." El_C 12:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

El C, top job, thanks. Guy (help!) 13:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad to see this block finally in place following remarkable forbearance shown by admins. The continual stream, not to say flood, of edits has been of a staggeringly bizarre character. -- Jmc (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

This user originally joined Wikipedia to promote the Bates Method. I was never trying to promote the Bates method. I recently asked an optometrist for help, which I obviously wouldn't do if I were trying to promote it. Belteshazzar (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

There is a dispute on the Victor Davis Hanson page about how to characterize Hanson's theory that the coronavirus spread to the US in the fall of 2019. Should it be described as "he pushed an unsubstantiated theory" or "he suggested a hypothesis... The hypothesis was widely shared but shown to be incorrect via genetic analysis"? RS content about Hanson's theory:

• https://www.wsj.com/articles/has-coronavirus-been-in-california-since-the-fall-researchers-investigate-11587816001
• https://www.sfchronicle.com/health/article/Unlikely-that-California-has-herd-immunity-15193666.php
• https://www.thedailybeast.com/was-it-coronavirus-when-i-had-a-cold-in-november-or-december
• https://slate.com/technology/2020/04/coronavirus-circulating-california-2019-bunk.html

Hanson is not a scientist and has no medical expertise. The theory he proposed was baseless per all experts. In my view, the wording "he suggested a hypothesis... [later] shown to be incorrect via genetic analysis" gives readers the misleading impression that he's a scientist, that he had well-founded reasons for his theory and that the scientific community subjected his hypothesis to a test and only then found it to be false. "Pushed an unsubstantiated theory" gets to the gist of it (there was no scientific basis for the theory) and does not misleadingly suggest to readers he was involved in a scientific exchange of ideas. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

This isn't a question of FRINGE, and if this question is going to be raised anywhere it should have been raised at BLPN. No one is disputing that the theory/hypothesis was proven wrong and there appears to be no evidence that Hanson pushed after the scientific community weighed in. Thus the question is one of WEIGHT in the BLP article and IMPARTIAL tone. Both questions are better answered at BLPN vs here. Springee (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this wouldn't be a question of WP:FRINGE, but wherever it's discussed, I'd say that both "theory" and "hypothesis" are unsuitable words here. Of the two suggestions, the former is preferable, but wording like "he pushed an unsubstantiated claim" would be better still. XOR'easter (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Two reasons. First, no one, including Hanson has said the science is wrong and this hypothesis is correct. In the article where he mentions the idea [[38]] he doesn't take credit for it and hardly "pushes" it. The hypothesis was presented in the 23rd of 27 paragraphs in the article. Hanson makes it clear this is a "less-mentioned hypothesis" and goes on to say it couldn't be proven until genetic testing was completed. When that testing was completed it seems he accepted it (no sources say he has disputed findings or medical opinions against it) and that was that. We have no evidence he disputed the testing nor pushed the theory beyond mentioning it in a column. When researchers said the evidence doesn't support the theory we have nothing that suggests Hanson didn't accept that the theory was wrong. So we have a possible theory from early in the pandemic that was shown to be wrong and that was that. That other sources might have pushed it is not something of Hanson's doing. Basically the FRINGE part isn't something that is being debated. Conversely, if/how the material should be presented in a BLP is in question. Since those are BLP questions the appropriate place for this discussion is there not here. Comments like "pushed an unsubstantiated claim" are non-neutral and should not end up in a BLP. Springee (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense. An unsubstantiated claim is exactly what it was. Everybody who knows the tiniest bit of science and knows how to check stuff knew that from the beginning. That is almost the definition of fringe: ideas that can easily be seen to be wrong by experts or even knowledgeable laymen.

And yes, this needs to be posted here, because if it is posted at BLPN only, a consensus will form that is not informed by knowledge about science and fringe science, which will have to be overturned later against the resistance of the users from the first consensus with the usual "we were here first" reasoning: "CONSENSUS is policy while FRINGE is a guideline". --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense. This is the noticeboard for fringe theories, not questions of BLP which is what this is. Hob Gadling, are you here due to an unrelated disagreement with me? Springee (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Believe it or not, sometimes a question is in one domain as well as another. This one is in both, as anyone familiar with fringe subjects can see.

I am always here, as you could have seen for yourself if you had looked at threads other than this one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Leaving aside the name-calling and aspersions for a second to actually address the sources: "He suggested a hypothesis" can hardly be applied to the actual armchair speculation of: "Something is going on that we haven’t quite found out yet" Neither statement given in the OP, calling it a "theory" or a "hypothesis," can be sustained on either FRINGE or BLP grounds. It was other media personalities that really turned it into a meme. E.g., Rush Limbaugh's quote given in the San Francisco Chronicle of: "I think they’ve immunized themselves." The hallmarks of what defines hypotheses and theories as they are actually used and understood in science are absent from what Hanson actually said, based on the sources offered. I can understand the attempt to trace that meme back to its originator but what seems to have happened is a multiplying telephone game effect: A Stanford study was misinterpreted by Hanson which was further misinterpreted by Limbaugh and others which has been further misinterpreted as it spread through social media. That happens a lot, especially with coronavirus misinformation. Pinning this on Hanson via either "pushed a theory" or "suggested a hypothesis" seems WP:UNDUE, especially since the sources seem to substantiate neither. It is verging into WP:SYNTH territory. A formulation such as "Hanson speculated that herd immunity may be developing naturally but this idea was later proven incorrect" seems to follow the sources better. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

"May have been developing naturally since the fall of 2019"? The first time I heard about Hanson was here. His idea has been silly from the start, and "later proven incorrect" is too weak. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I think Eggishorn is getting more to the root of it. If one reads the original source it's clear that this was presented as a theory including the method that could (and later would) be used to prove it false. It's not clear if Hanson came up with the theory himself or if perhaps a Stanford or other contact suggested the idea. Given that the idea was buried deep in the source article any claims of "pushing" are problematic. Eggishorn is correct that the story seems to have run away from its source and it would be totally improper to peg its extent on Hanson as if he were the one propagating it. Personally I think the whole thing is UNDUE in the Hanson article. As this is a BLP we need to avoid phrasing that suggests some sort of bad faith, reckless, or ignorant intent. Springee (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hanson is not misinterpreting a study. He's just crafting his own theories to explain the findings of one [bad] study, telling a news source that it would be "naïve" to think coronavirus did not appear in the fall in California. He's the source of the misinformation. As the cited WSJ piece makes clear, he sparked the theory. The analogy would be that a study showed that volcano activity increased in the last decade, leading a climate change denier to take that finding and argue that volcano activity is the primary contributor behind climate change. The climate change denier is not misinterpreting the study, he's just spouting off. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Where is your evidence for that claim? Such a claim about a BLP subject needs sourcing. Since the WSJ is behind a paywall please quote the relevant passages. Springee (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

"It is a theory that seems to be spreading as quickly as the virus itself: The new coronavirus is infecting relatively few in California because the state suffered a silent outbreak as far back as the fall, well before official reports indicate it hit the U.S. As a result, the theory goes, many residents are now resistant to the disease. The hypothesis, sparked by an article written for the conservative National Review by a military historian affiliated with Stanford University, went viral in recent weeks." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

But that doesn't answer the question. First, you didn't actually say which source provided that statement. Second, while we know Hanson talked about the theory in his NR article, where is the proof that he came up with the theory? The way he described it in paragraph 23 of his 27 paragraph article doesn't sound like he meant to suggest it was a work of his own invention. Its abiguous as to where the idea came from. If you are going to claim, "He's just crafting his own theories" then you would need to show that. I agree that it his article appears to be the seed that put the idea into the public light but that doesn't mean Hanson created the seed. These questions are why we need to be very careful and clear when dealing with a BLP subject. Springee (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

You asked for a quote from the WSJ, and I gave you one. I have no interest in tracing down every single comment made by Hanson to prove that he did what a high-quality RS (the WSJ) said he did (sparked the theory). The Stanford study on prevalence of COVID in California that Eggishorn is referring to did not say anything about COVID popping up in California in the fall of 2019, so Hanson's claims do not stem from that study and are not a misinterpretation of that study. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The WSJ quote did not support your claim, "He's just crafting his own theories". The Stanford study could have been the source if, as Eggishorn suggested, Hanson misunderstood what some aspect of the study and drew a conclusion from it. I would note that this source [[39]] doesn't say where Hanson got the idea but it delivers the details in a far less partisan and more BLP compliant way: "Hanson suggested that what doctors were calling an "early flu season" could have been an early spread of the disease. In the absence of testing, many Californians could have had COVID-19 misdiagnosed as "flu" and developed antibody resistance. If so, herd immunity in California might be a reason for the state's lower case numbers." While ultimately saying the theory is was proven wrong they don't suggest it was some totally bogus idea while saying that those who had access to blood test data could say it was wrong based on their evidence. As Eggishorn noted we need to separate where this went from the how big it was (and what was known to him or those he might have talked with) when Hanson suggested it. This returns to the question of DUE in Hanson's BLP article. Springee (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The question at issue for this board is whether Hanson is promoting a fringe theory. It's a marginal situation. Here is his defense against the Slate story: [40]. If I am to be charitable in my interpretation of his writing, he is not adverse to claiming that his appreciation for the idea that there was community transmission of the virus in Fall of 2019 could possibly be misplaced. He more than once points out that he is not a scientist. On the other hand, he also takes the "someone has to stand up to these experts" approach that seems all too common in armchair arguments of this sort. Hanson is convinced that because there are political aspects to these questions that he is perfectly justified in arguing that the "science is still not settled" (at least as of April). This is a common conservative ploy in the US because science has become politicized. Hanson is not an anti-intellectual in the style of the creationists, but he is one in the style of global warming deniers. In fact, Hanson is in that camp as well: [41]. For all that, I don't think it is fair to say that Hanson is pushing the theory/speculation/conceit/hypothesis/whatever-the-hell-you-want-to-call-it. What I think he is doing is arguing for entertaining certain extravagant and frankly debunked ideas that others would not entertain precisely because he is skeptical of scientific claims themselves. This is rather different than a pseudoscientist who makes up his or her own ideas and then argues that they are scientific. This is actually closer to a type of conspiracy theory. But how does Wikipedia talk about this? I think it mentions the press coverage (if it is deemed relevant) and perhaps links to relevant articles about the politicization of science and leave the deeper analyses to other venues. jps (talk) 01:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that again leads us down the path were this is a BLPN issue, not a fringe issue. It's not clear the ideas he discussed were debunked at the time of publication or if they were was that information disseminated to the point that he could have/should have known better. He didn't present it as a clear "this is the cause" type claim. It is clear he was saying this is a possibility but for it to be true the genetic testing would have to support it. "The stock price may go up if X, Y and Z happen". I don't think it's fair to suggest he is against science (COVID-19, climate change etc). Rather he is against what politicians do with it. That is often a conservative thing but not a fringe idea thing. In this particular case he was clear about what he was and was not claiming. That others overstated, mis-represented, ran with paragraph 23 should not be used suggest he is against the science or is promoting fringe ideas. There will certainly be people looking back on 2020 trying to decide for either political or honest intellectual reasons what did and didn't work; where we should have pulled harder on the brakes and where we shouldn't have. As a historian he has the credentials to note when people in the past put too much faith in the experts of the time and how that turned into a mistake for them so it's not surprising that he would apply that same thinking to current events. The original Hanson article edit read as if he was behind some sort of Alex Jones level of false information which is the big issue, not if the theory turned out to be wrong or if he pushed it when he shouldn't have. Again, that is why this should have been taken to BLP. Still, if editors are OK with leaving it out of the Hanson article (it was added to the COVID-19 Misinformation article) I think the issue is resolved. Springee (talk) 02:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Politicization of science means that criticism of science vs. criticism of what politicians do with science can become a distinction without a difference. It seems to me that this is going on here, especially as in his NR piece he explicitly argues that "arguments from authority are not persuasive" and that "Given the radically changing data, we simply do not know whether any of these hypotheses will stand — hence my original conclusion that California remained a mystery, but an enigma at least deserving consideration of lots of competing exegeses." This is a claim that explicitly attacks the standard story on the basis of a claim that data is "radically changing"! I do not see how this is not fringe. jps (talk) 03:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

First, if this is Fringe he clearly didn't push it very hard as he backed away from the specific theory that was noted by others the moment the test he said would prove/disprove it disproved it. It was speculative but hardly fringe given the level of knowledge at the time. The concern regarding policy based on the science is not at all fringe. To use climate change as an example, there is a world of difference between saying the climate data is bad and mandates for EV cars to reduce climate change is bad policy. Given that shuttering the economy causes a lot of collateral damage it's not surprising nor fringe that some people would question the political choices that were made based on the back of the science known at the time. But that doesn't really matter since that isn't what is at issue in here. Hanson's broader views on the subject were not added to the BLP. The only material added to the article were two sentences suggesting he was a pusher of fringe or otherwise obviously bad science. The material had DUE and IMPARTIAL issues that, if need be, should be addressed at BLPN, not here. Again, I think the question is moot if there is agreement to simply leave it out. Springee (talk) 04:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it is unreasonable to consider the question of whether his particular choice in rhetoric was an instigating moment for an ongoing set of ideas about early transmission... a set of ideas which probably didn't deserve serious consideration even in April. The speculation for why he was out on a limb is something against which he obviously took umbrage. I think it is somewhat crucial to note that we're not talking about policy here unless you are claiming he is engaging in motivated reasoning similar to what the article in Slate argued. Instead, we are talking about entertaining "theories" (a word he uncomfortably misuses in the above piece) that argue about empirical reality. Either there was transmission in California in Fall 2019 or there wasn't, e.g. jps (talk) 04:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

What I would suggest is include it in the list of ideas that turned out to be wrong but not include in Hanson's personal BLP. That it grew into something much bigger than his original emphasis of the concept is on others but appears notable in context of COVID-19 ideas that turned out to be false. It also reflects that it was one of several possibilities he presented to explain what was being observed in mid-late March and the relatively low emphasis he placed on the theory (paragraph 23 of 27). Springee (talk) 10:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

"probably didn't deserve serious consideration even in April" is the fringe criterion. This is just one example of the usual behavior pattern of free-market think tanks: When scientific results demand that the market be regulated, in order to protect lives, the environment, the future of humanity or whatever, the think tank people will not use reality-based reasoning to find out by rational discussion what is the right solution to the problem. Instead, they always invent random fringe bullshit in order to throw doubt on the science and hope the population believes that and that the threat to the market goes away - fuck lives, fuck environment, fuck humanity, only money is important. That strategy does not work as well anymore as it did with cancer from tobacco last century, but they still try it, with climate change and with COVID.

And it does not matter when the refutation appeared in the media and came to the attention of the general public. If experts saw from the beginning that it was nonsense, it is fringe and has always been fringe. Experts decide that question, not the media. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be making up "fringe criterion" based on what you don't like vs any objective measure. Also, it wasn't proposed in April. It was proposed in March. Since you are claiming a BLP was propogating a FRINGE theory what sources say he should have known it was a FRINGE idea, not just a possible idea that would be proven wrong when better data was available? Just as "Climate Change Denier" has been used as a scarlet letter around WP, so has "promoter of FRINGE". We need to be very careful to distingish ideas that were suggested as possible yet turned out to be false vs pushing ideas that were clearly wrong at the time. No one has shown it was widely known this theory was proven false by the genetic data in late March. Additionally Hanson said that the genetic data may prove the theory wrong. That others ran with it doesn't mean Hanson was pushing a Fringe theory. Again, remember this is a BLP issue. Springee (talk) 11:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

He was still entertaining it in April as it indicates in the NR source I posted, but, even so, the simple fact that someone was on the fringe saying this or that is only relevant for the purposes of this board in order to ensure that Wikipedia doesn't go about misleading readers into thinking that such a position was mainstream. Part of why we have WP:FRINGEBLP is because when people make fringe claims, oddly, they can get overbloated with respect to their WP:PROMINENCE. There is a danger on Wikipedia that we spend too much time on fringe claims for one of two reasons: 1) undue promotion or 2) a desire for the resource to set the record straight. Thing is, sometimes a claim is so obscure it does not deserve mention or notice. I don't think we're in that situation here. I think we have a claim that has been noticed. Whether it is noticeable enough for a new section in a BLP... that's certainly another matter. We don't want undue focus on fringe but neither do we want to whitewash an article to make it seem that fringe claims never get made. See relevant discussion regarding Piers Robinson for other aspects of this. Getting the balance right, I think, requires considering this from multiple angles. jps (talk) 12:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Springee, no, because he's not a scientist. He has no legitimate part in the process of analysing COVID-19, its causes, spread or any other related topic. He's a former historian and a columnist for right wing publications. Guy (help!) 21:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy, I do not agree. First, why would you claim he is a former historian? When did he give that up? Second, since when did we set the "not a scientist" standard? Most MDs are not scientists. Also by that standard anyone who is not an epidemiologist is not allowed to talk about COVID-19 regardless of what claims they make. He is certainly allowed to talk about theories regarding the differences in infection rates. Furthermore, do we have any scientists saying his theory was fringe vs one that was possible but didn't turn out be true? I'm not sure that any of that matters since the bigger issues were DUE and IMPARTIAL. The degree to which the theory he was articulating (it is not clear he was the inventor of the idea vs it was shared with him) was or was not fringe at the time is less important so long as we use impartial tone when describing it. Springee (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Springee, "emeritus" implies retired. And I don't care overmuch whether you agree or not: this is a quesiton of medicine and science and is properly the remit of those professional communities, not unqualified political pundits. Guy (help!) 22:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Fringe author. Doug Weller talk 12:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

We could use some extra eyes on this article, Subhash Kak, specifically this new user and this WP:PA connected to it. Heiro 02:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Terje Gerotti Simonsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

BLP of a Norwegian parapsychologist philosopher and author of a book. Notable? Article created and curated by a single WP:SPA. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

UNsure, as I have no idea about those sources, but I think an AFD might be a good idea.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Note the creator of the article has now admitted a COI.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I have AFD'd it, but given the massive COI wonder if CSD might be better.Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Given only two possible indy RS sources, they're not quite enough to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC. Unless other indy RS sources arise, I'd say it's WP:TOOSOON for this bio. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Please note that there are two books. And that there are independent reviews, and also listing in a reasearch bibliography in another field of his work. Bw --Orland (talk) 10:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments invited. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

fixed, attempt to insert a fringe claim by using one unrelated reliable source in combination with unpublished paper. fiveby(zero) 21:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The user @Smeagol 17: undid my edit my edit in Putinism ideology section. He stated: "Did you read the obscurantism article? Also, тщ citation for the diagram." All the sources about obscurandism being a direct translation of the Russian word Russian: мракобесие, romanized: mrakovesiye had been provided both in the edit and chart sources. Tintin-tintine (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, someone should look on your creation in this section. Also, do you think that мракобесие is an appopriate term for an encyclopedic article? Replacing it with obscurantism will not help. Smeagol 17 (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, obscurantism as a quote is absolutely appropriate in Wikipedia. Moreover, my quote about Judo was about "respect" in my statement, not about Ilyin's philosophy (NY Books quote). The word obscurantism is absolutely scientific as Putin is one of the few people who sincerely think Fascism is efficient. I mean, it's common knowledge the mass repression creates stress and stress harms the productivity of the population in general. And Mr. Putin is happy to write about "state-forming nation" and God in the Constitution (hi, beloved future sainthood by ROC), just to nullify his terms, and quotes Hitler's statement about using opportunities to divide Russia. That's a definition of obscurantism. His statements about "all the contemporary cultures" quoting Matvienko's statement about "three whales" (Matvienko was also educated according to Kabalevsky system) just displays his lack of interest in anything Soviet. I didn't add my IMHO point of view about Judo-lover Putin despising the Soviets as they're the losers, first and foremost. Putin's fascism is obscurantist logic in its clearest, and it goes like that:

• if Revolution didn't occur,
• then Hitler wouldn't kill so many Russians, and
• USSR (with Putin as its team member) wouldn't lose the Cold War to America =>
  • Those wrong-praising God bastards, the Communists, are to blame for USSR's loss in a Cold War, because with God, Russia wouldn't lose
  • Tsarism should be resurrected, in its pre-1917 obscurantist form, and defended by any means.

Putin was described as both Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini. My edits just about him following the ideological footsteps of Nicholas II, cleary and explicitly obscurantic. Russia is a high-context culture, unlike the majority of the English-speaking world. I, mean, even if I prove with mathematical clarity the fact Putin really is an obscurantist, and that's why he's Nazi admirer, using Pareto effect 80/20, for example, where the most productive members of society will decrease their productivity because of the new Constitution, it won't mean anything. Putin fakes/cosplays Nicholas II until he makes it (with the new Constitution, uniting all the three powers in his hands). There's nothing judgemental about it because, in the Russian context, obscurantist ideology is just a traditional value.

As a matter of "good news" (I'm not referencing to the Gospel), he English-speaking world can finally relax, as Russia will never recover from the (comparative) shame of the official state Obscurantism in Constitution: Hitler's (and West's) dreams come true, and Russians have voted to be forever slaves (of God and Putin, as God's #1 servant soot to be sainted). Putin has inherited from the USSR a developed Kabalevsky philosophy, effective brain-inspiring classical music education in general schools, and additional 7-year education in music schools, all of that well-prepared and effective in creating competitive human beings with high morality and loyalty towards the state. As Richard Wagner said, "I believe in God, Mozart, and Beethoven". But now, Putin wanted to glorify himself as a saint, and with future students learning St. Putin during "Law of God" lessons. When you have something that's working and something that just sounds flattering (the word "PRAVoSLAVie" - "Orthodox") is really a path of someone who is sincere in his obscurantism, no matter what the prize. No offense. There's just no better word than "obscurantism" for that ideology. Maybe you can find another word, I don't mind. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. This, maybe too emotionally, forgive me, the answer is just my, non-humanitarian, point of view. The article is WP:NEUTRAL, as it has all the sources and quotes. For sure, some people can even argue if fascism is obscurantist, if tall poppy syndrome is obscurantist (if you kill all the gays and oppress minorities, the others won't receive their "power", like in Highlander), and so on. But Putin's sure about tall-poppy method of opponents destruction as it's just his Judo's Tao. He considers it pretty fair, both in politics and sport. There's his direct quote about naming the opponents "Bandar-logs". Moreover, he's forced judo (sport) system in music schools, increasing the (his) Russian Orthodox Church's competitor's stress, while the music teacher's salary is officially beyond the living wage, and they're not just the usual teachers - they studied additionally to general school for 7 years and at least 4 years at College of Music and, many of them, 5 years at Conservatory. Putin's official cultural genocide of classical music teachers, all in the interest of the Russian Orthodox Church only. There're 3,000+ children music schools, just to inform you. And newly created National Guard of Russia 300,000 people who earn 4-times more without professional education at all, just for being friends with Putin, loving the Russian chanson and the 1994 song "Horse", and all that anti-intellectualist stuff. Now only about 22% of Russians say love classical music, it's all about the higher prestige "blatnyak" (songs of ex-prisoners), "pops" (still on Olivia Newton-John level because, unfortunately, Russia doesn't have blacks, black music, and the best musicians are classical, but the state still thinks it's for the people) and "rap" (because the state treats its citizens since the 1990s like it's the white gentlemen finally agreeing to govern those simple folk, stupid Commies).

Moreover, Putin has reverted Glinka's anthem to an obviously plagiarised "Pachelbel's Canon" harmonies, aka Aleksandrov's anthem. He didn't even understand it. Yes, the Soviet/Russian anthem is not Russian by origin, it's just a re-written German composer's Canon. Written for the wedding. With Aleksandrov using Stalin's lack of understanding of music history and music theory. It's "working", with goosebumps, because of that. Moreover, Putin has just said, "Nazism crashed the Soviet people". It's also very obscurantist phrase because of his own "state-forming nation" - German harmonies anthem, Rurik being Germanic king, Putin himself living in Germany for many years (and now forbidding foreign residency in Constitution and simultaneously nullifying his terms, as if it's about "the other humans"). In conclusion, the article indirectly states these points (as if it's from the pro-Putin point of view):

1. Putin is not Hitler because Putin really craves to be sainted;
2. Putin's Russia is not a real threat while Putin has power (see 1.)

That alone makes Putin's statement about "‘We would go to heaven, they would simply die’" a lot less offensive. So, the edits should stay and increase the productivity of the English speakers, by reducing their stress from Russia. Of course, the functional literacy and choice-supportive bias are always the case, but I don't want the West to bomb Russia because Putin behaves (and now even speaks) exactly like Hitler. It's not that obvious to the Western readers as they really might think Putin is like a Satan Hitler but only more Oriental. Hitler was also pretty stupid because slave labor is less productive (because slaves are also humans and have a lot of stress which decreases productivity), and I'm sure, a lot of German intellectuals knew that in 1933. Putin is a secretly proud student of Hitler (he perceives it as learning from Hitler's and Stalin's mistakes, I assume), not the follower. Once again, my edit was fully sourced. I'm fully aware of Wikipedia rules and don't include my original research. Just to share with the Wikipedia community, I'm writing this "nonsense" here, to prove my relative sanity stating the Putin's religious obscurantism should be called 'obscurantism', not just authoritarianism. Sorry for wanting to add this detail to my edit a little bit too enthusiastically. Tintin-tintine (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The above nigh-incomprehensible wall of text does not demonstrate that the attempted edits comply with either Wikipedia policies & procedures or with the sources. It is just argumentation and personal POV assertions. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs or advocate for positions or otherwise promote one's own viewpoint. Please also see the original research policy. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:03, 25

This is all very intresting, but how about you first publish this in a rs journal? Then we can include it here. Otherwise, your synthesis can not be published here. In regards to your contribution to Yeltsinism also. Smeagol 17 (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC) June 2020 (UTC)

It's based on multiple sources: the book "The New Nobility" (2010) reviewed by Radio Liberty[42], and the recent article by a well-known Russian journalist Ivan Davydov. Please, try to reconsider my edits. I live in Russia, and there's no chance for me to publish anything, apart from academia.com or smth like that. My writing English skills are very rusty now (5 years from IELTS Academic being Advanced), especially when in a rush. I apologize for making the desperate attempt to share something well-sourced and important in the English Wikipedia community. Enjoy yourself and I'll enjoy my death by the hands of either FSB or nuclear strike. No offense. Really no offense. I'm improving my German already. Again, no offense. Indeed, the cultural genocide of classical musicians in Russia is really not something the West should care about. It's too much to process, I guess. Sorry for making your POV look unsourced, according to even to the American source Levada Center with 22% of classical music lovers in Russia in 2019. Sorry for, probably, making your think I took it personally. Tintin-tintine (talk) 11:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

You can publish in Russian. If your position will dessiminate to the reliable sources in a prominent manner (not necessarily English ones), Wikipedia will include it. But Wikipedia is not a platform to publish original research. Also, your position will reach the ears of those you want it to reach much more reliably even if you just mail it to newspapers or post it in comment sections then if you try to add it here. Smeagol 17 (talk) 11:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

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

More eyes would be welcome on this article on a social media site popular with conspiracists and extremists. There have been some fairly persistent whitewashing attempts recently and some page watchers would be useful in keeping the article tied to reliable sources. Neutrality^talk 03:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

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

WP:SPA and sock edit-warring to remove mention of pseudoscience and criticism from the article. Claiming "defamation". - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Not sure where else to bring this, but recently this article Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar was edited to include "archaeologist" as one of his many professions (along with Spiritual Guru, Indian philosopher, yogi, social revolutionary, author, poet, composer, linguist, archaeologist, historian and scientist.) The article itself has no discussion of archaeology or his status as practicing the profession other than that mention in the lede. And then they were added to List of archaeologists at some point with a dubious cite, I'm pretty sure this person does no qualify as an archaeologist by any meaningful definition of the word, and the cite failed WP:RS. Any thoughts? This seems like a religious teacher whose faithful followers are trying to add qualifications to. Heiro 05:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

One of the citations for his list of "professions" includes the phone number and address of an Ashram...I just deleted it and some of the accompanying occupational claims. JoelleJay (talk) 05:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. That's the same link that was used as a source at L of A, which I removed the entire entry from. I was hoping someone more knowledgeable about the person was about, so I didn't have to wade through that morass of a lede. Heiro 05:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

And they have since restored most of it. If anyone else wants to check their "references" feel free, I don't have time right now to explain to them why ashrams and primary sources from his movements promotional website probably fail WP:RS. This has time suck edit war written all over it (User talk:Heironymous Rowe#Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar :"I want to add two more "archaeologist" and "historian". Reference no. 5 (in Bengali).").Heiro 05:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The article also claims that chakras are science... --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• I hate the way people include every single thing that a person has ever done as the lead. "X is an entrepreneur, motivational speaker (source: once gave a motivational speech) and author(source: wrote an autobiography). We need WP:ALLOFTHETHINGS to clarify that only the main things should go in the lead. Guy (help!) 12:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

My god, this is terrible. I started weeding, but there is a lot to do. Related:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law of social cycle.

jps (talk) 11:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Maybe someone else can figure out what to do with this? Progressive Utilization Theory. jps (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• And this? Neohumanism. jps (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

ජපස, reminds me of the Bejan cult and "constructal law". Guy (help!) 12:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Finally, the Ananda Marga seems to be the best in this walled garden. Maybe we should start there to get better sourcing. Whew! jps (talk) 12:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The Sarkarverse has been a very old issue here, going all the way back to archive 3. It has been pruned back over and over, subjected to AfDs, the lot. It is an endless time sink. Mangoe (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• There is currently this Talk discussion on the Sarkar page. Hopefully reading the linked policies will inform the (good-faith) new editor what kinds of sources we require, since they seem to struggle with identifying reliability. Hopefully they will change the problematic refs I pointed out, as they seemed receptive and amenable enough to our request for secondary sources. JoelleJay (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm all for extending good faith, but this looks to me like there is some sort of coordinated campaign. jps (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm echoing another post above in that this article badly needs more involvement from individuals familiar with dealing with fringe topics. It seems not a day goes by without an attempt to scrub the article of:

• Where the new religious movement is based (a compound in Deerpark, New York)
• Its political involvement (Falun Gong is the source of both The Epoch Times, Shen Yun, and a variety of other far-right, pro-Trump, and pseudoscience-spreading organizations
• Its status as a new religious movement (it was founded in the early 1990s by Li Hongzhi).

In all my years of editing on Wikipedia on topics of pseudoscience and fringe, I don't think I've seen a clearer or more aggressive example of a concerted and repeated effort to scrub an article. The article swarms with accounts who aggressively strip the article of any of this data, while emphasizing and parroting the group's preferred narratives. It's not good. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

How is it that Scientology doesn't often appear here? Is there something that can be done to the Falun Gong article that the Scientology-related articles enjoy? GPinkerton (talk) 01:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

That's a really good question. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

See Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia. It took attention from the news media and an arbcom case. - MrOllie (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Very interesting. There's clearly a deep and serious problem here that has been going on for a number of years, and there are parallels to that situation, but there appears to be a significant difference in that there are no shortage of reliable sources on this topic—they're just being removed again and again in scrubbing waves. Are there really no internal processes to consult to keep the article from constant scrubbing? :bloodofox: (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's now protected at indef ECP as of 3 days ago. That may help a bit, but not much. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Now on my watch list. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

A discussion about Eben Alexander (author) is at the BLP Noticeboards. [43] I would like experts evaluating fringe sciences to review and contribute to the discussion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

This has also been on the NPOV and RS noticeboards, so sorry if there's some redundacy by posting it here. There's been a large amount of discussion on the talk page of the Mustang article about whether a footnote should be included about the fringe theory that horses were present in America during the Holocene prior to the arrival of Columbus. It is well known that equines (including apparently the modern horse, which has recently been discussed at length on the talk page) were native to the americas until their extinction 10-12,000 years ago. According to the anecdotes of one user, these theories have repeatedly come up in Facebook discussions, and are covered on pro-Mustang websites like protectmustangs.org.

Much of this revolves around The Aboriginal North American Horse a statement apparently given by ethnohistorian Dr. Claire Henderson (who I can find nothing about) of Laval Universirty in 1991 in response to a North Dakota bill. The statement appears to be legitimate as it recieved coverage at the time in this Chicago Tribune article. The statement primarly relies on oral accounts essentially saying "we've always had horses", see also this story in Yes! Magazine [44]. Obviously there are also ties in with the claims that horses and chariots were present in America in the Book of Mormon, and the theory has recieved coverage on that basis from LDS affiliated sources, see [45]. The dispute is over whether there has been enough coverage of the theory in reliable sources in order for it to pass WP:ONEWAY and be notable enough for inclusion, your input at the talk page discussion would be appreciated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

And just a comment before anyone adds to the discussion: Everyone at the article talkpage AGREES that it's a fringe theory, no dispute there. The question is if we include it in the article in a small endnote or not. If we don't include the endnote, then we are discussing whether to note it in a talkpage FAQ so we don't constantly have to revisit the issue. There's not a lot of traffic at this article, but we do get the occasional driveby who tries to raise the issue. As for the discussions mentioned above, they are RS here and NPOV here. Montanabw^(talk) 21:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Tiresome this is being shopped around everywhere. Basic question: what are the secondary, independent sources in play for this fringe theory? Alexbrn (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. I think Hemi pretty much listed what there is in his post above as far as third party discussion. Everything else is just out there on various discussion forums. This is basically a discussion of how to best deter drive-by drama in the future. Montanabw^(talk) 22:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Then it looks like there is no substantial coverage of this fringe theory, and it should be omitted from the article. What goes in the Talk page FAQ doesn't really matter - knock yourselves out! Alexbrn (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Re: WP:ONEWAY: If you can find a reliable source about mustangs (not about ethnohistory, mind you) that mentions this fringe theory, then it's okay to mention it. If you cannot, then don't mention it. One the other hand, it's perfectly fine for articles on criticism of the book of mormon to link to the mustang article and have it basically say that, no, mustangs were not in North America prior to the Columbian Exchange. I think that's fairly straightfoward. jps (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

McKenzie method (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Science, or pseudoscience? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

It's come up here before.[46] I think it's slightly fringe through its links to Chiropractic,[47] but is otherwise just a.n. other branded form of exercise therapy with fairly lukewarm evidential support. Whatever the case, the article has certainly seen some ... unusual levels of activity in recent weeks. Alexbrn (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, these two pages...

• McKenzie method (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Williams Flexion Exercises (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

...are somewhere in the range of alt-medicine, blatant advertising, and/or howto manuals. I am inclined to nuke most of what is there and leave much shorter and more encyclopedic claims. Comments? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd agree there's much undue "how-to" material for McKenzie method (haven't examined the other one!) Alexbrn (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I just edited it. Please place it on your watchlist for a few days; the advocates are sure to object to an edit=t that could have an effect on their income. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems a few days don't go by that someone isn't pointing me to the latest thing our co-founder said. Some horrific conspiracy theory about "COVID-19 hysteria" or the "deep state" or anti-vax or climate change or RT of some ultra-nationalist troll... and he gets some quasi-mainstream attention for it because he's "Wikipedia co-founder". See for example this Fox News piece which picked up his recent blog post. The gist is that NPOV should mean false balance in political articles and framing positions that have overwhelming scientific consensus as "opinions" that should be "balanced" in order to be neutral.

Just look through the twitter stream...

Not sure if this is the best place to start this discussion, but is it time for the community to put out a statement disavowing Larry Sanger as a spokesperson for Wikipedia and/or anything Wikipedia stands for? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

It's sad to see but it does at least mean the Larry Sanger card, often played by WP:PROFRINGE editors, is now very obviously not in the least bit persuasive. The "community" shouldn't be in the business of making public statements, but speaks through its article writing work: I trust the BLP for Sanger treats his views in a properly NPOV fashion? Alexbrn (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

We send statements to the WMF fairly regularly these days, it seems. But maybe "statement" is the wrong way to frame it. The idea is to contextualize, for journalists or anyone else that would cite him regarding post-2002 Wikipedia, just how far apart he is from Wikipedia. The issue is that people look to him as Wikipedia (or at least as an authority about what the policies should be), being the co-founder, and thus it's news if the community has taken his vision and turned it into something full of bias and censorship (or whatever). It takes more work than most people are going to put in to actually understand Wikipedia's rules and why they work better than what Larry suggests should be the case. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, you will never persuade the cofounderite cabal to sign up for this. Guy (help!) 12:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Yet another cabal nobody invited me to join... :( I don't even know what that one is. The Jimbo critics? I'm not proposing doing anything that would try to take credit away from anything Larry did while he was with Wikipedia (or even really getting into that). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, those who obsessively monitor for any mention of Jimbo as founder and change it to co-founder. Guy (help!) 09:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

"We, the undersigned volunteer editors of Wikipedia, point the interested reader to the fact that Larry Sanger left Wikipedia in 2002, called it "broken beyond repair" in 2007, and founded an attempt at a competitor that became a haven for snake-oil salesmen before vanishing into the mists of time. Thank you for your attention and have a blessed day." XOR'easter (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

There was a superb summary of Sanger's history here left as a comment on jimbotalk earlier this year. AS a wikipedia expert, I cannot find it now, but it's fresh perspective made me laugh out loud. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 18:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Although I'm aware of the notability I never considered that his statements have any authority on what Wikipedia or its content and policies should be. In the case where his opinions are echoed everywhere on Wikipedia, the many undue instances should probably remain constrained to the criticism of Wikipedia article... As for people mentioning his views as arguments in POV discussions, it can indeed also be dismissed, where the focus should be on relevant sources that matter for the particular topic/article instead. Not necessarily because it's Sanger, it's the same for Wales afterall... Similarly, when journalists mention Sanger's opinions, is the particular event relevant for the article? I suppose that it would be possible to release a community statement to the press reminding the media and the public of such facts about Wikipedia... Maybe it has been done before? —PaleoNeonate – 08:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd be happy to write a statement, but I'm not sure the community would sign on. "Dear journalists: Every day, we are grateful for your work. We depend upon your "first draft of history", and we could not succeed in our effort to write helpful reference material without your adherence to the high standards of your profession. From one cadre of wordsmiths hoping to serve the public good to another, we salute you. Meanwhile, Larry Sanger would hear a doctor saying "don't drink bleach" and reply "that's just your opinion, man". Good night, and good luck." XOR'easter (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

"It is against our policy to indulge in speculation that Larry Sanger has been desperately grasping for relevance since the year of Super Troopers, Star Trek: Nemesis, and Blade II. However, if you make that comparison, we are allowed to report that he has, according to reliable sources, been trying to ice-skate uphill." XOR'easter (talk) 06:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

"We believe that Mr. Sanger's proposal to turn Wikipedia into a hybrid between Facebook, a YouTube comment section and the men's room in a gas station just off I-40 should be considered with all the respect it deserves." XOR'easter (talk) 07:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, that twitter feed actually made my head hurt. He's three tweets away from promoting QANON conspiracies. Glen 07:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I just looked, because apparently life wasn't bad enough already, and I saw that on the 24th he declared that the current multifaceted disaster in America is exactly what you'd want If you ran the Deep State and Trump's men were closing in. That's not even three tweets away from QANON. XOR'easter (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

This just in: the men's room in the gas station just off I-40 demands an apology for being compared to Mr. Sanger. It should be noted that the gas station has never retweeted Dinesh D'Souza. (Source: Larry Sanger's Twitter feed, Jun 27.) More breaking news as it happens. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

"Something I haven't mentioned yet is Qanon. What's my take? I don't know. I'm not a spy or a decoder. If you can mine that information source for real evidence, more power to you. Telling *most* people to go straight to the 'Q drops' is pretty obviously a failing strategy." --Larry.[48]

I know that this insider baseball is juicy and all, but is there anything here we can use to improve articlespace? Until there is some third-party notice of increasingly unhinged Twitterpathy, I think our hands are tied. jps (talk) 12:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I looked, and found nothing. A few right-wing conspiracy sites have made approving comments. It seems that most legitimate publications don't care what he thinks. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits about what appear to be fringe linguistics need attention. Doug Weller talk 15:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

In looking at near-death studies for the above i ran across Sofia University (California), California Institute of Integral Studies (Integral Yoga) and their journals: Journal of Transpersonal Psychology and International Journal of Transpersonal Studies which inform us that transpersonal psychology and the transpersonal movement have been embraced by other fields to form transpersonal disciplines such as transpersonal anthropology, transpersonal sociology, transpersonal ecology and transpersonal psychiatry.

Psychology and psychiatry are lost causes, but what's the approach for use of these "journals" in a sprawl into other fields? fiveby(zero) 14:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, this is all leftovers from Eslaen woo. It's pretty moribund these days. Compare to Integral theory (Ken Wilber). Weeding of this is always appreciated as is contextualization. jps (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• I noticed that a recent AfD in the garden suffered from failure to thrive. So I guess we'll restart it: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transpersonal sociology (2nd nomination). jps (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• While we're at it: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transpersonal ecology. jps (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  Cool, thanks. Any idea what to do with those journals? I've never seen a guideline for what's considered an "academic journal", but seems like something published by a non-accredited institution shouldn't really make the cut as a reliable source. fiveby(zero) 22:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  I think the closest thing is WP:NJOURNALS, which isn't exactly what you're asking for and isn't entirely well-established either (it doesn't get invoked often enough to attract the kind of debates that give a solid consensus). XOR'easter (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

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

This group defends the scientific consensus about GMOs. There's been complaining on the talk page, some of it on dubious grounds, that the article doesn't say enough about funding from Monsanto, and other matters. But, to be fair, the article does seem to have legitimate flaws (a lack of secondary sources especially), and maybe it is too favorable to the group. Anyway, editors experienced in treating GMO-related topics in a balanced way are needed to weigh in on Talk, decide what to do with the tag, and make any other edits you see fit. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I chimed in on the GMO stuff, which largely looks like there aren't any major issues with. The talk page has kind of devolved into a WP:FORUM on other things like race, anti-semitism, etc. that aren't really focusing on specific content right now. Tag was removed for that reason, but immediately edit-warred back in. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The issue that's been raised with the article Genetic Literacy Project is whether it lacks balance, and is essentially a promotional piece for an organization that, despite its motto of "science not ideology", leans sharply to the right -- for example, publishing the pseudoscience of the white supremacist and anti-semite Kevin MacDonald. The GLP has also been criticized for getting undisclosed funding from Monsanto, which is a conflict of interest issue. Please see the talk page [49] for details. NightHeron (talk) 22:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Where the "undisclosed funding from Monsanto" is itself a WP:FRINGE claim. The article doesn't even claim that though, so no one should have claimed that was a focus. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, neither GMO nor allegation of undisclosed Monsanto connections are the focus. The focus of the talk-page discussion is the promotional nature and lack of balance in the article, as if its slogan "science not ideology" were a correct description of the organization. NightHeron (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, then where are the sources criticizing the organization on these grounds? If there are none, then there is nothing we can do about it. See WP:RGW. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Here's a source: [50] containing an article (in English translation) from Le Monde that criticizes the GLP for its role in attacking the WHO-affiliated International Agency for Research on Cancer for listing glyphosate as a carcinogen. The article calls the GLP a well-known propaganda website. NightHeron (talk) 01:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

NightHeron, IARC classifies everything as a carcinogen though. Guy (help!) 09:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

That was a slog. Yeah, the French have been rather, y'know, French about their distaste for anything GMO/Monsanto related. But this article does not strike me as worthy of being award-winning. Almost no effort goes into looking into, y'know, the actual science of the claims. I think the author simply does not have the chops to do so and there is a culture of expertise deference that talks more about the process of debate than the substance. The last section is particularly telling. Insinuating that a riposte by more-or-less independent experts was being coached by the nefarious hands of Monsanto is... well... par for the course, I guess. So why did they win the prize? Well, they were going after Monsanto which subsequently was acquired by Bayer and perhaps that seemed profound? I don't know. What seems obvious to me, however, is that this article doesn't have much more than attempts at skullduggery and intrigue that seem to not go very far. jps (talk) 04:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

For the record, NightHeron's source was also addressed further at the talk page discussion. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Has WP:FTN ever declared any criticism of Monsanto to be fringe? Or anything the IACR says to be fringe? Or anything the French believe about product safety to be fringe? Is it the role of this noticeboard to decide whether or not an investigative series of articles in Le Monde deserved the award it got?

In response to my citing the Le Monde source here and at the talk-page, a substantive discussion of the issue started on the talk-page, so there's no need to continue this here. NightHeron (talk) 10:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Note that it is settled that the scientific consensus is that GMOs are safe, and there is agreed text[51] that should be used when this matter is aired in articles. The idea that GMOs are not safe is fringe. Alexbrn (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Criticism of Monsanto often veered (and continues to veer in spite of the company being absorbed into Bayer) into a kind of obsessiveness from which it was generally hard to find substantive argument beyond the standard ones we all know. As with any large conglomerate, there are obvious criticisms to be had... generally involving problems in corporate agriculture in general. But singling out Monsanto would be rather like singling out Chevron for criticism while ignoring Exxon-Mobil, Lukoil, Total, and Shell. It's just weird. WP:REDFLAG is something that we tend to take seriously. jps (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Grover Furr (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

He is now "known for his works on the history of the Soviet Union". I don't want to revert again. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh right: the last IP called me a "lib" for my last revert. I had thought it means "non-Nazi". But it seems the word can also mean "non-Stalinist". You never stop learning. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Bicameralism (psychology) (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• Julian Jaynes (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I don't know much about this, but it seems the usual fringe janitors have not been there a lot. The Bicameralism Talk page has pretty old complaints about being "written from a severely pro-Bicameralism bias", but that may not be a current problem. Maybe a bit of patrolling by psychologists is in order.

On Talk:Julian Jaynes, User:PaleoNeonate recently said that the criticism section "is more about refuting criticism than presenting it..." --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

There's a content dispute at Washington Examiner over whether to include text that rebuts a "Climategate has exposed climate science to be a sham" op-ed, even if the rebuttal does not specifically respond to the Washington Examiner.[52] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Ayurveda#Tooth Fairy Science --Guy Macon (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

A non-regsitered, IP hopping user, with his own selected theories and confirmation bias wants to add a Turkic dyansty on the template for Pashtuns. CrashLandingNew (talk) 13:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The Ayurveda article could probably use a look, as there seems to be a few proponents trying to remove "pseudoscience" from the lead sentence, despite being (as far as I can tell, based on the available evidence) an accurate label. --tronvillain (talk) 05:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I just find it quite hard to get past the fact that one of the (good) academics writing about Ayurveda and pseudoscience is named Johannes Quack. Alexbrn (talk) 07:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

For years the Ayurveda article suffered from a certain admin using discretionary sanctions to put his finger on the scale for quacks. That admin is now retired and defrocked. I encourage a full review of the article to ensure that it complies with FRINGE, NPOV, RSN, etc. 71.234.45.38 (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

There is a wider context too here, that the India govt. is apparently trying to push Ayurveda globally as a form of "soft power".[53] The fact that a Google search shows Wikipedia high up saying "Ayurveda is a pseudoscientific system of medicine ..." won't help with that goal, so motivated editing at some point would not be unexpected. Alexbrn (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah, let's keep this one properly labeled, at least until the would-be "Wikipedia Foundation", under influence from its affiliates, forces us to center indigenous ways of knowing. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Well there's certainly some serious push-back underway already, even without help from our beneficent overlords at the WMF ... Alexbrn (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Before we get all self-congratulatory here, I would argue that centering indigenous ways of knowing is a laudable goal and, interestingly, would likely help us with the Ayurveda article which is not based on such. Ayurveda claims today are so far removed from any centering on an indigenous practitioner that it is just plain misattribution to think that this is what it represents. Rather, within India at least, it is an enterprise propped up by nationalism on the one hand and a lack of access to modern medical care and education on the other. jps (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Why does that sound familiar? Alexbrn (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
      • I was just about to make that same comparison. XOR'easter (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Exactly. jps (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    • C'mon, jps, even RationalWiki explains that "other ways of knowing" is code for pseudoscience. Do you really think that actual centering on an indigenous practitioner would not mean giving equal validity to superstition and science? I am all for fairly representing indigenous cultures in the encyclopedia, but one can favor doing that and at the same time see that we should not give woo a free pass as truth no matter what culture it comes from. How would one "center indigenous ways of knowing" without treating mythology and superstition as equal to "Western" science, and de-emphasizing the latter, and in all subjects? That may seem absurd, but there are political extremists on all sides out there, not to mention people with a financial stake in distorting our coverage (like Ayurvedic practitioners), and any attempt to bring in extreme cultural relativism in a Trojan horse claiming to just be about marginalized communities needs to be opposed. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
      • This is not relevant to this discussion, but I'll give you an example from my own field. There are Inuit elders who were filmed commenting that the position of sunrise in the summer had changed since they were a child. Some less-than-intelligent filmmakers surmised that this was evidence that the Earth's axis was shifting. Those less-than-intelligent filmmakers were obviously wrong, but the elders, it turns out, seem to have been right. We looked at temperature records from the Arctic to determine that the reported distortion in sunrise position matched just about what would be expected from the lower index of refraction due to the increasing temperature. The drastically warmer temperature resulted in a shift of a few degrees on the horizon -- and that is all it takes for the Sun to shift from hill A to hill B in its rising. This isn't about Trojan horses and cultural relativism. This is about respecting sincere investigation of what indigenous people are saying and have said after a long history of silencing those voices. jps (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
        • That's nice, but doesn't address when indigenous ideas are contradicted by science. As in creation myths, or, again, medicine. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
          • Again, we're far afield, but there really is a difference between criticizing an individual advocate who takes an explicitly anti-science position such Vine Deloria and positing an entire set of "indigenous ideas" that are contradicted by science such as what Wikipedia used to do with American Indian creationism. I had some great conversations with the scholars of Native American mythology that helped clarify this for me. It's why Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Indian creationism happened, e.g. jps (talk) 03:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

And now another admin is poking his nose in. The page was a trainwreck while John involved himself in mucking it up, and now Ivan is trying to follow John's truly awful example and set things back again. What is ironic is that I was already discussing a return to normal discretionary sanctions for the page with an admin -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 20:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Eh.... it's worth getting this right. Let's just build the consensus around a version that is best rather than complaining about Ivan. jps (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
• I see Faith healing too is called pseudoscience, tho not mentioned til paragraph four. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

To be fair to what happened at that article, it was a challenge to get that language even in the article despite strong sourcing. It ran into many of the same issues I see here with attempts to middle the pseudoscience language. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Faith healing is a different sort of pseudoscience in comparison to Ayurveda in that almost all Ayurveda boosters I have read claim that there is a scientific basis to their system. In comparison, many if not most contemporary champions of faith healing claim their abilities are magic and not explainable scientifically. In the past, there were more faith healers arguing that they were practicing science (Christian Science even!), but after being browbeaten for more than a century and a half, that kind of rhetoric has fallen by the wayside. jps (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Can someone take a closer look at Orang Pendek? I removed some obvious offenders—the usual cryptozoology stuff presented as science–but I don't have the time on hand to take a deep dive. I presume there's some kind of tradition here, and that it may stem from folklore in the region, but the challenge is cutting through the fringe theories and getting to it. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm also having a hard time finding a single WP:RS-compliant source on this. Much of the article was apparently material from a book by Benedict Allen, a travel writer. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

This appears to fail GNG. Perhaps an AfD is in order? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The wikt:orangs are really awful, crypto people conflate different unrelated stories. Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_68#Orang_Pendek fiveby(zero) 12:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

My favorite orang is orang minyak. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, yet to find any evidence that predates the 1958 movies. fiveby(zero) 19:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

A burglar and maybe copycats inspire movies and sickos molesting girls now urban legend. I hate this noticeboard. fiveby(zero) 20:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

And then there's Orang bunian. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Fringe editors not already aware should be interested in the excellent Headbomb's useful tool, Unreliable/Predatory Source Detector (UPSD). When installed, it uses colours to give an at-a-glance indication of when dodgy sources are being used, drawing on the list at WP:CITEWATCH. Useful not only when reviewing articles, but during Talk page discussion. Highly recommended for editors working in the fringe topic space. Alexbrn (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

This is great! JoelleJay (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

There's a content dispute on the Lou Dobbs page about whether he can be called a "conspiracy theorist".[54] The body of the lead extensively documents Dobbs's conspiracy theory peddling, which includes but is not limited to birtherism, George Soros conspiracy theories and Deep State conspiracy theories. Can a person who promotes conspiracy theories not be described as a conspiracy theorist in Wiki voice? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Not really if RS do not no. After all you are promoting them right here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a lot of Fox personalities regularly promote a conspiracy theory or two in their shows. But we typically require multiple RS referring to someone as a "conspiracy theorist" to identify them that way in a BLP. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

You can identify specific ideas as conspiracy theories, but to say someone is a "conspiracy theorist" requires reliable sources that identify the person for being notable as such. jps (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Rachel Maddow promulgated the "Russian Collusion" Conspiracy Theory. That doesn't make Rachel Maddow a "conspiracy theorist"! Sbelknap (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about. Do you mean this? - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

What I'm talking about is that Rachel Maddow devoted enormous airtime and energy to the Russian Collusion Conspiracy Theory. See this: https://theintercept.com/2017/04/12/msnbcs-rachel-maddow-sees-a-russia-connection-lurking-around-every-corner/ Sbelknap (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

So, Rachel Maddow made an error, repeated ad nauseam an obvious hoax, and damaged her credibility and that of her network. Despite this, it wouldn't be reasonable to call Rachel Maddow a "conspiracy theorist". Sbelknap (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you meant Russian Collusion Conspiracy Theory was a thing the encyclopedia should have an article on. So few sources have used that term, and none of them WP:RS. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest "promoter of conspiracy theories" here. BD2412 T 19:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I honestly can't see a difference in substance between the two phrasings, but if "promoter of conspiracy theories" would be more acceptable to people, I'd be fine with it. XOR'easter (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

To my eyes, conspiracy theorist implies that the person spends most of their time on the particular conspiracy. maybe invented it, and is notable because of it. Again to my eyes, promoter of conspiracy theories implies that they talk about a bunch of conspiracy theories, not just one, and maybe talk about other things. Like someone on Fox who spends part of their time pushing conspiracy theories but also spends time doing things like opposing free trade. This is all subjective, of course. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

In general, we don't label someone unless reliable sources apply that label or similarly describe the person in a manner that makes it a significant aspect of their notability. Only if we have 'neutral' reliable sources that refer to the subject as being 'well known for his propagation of conspiracy theories' or something similar (as they do, for example, with InfoWars) should we consider applying such a label to him in Wikipedia's voice. Otherwise we limit ourselves to describing noteworthy and verifiable instances, and/or appropriate quotes in the voices of the subject's critics, and let the reader reach their own conclusion. Agricolae (talk) 09:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

One extreme example is James H. Fetzer who has pushed a wide variety of CTs, and is generally known for this, although sympathizers typically want to emphasize his career as an academic. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Fetzer is definitely a conspiracy theorist. Lou Dobbs is more of an anti-immigrant Trump supporter who dabbles in conspiracy theories when it reinforces his ideological predilections. There is, I would argue, a difference. jps (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree with you on this distinction between James Fetzer and Lou Dobbs. Also relevant to WP:BLP, "conspiracy theorist" carries a pejorative sense, implying mental illness. The term is often used to discredit those with a political point of view with which one disagrees. Given the ideological bias evident on wikipedia, those who are left-leaning are much less likely to be labeled a conspiracy theorist than those who are right-leaning. For example, Rachel Maddow promoted the Russia Collusion Hoax for months, yet her wikipedia article does not describe her as a conspiracy theorist. In my view, neither Rachel Maddow nor Lou Dobbs are conspiracy theorists, though each do report and discuss conspiracy theories. Sbelknap (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, Maddow's uncritical acceptance of certain ideas that there was active collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives may or may not be a conspiracy theory in the proper sense. As is pointed out, we don't have a strong identification that such claims rise to the level of conspiracy theories. On the other hand, certain things Dobbs has promoted such as birtherism are absolutely conspiracy theories... no question. I don't think the pair are comparable in the sense I would question any accusation of conspiracy theory affinity in Maddow's article while I think we haves some very strong sources indicating that Dobbs has such an affinity. jps (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories is an actual thing. Global warming conspiracy theory is an actual thing. Russia Collusion Hoax is not. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Certainly Dobbs spoke favorably about birtherism and yet no editor has yet managed to provide any RS that asserts that Lou Dobbs is a conspiracy theorist. Why do you suppose that is? Sbelknap (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Here's one I found, with others Grove, Lloyd (2009-09-07). "Lou Dobbs: From Business Journalist To Conspiracy Theorist Wingnut: What Happened?". HuffPost. Retrieved 2020-07-07.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link); Grove, Lloyd (2009-08-06). "What Happened to the Real Lou?". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 2020-07-07.((cite news)): CS1 maint: url-status (link); and Tom, Embury-Dennis (2019-11-14). "Trump associate spouts stream of wild conspiracy theories on Fox channel after impeachment hearing". The Independent. Retrieved 2020-07-07.((cite news)): CS1 maint: url-status (link) GPinkerton (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I found four sources that were willing to use the exact term [55][56][57][58], and then I got bored and stopped looking. Of these, the Washington Examiner is yellow-flagged at WP:RSP, but if one is worried about its partisanship, there's Media Matters on the other side of the spectrum saying the same thing [59]. XOR'easter (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I particularly like "resident conspiracy-theorist-in-chief"! GPinkerton (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I've added these in now. GPinkerton (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmos and History jps (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mormon Transhumanist Association jps (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I know that this has been discussed before on this noticeboard, so I thought I would post this here. There's been a new genetic study in Nature which pretty clearly shows that some eastern polynesian populations have genetic admixture from a northern South American population. I have added this to the Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories article, as a primary study, do my edits constitute WP:DUE weight? Kind regards, Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

There's also pretty strong evidence (genetic and linguistic) that potatoes made their way to Oceania before the Crusades. Still, even if I suspect that it's probably going to be mentioned in our grandchildren's history books, we really need a tertiary source to establish that it's mainstream (even if a minority position). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree, I didn't include the claim by the authors that the South American population colonised polynesia, which I thought was undue without further confirming archaeological evidence. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Buuut that does kinda go into an WP:OR reading of the text, which is why we generally avoid primary sources like isolated studies. This is why we need a tertiary source to show that there are a significant number of historians shrugging out a "maybe." Ian.thomson (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The study says that the other scenario (that polynesians contacted people in South America) can't be ruled out either, so I think I am justified in omitting it. Articles on the study in Science and National Geographic quote researchers uninvolved in the study who says it was more likely that the contact took place in South America, but they don't dispute the results of the genetic study. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

It's important to remember that Nature likes to make a splash and many Nature papers are later shown to be incorrect. That said, the genetic and linguistic evidence for connections between South America to Polynesia has been known (and even discussed in Wikipedia) for quite some time. jps (talk) 22:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, prestige of journals correlates with an increased number of retractions. I agree that the polynesian contact theory has become significantly less fringe over the past decade, I just remembered the chicken study, which I forgot was 6 years ago now. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Is this really "trans-oceanic"? It sounds more like ordinary infra-oceanic contact to me. It's decidedly not intercontinental. Also the phrase "analysing predominantly present-day individuals" blows the canoe of certainty quite out of the water. Where are the comparisons between remains from a thousand years ago? The article mentions three skeletal samples from pre-European contact times, (i.e. pre 18th century) but these and two other skeletal samples were examined in an 2017 paper that supported a pre-European American ancestry. Also the proper article's address (rather than the summary) is here. The History of Easter Island's science articles could use updating though. GPinkerton (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that your statement that it being based on present day individuals misunderstands how admixture works, as generations pass the chromosomes of DNA get progressively fragmented and re-arranged during Meiosis, which means that you can estimate when the admixture occured by the size of the fragments, the background Native American DNA is that was found is significantly fragmented, and clearly distinct from the more recent european contact, which are in more complete blocks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Here's another (this time open access) study in Cell which demonstrates this also based on living people, which found that Papuans have admixture from several different Denisovan populations at different times during the last 50,000 years Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I understand how it works, but the New Guinea example here is comparing living people with ancient remains. The Polynesian study is comparing living people with living people against references of other living people in Europe, Africa, and the Americas. GPinkerton (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Once again, while I still think this is (at worst) a solid "eh, why not," we need a tertiary source, not isolated studies. We need another encyclopedia, or a textbook, or at least a solid book from a university press or specialist press like Brill that includes at least one line describing the general idea of Polynesian-American exchanges as plausible. Once we have that, we could just move or copy the "Claims of Polynesian contact" section to its own article. I'm supposed to be writing progress reports on students and can't really go hunting for that right now. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

An Ip editor has added the authors interpretation that I omitted, diff adding:

The authors propose two likely explanations, the first that Polynesians from the Marquesas reached northern South America, interbreeding with the ancestors of today's Zimu people, then returned to the Marquesas from whence they disseminated to Rapa Nui, the second that northern South Americans reached the Marquesas and interbred at that locus, then dispersed to Rapa Nui.

Do people think that this addition is due weight? Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Removing the authors' own interpretation was rather gross original research on your part (and again, I'm pretty much in agreeance on you with the subject matter, I'm just pointing out WP procedural issues here). I'd remove "likely" but that's what the authors wrote so it needs to be included if that source is going to be cited at all. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree in retrospect that omitting the authors interpretation was a mistake, I just wanted to be cautious regarding the claims of a primary source. The proposal that a native american group managed to make it to the marquesas is dismissed by several uninvolved authors in articles covering the study, so I wanted to make sure that the claim was given due weight. I have included the objections to the hypothesis by other scholars in the section, so I think due weight is now satisfied. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Recent changes pushing a WP:GEVAL view for the existence of psychic powers need review. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Neville Lancelot Goddard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

New article written by a Victor CWT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who seems to be adding a lot of glossed WP:FRINGEBLPs to Wikipedia.

jps (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Page was deleted already in 2014 [60]. Article creator has tried to hide that by re-creating the article with his middle name included. Due to lack of decent sources, this is probably a speedy delete because of the consensus to delete previously. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neville Lancelot Goddard jps (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

More eyes needed at Talk:Genetic Literacy Project#Proposed sentence on allegations --Guy Macon (talk) 01:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Hilton Hotema article submitted for deletion. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I commented on the AfD. Interesting information at [ https://www.amazon.com/Hilton-Hotema/e/B00ITG2MVM ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Orya Maqbool Jan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Opposes the "Jewish Lobby" and is banned for it. Article jumps from NPOV to POV and back. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

On my watch list. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

More eyes are needed on the Jordan Peterson regarding how we should treat content about JP's health problems.[61] Currently, the text overwhelmingly cites his daughter, Mikhaila Peterson, about his health problems. She is a seller of unconventional food advice, and the text includes rather strange claims about JP's health problems (such as N-American doctors "refusing" to treat him for drug addiction and his health problems stemming from bad food intake). It feels very iffy for Wikipedia to basically be promoting her claims like this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah... at the very least we cannot claim he required/was refused/received Russian and Serbian "detoxification" from benzos. We're bordering on Scientology argumentation here. Benzos are physically addicting, no doubt, but their "toxicity" is quite another matter. Sheesh. jps (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Just to butt in: this is an excellent example of the utility of the Unreliable/Predatory Source Detector (UPSD) tool I mention above. Peterson's article lights up with dodgy sources. Sorry - normal service will now resume. Alexbrn (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Getting rid of toxic substances (like cyanide) in the body is only one of two standard meanings for the word "detoxification" (or "detox"). The other is weaning oneself off of a substance one is addicted to. See the article detoxification for more information. And to respond to the original claim: Mikhaila didn't say that North American doctors refused to treat his addiction, she said they refused to render him unconscious while he went "cold turkey", which is what she says the family wanted. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia is able to handle this. If there were some third-party WP:FRIND sources which we could point to which explained this game, that'd be one thing. But we certainly cannot just take Peterson's word about what is going on. "Detoxification" in the context of physical addiction is certainly a thing, but it is not at all clear that this is what they were doing. Not at all! jps (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why this is being discussed on the "fringe theories" noticeboard, by the way. Obviously, they could be making false statements, but the claims that Mikhaila (and now Jordan as well) are making don't seem that outlandish. Peterson found both staying on Klonopin, and getting off of Klonopin, physically intolerable, so they decided that he should be rendered unconscious while his body underwent a rapid detox - but North American doctors refused to do it because the process was too high-risk, so they went to Russia instead. What's the fringe part? Korny O'Near (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The fact that the Petersons seem to make up their claims about health as they go along is the problem. This isn't the first time they've done this, nor do I think it likely to be the last. jps (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Yup, see here. Currently the article seems to be an echo-chamber for the fringe views surrounding this "detox". Independent sourcing must be used, not the in-universe primary views of the family. Alexbrn (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I'd go so far as to say that there are WP:MEDRS issues with taking their statements at face value, which the section pretty much does, minor qualifications aside. XOR'easter (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I read that Vice article. None of the medical experts quoted there cast any doubt on Mikhaila's basic narrative, which is that the Peterson family wanted him to be rendered unconscious while his body detoxed, and that only Russian doctors were willing to do it. Instead, they disagree with tangential issues - whether the Russian treatment was a good idea, whether the North American care he got nearly killed him, and whether he was psychologically or just physically addicted to Klonopin. (None of these specific claims are found in the Jordan Peterson article, by the way.) So I don't believe there are any reliable sources disputing Mikhaila's basic version of the events. Which doesn't mean it's true, but certainly there's no evidence that it's a fringe theory. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Whether the "body detoxed" makes any sense at all is also at issue here. No, we don't take the word of people who travel the world looking for the treatments they desire to describe the motivation or even functional outcomes of a given treatment. That's simply not how it's done here. The basic version of events is that he went to Russia to have medical stuff done to him that he could not figure out how to get done in North America. But anything beyond that... is skirting dangerously into making claims without evidence. jps (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Surely the point is that having to travel thousands of miles for medical treatment when treatment options are abundant on your home continent means that whatever and whysoever he travelled, the rationale was decidedly fringe, if we take the suggestion that not one hospital in North America (!) was able to offer the same care as that one in Russia. Given the daughter's fondness for fringe beliefs it's wiser to attribute comments to her prefaced with verbs like "claims" and "announced on YouTube" etc. Given the soapbox-parade that is these peoples' lives I think any discussion of their health and claims about it should be kept brief and non-comital. GPinkerton (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what we're arguing about here. The basic narrative is (I guess I have to repeat it again) that that the Peterson family wanted Jordan Peterson to be rendered unconscious while his body detoxed, and that only Russian doctors were willing to do it. No reliable sources are disputing that, and some have stated it affirmatively - though of course, ultimately the source is Mikhaila and Jordan. All of the rest seems irrelevant, like whether or not this was a good idea. jps - your personal views on detoxification seem irrelevant here also; sorry. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

"the Peterson family says the Peterson family wanted Jordan Peterson to be rendered unconscious while his body detoxed, and says that only doctors in Russia were willing to do it." I'd like to see this claim attached to their (or really her) opinion explicitly. GPinkerton (talk) 22:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? What does it mean to attach a claim to an opinion? Korny O'Near (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

See example text above. GPinkerton (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I fully agree, and that's actually what the article looked like, more or less, before this thread was created. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

How is that brief? GPinkerton (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not that brief. This doesn't seem like the place, though, to discuss which facts should be included and which shouldn't - that would be the Jordan Peterson talk page. I think we've established that the basic story of Peterson's recovery, accurate or not, has been covered in reliable sources, has not been disputed anywhere notable, and is fine as long as it's attributed. The only "fringe" stuff I've seen here is a few Wikipedia editors' personal views on detoxification. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

And why are Wikipedia editors' opinions less valid than Mikhaila Peterson? The article should not reproduce her (pseudo-)medical opinions as fact, irrespective of the way journalists have handled it. We don't need to puff their medical hypotheses. GPinkerton (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Valid or not, hers (the ones that have been quoted in the press) are notable, while theirs are not. But now I'm confused, because most of that "Health problems" section I linked to is not about Mikhaila's medical opinions at all. And the few medical opinions of hers included are attributed to her. So what's the actual problem? Korny O'Near (talk) 23:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

If they were really notable, they should be discussed under her article, but I doubt it. GPinkerton (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The only "fringe" stuff I've seen here is a few Wikipedia editors' personal views on detoxification. This should be good: what, exactly, is "fringe" and "personal" about these views, or is just a bit of kneejerk mirroring rhetoric? --Calton | Talk 00:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, one editor said that you can't detoxify from benzodiazepines, since benzodiazepines are not toxic, although they then seemed to backtrack from that. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, not what he said, but keep trying. --Calton | Talk 09:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Here's what the person wrote: "Benzos are physically addicting, no doubt, but their "toxicity" is quite another matter." Why do you think they wrote that? Korny O'Near (talk) 19:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Can we not, please? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think this whole section was a mistake, personally, but this last part is definitely irrelevant. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Why do you think they wrote that? In other words, no, that's not what they wrote but it's your attempt to spin it. --Calton | Talk 01:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Is "denier" an acceptable term or a meanie bully word for suppressing those poor dissenters? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Commented on the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Guy, have replied there. . . dave souza, talk 13:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• More eyes will be welcome. User:Eworrall initiated this discussion saying many climate skeptics believe "climate denier" is an attempt to link the concept of disputing the consensus to "holocaust denial", at the same time helpfully identifying himself on his talk page as "an author for Watts Up With That, a prominent climate skeptic website." The link goes to his WUWT blog post saying he "decided to perform an experiment", and describing his various edits. His post has been republished in Guest essay by Eric Worrall (12 July 2020). "Climate Wars: Try Removing the Word "Denier" from a Wikipedia Entry". CO2 Coalition., which like WUWT is known for promoting climate change denial. . . . dave souza, talk 13:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Bloodletting, and its talk page, might benefit from a few eyes on it. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Wow! Really? Has humanity learned nothing? GPinkerton (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

On my watch list. Might make a good addition to WP:YWAB. Does anyone have a suggestion for an article I should contrast it with? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe blood transfusions? People of a certain religion are taught that blood transfusions are harmful to uphold a Bible interpretation: Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions (especially this subheading and below). Crossroads ^-talk- 04:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Done. While I have stoutly opposed having WP:YWAB say that we are biased against religion (we are not) we certainly are biased against those who reject science for religious reasons. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

"Wali has made many fulfill predictions about Indian subcontinent, one which is considered future prediction is developed mainly in Pakistan, that Pakistan Army will occupy India." Needs all kinds of help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to be the editor's natural style. The parts in good English are copyright violations. I've redirected to Shah Nimatullah Wali. Bishonen | tålk 21:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC).

The article is at ANI as well. Bishonen | tålk 21:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC).

I'm not at all sure that these changes[62] are right.

Miller bases his ideas on his own language, eg "CORRECTION-CLAIMS of the FICTIONAL-ADVERB-VERB-USAGE with an OPERATIONAL-METHODS of the FICTIONAL-MODIFICATION-PARSE-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR.(8500-YEARS of the SYNTAX-GRAMMAR-MODIFICATIONS with every LANGUAGE)".[63] I've found a book that discusses his language.[64] He is no longer described as a tool and die maker although Politico describes him that way[65] as does the Sydney Morning Herald.[66]

The article doesn't mention his "postal court" which is described in the American Bar Association journal.[67]

Too busy today I think to work on it myself, if no one else is interested I'll try over the weekend. Doug Weller talk 11:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, ooh, what fun! I think you might call down a flock of howler monkeys if you try to add too much reality to that article though. Guy (help!) 17:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

How far do they have to travel?Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, don't know, but it takes a while because they refuse to travel internationally in case they are subject to admiralty law. Guy (help!) 13:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Ha. He writes like a reincarnation of Robert McElwaine, for those of you old enough to remember usenet. :) ~Anachronist (talk) 05:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, the classics. For future reference, this is the tax protester "capital letters" argument, which I have noted in the lede. BD2412 T 02:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Not a big deal, but could use a review. The guy is seriously fringe. Doug Weller talk 13:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I have verified at the elections.org.za website that the Ubuntu Party is currently a fully compliant registered political party. So that page can be ticked off as checked. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Here is an interesting website: Kill or cure? Help to make sense of the Daily Mail’s ongoing effort to classify every inanimate object into those that cause cancer and those that prevent it. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I think you doubled up the link. XOR'easter (talk) 23:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Oops! Fixed it. Note to self: next time smoke crack after editing Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Or those that simultaneously cause and prevent cancer. The Daily Mail Song. . . dave souza, talk 10:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I like that song. jps (talk) 12:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)