Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 85

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 80

←

Archive 83

Archive 84

Archive 85

Archive 86

Archive 87

→

Archive 90

The article in question was promoted to GA in 2019. A discussion to merge Bull and terrier into the Stafford article was proposed by Cavalryman on 2021-06-02, but went nowhere. I removed the merge tag from the article on 2022-01-24 but was reverted. I went to the merger discussion, and strongly opposed because the material the OP wants to add is based on anecdotal evidence or fringe theories that conflict with DNA evidence. It is "claimed" or "believed" that the Stafford descended from bull and terrier crosses, as did several other breeds of dogs - see Genomic Analyses Reveal the Influence of Geographic Origin, Migration, and Hybridization on Modern Dog Breed Development, dark blue in Figure 1 - Cladogram of 161 Domestic Dog Breeds. The bull and terrier was never a recognized breed; many combinations of terriers and mastiff or bully-type breeds were crossed to create dogs that would excel in that sport. The DNA further establishes that all of the bull and terrier crosses map to the terriers of Ireland and date to 1860-1870, and are undocumented crosses, during this era of breed creation (Lee, 1894). I support keeping the Bull and terrier article for historic reference, and perhaps expand it with DNA research. When the initial merger did not gain support, the OP tag-bombed the Stafford article, then proposed a rewrite, then added a NPOV tag, then opened yet another discussion on the article TP. The OP wants to make the bull and terrier cross appear to be a specific breed of dog that survived for some 150+/- years and that it is the Stafford. The UKC states Today's Bull Terrier is the direct descendant of the original bull-and-terrier crosses made in England... whereas The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a descendant of the Bull and Terrier crosses made in Great Britain in the late 1700's. It was given the name "Staffordshire" in reference to an area where it was very popular, to differentiate it from the other Bull and Terrier breeds. The DNA evidence, plus verifiable information from 3 official breed registries (AKC, TKC) & UKC, recognized kennel clubs and other experts all dispute the fringe theory that the bull and terrier is the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. So...what should we do with the fringe theories that have been published in dog books that are promoting anecdotal accounts and fringe theories that cause confusion and conflict with the official registries, multiple experts and DNA evidence? Atsme 💬 📧 06:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Response, instead of copying swathes of text here, I would urge readers to review what the vast majority of sources say about the subject at Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier#Article's neutrality. Cavalryman (talk) 07:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC).

Please keep requests succinct. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Propose this is closed as not fringe. -Roxy the dog. wooF 15:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Roxy, if it's not fringe, what is it? WP:Fringe: In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. The prevailing view would be that of the official breed registries, experts and reputable kennel clubs. Why wouldn't DNA prevail over a fringe theory? Atsme 💬 📧 16:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Because the views of some breed registries and kennel clubs, and one DNA "suggestion", is not the mainstream view that can be found in multiple expert reliable WP:SECONDARY sources. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. 182.239.146.186 (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Who else would be an expert on dog breeds? jp×g 23:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Generally, researchers, historians etc. The problem with kennel clubs and dog breeders is they are defacto commercial organisations with an agenda to make money. Which is largely why the AKC has been woefully inaccurate over the years, because the motivation was not 'is this factually correct' or 'is this in the interest of the breed'. Its in dog breeder's interests to claim whatever breed they have concocted is distinct because it therefore acquires value and saleability. Part of that process is registering with the KC (for the most part, some breed associations deliberately do not associate with the KC's because of their lax attitude to dog health) - the short version is that the KC and dog breeders are at best, an often unreliable primary source for what they claim. They are not a reliable secondary source for statements of fact in wiki-voice. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I've (mostly in the cat sphere) been making the point for a decade that fancier and other breed[er]-promotional organizations, including the KCs in the dog world, are not reliable secondary sources. They lack independence from the subjects (specific breeds and groups/types thereof). They are best used as: A) the best primary sources for exactly what a particular breed specification says and when it was published, when a breed was accepted by that specific organization, what recognition level (provisional, championship, etc.) the breed has with that organization, and other facts specific to the organization; and B) reasonable but not infallible primary sources for what breeders, where, were involved in establishing a modern breed (they can be fallible in this if they only mention members of their own organization, for example). It cannot be stressed enough how much utter bullshit (especially when it comes to breed history and alleged behavioral traits of a breed) is promulgated by breeders and organizations of breeders, including in the pages of major magazines and now websites in the pet trade. Every "breed profile" article and the like must be taken with entire blocks of salt. Nor are all the "breed encyclopedia" books out there reliable; most of them are weak tertiary sources at best, which cannibalize from each other shamelessly, and several of them have clearly accepted paid entries for alleged breeds that are not recognized by any major organization (plus the authors have an incentive to include entries for every supposed breed because it makes their book bigger and "more complete" than competing earlier publications).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: If true, this seems like a fairly clear example of a fringe theory to me (someone advancing a claim that isn't backed up by any reliable source or consensus). jp×g 23:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I seem to be much too parochial. ;) -Roxy the dog. wooF 23:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I only briefly popped into this discussion to make a comment (not a !vote), but noticed that there is a single editor contesting every "oppose" vote (and even non-voting comments) at length, which is usually a bad sign. BD2412 T 00:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment, I was hoping editors commenting here would click on the above link but it seems some have not. I am incredibly surprised by this as this as the op is an editor I normally respect greatly.

Neither of these last sources state anything that is inconsistent with the Bull and Terrier being an old name for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, in fact it is consistent. The genomic study's timeline is a couple decades out from what the sources say, understandable given historic genomics is an ever improving field. And yes, before the establishment of the first kennel club in 1873, there was no "bona-fide" dog breed as we know them today.

The notion that the Bull and Terrier is extinct was introduced to that article by an IP with this edit, some 12.5 years after the article was first written. It was cited to this webpage, which is clearly unreliable as it is the personal website of an enthusiast with no discernible subject matter expertise, but critically that webpage does not claim the Bull and Terrier is extinct.

No source, reliable or not, has been presented making the claim that the Bull and Terrier is extinct. But, multiple sources have been presented saying they were renamed Staffordshire Bull Terriers. Cavalryman (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC).

• I am also generally convinced by the sources listed. It would appear that it is a fringe view that the breed is extinct, when according the consensus of expert opinion, it was just renamed. Any article on Bull and Terrier (or the Staffie) that didnt explicitly mention the prevailing expert opinion on this would be willfully inaccurate. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Calvaryman's original research is impressive but it does not supercede expert opinion, mainstream official registries, and DNA evidence, all of which supports the fact that the bull and terrier is not a breed. But let's say the Bull and terrier is not extinct, and that it is a breed as what's being claimed - the obvious next question is why merge the article into Staffordshire Bull Terrier when there is no scientific evidence to support it? Why not keep Bull and terrier and improve it as a historic reference documenting the ancestry of the multiple breeds that developed from that cross into recognized purebreds over centuries of evolutionary breeding? See the lead of the Bull and terrier article, and the Bull Terrier article. The United Kennel Club (UKC) states that today's Bull Terrier is the direct descendant of the original bull-and-terrier crosses made in England, specifically to bait bulls and, later to fight in pits, whereas the (English) Staffordshire Bull Terrier, is described as ...a descendant of the Bull and Terrier crosses made in Great Britain in the late 1700's. It was given the name "Staffordshire" in reference to an area where it was very popular, to differentiate it from the other Bull and Terrier breeds. It is a separate purebred dog breed, not subject to BSL, whereas other bull and terrier types (now called pit bulls) are subject to those laws. Cavalryman's proposal to merge or add the fringe material he has proposed (some of which is already properly identified in the article as "claims") would not only provide misinformation (after several months of his failed attempt to get the merge done), it will cause confusion, or worse, wrongfully influence legislation that could cause this purebred dog great harm. The fringe that was published in books claiming the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the bull and terrier is straight-up misinformation, and as I stated, supported only by anecdotal evidence and fringe theories, not by mainstream expert opinions, DNA evidence, or multiple mainstream official breed registries that prove otherwise. Atsme 💬 📧 16:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Original research does not mean what you think it does. Providing a list of secondary sources and stating what they say is not 'original research' as ENWP defines it. Secondly the AKC has already been addressed above and on the talkpage. Do you have anything else to add? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• This strikes me as a classic case of “Experts don’t agree”. Per NPOV, when this occurs, present the reader with the different opinions and tell them who says what. Blueboar (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Blueboar, I would be very happy to present two sides of any debate, but the experts are in complete agreement. The unanimous consensus view of writers and kennel clubs is they are the same. We are down to debating some ambiguous language used by one kennel club (of six presented here) in an article about a different breed of dog. Cavalryman (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC).

Blueboar, I agree that this is a case of experts disagreeing. Research has confirmed that attempts to visually ID the breed of a dog with unknown parentage is often inaccurate. More recent research tells us experts rarely agree when using that method of ID. To quote the NCRC article: Over 90% of the dogs identified as having one or two specific breeds in their ancestry did not have their visually identified breeds as the predominant breed in their DNA analysis. I'm also of the mind that it is very important to consider the fact that the British Kennel Club (KC) was the first to officially recognize and accept the name Staffordshire Bull Terrier as a breed. To reiterate, "bull and terrier" never underwent that process and is not the name of a bonafide breed; rather, it was a label used when visually identifying mixed breed bulldogs/bulldog types and terriers/terrier types of the 19th century. In 1874, the KC published the first Kennel Club Stud Book that included Bull Terriers, a recognized breed resulting from foundation bull and terrier crosses that were documented in the stud book. Regarding the Stafford, KC states: Unfortunately for the historian tracing a nice straight line is not easy when examining the background of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier if only because it comes under quite a few names. They might be called Bull & Terriers in some journals and at other times the dogs are called Pit Dogs, maybe Staffordshire Terriers, half-bred dog, or simply come under the general umbrella of the Bull Terrier. Cavalryman wants to say in WikiVoice that the "bull and terrier" was renamed Staffordshire Bull Terrier and that is simply not supported - it's a fringe theory at best. Atsme 💬 📧 21:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Atsme, that quote you have introduced above is literally saying the Staffordshire Bull Terrier has been called by all of these names, including Bull and Terrier. That source corroborates these two are in fact one. Cavalryman (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Atsme, I urge you to drop this now. Above:

• Six independent secondary sources and now four kennel clubs have been shown to state categorically that the Bull and Terrier is an old name for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. A further four independent secondary sources and one kennel club have been shown to strongly endorse this view.
• Not one independent source has been provided that says anything contradictory, and no source has been found that even suggests the Bull and Terrier is extinct.
• The only argument you are providing is that a lone kennel club in a 64 word breed history of a different breed of dog uses some slightly ambiguous (but explainable) language about the ancestry of that different breed.

The mainstream view is the Bull and Terrier is an early name for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, it has been demonstrated here and on the article talk page. And no sources have been provided that articulate any meaningful counter-narrative. Please just drop this, I am dumbfounded by your continued opposition. Cavalryman (talk) 07:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC).

I'm frustrated that the sides in this debate haven't yet come to a consensus. So I'll review it the way as I see it, as a non-expert lay person on anything to do with dogs. I've learned a lot just from this and related discussions; this is my understanding at the moment.

First point to understand is the distinction between the concept of a dog type and a dog breed. I believe that understanding that distinction is crucial to resolving this debate. See Category:Dog types and Category:Dog breeds.

Second point is to note that on 16 December 2019 SMcCandlish MOVED Bull and Terrier to Bull and terrier over redirect, with edit summary: "MOS:LIFE (do not capitalize general types/groups of dogs, only standardized breeds)".

Up until the version of 19:43, 24 December 2017, the article was titled with the proper name Bull and Terrier and was about an alleged dog breed.

On 3 February 2018, an IP editor changed "breed of dog" to "an extinct type of dog". With an edit summary ("Adding content with quotations that support the aggregated content. And adding new images.") which didn't really communicate the significance and magnitude of that change. But it was this change that eventually led to the page move 22 months later.

For my third point, let's look closer at types and breeds. Bulldog type is a type of dog, of which the Bulldog breed is one of its members. Terrier is another type of dog, and bull-type terriers is a sub-type of Terrier. Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and American Staffordshire Terrier are all breeds of the bull-type terrier type. But what to make of the bull and terrier type of dog? If it's now extinct, that would be consistent with there being no extant dog breeds of that type. The article doesn't mention any extinct breeds, but that may be because when this type was extant back in the early to mid-1800s no breeds were ever fully developed and certified from this type. Bull-type terriers says the extinct bull and terrier is the common ancestor of all bull-type terriers.

I suppose it's possible that Bull and Terrier (in proper name form) is an alternative or previous name for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier bull-type terrier, but that old name for the extant bull-type terrier breed should not be confused with the extinct dog type. Apparently the half & half bull and terrier type is extinct and only the bull-type terriers remain. Even the Bull Terrier is a bull-type terrier and not a half & half. There is no Bull-Terrier or Bull–Terrier! – wbm1058 (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• If the sources are telling us (and they seem to be, in the majority of them) that "bull and terrier" is an early name for what is now Staffordshire Bull Terrier, then we should merge to that article. If they're mostly telling us that the phrase is a short-hand way of saying "bull[y]-type dogs mixed with terrier-type dogs" then we're dealing with a rather transitory/transitional mixed dog type (at most), and either this is not notable and should be deleted (mention isn't enough – in-depth coverage as a subject unto itself, in multiple, independent, reliable sources is required), or it is notable and the current article should stand (and not be capitalized, because it is not a standardized dog breed).

  I think what we have here is yet another case of "I found this term in a dog encyclopedia and created an article on it because every term for anything to do with dogs should have a Wikipedia article, too." It's why we had an F-load of redundant articles on dog "types", dog breed "groups", and dog breed "categories" using every different name variation from different kennel clubs, each as a stand-alone article, instead of being merged into overall dog-type articles for the most part. It's taken a long time to clean up, and clearly the cleanup isn't done yet.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• Totally disagree - some of those independent sources are fringe theory and those saying the bull and terrier is a breed that was renamed to Staffordshire Bull Terrier dispute mainstream science. What you're saying is not backed by science, which speaks volumes to a very concerning misunderstanding about how modern breeds evolve. To even suggest that breed crosses of undocumented dog types have evolved into a single modern breed is incomprehensible. Read Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Terrier (purposely a dab) for starters. There are many others. The Bull Terrier was the first recognized breed that resulted from the bull and terrier crosses. Staffordshire Bull Terrier was initially rejected for valid reasons. It wasn't until many years later that it was recognized as a breed, and gained recognition as a purebred. There are alot of fringe theories circulating in books by so-called experts about natural medicine, herbal cures, and home remedies (some of which can be cited to Mayo Clinic, etc.) - but WP requires scientific based evidence to make such extraordinary claims acceptable for inclusion in an article. The same argument applies to anecdotal accounts of undocumented bulldog–terrier crosses; therefore, to say that the only breed that resulted from those crosses is the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is pure hogwash. Atsme 💬 📧 00:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC) ^{added underlined for clarity 17:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)}
• wbm1058, you are not the only one incredibly frustrated by this. Throughout this process I have:

1. been accused of cherry-picking sources but no sources have been presented that articulate any counter-narrative
2. been accused of engaging in original research for quoting reliable secondary sources verbatim
3. repeatedly had content from Wikipedia articles cited to me as evidence that every source on the subject is wrong, when:
   1. our content guidelines clearly stating "Examples of unacceptable user-generated sites are Wikipedia (self referencing)" and
   2. analysis of page histories and verification of cited sources shows the wording of these pages is an utter fabrication
4. been accused ignoring what kennel clubs say about these breeds because (according to the op) they are more reliable that independent writers, when as shown above the kennel clubs completely agree with the independent sources
5. been accused of ignoring genetic evidence when there is no genetic evidence that counters this view
6. been accused of promulgating a fringe theory.

Yet still, no articulate counter-narrative cited to anything approaching reliable has been presented here or on the article TP. Above I have presented a plethora of reliable sources that state unequivocally that an early name for the dog breed the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was Bull and Terrier (let's disregard capitalisation debates). No sources have been presented that state anything else intelligible. Yes, you sometimes read "Bull and Terrier-type" written, it is always with "-type" and it refers to Bull-type terriers.

Atsme, you keep repeating your claim that this is not supported by science but analysis of the sources you present show they do not counter anything proposed. Can you clearly point to any new sources that offer anything new? Cavalryman (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC).

I think it was premature at best to start a discussion on the fringe theories noticeboard, and I'm not sure I see any "fringe" theories – just plain old theories. All this discussion has accomplished so far is to shut down the discussions at Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier, as it's all forked to here. Having said, that, I'm still frustrated by your response which didn't respond at all to my points other than to say "let's disregard capitalisation debates" – essentially you disregarded everything I said, in favor of again repeating your "talking points".

Bull Terrier § History says Due to the lack of breed standards—breeding was for performance, not appearance—the "bull and terrier" eventually divided into the ancestors of "Bull Terriers" and "Staffordshire Bull Terriers", both smaller and easier to handle than the progenitor.^[1]

Can someone locate a book titled Bull Terriers: a practical guide for owners and breeders or similar that says "The result of the decision to breed more athletic dogs for fighting purposes was the emergence of the so-called 'Bull and Terrier', sometimes referred to as the 'Pit dog'. This is of prime importance in the story of the development of our breed as 150 years later this dog would be recognised by the Bull Terrier Club as the Bull Terrier!" or similar. Are the breed-centric books oversimplifying the history in favor of the breed which is the topic of the book?

What does Atlas of dog breeds of the world say about the Bull Terrier? Where did it come from? If [the Staffordshire Bull Terrier] was the original “Bull-and-Terrier.” then what was the Bull Terrier? The Bull Terrier was created by crossing a Staffordshire Bull Terrier with what? That they originally put the modifier "Staffordshire" in front of "Bull Terrier" when there was no need to do that because there was no other Bull Terrier, and then later the Bull Terrier was named with no concern that the breed name might be confused with the earlier [Staffordshire Bull Terrier] seems highly counter-intuitive to me. Can you explain that? wbm1058 (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Is this a fringe theory, YES or NO? If no, then this section ought to be closed and the "validation of sources discussion" returned back to the subject article's Talk page. 182.239.144.134 (talk) 02:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• wbm1058, in answer to your points.

First point - the sources detailed above all say it was a breed. Yes there is likely less deviation of appearance seen within breeds in the western world today than yesteryear, but that does not make them any less of a breed (the advent of breed standards has encouraged greater uniformity). Breeds seen in the developing world typically show greater variation in appearance as function (as opposed to form) is typically (but not always) what is sought from a mating.

Second point - I assume SMcCandlish's page move was based on a good faith reading of the article (SMC please correct me if I am wrong). As already stated above, that edit that introduced both the "extinct" and the "type" classifications to the article was cited to a clearly unreliable source, the personal webpage of an enthusiast with no discernible subject matter expertise (Atsme clearly agrees with that assessment, she added it to a list of unreliable sources in the dogs source guide she developed [7]).

Third point - you appear to have reached a conclusion that the B&T was a type not a breed (please correct me if I am wrong), I do not believe this is supported by sources. What is said on Bull-type terrier is actually consistent with the SBT and the B&T being one: the dog known as the B&T was the progenitor of the various other breeds (it is now called the SBT per the overwhelming majority of sources).

Regarding the Bull Terrier, most sources state the creator of that breed (James Hinks) took B&Ts and crossed them with some other breeds to achieve the appearance he wanted. Sources vary a little about which breeds were used for these outcrosses, the most common stated are the English White Terrier and the Dalmatian (the Atlas of dog breeds of the world adds some authorities believe Pointers, Greyhounds and Whippets added their influence). Hinks managed to achieve recognition for his breed before the original and so got the name. The world encyclopedia of dogs probably says it most succinctly: These dogs [Staffordshire Bull Terriers] were termed Bull Terriers and this name remained with them for over 100 years although in the mid 1850's James Hinks of Birmingham introduced an all-white variety by crossing the original Bull Terrier with the Old English White Terrier (now extinct) and the Dalmatian. This variety developed into a fancier's dog and later, when it was established as a breed, its supporters registered as "Bull Terrier" with the Kennel Club in Britain. Actually it was the original Bull Terrier (as in Bulldog-Terrier or Bull and Terrier) who as the original of his kind had a right to the name, but later when he assumed show-bench status on emerging from his gladiatorial past, he had to contend with the name Staffordshire Bull Terrier. As a note I would dispute the reliability of the Canterbury Bull Terrier Club as a source, breed clubs are in no way independent from their breeds.

Does that adequately address your points? Cavalryman (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC).

• I'm going to take a brief step into this, but in my experience, breed clubs like the AKC are distinctly not reliable when it comes to breed history, and my cursory inspection of the various sources presented is that the Bull-and-Terrier is the same as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Happy editing, --SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree, I have found too many glaring errors in kennel club blurbs to take them seriously doe anything other than what their standards state and acknowledging when that specific kennel recognised a breed. But in this instance it seems the kennel clubs are in complete agreement with the independent sources. Cavalryman (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC).

Personal opinions do not hold much weight when determining WP:DUE, WP:V, or WP:RS. They align more closely with WP:OR. There is plenty of criticism, much of it deserved, about the "designer breeds", and the evolution of dog breeds that have resulted in defects and/or changes in original function, but arguably so. When the original function of a dog becomes illegal, it makes sense to modify the breed, as what happened during the evolutionary process of the Bull Terrier and Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Breed standards align more closely with conformation, temperament and showing, they are more suited as family dogs, not fighting dogs. Unfortunately, some of the modifications in a few of the purebreds not only changed function, it created serious health & conformation issues; the modern Bulldog is one of them. The primary role and function of reputable breed registries/kennel clubs is important to the future of purebreds, their history, genetics, developmental improvements and so forth. Scientific American explains it well. Also see Dog Related Websites and Recommended Resources from A to Z, (2018) by Dana Palmer, Sr. Extension Associate, Dept of Animal Science, Cornell University – p.4 under Dog Breeding includes the AKC and UKC. Do the research and you will find that the breed registries are often cited for genetics, purebred history, etc. such as the citation to Kennel Club in the Bibliography, pg. 231, for Introduction to Genetics in The Complete Textbook of Veterinary Nursing by Victoria Aspinall, a member and fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. The AKC, KC and a few others reputable breed registries are considered reliable mainstream sources that are used by academics, researchers and scientists. Atsme 💬 📧 19:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Atsme, a couple of points:

• As shown above the kennel clubs almost universally agree that the Bull and Terrier was renamed the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Are you saying they are reliable but just not for that point?
• The dogs source guide developed by you advises against using kennel clubs as sources for pretty much everything except breed standards and numbers of registrations, WP:WikiProject Dogs/Reliable sources#Adding content. Yes that specific content was initially added by me [8], but you thanked me for adding it [9] and later edited that content [10].

Can we please just agree that this is in no way a fringe theory? Cavalryman (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the IP's question Is this a fringe theory, YES or NO?: It does not matter.

• If it is, then the fringe-savvy people here on this noticeboard have been alerted by the very first notice, swarmed to the Talk page of the article, and discussion should have continued there.
• If not, then discussion should have continued on the Talk page of the article too.

Are we finished here now? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

The discretionary sanctions for the Ancient Egyptian race controversy are no longer, but several Arbitrators said that pseudoarcheology was covered by the fringe/pseudoscience sanctions. Doug Weller talk 08:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the final decision on the race controversy hasn't been made although the votes look that way. Anyway the Arb comments stand. Doug Weller talk 08:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Vacated now. Doug Weller talk 20:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Thoughts on how to improve this article? As it stands, it's sourced entirely to dictionaries and primary sources, drawing heavily on the work of WP:PROFRINGE author Richard Lynn.

It seems to me that the topic is notable (and it withstood two AfDs in the past [11] [12]). A search on Google Scholar, for instance, yields numerous genetic studies on fruit flies, etc., along with a heavy sprinkling of pseudo-academic dross by the likes of Lynn. But as it stands almost nothing in the article appears to meet our standards for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The only exception seems to be the “In fiction” section. Generalrelative (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The “Further reading” section does contain at least one relevant scientific ref, [13], which speaks to the lack of evidence for dysgenics in the US population. The key takeaway from that study is that increases in assortative mating at the phenotypic level for education are not matched at the genotypic level. Perhaps the whole idea of dysgenics at the level of human population groups is FRINGE? Does anyone know of mainstream contemporary geneticists who have argued otherwise? If not, perhaps this article needs to be rewritten either to focus on fruit flies or else to conform with WP:FRIND. Generalrelative (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Further digging shows that there is a substantial difference between the terms dysgenesis and dysgenics, which I hadn't realized. The former is indeed a legitimate scientific concept, including with regard to humans (see e.g. [14], [15], [16], [17] and [18]), but that shouldn't be confused with evidence of scientific support for the idea of dysgenics in humans. Generalrelative (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

FYI, I've begun making WP:BOLD changes. If anyone thinks I'm going too far, I invite you to revert and discuss. Generalrelative (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The sources in the article are out of date. Contrary to what you suggest above, dysgenics was never fringe, at least for traits like intelligence, for which a mechanism is apparent. Given the well documented and straightforwardly causal negative effect of (number of years of) education on female fertility the onus has been on those claiming dysgenics does not occur, to provide evidence. Under modern conditions, dysgenic fertility for IQ was widely assumed to be obviously true, and tests with polygenic scores detect it. See e.g. https://www.pnas.org/content/114/5/E727 that used the national genetic registry in Iceland.

The study you cited as evidence against dysgenics, isn't; it just shows that assortative mating is not intensifying, and that patterns are weak or nonexistent if you (inappropriately) condition on marriage, which is itself increasingly correlated to intelligence. The pattern of interest for dysgenics is in the whole population not the shifting target of married couples. Sesquivalent (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

"Corporate needs you to find the difference between dysgenics and eugenics." ... theyrethesamepicture.jpg.

I agree that WP:FRIND is key. As with all the other race and IQ pages, every source should explicitly and unambiguously discuss the topic. Citing studies as examples is tricky. It's not fair to expect editors to select specific studies as examples for or against "dysgenics". For one, it would be asking for original research. It's also WP:PROFRINGE issues, as it would be using tangentially related sources to artificially inflate the level of debate on this specific fringe concept. We absolutely need to summarize the consensus on this issue, but if the only way to do this is to dip into primary sources, that seems like maybe an indication we should merge it with eugenics where it can be better contextualized.

The lack of WP:IS at Richard Lynn#Dysgenics and eugenics, in comparison to that section's length, is interesting. Who is actually talking about "dysgenics", and why? Grayfell (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely, —PaleoNeonate – 05:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

There are secondary sources that discuss this effect. Here are a few:

• Ahmad, S. I. (2017). Aging: Exploring a Complex Phenomenon. United Kingdom: CRC Press. (Chapter 7) "As an aside, data collected by Beauchamp (2016) give a measure of the difference between the action of natural selection when only Darwinian fitness is considered and when cultural practices are also included. [...] Individuals with higher EA (more years of school) or individuals with the genomic background favoring higher EA had reduced reproductive fitness (fewer lifetime children). Beauchamp (2016) estimated that selection directed toward increasing reproductive fitness would result in a decrease in EA of 1.5 months per generation. The cost of enhancing Darwinian fitness was reduced education attainment. However, Americans born between 1876 and 1951 achieved a mean level of EA of two years per generation. In reality, EA was not driven by selection acting on reproductive fitness but by gene–culture coevolution."

• Kondrashov, A. S. (2017). Crumbling Genome: The Impact of Deleterious Mutations on Humans. Germany: Wiley. (Chapter 11) "It seems, however, that Industrialization did produce some important changes in the direction of selection. A number of studies detected ongoing selection for lower general intelligence. Similarly, a recent study demonstrated that alleles which are associated with more years of education currently reduce fitness. Such selection must be a very recent phenomenon, because high intelligence is a fragile adaptation that must have been protected by selection until very recently. Unfortunately, studies of selection at the level of phenotypes depend on direct data on phenotypes and, thus, cannot be extended deep into the past. Selection on traits that can be inferred from records of births, marriages, and deaths can be studied since late Preindustrial times, and selection on intelligence and many other traits only since the 20th century. In this respect, our knowledge of genotype‐ and phenotype‐level properties of selection is complementary. Thus, we cannot rule out a possibility that contemporary selection is very different from that before the Industrial Revolution. If so, many alleles identified as mildly deleterious by the population genetic data may, in fact, increase fitness currently."

• Tropf, F. C., Mills, M. C., Barban, N. (2020). An Introduction to Statistical Genetic Data Analysis. United Kingdom: MIT Press. (Chapter 3) Page 65 contains a detailed description of studies about dysgenic trends in intelligence and their limitations (it's too long to quote the entire thing).

• Harden, K.P., Koellinger, P.D. Using genetics for social science. Nat Hum Behav 4, 567–576 (2020). "One active and politically sensitive area of research is the relationship between education and fertility. Genetic variants associated with education are also associated with a lower number of children born, resulting in declines in the average EA PGS in the 20th century."

• Barbey, A. K., Richard J. Haier, R. J., & Karama, S. (2021). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence and Cognitive Neuroscience. United States: Cambridge University Press. (Chapter 17). "Using this method, Beauchamp (2016) found a negative association between EduYears PGS and LRS in a sample of ∼20,000 Americans, implying that natural selection is slowly favoring lower educational attainment at a rate of what amounts to −1.5 months of education per generation. Kong et al. (2018) presented corroborating evidence from a study of ∼100,000 Icelanders, which found EduYears PGS to be associated with delayed reproduction and fewer children overall. From this, they extrapolated that the mean EduYears PGS is declining at ∼0.01 standard units per decade. In other words, evolution does seem to be currently operating on human intelligence, but in the opposite direction from that which prevailed in the deep evolutionary past."

These are the types of sources (literature reviews and textbooks) that we ought to be using to determine the nature of academic consensus. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Some of the sources are interesting, but also adding a link to WP:RS/AC: to express statements about the consensus sources that also do must be used. —PaleoNeonate – 07:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

"Dysgenics for IQ (via undisputed fertility differences) is probably correct" is the de facto mainsteam view, in the sense that nobody goes on the record claiming that there is no such effect, never mind attempting to present data disputing it, while extremely mainstream people (the kind with access to entire national databases in Scandinavia) occasionally put out studies duly confirming it exists. The discussion here is not the RS/AC one about inserting statements into the article that this is or isn't the majority expert opinion, but whether this "mainstream that dare not speak its name" view should be treated as fringe. Even the outdated (as in predating genomic tests) book by Lynn got respectful reviews from his opponents on other subjects. It just is not a FRINGE topic, however interesting it might be to eugenicists and racialists. Sesquivalent (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• Martin Kulldorff‎ (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Much discussion at Talk about how this article on one of the declaration's "authors" should refer to the Great Barrington Declaration, and in particular its concept of "focused protection", in the lede. I suppose the same considerations would apply also to the Sunetra Gupta and Jay Bhattacharya ledes. Alexbrn (talk) 04:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Aajonus Vonderplanitz has to be one of our most bizarre fringe related articles, and it doesn't seem like our regular fringe-aware community has had much involvement in its development.

Basically, this guy advocated for a raw food diet, but taken to an extreme. It seems as though much of the article is based on his own reported, and highly dubious, descriptions of his life, such as that raw carrot juice cured his dyslexia and his cancer (naturally). Most of his bizarre claims are presented unchecked, except that they are qualified by noting that they are his claims. At best, his claims are described as controversial, despite the reality that they're about as controversial as flat earth theory. Which is to say, there's no controversy here among the relevant scientific community.

This definitely does not meet our standards.

I'm not sure what the solution to this is from a BLP standpoint, or if this article should even exist or just be merged into the history section at Raw Foodism.

But one thing is for sure: this article needs some serious attention and I don't have the time to give it these days, so I'm just dropping a note to you guys.

N^oformation ^Talk 23:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Previously raised here. Alexbrn (talk) 04:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
• Don't know where to start here. It's a bit like Edgar Cayce, going on and on about irrelevant details. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
• Article needs to be re-written but this will controversial because fanboi IPs seem to patrol the article. The first source Charlie Donham, "Interview with Aajonus Vonderplanitz", Natural Health M2M, Oct 1998, is not a reliable source but is used nearly 20 times on the article. In contrast, David E. Gumpert's book is a reliable source so we can just expand on that. I think about 50 or 60% of the article needs to be removed. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Close reading of LABEL. A lot of the discussion revolves around it should always be used with attribution. Fringe articles of course often use labels. Doug Weller talk 15:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

This is again being edit heavily. As I will be undergoing either bowel surgery or chemotherapy for bowel cancer which has (as is typical) spread to my liver, I'm trimming my watchlist and have removed Diop's article. Doug Weller talk 15:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Sending solidarity and good cheer, Doug! You mean a lot to this project. I'll re-add Diop to my watchlist and try to keep up with the changes there. Generalrelative (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• John A. McDougall‎ (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

An article about a fad diet and the guy behind it, recently attracting ire in the Talk page and correspondence from the Man Himself. Now, ‎CarlFromVienna is edit warring away (the only existing?) WP:MEDRS source & content, that is critical of the diet. More eyes needed. Alexbrn (talk) 08:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes please, we need better sources that go into more detail. I have provided more context about one of the sources here that only gives a very superficial assessment of the McDougall diet and can certainly not be used in the intro. CarlFromVienna (talk) 08:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Better sources are always good, but edit-warring to remove "negative" content from the only MEDRS source we currenty cite is not good, and looks suspiciously like POV-pushing. Alexbrn (talk) 08:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I know and understand this, as I have been a Wikipedia editor since 2006. But the sources that are critical of McDougall are also of rather low quality. One must not fear to call them out the same way we do call out McDougall. CarlFromVienna (talk) 08:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

You keep ignoring the "MEDRS" part. How is a MEDRS source "of rather low quality"? Is there something wrong with the WP:MEDRS page? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@CarlFromVienna: It's a well-established medical textbook. Not that it requires a super-strength source for the knowledge that eating a very high-fibre diet is going to make you fart a lot. Meanwhile, despite this apparent stickling for sources, on other diet articles you seem to be happy to use non-WP:MEDRS, like primary sources from MDPI journals.[19] It's a puzzle. Alexbrn (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

If primary sources are in line with what systematic reviews or meta studies reported before I see no conflict of including them. They will be sucked up and included in the next upcoming meta study or systematic review and thus will not fundamentally change the evidence provided in the article. However, I am always willing to discuss certain sources/studies in detail. CarlFromVienna (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

It is best to follow the WP:PAGs rather than invent your own, especially if that looks like it might be in the service of an attempt to skew the encyclopedia. Discussion, yes, is good - so why do you blank your Talk page and proceed by edit-warring? I am beginning to wonder if there is a problem here. Alexbrn (talk) 08:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Primary sources are not forbidden. Yes, they must not be used to push "early results" or to "provide a conclusion" as stated by WP:MEDRS. That's why I am very careful in what I choose and only would include them only if a meta study is several years old and they are in accordance to the body of evidence. There is currently a boom in studies and meta-studies (have a look at the graph) dealing with plant-based nutrition and we will somehow have to deal with the influx here -- even if it means that we have to change long-standing content. The point that I'm trying to get across is that it's not me being on a mission but science is currently on a mission when it comes to plant-based diets. CarlFromVienna (talk) 09:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

You keep ignoring the "MEDRS" part. How is a MEDRS source "of rather low quality"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I do not doubt that this is a high quality source in accordance to MEDRS. Rather only the classification they give is unsatisfying as I have explained on the talk page. A good criticism would go much more into detail as to what specifically is problematic with McDougall‘s diet. CarlFromVienna (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

You are correct that there is high-quality scientific evidence behind plant-based diets and this is currently being researched in the medical community but this is not related to John A. McDougall. The McDougall diet might be "plant-based" but it is a very extreme form of plant-based that no dietitian or professional health agency would support. The McDougall diet is based on a flawed philosophy that the 'fat you wear is the fat you eat'. On this diet the overall fat intake is too-low, in fact it's even been described as a no-fat diet. The idea that all fats are bad for human health is not only completely wrong, it is dangerous advice. McDougall says not to eat any cooking oils because they contain fat and increase heart disease, this is false because olive oil has been shown to reduce heart disease and stroke as have other cooking oils. He says people should avoid eating all nuts and seeds, again this is dangerous advice. Nuts and seeds can be very good for health, look at walnuts or brazil nuts (vegans will need these for selenium). If one is eating a vegan diet they should be able to get healthy fats (polyunsaturated) from nuts but McDougall bizarrely believes polyunsaturated fat is bad. So all oils, nuts and seeds are out of the diet, next he attacks avocados because they contain too much fat. The list goes on.

You cannot eat "processed" foods like yeast extract because it is processed and somehow this is bad but this contains b12 and other b vitamins that vegans need. McDougall also says that vegans on his diet should never take any vitamin supplements apart from b12 but they should only take b12 after 3 years on his diet [20], I don't think I need to explain why that is not a good idea! Again this is also dangerous advice, vegans need more than just b12. A good high-quality DHA/EPA supplement is needed, as should vitamin k2 and iodine if one is not eating seaweed. McDougall doesn't talk about any of this. Instead he says "Mineral deficiency is theoretically possible – but highly unlikely to affect anyone living in a modern society" [21], bizarre. If you are a vegan and eating a McDougall diet you will likely be put in hospital on this diet long-term because of many nutritional deficiencies that will arise. I talk from personal experience here because years ago I tried this type of diet and was in hospital twice. It is not a sustainable diet long-term and most of what it claims is in opposition to nutritional science. I apologize for the personal rant here but hopefully you see the difference between balanced plant-based diets and McDougall extremism. McDougall is very much FRINGE territory and has been correctly criticized by experts. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Psychologist Guy:. You have given a great example of what I think would be a great reception section: a text that goes into detail of why one should be sceptical about McDougall. The current section reads like "A said it's bad. B said it's really bad. C said it's rubbish." without giving any explanation. Also having sources like A, B, C not going into detail also weakens their argument. Let me go into more detail on the article talk page where it belongs. Just for the joy of intellectual exchange:

• I don't think that anyone can make a definite claim on vegans needing or not needing DHA/EPA supplements. Tim Radak has given a good summary on the state of research (look for it on Youtube: NI7_QekdVoI). It's currently all speculation when it comes to vegans. I have also tried a low fat vegan diet once and it fixed my DHA/EPA because if you go low on fat you'll easily get to a omega 3 to omega 6 ratio of 1:1 which enables the body to synthesize DHA/EPA more easily. I had blood work done that actually proved it worked for me, but I will not claim that it will work for everyone. I simply mention this to show that dismissing McDougall on this point isn't straight forward. The only sound scientific advice anyone can give on DHA/EPA is "we don't know".
• Also I don't think that you need cooking oils to get enough fat. Eating a 2200 kcal diet on whole grains and vegetables will get you 30g of fat per day.
• A note on olive oil: AFAIK the beneficial effects are only given, if you replace saturated (animal) fat with olive oil. I don't think that adding olive oil to any diet has been shown to improve CVD markers/risk.
• McDougall may be nuts, but he isn't anti nuts. He will allow for small amounts if swapped isocalorically for other foods.
• K2 is another one: there is currently no consensus if this is needed from food. We simply don't know for sure how much K1 is transformed into K2 and if this is enough or not. Do Asians suffer K2 deficiency because they don't eat cheese?
• If it's not to personal to share here I would be interested in what exactly it was that got you into hospital. It would certainly help me with understanding and judging McDougall's diet better.

CarlFromVienna (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

My understanding is that vitamin k2 is found in natto so many Asian people get a good supply from fermented soybeans but in the west not many people have access to this. The conversion rate of K1 into K2 is very poor. Vitamin K2 is distributed around the entire body whilst vitamin k1 is not. Vitamin K2 travels to bone more effectively than K1.

I get my k2 from a fermented chickpea supplement. DHA is important for fetal and infant brain development, it is also very important for normal brain function in adults, unfortunately it deceases with age. In regard to brain atrophy or brain shrinkage this happens with aging from late 30s and 40s and increases from 60. It can be minimized by various lifestyle strategies like exercise and eating foods rich in DHA and EPA (seafood or microalgae supplements). There are no vegan foods sources rich in DHA and EPA apart from microalgae oils which are often found in supplement form.

ALA conversion to DHA is low in humans, with <1% dietary ALA converted to DHA, so it is essentially useless if you are a vegan and you rely on ALA foods like flaxseeds, chia seeds for DHA or EPA. You will get less than 1% conversion rate. Some vegan websites try and boost this up and say the conversation rate is 5% but that is really not good either. Which ever way you look at it or which studies you look at it is very low which nobody in the medical community disputes. Most of the studies I have seen report a 0.5% conversion rate. Even if the rate is 1% or 2% it is essentially useless. The only way to get DHA/EPA on a vegan diet is to take an algae supplement (liquid form) that the body will absorb.

Most vegans forget about EPA which is also very important. Microalgae supplements have both DHA/EPA. If a vegan is not taking an algae supplement there is an increased risk they will end up with dementia and other increased cognitive decline. I personally will not take that risk. Remember DHA is the most abundant omega-3 in the brain, it is crucial for brain function on a daily basis. Don't waste time taking flax. McDougall has made some outlandish claims, in one video I saw he said DHA does not matter for most people. He's been involved in various flame wars with Joel Fuhrman on DHA/EPA supplements because Fuhrman has come out and said vegans are deficient in DHA so should be taking supplements (he's right IMO). I agree there is no consensus in the vegan community about this but in the medical community there is a consensus and from what I have seen most doctors promoting veganism are peddling nutritional misinformation (I say this as someone who doesn't eat animal products). An expert on omega 3 fatty acids would be William E.M. Lands. I communicate with experts by email.

I take vitamin k2, iron, b12, DHA/EPA supplements. I may consider taurine, I get my iodine from seaweed. I believe veganism is for the animals, it is for the ethics, it isn't the best option for health. I have eaten a vegetarian and pescatarian diet for decades but have been a vegan for one year again now so I am trying it for the 6th time. You can be healthy long-term vegan but it is much harder than being a pescatarian or vegetarian.

I would say the DHA/EPA is very important. I am well aware that a lot of vegan doctors are opposed to DHA or EPA supplements. Unfortunately most of these doctors are peddling quackery and they are not omega-3 fatty acid researchers or qualified like someone like William E.M. Lands is. I disagree with Tim Radak, he even cites McDougall in his presentation but I cannot go into that here. I do not claim to be an expert but I think we should listen to experts and most vegan doctors are not.

Yes I was in hospital, on one occasion I collapsed and was so tired. I had no energy on a low-fat vegan diet, I was deficient in DHA, iodine, iron, b12, pretty much everything and lost massive weight almost anorexic, I was also severely dehydrated and was on a drip for over 5 hours. I was doing exercise so I was not lazy or have any pre-existing medical problems, and was only in my mid 20s at the time. Back then I was not supplementing. It is not a healthy diet long-term and could kill someone if you do not know what you are doing. McDougall's client base are mostly obese people who go on his diet and lose weight very quickly (his book is filled with pictures of this), a thin person on a low-fat vegan diet like that will lose even more weight and put them in danger. I say this from experience. Most vegans give it up after a few months, the drop out rate is like 90% and some of the long-term vegans secretly eat fish or chicken. People like the idea of a vegan diet but there are very few out there honestly doing it long-term, most end up doing it only short-term. If you honestly want to do it and stick with it long-term you have to do a lot of nutritional research, the DHA/EPA is very important for long-term. There is nothing else I can add here but hopefully you see I have had some experience with all this.

McDougall has admitted to eating chicken on his birthdays and turkey for thanksgiving and Christmas, so he actually doesn't even follow his own advice. A lot of these plant-based doctors just sell books to make money. Other users are now editing the McDougall article and I don't really have any criticisms of what is being added so I probably won't be editing the article as I have many other articles to be editing so I will not be adding anything else here. Thanks for the discussion. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

See Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy#Removal of discretionary sanctions for the area of the Ancient Egyptian race controversy is under discussion Doug Weller talk 11:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

This probably doesn't belong here, but I don't know a better place. The article Abrey Kamoo has been created in good faith, but it looks as if it is a 1904 hoax which was picked up by newspapers then, then largely forgotten, and in 2020 reappeared in the "Guides Gazette" (whatever that is)[22]. People living a remarkable life is a perfect subject for stories; people having too many remarkable things makes me wary though...

• Her mother (or father) was part of a triplet, she was part of a triplet, and she had two pair of triplets herself
• Her father was still alive at the age of 114 when she died in 1904
• She studied medicine in Heidelberg disguised as a man for 4 years, no one noticed this
• She enrolled as a drummer boy when he was at least 46 years old, again disguised as a man, and again no one batted an eyelid
• Her original first name was Abbredalah. I can't find any evidence that anyone ever had this first name
• Her original surname, Kaloss, doesn't appear as a name either, it seems (not certain about this)
• Matthew C. Perry suggested that she would study in Germany??? Why? Why would a Navy captain suggest that a Tunisian-bron woman should go to Germany to study medicine?
• Her fiancé Enrique (William) Kamoo, Egyptian: doesn't seem to exist outside these stories of Abrey. Name is a hotchpotch of "exotic" elements, but not very convincing.
• They established a hospital in New Orleans, which again left no traces outside this story

It looks like she invented a fanciful story about her life (where only the last part, that she lived with a son and no husband in Boston and worked in skin care, seems to be truthful), some of the less savvy newspapers of the time ran with it, and now we have an article perpetuating the same myths. But that is just "common sense" which is trumped by the "reliable sources", so is there a way to deal with this? Fram (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I found elements of the story odd as well, but I just went with the sources. I did feel it was appropriate to qualify the final statement about her father with the phrase, "According to the Los Angeles Herald's report of her death", and to point out the Guides Gazette article's outright error about the day of the week in a footnote. The Guides Gazette is a newsletter available on the website of the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Assuming for the moment that the story is true, Commodore Perry presumably thought Germany was where she could get the best medical education; also, her mother is said to have been of German descent.

Even though I've been editing Wikipedia for a long time, I still consider many procedural matters to be above my head. Based on any discussions here or elsewhere, the article can be kept as is, modified or deleted; I'll be interested to watch and help out with whatever happens. Thank you for your rapid response, Fram. Gildir (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• Middleton, Lee (1993). Hearts of fire-- soldier women of the Civil War. L. Middleton. p. 87. ISBN 9781882755004. as "Tommy Kamoo" or Mrs. Abrev Kamoo
• Hall, Richard (2006). Women on the Civil War Battlefront. University Press of Kansas. pp. 56–7. ISBN 9780700614370. Also as Abrev Kamoo. Attributes to Coco.
• Coco, Gregory Ashton (1987). On the Bloodstained Field. Wheatfield Press. pp. 46–7. ISBN 9780939631124. Apparently attributes to newspaper, but can't find full text.

not terribly reliable but another spelling to try. fiveby(zero) 20:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• Crane, Chas. A. (March 23, 1905). "Kamoo". Zion's Herald. Abrey
• Smith, Nicholas (1905). Masters of Old Age. Milwaukee, The Young churchman co. pp. 75–6.

Coco, Hall, and Middleton all appear to derive from a March 2, 1904 story in The Lancaster Examiner, but here is "Her People Had Triplet Habit". The Washington Times. February 24, 1904. p. 10. Can't find anything on father or husband. Would at least attribute the story to the papers. fiveby(zero) 02:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I have expanded the article with additional qualifying statements and citations to the Washington Times and Zion's Herald articles that Fiveby found. It probably still needs further work, though. Gildir (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Perry arrived in Bristol July of 1838 to investigate European lighthouses and steam, and made an eight day trip to France in November. Nothing found for North Africa, Germany, Russia. He left Portsmouth December 10 and arrived New York January 14, 1839.[23] That's a slow passage, but via New Orleans seems improbable. fiveby(zero) 13:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

"Report on the Navies of Europe, 1839" fleets of England, France, Russia, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, Sardinia, the Kingdom of Naples & Sicily, and the Ottoman Empire. fiveby(zero) 13:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Hall takes on a number of fakes and urban legends.[24] Probably should go by what he has to say. fiveby(zero) 17:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Fram: and @Gildir:. Hall quotes and cites Coco, and i think the rest is short enough for fair use:

No Union soldier by the name of Kamoo could be found, but there was a phonetically similar name: Thomas H. Kamouse. This soldier, a strong candidate to have been "Tommy Kamoo," enlisted as a private in the 8th New York Cavalry on September 4, 1862, and was discharged on June 7, 1865. The regiment was engaged at Gettysburg on all three days of the battle, July 1-3, 1863. Maria Lewis also served in this regiment (see Chapter 10).

Although a cavalry regiment would not be expected to have a drummer boy, the 8th New York Cavalry regimental history reports that when it headed to Washington, D.C., in late November of 1861, it was escorted by the "Union Blues," a band that included a drum coprs of young boys dressed in Zouave uniforms. Additionally, 800 of the soldiers were originally unmounted. It is quite possible that at this early stage of the war, Kamoo worked her way through the ranks first as a drummer boy and then stayed on as a nurse or soldier.

Hall glosses over the discrepancy between an unmounted 1861 New York regiment garrisoning D.C. and commanded by an incompetent colonel, and the 1862 recruitment of Thomas H. Ranouse/Kamouse/Kanouse[25] by which time the regiment was mounted, commanded by a regular army officer, and recruiting to fill ranks.[26] The "Union Blues"[27] connection is a stretch and makes me think Hall is just reaching to find any confirmation.

I'd say nothing is really "reliable" here, but you have to go by Hall's "quite possible" (not impossible would be my opinion). Just keep in mind the more plausible explanation for Civil War "service", but which there is no evidence for either. fiveby(zero) 17:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Abrey Kamoo (Abbredalah Kaloss) is listed as having died on February 22, 1904 (Monday) in the article February 1904. It lists four newspaper articles that are also cited in this article as sources. Paul H. (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I wrote both the February 1904 and Abrey Kamoo articles (in fact, I discovered Kamoo's story while researching the former article). I originally had only the Los Angeles Herald and Guides Gazette articles as sources, but added the Washington Times and Zion's Herald articles after Fiveby posted the links here. I also moved the entry for Kamoo's death from February 22 to February 21, since The Washington Times and Zion's Herald agree on that date, whereas the Los Angeles Herald and Guides Gazette give different dates (February 22 and February 2, respectively). Gildir (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Pilates (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

An editor (Finell) is trying to establish a new lede for this article with a take of its health "benefits" which seems at odds with what is cited in the article body. Edit warring too. More eyes could help broaden consensus. Alexbrn (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

... Ah. Not Pilate. Then "health benefits" make more sense. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I copyedited the lede here. I challenge Alexbrn, or anyone, to show where I added FRINGE content. I did straighten out some convoluted sentences and made the lede more concise. Furthermore, Alexbrn reverted my entire edit twice, including my addition of the first name of the author of a cited New York Times article and language improvements. It was Alexbrn who recently added the woo woo idea that Pilates is a mind-body thing [here]. Before he came along, the article said that it was a physical exercise system. That, in fact, is what brought me to the Pilates article. At age 75, I am looking for exercise that will improve my flexibility, core strength, and balance.

In addition, no one is more anti-FRINGE than I am. Years ago, when several editors were working to restore Speed of light to FA status (we succeeded), 2 relativity deniers were trying to push their POV into the article. An admin began an arbitration because of the 2 tendentious editors. Science won. FRINGE lost.—Finell 01:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

See no problem with Finell's proposed. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The problem is changing the text so is fails WP:V. Saying in Wikipedia's voice only that Pilates merely isn't effective for treating "disease", when the source (and Wikipedia) before referred more broadly to "any medical condition" is not good. More broadly, repeatedly trying to force an edit with snarky edit summaries is bad behaviour. Maybe Finell could try BRD in future? In general, performing composite edits which mix up gnoming with substantial POV changes is not a good idea. Alexbrn (talk) 06:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Problem solved: I changed disease to medical condition. And for this you post {Template:Uw-ew} on my Talk page[28] (even though you are involved in the war) and you warn me about discretionary sanctions involving complementary and alternative medicine.[[29]] I have never heard any say that Pilates exercise is any kind of medicine, including my wife, who is an exercise fanatic. As for "snarky edit summaries":

Finell diff1: Wikify, copy edit, NPOV

Alexbrn diff1: Not a summary and insufficient WP:V

Finell diff2: My copy editing did not add unverified content, but did add clarity is more concise

Alexbrn diff2: Inaccurate - better take it to talk rather than reverting

Finell diff3: Better take it to talk rather than reverting

Is Alexbrn an admin???—Finell 06:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

No but what's that to do with anything? Nil Einne (talk) 08:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• Finell has resumed edit warring without discussion. Pilates is a type of "mind-body intervention", which places it firmly in the category of alternative medicine. Calling it blandly a "a method of physical exercise" as well as being imprecise, unduly legitimizes it by placing it in the realm of "normal" regular interventions. Finell's lede (which they have at least modified to correct one of the WP:V mistakes they made) essentially said Pilates is a form of exercise with proven health benefits. Not quite right and the continued mashing of the revert key is deplorable. No, I am not an admin but an admin may be needed soon if the edit-warring without discussion continues. Alexbrn (talk) 09:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  I have quite a bit of experience with Pilates. For me it is definitely a type of physical exercise. Some practitioners might add some Mind–body interventions. It is undoubtedly an excellent way to improve one's flexibility, core strength, and balance. I have Parkinson's and it is highly recommended, see [30] which says " Pilates exercises are often used in physiotherapy centres to help rehabilitate people after injury or manage the physical problems experienced by people with long-term conditions such as Parkinson's". Also[31] and[32]. Every doctor and Parkinson's nurse I've spoken to about it has encouraged it. Doug Weller talk 15:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  In my experience is much more of a physical exercise now, rather than a mind body intervention. Yoga and martial arts like Tai Chi are similar as well, in that the practice has generally migrated over time to a purely physical exercise. I'm pretty sure the elderly at the local Tai Chi classes at the elder recreation center aren't practicing to focus their chi so they can do Jedi tricks, they're just looking for low impact exercise that keeps them active. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  Unusually, there's actually a systematic review of how Pilates is defined: PMID:22579438. Alexbrn (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  That's 2012, h ow it was defined a decade ago. views may have changed. A 2014 article.[33]. Lots of studies on its use with back pain which treat it as a physical exercise. Doug Weller talk 17:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  They may have changed. The 2012 review seemed to find the mind/body aspect de-emphasized for back pain usage and I imagine it also varies between countries. A bit of Googling shows Pilates is much marketed as "mind/body" today, and Pilates gets featured prominently in the Mind-body intervention article here. A good modern overview source would be ideal. Alexbrn (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  Apologies if this 2018 systematic review has been discussed already, but a quick search revealed: [34]. There could certainly be a conversation about how the journal and/or methodology factor into the source's reliability here, but it is a secondary source and the findings appear to be significant. Generalrelative (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  Comparing the above source to this 2015 review from Cochrane [35] reveals that the two describe similar conclusions. The Cochrane review emphasizes the dearth of high-quality studies but does note that there is some evidence for the effectiveness of Pilates for low back pain. They just want to emphasize as well that more high-quality research would be beneficial, and that as yet there is no conclusive evidence that [Pilates] is superior to other forms of exercises. That sounds like a thoroughly NPOV statement to me. Generalrelative (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, and it's better than doing no exercise for sure, which is also true of yoga or other forms of exercise. As the Cochrane review says "The decision to use Pilates for low back pain may be based on the patient's or care provider's preferences, and costs". I suppose an interesting question is that if you're "just" doing exercises for core strength, suppleness, balance etc. without the Pilates secret sauce (the contrology aspect promised "complete coordination of body, mind, and spirit") is it still actually Pilates that you're doing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbrn (talk • contribs) 18:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• I mean, the authors of all these studies use the term so why wouldn't we? I'm unfamiliar with this topic area so this is not a rhetorical question. Is there a policy-based reason why not? Generalrelative (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• This 2019 review and meta-analysis about the effectiveness of Pilates for patients with multiple sclerosis is interesting too: [36]. And its findings appear to be entirely consistent with the Cochrane review: Pilates is a feasible therapy for people with MS though potential beneficial effects of Pilates are not significantly greater than those derived from the performance of other physical therapies. And of course, more high-quality studies would be beneficial. Generalrelative (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• I just saw that the Cochrane review was independently replicated, which is always a good sign: [37]. Their take-away: There is low- to moderate-quality evidence that Pilates is more effective than minimal intervention with most of the effect sizes being considered medium. However, there is no conclusive evidence that Pilates is superior to other forms of exercises.. Generalrelative (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  I’m guessing there may be two strands of Pilates. Doug Weller talk 18:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe. But are those described in the sources? Or could it perhaps be that encouraging people to establish a mind-body connection when they exercise is actually pretty standard for athletic pursuits of all kinds? From my own personal experience, I cannot think of an example of a sport or exercise program I was involved in where some kind of mind-body connection wasn't explicitly encouraged. It's a huge topic for weight lifters too, for example. Though I sense that I may be stepping into a hot topic for fringe watchers here, I'm happy to play devil's advocate for a moment. Generalrelative (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  The Pilates Foundation hints (bottom of this page) there are two varieties, the trad version and a modern more anatomically-focused one. Alexbrn (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  Aha, thanks. I wouldn't object at all to something like that appearing in the article, though of course a secondary source would be stronger. Generalrelative (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  You know,I think that’s likely. That there’s a connection between the mind and the body isn’t fringe. Doug Weller talk 19:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  Depends how it's couched. In Rolfing for example it is posited that physical manipulation can release repressed memories or effect personality change. Anyway, I digress. This (totally unsuitable) source[38] seems to suggest a Pilates "split". I wonder if this is mirrored in suitable sources ... Alexbrn (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  No, I mean it’s mainstream, you can find a lot of sources like this.one Doug Weller talk 19:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) If so I would definitely support inclusion. On a more meta level, I think the issue here is that an encyclopedia works by sorting phenomena into categories, so anything that's really more of a spectrum will inevitably give rise to hard cases. And it seems to be that mind-body intervention is just such a spectrum, with woo on the one hand and uncontroversial best practices on the other. Clearly most Pilates instruction falls somewhere along that spectrum, with significant outliers on both sides (including the practice's founder, who evidently did fall on the woo side of things). I'd say that the current version of the article does an okay job of conveying this, but more nuance would indeed be helpful. And of course frivolous / outlandish claims of extreme advocates need to be guarded against, as with all topics that border on fringe. Generalrelative (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing what fringe perspective is being advanced here; the two versions seem very similar. Comparing this, with the revised proposal version second:
  • "mind-body exercise" vs. "physical exercise"; this seems like something that could reasonably be described either way, since the former is a subset of the latter and there is sufficient sourcing for either (but honestly in a quick search it seems like most sources just refer to it as "exercise".) The other changes to the first paragraph are just rewordings.
  • There is however only limited evidence to support the use of Pilates to alleviate problems such as lower back pain vs. There is limited evidence that the Pilates method can alleviate such problems such as low back pain- both of these seem reasonable; they cautiously note one area where there is some weak evidence of effectiveness per the source. The "however only limited evidence" wording honestly reads to me as slightly less neutral (it sort of feels like it is pushing the reader towards a conclusion of "it's not really good for back pain" whereas the source is closer to thus, while there is some evidence for the effectiveness of Pilates for low back pain, there is no conclusive evidence that it is superior to other forms of exercise - the latter part of that statement, note, is probably more important and is in neither version.
  • Evidence from studies show that while Pilates improves balance, it has not been shown to be an effective treatment for any medical condition other than evidence that regular Pilates sessions can help muscle conditioning in healthy adults, when compared to doing no exercise. vs Studies show that the Pilates method improves balance and muscle conditioning in healthy adults, but it is not effective to treat any medical condition. Both the things the rewrite says there is evidence for were already in the original. The one thing that caught my eye here is that the rewrite omits "compared to doing no exercise", which is important because the sources emphasize that there's no evidence Pilates has any advantages over any other form of exercise. So I would include that in some form; it's important to be clear that the advantages described here are just the standard advantages of doing any sort of physical exercise.

Aside from that tweak I feel the rewrites are fine from a WP:FRINGE perspective; they don't actually change very much anyway. As far as the definition goes, I think that we could reasonably describe it as a "physical exercise", a "mind-body exercise", or just as a form of exercise in the lead without violating fringe - even the main source being used for "mind-body exercise", by my reading, emphasizes the fact that it is discussed in many different ways. I don't know which we should use - it's more a matter of WP:DUE and what the sources say - but at the very least I don't think it reaches the point of being fringe to treat Pilates as a form of physical exercise without focusing on the mind-body aspect. If anything, if it is true (as seems possible from some of the discussions above) that Pilates has both a "regular mainstream exercise" strand and a more woo-woo "alternative mind-body exercise" strand, WP:FRINGE would somewhat encourage us to focus on the more mainstream strand (while noting the existence of both.) But that would depend on what sources exist. --Aquillion (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Pilates is "just exercise" exactly as much as Yoga is "just exercise". There are many practitioners that don't get deep into the woo bits - more so in Pilates than in Yoga -, but the foundational ideology is there and that is how it should be defined. One can practice Yoga or Tai Chi or whatever and say "for me, it is just exercise", I surely do. The place I go to is full of Joseph Pilates's quotes about "body and spirit" this and "breathing and posture" that on the walls. Exercising has health benefits, not surprising. Light exercise and stretching help with balance and flexibility, whoopity doo. Strengthening back muscles help with back pain, quelle surprise. None of this is particular to Pilates. VdSV9•♫ 22:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Are you really saying that "breathing and posture" are woo-woo? See[39][40][41]. Your argument that anything called Pilates is always tainted by its Joseph Pilates's ideas of "contrology" isn't logical. Where it just involves exercise (not that light at times if you do it fast), stretching, balance, flexibility, it isn't fringe. Other types are. Doug Weller talk 08:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Doug Weller I'm saying a lot of Joe's claims about "breathing and posture" are woo. Breathing and posture are fine and dandy, but most of the things he says are caused by poor breathing and bad posture have nothing to do with either. Example: "it is tragically deplorable to contemplate the millions and millions who have never learned to master the art of correct breathing. One often wonders how so many millions continue to live as long as they do under this tremendous handicap to longevity. Lazy breathing; converts the lungs, figuratively speaking, into a cemetery for the deposition of diseased, dying, and dead germs as well as supplying an ideal haven for the multiplication of other harmful germs. ..."[42]. It's like I'm calling BS on the people who say one should drink five liters of water every day in order to be healthy and you respond with "are you saying that drinking water is not important? links about the importance of water and hydration" .VdSV9•♫ 21:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I just removed a reference to the Köfels-impact-theory from Umhausen because from what I know it has not gained serious acceptance among scientists, but Mark Hempsell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and in a lesser measure Alan Bond (engineer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) sound fairly uncritical on it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Related: Tollmann's bolide hypothesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

--Hob Gadling (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Hempsell and Bond's views are just fringe, shouldn't be in other articles. Tollmann's bolide hypothesis does a good job on the fringe nonsense. Doug Weller talk 08:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Since the article's creation it has remained a dead stub so I would have slowly expanded this article. But as soon as I started, using a review in The Guardian, I was accused of advocacy. It is itself an advocacy book pushing for views that have no scientific consensus (and discredited speculation like about RaTG13, or that preadaptation to humans and the furin cleavage site are suspect, etc.) Consequently I thought this would be the right place to post a notice, in case someone else familiar with the politics/science dichotomy on the topic would like to work on the article (I'm no longer interested). —PaleoNeonate – 13:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry your edits got deleted, I know how that feels bro. 2600:8804:6600:45:94CC:820C:AF4C:F1E8 (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

They weren't, unlike this... —PaleoNeonate – 16:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• 1951 Pont-Saint-Esprit mass poisoning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The claim that the CIA secretly dosed a French town with LSD cannot be labeled as a claim or a conspiracy theory? Serious question. - - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

There's this article from France 24, which refers to it as a conspiracy theory. --RaiderAspect (talk) 04:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I never can remember, is their guidance on how many published works we list? He’s an ancient astronauts writer among other things. Doug Weller talk 21:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

It should generally be roughly proportional to article size. A stub with dozens publications is called a CV. That article is an eyesore regardless of the field or status of the subject: a main stream entomologist or art historian would be equally out of place. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd also like to have something guideline-ish to point to for sections like Robin_Williams_(writer)#Bibliography. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

It[43] seems to be from a reliable journal, but besides being a literalist view of the Bible, it says:

A biological study conducted by Clyde Winters (2010:296, 298) proved that about 5000 years ago there was a migration of Kushites (from Africa) to Eurasia. Linguistics and DNA studies proved that Abraham's ancestors were part of the Kushites who migrated from East Africa to Asia (Linsley 2010). Abraham's ancestors more specifically moved from the Upper Nile Valley and the Horn of Africa to the coastal areas of Arabia. There they established themselves in separate territories. The name of Terah (Abraham's father) was associated with the Nilotic Ainu, originating from the Upper Nile Valley. The Ainu migrated from East Africa eastward, as far as Japan and north to Southern Siberia (Linsley 2010). These rather astounding facts link Africa even closer to the Jews and therefore to Christianity. In fact, the believers in Christ's teachings who migrated to Alexandria were actually just moving back to the land from which their ancestors had come". Winters is way fring.[44]. And we use him ate Islam in Nigeria I see. I was tempted to go to RSN but doubt anyone would care, and it may be generally reliable. Doug Weller talk 15:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Forgot, there's a pdf at Commons.[45]. Doug Weller talk 16:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

If that publication accepted that paper with those footnotes to those sources, it's not an WP:RS. QED. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

We use the journal for several articles, RSN? Doug Weller talk 20:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

It's used at least here. Keep in mind, it could be a failure of peer review for that paper only, but it's worth checking the rest of it to confirm. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Even if the journal is reliable, the claim is so unique that I would question inclusion as UNDUE Blueboar (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

  Another editor quickly deleted it. Doug Weller talk 20:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Verbum et Ecclesia is a theology journal that "[...] encourages research that challenges traditional discourses within and between the fields of biblical, religious, social and human sciences as well as the constructive engagement with the natural sciences." [46]. Sounds quite like a pro-fringe scope to me. Certainly should be dismissed when it goes outside the theology field and starts making claims about what has been "proved" in historical or other natural sciences. VdSV9•♫ 20:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Here.[47] Doug Weller talk 19:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes EvergreenFir (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

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

A section of modern-day devices that have been compared to or identified as dowsing devices was completely removed even though multiple editors pointed out that the comparisons are verified and due. Talk:Dowsing#Explosive Detectors, previously discussed here at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_82#Dowsing.

I'm concerned that Dowsing#Scientific_reception isn't given the prominence (currently the last prose section) and presentation (currently a very restrained use of Wikipedia's voice) that a serious encyclopedia article should, and for some reason Dowsing#Studies is a separate section presented earlier in the article. --Hipal (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I for one certainly would expect a more detailed discussion of the ideomotor effect, at the very least. By the way, Dowsing#Postulated mechanisms also has some of the "Scientific reception". It's meant to be the "history" part, but it's not clear enough about that, so it just reads as a discussion of the mechanisms, which is a problem when its listing "clairvoyance" as one of the possible mechanisms. --Xurizuri (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Sources were [48] and [49] although the original source is here. The lack of understanding is shown by this comment by a co-author. "It looks like this event was very injurious to agriculture. People didn't have good ways to store corn for a long period of time. Losing a crop or two would have caused widespread suffering." The artifacts studied in the paper are said to date from "252–383 CE". But the Hopewell weren't eating much maize at all until about 600 years later.[50]

The claim is that a comet burst set fire to a number of habitation sites simultaneously, but there's no evidence that they were contemporaneous or even habitation sites instead of ceremonial sites with the burning episodes being intentional anthropogenic ceremonial fires.

It gets worse. The main author is Kenneth Tankersley[51]. Most of the others seem to be grad students. We use him in several articles including Massacre at Ywahoo Falls. Also at Sheriden Cave and others. He used to claim he was Cherokee[52] (note his claim for ancestry from Red Bird) but when the Cherokee Nation denied that he later change to being a member of the Alabama recognized Piqua Shawnee tribe.[53] which of course is not an RS but is interesting. He is used as a source for Red Bird River Petroglyphs and Chief Red Bird but his claims have been rejected. [54][55]

On the other hand, he definitely has his supporters. And no surprise, he's a member of the Comet Group. Doug Weller talk 13:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The regular participants in this noticeboard should be aware of pretendian. The Indigenous Peoples of North America WikiProject is also working on some guidelines on the topic. Montanabw^(talk) 16:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

By the way, the last paragraph of Red Bird River Petroglyphs article states:

"A sign adjacent to the relocated stone in Manchester states that "At least 8 Old World alphabets are engraved on it. These alphabets were extinct when Columbus arrived in the New World in 1492. The alphabets are first century Greek and Hebrew, Old Libyan, Old Arabic and Iberian-Punic which probably dates from the 9th century B.C. Ogam, Germanic runes and Tiffinag-Numidian are also on this stone." [4]"

This is really awful psuedoarchaeology and the source of it is a web site featuring original research by a Young Earth creationist. Should the whole paragraph be deleted? Paul H. (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I useed the Chrome extension Who Wrote That" and found that about half of the article was written by this guy whose hobby was pseudoarchaeology.[56] He was an editor here.[57]. Doug Weller talk 07:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I think we should distinguish the claims made by the sign vs the claim about the sign. The statement about the sign is apparently true [58] [59] [60]. IMO ideally we should mention the sign with proper context. This would include details like how it came about, it doesn't sound to me like any of S8Int or Joe Kuz or BereanBelievers.org are the originators of the sign so I don't think the above claim is accurate. It may be someone with similar YEC thinking or it could be something else completely. Proper context would also include discussion about how what the sign says is surely nonsense. Sadly I guess because the artefact is of limited interest and there is a lot of nonsense out there, the best I could find is Bill Thayer's site which I'm not sure is an RS and only provides limited context. In that case, it might be best if we just remove mention of the sign but we have to accept that what our article says is factual, the sign is apparently there. Nil Einne (talk) 11:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The sign certainly may be there, but we do have sources that say there are no ancient languages on the stone. The Red Bird River Shelter (15CY52) Revisited: The Archaeology of the Cherokee Syllabary and of Sequoyah in Kentucky and [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-antiquity/article/abs/there-is-no-cherokee-syllabary-at-red-bird-river-shelter-15cy52-reply-to-tankersley-and-weeks/3871ABA366083A1E0C8D2F6F901A8122 There Is No Cherokee Syllabary at Red Bird River Shelter (15CY52): Reply to Tankersley and Weeks Doug Weller talk 12:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll try to find time this week to add them. Doug Weller talk 12:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

While looking at "Rock Art of Kentucky," 1999, by Fred E. Coy, et al., I realized that the Red Bird River petroglyph site (15CY51) and the Red Bird River shelter petroglyph site (15CY52) are two different archaeological sites. I was confused by the similarity in names, so others might be careful about this situation. Hopefully, I apologize if I have mislead others. Paul H. (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Paul H.: so have I as I realised last night as shown by my post above about the languages on the stone and my source which is about the other site also. Doug Weller talk 09:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Also see this by Jason Colavito. Doug Weller talk 11:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

And this Did a comet airburst destroy the Hopewell? Comment on The Hopewell Airburst Event, 1699-1567 Years Ago (252-383 CE), by Tankersley et al. (2022).] written by a Canadian archaeologist. Doug Weller talk 08:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

And this. [61] It's a blog however, not an RS. Doug Weller talk 14:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a reliable source from a couple of days ago.[62] Doug Weller talk 17:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Ran across this paragraph in ufology:

Multiple studies that investigate the subject or related topics in a serious manner have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.^[1][2][3]

I'm not familiar with those journals and wonder if they are considered fringe or RS for this text? - - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Neither; MDPI is considered to be a somewhat low-quality publication though and I can't help but notice that these particular MDPI imprints have a somewhat overinclusive scope judging by their articles. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

MDPI will publish more or less anything. They were the publisher that got themselves removed from Beall's List by putting pressure on Beall's employer. Also, those two Knuth cites are the same thing. One is conference proceedings and the other is a special issue of Entropy presenting the stuff from the same conference. MrOllie (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I’d seen the Knuth paper around before, but didn’t recognize these unfamiliar imprints. - - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Knuth is an editor of Entropy. I'm just saying. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

And Entropy sponsored the conference. MrOllie (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Lot of new demands on the Talk page to turn the article more friendly to his ideas, citing unreliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

See talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Royal_Rife&type=revision&diff=1071695794&oldid=1070701328&diffmode=source -- Valjean (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, Pulsed radiofrequency#Therapeutic uses, 100% Rife according to Talk:Royal Rife. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I have had to revert recent changes. More eyes needed. -- Valjean (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I just hatted that discussion. Now a block is needed. -- Valjean (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Now there is edit warring, so I have started a new section below. -- Valjean (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

In the aftermath of the ArbCom/GSoW case, there is an RfC on this publication at WP:RSN#RfC: Skeptical Inquirer. Fringe-savvy editors will will likely find this of interest. Alexbrn (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

A student editor plans to edit this article and like most new editors may need help. See Talk:Myth#Planning changes to this article (I added the section heading). It looks as though the page could use a rewrite and it’s good someone is planning to do some. Doug Weller talk 19:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Cool. Are myths considered fringe or mainstream nowadays? --Animalparty! (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It's all about context. Doug Weller talk 09:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Relatedly, maybe it's time to revisit the question of whether Wikipedia should properly title the myths from the Book of Genesis as Genesis creation myth and Genesis flood myth?— Preceding unsigned comment added by ජපස (talk • contribs) 16:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Unless one is entirely detached from reality, those are clearly mythology (with the first one being a very specific and clear instance of a creation myth. Anyway this is not the place to discuss article titles. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Except that conversations in the past were filibustered by fringe theory activists who believe that these stories are literally true. They have stymied our attempts to rename these articles in spite of these myths being so identified in the most reliable sources about the subjects. You can check the archives of this noticeboard for more. jps (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The most recent one is from 5 years ago; and the other ones seem to be mostly from a period around 2010-2012 (which, as far as modern practice on Wikipedia is concerned, is about antiquity or thereabouts). Anyways, if you wish to suggest moves on those pages, this isn't the proper venue, so you should go to the affected pages directly. And if there are people who deliberately disrupt the encyclopedia, then hopefully the existing processes will be able to deal with the issue. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

mostly from a period around 2010-2012 (which, as far as modern practice on Wikipedia is concerned, is about antiquity or thereabouts) We could call those "antediluvian". --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I have found it is important to take the temperature for these kinds of *disruptive* discussions prior to starting them lest we waste everyone's time. That's how we finally were able to consign the original research that was the "List of scientists who don't believe in global warming" to the dustbin of Wikipedia's memory hole. I also object generally to the attempts to police what is and is not discussed at noticeboards. Don't get me wrong, there are some conversations that do not belong here, but, as you might imagine since I brought this one up, I think this topic is one that is directly relevant to our work here. YMMV, but I'd appreciate if we could let others opine so I might see what the FTN regulars think of revisiting this subject. jps (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It's a long time since I was an FTN regular but my tuppence-worth is that while the stories in Genesis etc. are myths they are also stories and narratives. Myth is a subset of narrative. I don't think there is anything odd from an academic social science viewpoint with the existing titles. The status of each story as myth should be discussed at length in the article, and there are more than enough good sources for that to be done well. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Once a regular, always a regular! The argument, to be sure, is that it is best for the title of an article to be as specific as possible. As you seemingly imply, all myths are a kind of narrative and story, but the most specific overarching category for the narrative and story in question is creation myth and flood myth. We have plenty of other examples on Wikipedia that use that particular term for other cultures; Genesis stands out as the one we treat with kid gloves. Specificity is helpful and the word "narrative" here does not inform the reader as to the correct genre of this literature/cultural artifact. jps (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Just chiming in with my experience: Emic viewpoints attempting to push away etic-minded coverage can certainly lead to some nasty confrontations, and even threats to those who dare (for a related but comparatively quite minor example, some of you may remember when I was publicly "cursed" here a few years back, but via private messages, I have received a few more serious threats and a few very ill-considered attempts at outing). Fortunately for the project, Wikipedia isn't censored, and in my opinion we should be a lot more aggressive in ensuring that emic perspectives are not driving our coverage of folklore topics like myth, which can be incredibly important to people and lead to major cultural ramifications. At the very least, it's worth keeping a close eye on our myth article to ensure that it remains as high quality as possible. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why we would need to be more specific than what is needed for precision and disambiguation. Regardless, I do think there is reason to beat this particular dead horse, I don't think the way the policies apply is particularly straightforward here. Whether or not using "myth" is the way forward (it probably is), it could also be that there are better compromises than this one. --Xurizuri (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Consistency is another good argument for renaming, I think. When you have a bunch of creation myths and flood myths called that on their respective pages, it seems like we should probably follow the pattern rather than breaking it. Should it be Chinese creation narratives or Sumerian creation narrative instead of Chinese creation myths or Sumerian creation myth? jps (talk) 13:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Interesting from an NPOV viewpoint. Doug Weller talk 14:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Certainly I would describe it as non-neutral to only allow biblical creationism to use "narrative". There is no more validity between it and any others that are currently widely believed, and I could easily mount an argument that the only reason it's treated differently is because of the systemic bias. In a move where I'm partially kneecapping my own argument, a lot of the articles about myths (see the category for creation myths and the category for flood myths actually don't use "myth" in the title. --Xurizuri (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

For years, the article was called Creation according to Genesis which is also problematic because it makes it seem like Gensis is a person like Garp. And at one time, I suggested redirecting Genesis flood narrative to Noah's Ark which is the common name for that tale, but apparently the Wikipedians want two articles on this topic rather than one. jps (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against renaming all the relevant articles to ensure consistency and avoid systemic bias. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I also support to use the term "myth" in the title articles that have a myth narrative as primary topic. User:Bloodofox has made a strong point that our strictly etic coverage should not be blurred by letting the emic POV to speak in Wikivoice. And having "narrative" in place of "myth" for selected articles is like slapping the emic POV right into the reader's face.

As for the argument voiced above by User:Xurizuri: many articles in Category:Creation myths and Category:Flood myths are about texts that contain multiple topoi (creation myths, genealogies etc.), e.g. Popol Vuh or La Galigo, or that describe concrete protagonists, e.g. Adam and Eve or Enlil and Ninlil. So lack of the word "myth" in the title of such articles is due to their topic which allows us to have a concise and non-classifying title, and not because of an inconsistent naming convention. –Austronesier (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

That does clear up that issue, thanks. However, I don't think "myth" should be added to titles that don't need it, because of naming policies WP:PRECISION and WP:CONCISION - e.g., Noah's Ark vs Noah's Ark myth. Myth (or narrative, or whatever) should only really be used when it's needed to identify the topic. But yeah, being WP:CONSISTENT (naming policy) in which term is used when needed would be ideal. --Xurizuri (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, to me, Genesis creation sounds like it would be an article about who wrote the Book of Genesis and Genesis flood is easily confused with the book that kickstarted flood geology. If there are other terms that we could use that satisfied everyone, I'd be thrilled. jps (talk) 01:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Here's a good book on myths and geology from 2007. Geological Society, London, Special Publications Volume 273, 2007 Myth and Geology individual chapters are available here.[63] And since they are, and it's in the Internet archive[64] I hope this is legal, it's the whole book from z-lib.[65] Doug Weller talk 14:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#RfC: MOS:LABEL is relevant as it mentions the use of the word "myth". Doug Weller talk 14:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

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

I was taking a look through the history of this bio on a minor race-and-intelligence researcher and saw that a brief section was added back in August about Woodley's work attempting to prove the existence of paranormal psychic phenomena [66]. This content appears to have been deleted because the account which added it, Woodley Meanie, was an obvious impersonation and thus a username violation. However the material seems to have been correctly framed and verifiable, based on Woodley's 2020 publication "Anomalous information reception by mediums: A meta-analysis of the scientific evidence" [67]. I did a bit of googling and found an even more recent one, "Genetics of psychic ability –– A pilot case-control exome sequencing study" from 2021 [68]. The latter is discussed in this post on the website of the PROFRINGE organization Institute of Noetic Sciences: "Paper Published! Do Psychic Abilities Run in Families?": [69] That post does seem to imply that the authors of the paper worked in conjunction with the organization, so it is not really an independent secondary source, and it certainly wouldn't count as WP:FRIND. Thoughts about whether this merits inclusion in the article? And does anyone know of independent secondary sources discussing it? Generalrelative (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I think this biography is very marginal. I'm not seeing much in the way of attestations to notability here and WP:BLPFRINGE makes me worried that a lot of fringe sources are being used to artificially inflate the profile. The search through the sources seemed to me to indicate that there just isn't that much interest in this person. He's entirely obscure if, perhaps, a darling of various fringe causes. Delete? jps (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I note it was recreated after being deleted in 2017. jps (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I would support deletion. He's definitely widely cited on far-right blogs, but significant mainstream coverage is quite thin. From what I've seen, it's mostly limited to media coverage of his 2013 study purporting to refute the Flynn effect. His entry in the Springer Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science (ref #1) is co-authored by his frequent collaborator Matthew Sarraf, so not an independent source. And this article on cryptozoology in Scientific American devotes a paragraph to him but its author also collaborated with Woodley on a paper (see [70]). On the other hand, this goes into some depth on Woodley's cryptozoology, and does appear to be independent. Combine that with passing mentions here, here and here in conjunction with race-and-intelligence fringe and I wonder if others might object. Thoughts? Generalrelative (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Is psychic ability correlated with race and intelligence too? Nil Einne (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, because they are both correlated with the ability to believe in Loch Ness Monsters! [71] Generalrelative (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

There's also a relationship between mental health and belief in superpowers and grandiose conspiracy theories (beyond ideology)... —PaleoNeonate – 15:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

After hunting around a bit more (at times wondering if I was searching for an elusive Sasquatch myself), I found what appears to be a WP:FRIND source discussing Woodley's paranormal investigations: this brief write-up in the The Sunday Post: [72]. Thoughts on whether this is substantial enough to merit a brief mention in the BLP? Generalrelative (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

That Sunday Post article looks like WP:SENSATION at best and payola at worst. jps (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I think you may be right. I'll leave it out unless I find something better. There are a number of overtly FRINGE sources like this reporting on the same paper but nothing else even remotely mainstream that I've been able to find. Generalrelative (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Notice: a separate item from this BLP, referring to Woodley's membership in the far-right Unz Foundation (an organization that supports, among other things, Holocaust denial) is now underway at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Michael Woodley. Not forum shopping here; I was given an aggressive BLP warning by DGG in relation to this content. But it clearly relates to FRINGE as well since the warning appears to imply that we shouldn't mention membership in such organizations. Generalrelative (talk) 12:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I have decided to nominate the page for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Woodley (2nd nomination). jps (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

This continues a section about Rife above.

A cherry-picked attempt has been made to squeeze a recommendation for Rife machines out of a comment from Cancer Research UK (CRUK) by the inclusion of this comment in our Royal Rife article:

"Recently, some studies were made in laboratory with pulsed radiofrequency machines that work in the same way as Rife machines: researchers found that low frequency waves affected cancer cells, but did not affect normal cells."

The "recently" and "pulsed radiofrequency machines" are OR. The comment by CRUK, in its entirety, includes a more specific explanation which revealed the machines didn't even use the same frequencies as Rife machines, ergo the content isn't even relevant for the Rife article and it fails MEDRS.

Here is the comment from CRUK in their section labeled Research into Rife machines as a cancer treatment:

I reverted the cherry-picked content and left this edit summary: "Totally fails MEDRS (note "one" small study using frequencies that are "not the same as those of Rife machines."): "One study was on a small number of people with advanced cancer. They had a type of liver cancer called hepatocellular carcinoma. Researchers found that the low frequency waves affected cancer cells. It did not affect normal cells. But this research is still at an experimental stage, and it’s not clear exactly how it could work. And importantly the electromagnetic frequencies used in this research were not the same as those of Rife machines."

I was reverted with this nasty edit summary: "Enough bullying... Your bias is anti-scientific. You have demonstrated it many times. Stop your useless editing wars."

These attempts to legitimize and promote fringe therapies fail for at least five reasons:

1. The CRUK article is filled with negative things to say about Rife and his machines. It makes it clear they are unproven.
2. OR and SYNTH are being used.
3. The content isn't even relevant for the Rife article as they are not Rife machines and don't use the same frequencies.
4. It fails MEDRS as it's vague and is only specific about one little study. MEDRS demands we use reviews and meta-analyses of MANY studies of good quality. We have to be able to link to them, not quote some mention that such studies might exist.
5. The personal attacks don't help.

I'm not going to edit war over this, so I invite others to check out the situation. We also need admins who can take action. -- Valjean (talk) 02:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

An edit warring case has been opened here. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The disruptive editor has been indefinitely blocked. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLPN#Michael Woodley. Doug Weller talk 16:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

With all mention of his involvement with the London Conference on Intelligence now removed, although that isn't the consensus at BLPN as I see it. Doug Weller talk 08:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Now at afd [73] Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Our artcle about Sex (not the act, which is covered at Sexual intercourse) has doubled in size over the last year xtools, almost entirely due to the contributions of CycoMa1, an editor who has just been topic banned at ANI from medical topics for CIR issues. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Medical_articles_topic_ban_for_CycoMa1. The whole article really needs to be checked over for neutrality, and possibly just wholesale removing their contributions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: it seems at the very least that Crossroads and a few other editors have been keeping a close eye on the article, so I don't think wholesale removing their contributions is called for -- TNT (talk • she/her) 21:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Wholesale removal is up for discussion at the article talk, so I encourage anyone with an opinion to chime in. I think it's likely that we'll settle on a more moderate approach. Many editors (including me) have indeed kept an eye on it, but consensus-development at Talk:Sex has been sub-par for a while, and I would not assume that content in the article has any implicit consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 22:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

There is currently an RfC at WT:W2W (section link here) about requiring in-text attribution in articles. This is similar topic to the previous discussions establishing that the terms "pseudoscience" and "conspiracy theor(y/ist)" can be used without attribution, conclusions which are not being disputed here, but related terms such as "denialist" are under discussion. As such, it may be of interest to this noticeboard. Sunrise (talk) 05:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

This addition to the article is disputed. Tajmar et al measured zero thrust. Shawyer keeps claiming everyone else must do it wrong. Should we discuss this claim in the article? --mfb (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

McCulloch's research is still being funded by DARPA even after they reviewed Tajmar. Both Popular Mechanics and Forbes wrote articles on Shawyer's response to Dresden. Seems notable. A one paragraph mention shouldn't damage an article on a "fringe" topic that already exists on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subuey (talk • contribs) 18:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The coverage of the Dresden work in the lede seems undue, especially the quote, though there should be some mention in the lede.

We should avoid the (typical) claims that others must be doing it wrong, unless covered by a clearly reliable and independent source. --Hipal (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Hipal Should there be a mention of the current funding for McChulloch's work? Subuey (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Without diving into the article history, I'll just repeat that it would depend on the quality of the references verifying that information. In cases like this, if the references don't give context on the importance of the funding sources, then it probably would be UNDUE. --Hipal (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, it did mention that it was significant the support was continued. Subuey (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Authored by a contributor to Forbes, so probably not per the WP:RSP summary. --Hipal (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I don't see Popular Mechanics on the list, I can assume because it is a very good RS? Subuey (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

No, not at all: https://www.popularmechanics.com/ufo-central/ MrOllie (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

If there's no RSP entry about PM it's just that it hasn't been noticed yet as discussed enough at RSN over the years to have an entry. I agree that it's rarely a good source, they're indeed notable for promoting clickbait topics like UFOs. —PaleoNeonate – 17:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Their own Wikipedia page shows they have awards and numerous nominations. A mainstream outlet. Perhaps some shoddy reporting. Many of the UFO articles are from government sources though. Subuey (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Quality levels have risen and fallen quite a lot over the 120 years they've been around. MrOllie (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Just sayin' Subuey (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

No. There are still perfectly fine articles in PM about topics like power tools and building your own chicken coops. But as a source of encyclopedia content, their promotion of fringe woo seems to disqualify them as reliable. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. The most recent discussion of Popular Mechanics at the Reliable Sources noticeboard was not particularly enthusiastic. XOR'easter (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

See [74] byJason Colavito and also his Twitter feed[75]. Darvill's article is here. Doug Weller talk 14:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Transylvania1916 claims that Ion Iliescu was the president of the Socialist Republic of Romania, and Petre Roman its prime-minister, which I have never heard before and seems wholly WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

It was only for 1 day, but it still happened technically. Iliescu & Roman assumed office on 26 December, and the Socialist Republic was abolished on the following day. What on Earth is so hard to understand? I removed the sources from the infobox because they were cluttering it, and added relevant paragraph at the end of the Revolution sub-section. Transylvania1916 (talk) 12:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Nope, Iliescu was coup leader, not president.

Your edit is WP:FRINGE and unverifiable in sources given. Completely made up original research. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I bet you didn't even read the sources... Transylvania1916 (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Google Books shows that page, there is no mention that Iliescu has ever called himself president of SRR. The other is a compendium of legislation, does not mention that, either.

Reply to Yeah, no, you revert my sourced edit, you come up with actual arguments: your edit isn't sourced in the meaning of WP:PAGs. It is your own original synthesis of two different sources, one of them being a WP:PRIMARY source.

Nicolae Ceausescu was the last president of SRR. Iliescu called himself president of the Council of the National Salvation Front. See WP:1DAY. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Is this a fringe theory? My apologies, but I'm not clearly understanding how it is relevant to this board. It seems more like a dispute over terminology, but this looks more like David Rice Atchison trivia (if I may use a somewhat similar example from my home country). jps (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@ජපස: They claim it's sourced, but they have provided absolutely no source which mentions it as a real fact. They have just applied their own logic unto sources. If anything, it is doubtful that SRR existed on 26 December 1989, and certainly there was no president of SRR. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

If it is just an idea that a user has, it's not quite a fringe theory. Especially if there is no source. You're right that this is some real throwback stuff to WP:1DAY. WP:FRINGE content tends to be a bit more organized and more muddled. This looks straightforward. jps (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@ජපස: Same as merely because we can write "the king of France" it does not follow that France does have a king. If it were trivia, a historian should have made the claim before. I lived for many years in Romania, and while I heard claims that Iliescu were neo-Communist, I have never heard the claim that he were president of SRR. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Debatable whether this is fringe, but from the perspective of improving Wikipedia, I think you both have something to offer here. The best way to address this type of controversial information, rather than reverting it entirely, is to retain some form of the content in a more correct form. The current article lacks any description of what came immediately after Ceaușescu's downfall. It goes straight from their execution to a new section talking about the abivalent interpretation of Iliescu's NSF actions, without ever saying what these actions were. A sentence at the end of the execution paragraph saying something like 'On December 25, Ion Iliescu proclaimed himself president of the Council of the National Salvation Front, and the following day they formally abolised the Socialist Republic of Romania' (or whatever the accurate description would be) would benefit the article without pushing the controversial claim that Iliescu was ever president of SRR, and would likely be something both of you would accept. Agricolae (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I ask because it's being used to justify removing material from the Woodley article mentioned above. It says "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution (see § Using the subject as a self-published source, above). Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures." There's an explanatory note explaining who isn't well known at Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual. Doug Weller talk 14:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I haven't dug (do you get that one?) too deeply into the article history. That said, I note one of the introductory sentences from here: Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. Publishing books, publishing articles, speaking at conferences, and giving interviews - all of which are supported in the article by RS and all of which, I assume, were intentional acts on the part of Woodley - define him as a public figure, and can be objectively interpreted as active efforts to achieve, among other things, media attention. If RS support this notable, "not low-profile" public figure's association with any group, claims that such content constitute defamation (i.e., damage to a person's reputation without justification) seem reckless and false. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm with JoJo on this one. Woodley has thrust himself into the public eye and availed himself of public fora. He's abandoned any claim not to be a public figure. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that everyone who has written a book, or spoken at a Zoo is necessarily a public figure. Looking at Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual, and after conducting literal minutes of painstaking research, I think there's an argument to be made either way on this person. The interview with Maisonneuve was a small part of a much larger article, and being a speaker at a Zoological Society of London talk on cryptozoology isn't really high profile, especially as the sourcing we're using for it is a blog post by one of the speakers. Not exactly Has appeared as a featured performer or speaker for a publicly advertised event at which admission was collected and/or which garnered significant independent, non-local coverage. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually I wasn't even thinking of Woodley but raised this as a general issue. Doug Weller talk 16:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Doug, I actually think the Wikipedia guidelines (and general outlines presented by Orange Mike and ScottishFinnishRadish above) do a pretty good job of structuring the answer to this question, but it is entirely possible I am missing something. I don't mean to be a bother, but perhaps you could rephrase your question or specify a bit? Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I am basically asking if this makes it more difficult to show that little known but notable figures are fringe. Doug Weller talk 17:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I was missing something, and I see it now. I think the answer to this has to be "yes." I don't think it's a terribly satisfying answer, but the policy is cautious by design. So if you had, say, a person who published a website dedicated to a square-shaped time object who was deemed notable, but not public, including direct criticisms might be tricky from a reputational standpoint. One strategy I think that might be deployed is side-by-side facts, such as "Mr. Fringe says the moon is made of cheese and is fourteen miles from Earth. According to NASA, the moon is made of rock and is 239,000 miles from Earth." This can also go overboard, however. Definitely worthy food for thought. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Side by side counters by referencing sources that don't mention the subject would be WP:SYNTH. I have seen too many abuses of this at the BLPN by people who don't understand that it was OR that try to right great wrongs. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:FRINGEBLP tries to make it clear that fringe beliefs of people should not be coatracked onto Wikipedia. For what it's worth, I think it's probably better if Wikipedia errs on the side of exclusion when it comes to fringe content simply because it is so hard to properly contextualize by its very nature. So if someone is notable but believes in goblins, Wikipedia may not include that obscure factoid on the basis of WP:UNDUE, for example. When someone wants to know whether notable person is a goblin-believer but doesn't find it on Wikipedia, that's okay. We should have very good sourcing (of the sort that makes it clear that goblins don't exist, for example) to say that. Otherwise, leave that sort of investigative journalist games to others. On the other hand, there are some people who derive notoriety from their fringe beliefs. In that case, it is not Wikipedia's job to refuse to reference criticism of those beliefs, for example. If notable goblin believer goes on Joe Rogan's show and then a bunch of articles are written about his goblin beliefs and there is a professional folklorist who publishes a blog explaining what is wrong with that position, it is perfectly fine, in my estimation, to use the folklorist's words (properly attributed) as a way to achieve proper contextualization and, dare I say?, WP:NPOV. jps (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with this, but would go slightly farther. In general, when a notable person just so happens to hold a fringe belief that receives little media attention (passing mention, or none), it would be out of WP:PROPORTION to put it in an article along with the requisite WP:FRINGE balance. Even for some clearly-public figures, like the former US congressman who wrote (or drew, I don't remember which) Bigfoot material, it just seems no more relevant than mentioning they collect stamps, have a pet African hedgehog, or are a fuitarian. If it receives significant coverage in media, then yes, but I would say that the same applies if they use their notability to promote their fringe. If a notable actress goes on Joe Rogan to talk about vaccines causing autism, or how putting a polished rock in your . . . (never mind), then it becomes fair game. Agricolae (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

And "According to NASA" could simply be presented as an unattributed fact per WP:YESPOV, —PaleoNeonate – 18:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but this may be more of a flaw of allowing the various SNG to overcome GNG like NPROF. If someone is only notable because of their fringe work but not well known, shouldn't there be high quality RS that report that the person is fringe? Does this person need or qualify for a standalone article if not? Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

If there is notability due to "fringe work", essentially by definition the source that confers such notability has to acknowledge that the work is fringe per WP:FRIND. Otherwise, I would argue, the fringe work is not notable. jps (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As a general principle, I tend to lean towards assuming a person is not a public figure in borderline cases. This includes cases that would otherwise check-off boxes for items at WP:LOWPROFILE. For example, small-town politicians who serve on some local planning board, and may give an interview to a small-town newspaper, or perhaps academics for whom part of their job is to publish papers are not "seeking out media attention". We should not be looking for reasons to publish articles on marginally notable people, rather the opposite. --Jayron32 17:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

the sourcing we're using for it is a blog post by one of the speakers. True that, but a referenced post by the noted palaeontologist and author Darren Naish under the imprimatur of Scientific American isn't exactly chopped liver. The subject has authored/co-authored several published books, and in their professional capacity they agreed to be interviewed and quoted about cryptozoology. Sure, this person isn't exactly Elton John, or even Darren Naish for that matter. But IMO their activities have made them a "not low profile" public figure, and by extension reliably sourced information about their affiliation with a disgusting group is not defamatory. I certainly won't be losing any sleep, however, when the AfD results in article deletion. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

My point is that it is difficult to use that source to show someone is high profile when the only coverage of the talk was by another person who was a speaker. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• Eduard Shifrin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Kabbalah, quantum physics, information theory... this looks worth keeping an eye on. XOR'easter (talk) 04:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

if a person has received coverage for their writing, even if it's fringe, it's entirely okay to mention it in their own article. Be a wrench, not an axe, and tweak the coverage to summarize without endorsing views. No one will die because Wikipedia says (gasp!) someone wrote something that deals with an area that irks some Wikipedians. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

This is already being discussed on Talk:Eduard Shifrin. Let's keep the conversation focused, please. XOR'easter (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

It’s about some sort of criminal organisation in the fictional Mormon ancient America. Only BOM sources. Someone has tagged it for notability but I’m thinking AfD. Doug Weller talk 20:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

At the very least, the article needs some proper etic framing. It looks like Mormons sometimes make reference to this for various purposes. Here is a reliable independent source which might provide some context. There's a reference to them from some folklore accounts in Utah. They're mentioned on p. 73 of this book I do not have access to.

I do think it's worth having mention in Wikipedia, but WP:TNT seems like a possible avenue here. Redirect might be an option if they're mentioned elsewhere.

jps (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Mentioned quite a bit actually.[76]. A very interesting mention is in Secret combination (Latter Day Saints) which says "The most notable example of a secret combination is the Gadianton robbers, a conspiracy throughout much of the narrative of the Book of Mormon." I didn't do my due diligence, there are academic sources discussing them, eg Making Space on the Western Frontier Mormons, Miners, and Southern Paiutes

By W. Paul Reeve[77] and Terrible Revolution Latter-Day Saints and the American Apocalypse by Christopher James Blythe · 2020[78] both of which are university press book, the latter OUP. Doug Weller talk 11:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Also by the former author: "As Ugly as Evil" and "as Wicked as Hell": Gadianton Robbers and the Legend Process among the Mormons, a very readable (admittedly not-quite etic) secondary source about the Gadianton Robbers narrative itself, but also about its impact on early Mormon society. Based on such sources, a standalone article looks retainable. –Austronesier (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I came across the John Mew article as it had a cite error. Looking at the most recent changes it looks like it's being edited by the subject, or someone close to him. As he has some "interesting" ideas about dentistry I thought I'd drop a note here. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 21:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The New York Times profile is wild! jps (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Experts Say ‘Pseudoarchaelogists’ Are Threatening the Field With Pet Theories About the Ancient World Engineered to Go Viral The "viral" bit is about the alleged discovery of Sodom and the alleged airburst over Tell el-Hammam. Doug Weller talk 10:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Yesterday I was removing some stuff sources to Andis Kaulins[79] who self-published this book claiming "that many ancient megalithic sites are not tombs, but are remnants of ancient local, regional and perhaps even larger Neolithic surveys of the Earth by Stone Age astronomy, with gigantic stones being placed as immovable survey markers."[80]. I found this article which had a note saying "Besides Fedorova and Fischer, who are discussed here, these include José Imbelloni, Barry Fell, Egbert Richter-Ushanas, Andis Kaulins, Michael H. Dietrich, Lorena Bettocchi, and Sergei V. Rjabchikov." I didn't see the point of mentioning all these fringe authors so I deleted it. I also added an OR tag as I consider a lot of the notes to be pure original research. I was reverted by User:Kwamikagami who says on my talk page "The article passed FA with that info included. No OR problems then. What we have here is an insistence of TRUTH, as with other fields rife with pseudoscholarship. One linguist here on WP likened the author at issue (Dietrich) to reading von Däniken." But that was in 2009. So I have three issues. Is there justification for mentioning the fringe authors? Are many of the notes OR? Does this still meet our FA standard? Rongorongo also has some notes that appear to me to be original research, some clearly not sourced IMHO. Doug Weller talk 09:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Seems like there is a lot of activity on the article talkpage that is vaguely relevant but perhaps missing the obvious solution that is to remove references to WP:SELFPUB. jps (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Pinging the other editors who have been active on the article and talk page in the last few months. @Austronesier, Bigdan201, Skyerise, and Eirikr:. I'm wondering if an FA review would clear this up. But both articles are at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/2004–2009 so I guess one would have to do what is called for at Wikipedia:Featured article review. As I've never been involved in an FA I'm probably not qualified to do it. Doug Weller talk 15:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I didn't realize this was an independent objection; I assumed it was in response to BigDan/Xcalibur pushing TRUTH, or at least removing anything that would deny the TRUTH. I'd have to check how many mentioned in the fn are SELFPUB. Deletion may indeed be the way to go. The reason for mentioning those authors, though, was that they may be mentioned in popular accounts of rongorongo, so readers may wonder about them if there's no mention at all. Certainly we cleared out a lot of garbage about them when we prepared the article for FA, with Bettocchi and Rjabchikov fighting to keep it and insisting that we give them the coverage that they deserved. Imbelloni was published in Man, and his claims sparked an expedition to Easter Island. His claim that rongorongo was related to the Indus Valley script is still repeated, despite being published in the 1920s and repeatedly debunked. Fell is well-known as FRINGE, though his claims about rongorongo are incidental to what he's best known for.

As for FA review, there's been little change to the articles since FA, with Austronesier and me mostly keeping any fringy cruft from building up again. — kwami (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

But our expectations/standards have changed a lot in the last 13 or 14 years. I doubt it would pass now. Doug Weller talk 09:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I have raised jps's obivous point about WP:SELFPUB on several occasions (and not just about Dietrich). Dietrich is considered by one involved party to be a notable subject-matter expert based one (!) review in a peer-reviewed journal and an article about Dietrich in Die Zeit. My reply to this still holds: if that's notability for inclusion, then Wikipedia is doomed. –Austronesier (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I never pushed TRUTH. I never even claimed that Dietrich is correct! It's simply an interesting theory that could be added, that's all. Kwami has made a baseless appeal to authority, by claiming that accredited rongorongo experts were involved in FA review back in 09, yet there's no RS for this, and all the edits are by his account, including the footnote (as I proved on the talk page). As for that note, some of those names can certainly be labelled pseudoscience (eg Barry Fell), but not necessarily all. No researcher should be dismissed as pseudoscience unless the RS support this, otherwise you're venturing into LIBEL territory.

Dietrich is not self-published, I never claimed that he's a notable expert, and not on the basis of 2 sources. Please stop spouting nonsense, it's counter-productive.

The main issue I had with kwami is that I don't see any reason not to include Dietrich, except for gatekeeping and IDONTLIKEIT. I even offered a much reduced version as a compromise, to no avail. The objections boil down to kwami's personal belief that it's incorrect, even though his objections have been shown to be fallacious and often based on flat-out misunderstandings of the text.

I'm fine with removing self-published work. The main reason I tried to include a summary of De Laat is because they have secondary reviews, and I didn't want another editor's substantial content to go to waste.

Another FA review may be worthwhile, especially if there's a possibility that it could alter the current baseless consensus against my contributions. Xcalibur (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Astrologers complain that they're shut out of WP too, because of the "baseless consensus" against their contributions. Sorry, but pseudoscience only belongs on WP if it's treated as pseudoscience. For a contribution, you need RS's on the subject, and you've never provided any, only one non-expert asking the experts to take a look to see if there might be anything to it. They have, and there isn't. The fact that they don't want to waste their lives debunking garbage doesn't mean that the garbage is gold. — kwami (talk) 05:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Astrology is covered here, albeit with the disclaimer that it's not accepted by modern science. Moreover, it's not equivalent -- context matters here, and rongorongo is an unsolved mystery. This means that one guess is as good as another, as long as there are RS, which I provided. Esen-Baur is an expert, and it is in fact a review (you would know this if you read it properly, which you did not); the fact that she asked more experts to weigh in doesn't negate this. Besides, that's far from the only RS/source. They have, and there isn't No, the experts haven't weighed in (except for Esen-Baur). You haven't provided a single RS (or any source) refuting this. Xcalibur (talk) 08:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)\

Repeating something does not make it true. Esen-Baur is not an expert, by her own admission. She asks the experts to take a look, because she does not have the knowledge to evaluate it. She brought Dietrich to wider attention so that they might evaluate it, not realizing that some of them already had. She does not review Dietrich, she summarizes -- there's a difference. You keep saying I must not have read her properly because I disagree with you, a common claim with those pushing pseudoscience. — kwami (talk) 09:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Repeating something does not make it true. That much we can agree on. And repeating that "wikipedia is doomed" is no less an obnoxious, disingenuous comment than it was the first time. This is especially so when rongorongo studies seem to be moribund -- you yourself said that the Y! study group is inactive. When I say you didn't read, it's not sophistry on my part, it's an honest response to all these misunderstandings. Yes it is a review, and Esen-Baur does have relevant expertise, especially since (assuming the Dietrich theory is true) rongorongo is not even a script, but a notation system! Anyway, if any of the experts you accept have evaluated Dietrich, I'd be interested in a link. For my part, here's the Esen-Baur review, a significant source, but not the only one: [81] Xcalibur (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

While I'm at it -- while Dietrich is certainly not notable enough to warrant his own article, I think the sources ARE sufficient for adding a section. Especially if the existing sections have a paucity of sources, which may well be the case (I haven't checked yet). As for kwami, I don't expect to see any sources for these appeals to the authority of Guy, Sproat et al, so that's a moot point. Xcalibur (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

As I've said before, I was happy to accept Dietrich, as it was nice to have a treatment of RR as something other than a script. There's an inherent bias in a decipherment article, as it needs to be a script to be deciphered. I only changed my mind when I belatedly realized that he'd already been debunked by the RR group, which included some of the very ppl that Esen-Baur had named as experts. De Laat was part of that group later on, and he's giving his own opinion on the RR talk page: that Dietrich is nonsense, but also that he doesn't want his book summarized on WP because after feedback from the RR group he realized that he needed to rework the whole thing.

If you believe that EB is a RS, then let's accept what she says: that she's not an expert, and that Dietrich requires expert review. Until she gets her wish, there's nothing for WP to cover.

So you have zero sources that D is notable, and zero sources that he's credible, but the evaluation of one of the authors that you wanted to include in the article, De Laat, that D is nonsense. So why are you fighting to add nonsense to WP? — kwami (talk) 07:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The first two lines I agree with. belatedly realized that he'd already been debunked by the RR group this never happened. I haven't seen a single link or shred of evidence for this conspiracy theory. Let's not forget, you were called out for spouting nonsense about De Laat (although to your credit, you acknowledged this and edited). Speaking of De Laat, their disagreement with Dietrich isn't relevant, especially when there's a CoI. he doesn't want his book summarized on WP I didn't realize that authors had creative control over content discussing their work on wiki. Besides, I updated my summary to reflect that De Laat's latest paper is a substantial revision, although the rest is still there because that's what most sources cover. then let's accept what she says: that she's not an expert, I don't believe EB ever said this, and she has relevant credentials. Dietrich requires expert review. She asked for further peer review, which is reasonable. That doesn't negate EB being a review, which it clearly is. So you have zero sources I do have the sources, though. The fact that Dietrich had multiple papers published in scholarly journals already elevates his work above De Laat, which is self-published. Of course that's not enough by itself, which is why I have a secondary RS journal article, and then there's the Die Zeit article, mentions in other papers on rongorongo, etc (multiple blog-like sources discuss this, although they don't count as RS). Certainly not enough for a stand-alone article, but it should be fine for adding a section. So why are you fighting to add nonsense to WP? I haven't seen a single valid point against the content (IDONTLIKEIT is not valid).

Can you confirm that your objection to this is that my sourcing is inadequate? Is that the hangup? Xcalibur (talk) 10:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Mentioning it here as I'm guessing not everyone watches that page. Doug Weller talk 11:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I've been mulling over User:DGG's comments on this and have decided to mention them here, as they appear to be an attack on the way we handle fringe. In a long screed which needs to be read for full context he says fringe is no longer a danger to Wikipedia (which is hard to swallow as fringe is even more a danger to the world than it was 15 years ago) and ends his comments with "the first step towards of this would be a contents rule, that we never say something is fringe, or false, or true, or controversial.I would not modify the rule: I would remove it. To use a previous example of mine, we don't even call Stalin a tyrant. Reporting what he did will make it clear, and reporting the views of his supporters will make it even clearer. But if any of us say that we know something to be true, or false, or unproven, we can only be asserting either that we are supernaturally inspired, or that there is nobody better informed or more intelligent. We all know what we think today, but we can not tell if we will still think it tomorrow; how can we dare enshrine it as a judgment in a work of reference? " Doug Weller talk 14:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The dangerous social movements of our time are not represented significantly in Wikipedia. - That is because disobeying fringe (and falsebalance) is a ground for sanction. Once we take that away, we are on course to be the next r/incel or like community.

And I do neither see how a (self-declared) mol. biologist/librarian's review of a work of history is a valid "illustration" for the tedious arguments. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

For context, it might be helpful to know that the IP user who started this thread is topic banned from race & intelligence, and would have been indef blocked for meatpuppetry if not for concerns about collateral damage. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gardenofaleph/Archive if you're curious. Though the IP user bends over backward not to mention it, DGG's recent amendment request from ArbCom ([82]), which was about race & intelligence, is clearly an important piece of background here. Generalrelative (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. Interestingly, I was not aware that even IP editors can be topic-banned! TrangaBellam (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

In extreme cases, yes. And the abuse in this case was extreme. Generalrelative (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I comment when asked, and what I say does not depend on who asks me. The views I expressed are not new; I've said them before over many years. I was not aware I was reviewing a book, not that considering Stalin a tyrant was controversial. My background in science is on my user page. The most recent presentation of my views was at WP-NA 2021, at [83] at 4 h 57 min. DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Please note that DGG has altered the above comment after it was replied to by TrangaBellam below, without marking the change, in clear violation of WP:TALK#REPLIED: [84]. Though the meaning change was minimal in this case, that sort of casual violation of guidelines is a problem. Generalrelative (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Who is talking about Stalin, here? TrangaBellam (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I see no need to say more, except that if Doug thinks fringe wasn't a worse danger when he joined, he's forgotten about Scientology. If he means Trump et al are a danger, he's right. I wish they were fringe, instead of a near-majority, But thanks for reminding me to find the link to my talk. DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

As is made clear on the guideline page: WP:FRINGE is not about whether an idea is popular or not. Donald Trump's positions on certain things are indeed WP:FRINGE beliefs per our guidelines even as, perhaps, a "near-majority" believe they are true. jps (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

That's right, fringe is really popular in this age, not least in America.[85] Alexbrn (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm noticing a lot of debate here about what "the facts" are, and what we should believe. We are going to have to relearn the lessons that Wikipedia learned in its infancy: That Wikipedians must not concern themselves with what they believe to be true, but with what is verifiable by mainstream, academic sources. Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. To debate about what is true is to arrogantly raise ourselves to the status of scientist, historian, doctor, or reporter, and to violate Wikipedia:No original research. Personal belief is a corrupting factor in editing articles, especially if you feel strongly that your point of view is the correct one. MarshallKe (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

While this is true in the abstract, when it gets down to brass tacks there are people who are familiar with the reliable sources and the full survey of the literature on a topic and then there are people who are not. Ultimately, people need to base their arguments for including material on mainstream, academic sources. We agree on that matter. But take a subject like alternative medicine where there are hundreds if not thousands of papers which make claims that alternative medicine works in pocket journals, obscure outfits, or walled gardens. It would be irresponsible for Wikipedia to pretend that the sources which proclaim such, as numerous as they may or may not be, are somehow indicative of the "mainstream understanding". And yet, that very argument is made all the time on the talkpages of this website. We need editors who adhere strictly to wanting to toe the line of using only that which is vetted by mainstream academic sources, but we also need editors who can identify those sources and can summarize them accurately which is why WP:CIR is a thing. jps (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I've read your reply three times now and fail to see how your point contradicts mine. I never claimed that we shouldn't strive for full understanding of the literature or that we shouldn't be aware of low-quality scientific journals or the ways studies receive feedback from the academic community. All I'm saying is that our personal beliefs should be ignored insofar as we are capable, as they corrupt the editing process. Most sane people capable of independent thought have at least a few beliefs that don't match up with the current academic consensus. An editor who thinks their personal belief on a topic match up perfectly with the current mainstream consensus is almost certainly wrong, and if they have sufficient competence, they have to demonstrate that to other editors, and don't just get to say the magic words "I am competent and you are not" and everyone else just says "oh okay well then I'll just believe everything you say". You still have to show your work, otherwise it's just an ego battle of who believes more strongly or who is smart and who is dumb. MarshallKe (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Or maybe not one's work, but at least RS supporting it, since that's what WP can work with, of course... —PaleoNeonate – 18:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

@DGG: it is true that what you say is not new, but it appears to me that you are looking for spooks where there are none and are playing a dangerous game here of carrying water for a group that adheres to a particular set of beliefs about the race and intelligence controversy which I think are best described as being "intellectual dark web". This argument has appealed to a certain crowd who think of themselves as torch-bearers for the Sokal hoax when I think they are better described as last gasps of a moribund approach to scientific racism. Part of the reason we have a fringe guideline at all is because, essentially by definition, the sources that surround fringe claims tend to be on the thin side. Knowing when a particular perspective is noticed enough to be described on Wikipedia is delicate when you have a group creating their own alternate universe of sourcing. This was true 15 years ago and it is true today. jps (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

It's too early to settle that question. Research in human biology will decide. At least, it will decide for for those who actually trust the scientific method, and do not adopt the anti-scientific approach of accepting only those results in science that meet their preconceptions, or the even more tempting pseudo-scientific method of accepting only the results that they think socially useful. Such was the attitude in the 1930s, and we all know the consequences. DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

This sort of "the jury is out" claim is a canard. You may recall that global warming denialists used much the same 10 years ago, in their effort to rewrite other WP:MAINSTREAM discussions on Wikipedia. "The science is settled" is a phrase that was bandied about in effort to put to bed some of this nonsense, for better or worse, but I'll say it now to you: the science is settled that race is not biologically determined. It is pseudoscientific to claim otherwise. And invoking Godwin's Law in service of scientific racism as you are doing is amazingly rich. jps (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Pardon me, couldn't help but notice the goings-on next door, and I'd like to weigh in. I think the FRINGE policy serves an important role, but only when correctly applied. The trouble is when it's abused and reinterpreted in order to gatekeep minority views out of articles. For example, claims for the effectiveness of homeopathy, colloidal silver, or Scientologist auditing are clearly FRINGE, these practices should only be covered as quackery that at most has a placebo effect (or turning your skin blue, in the case of ingesting silver). But the scientific minority view that global warming is not primarily anthropogenic and/or not a real danger is not FRINGE at all, it's a valid minority view being disenfranchised and shouted down through various means, such as being falsely labelled FRINGE. There's an important distinction between unscientific nonsense vs minority, unpopular, yet scientific viewpoints. I too have noticed that the line often gets blurred, especially by editors who gatekeep articles or are driven by an agenda. That sort of thing is not conducive to an encyclopedia. But an encyclopedia shouldn't promote snake oil either, so it's tricky.

back on topic, the science is settled that race is not biologically determined. It is pseudoscientific to claim otherwise. even if you believe that race is a construct, there are biological differences between ethnic groups, aren't there? This seems like a case of semantics to me. Xcalibur (talk) 11:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

the scientific minority view that global warming is not primarily anthropogenic and/or not a real danger is not FRINGE at all This is your opinion. The scientific sources disagree with you and with the conservative/libertarian news sources and blog you probably got that misinformation from. (The pseudoscience of climate change denial is, like the pseudoscience of holocaust denial, politically motivated.) We go not with your opinion but with the reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The same applies to Xcalibur's claim there are biological differences between ethnic groups, aren't there?. Races and ethnicities are not delineated by biology. A fringe issue that has been extensively debated on Wikipedia in different forums over the last two years is whether claims of genetic racial differences in intelligence are fringe. In all of those discussions the consensus of editors, based on an examination of reliable sources, has been that those racialist claims are fringe. NightHeron (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Climate change skepticism and Holocaust denial are not even remotely comparable, an absolute false equivalency. On one hand, we have a scientific view that goes against the mainstream opinion regarding future predictions of a vast, complex system (the Earth's climate); on the other, fallacious denials of a historical event with an overwhelming amount of evidence that says it occurred. Even if climate change skepticism is politically motivated, that is certainly no less true for climate change proponents. Of course we go by the RS, but that policy is also vulnerable to subversion and gate-keeping: if the article's guardians approve, blog-like sources are considered reliable; if not, then reputable scholarly journals are not considered good enough. In other words, the bar gets arbitrarily raised and lowered, which is yet another means of gaming the system. And if the RS themselves are biased or lopsided in their coverage, then there's nothing to guard WP against this. BTW, you didn't comment on the distinction between valid vs false FRINGE labeling, which was my main point. Xcalibur (talk) 11:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that climate change is happening the way the scientific consensus says it is happening. You can deny this as much as you want, but it doesn't change that fact. Seems odd that you think it is somehow arguable. Perhaps because of your political bias? Have you read the climate change literature? Do you know why what you term the "minority" view is in the minority and how marginalized it is as a position among those who actually study the phenomenon? In fact, I would contend that your argument in this fashion would essentially exclude you from being competent enough to edit within our articles on climate change. jps (talk) 12:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree. The lack of competence is alarming. Alexbrn (talk) 12:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Please be aware, unfounded accusations of incompetence can be construed as a personal attack.

Yes, I've read up on climate change, enough to be aware that it's not really settled, it's only claimed to be due to how highly politicized the topic is. The following facts are certain: we've released alot of CO2 since the Industrial Revolution, it's a greenhouse gas that has a warming effect, and the earth's climate is getting warmer, with more erratic weather events. That much is settled, what's NOT settled is how much of this is anthropogenic vs natural, and how much trouble we're in. Natural oscillation, the carbon cycle, and albedo all factor into this. The earth was warmer than it is now during the Medieval Warm Period, and much cooler during the Little Ice Age, all without the presence of industry. Following these trends, we should be due for a Modern Warm Period, which could at least partially explain away warming trends. Then there's the carbon cycle, which sequesters CO2 into the biosphere, directly offsetting its greenhouse effect; the concern among scientists is whether the natural pump can work quickly enough to offset emissions. And then there's albedo, or reflectivity of the earth -- with more greenhouse gas, cloud cover and albedo goes up, reflecting more sunlight away, which again directly offsets warming. On top of all this, as I said, we're trying to predict the future of a huge, complex, nonlinear system, which is always challenging.

I didn't mean to go off on a tangent here, but that's a reasonable summary for why climate science isn't really settled. I've looked into the literature myself, and it doesn't seem to answer these points, or admits they're not factored in. There are other things too, like the mesopelagic layer of the ocean having much more life than previously supposed, which affects the rest, but I won't go into every detail here and now. Point is, a scientific view can go against majority/consensus without necessarily being FRINGE. Xcalibur (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

what's NOT settled is how much of this is anthropogenic vs natural This is incorrect. If you are of this opinion, you are contrary to the reliable sources on the subject. The added denialist talking points (which is what your arguments are, whether you believe it or not) about past climate change are so efficiently debunked in the associated literature that we even explain why the arguments are incorrect on relevant pages here at Wikipedia! The long and the short of it is that your armchair arguments here, while commonly made by interlocutors who arrive at climate change talkpages at Wikipedia, really are wrong and do not belong in the encyclopedia as anything more than an object lesson for incorrect arguments. That's how we treat it, and that's definitely the best way to treat it considering that any alternative would just be appointing random individuals as arbiters of content rather than reliable sources. jps (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Even if climate change skepticism is politically motivated, that is certainly no less true for climate change proponents. No, accepting climate change is simply motivated by facts. Climate change denial is grounded in the belief that free markets cannot do wrong. This belief is solidly refuted by the fact of man-made climate change and is therefore an obstacle to accepting that fact. Those who do not have that belief do not have a reason to reject the science, and that is why they accept it. So, the reason why üpeople on the left tend to accept the science is not the presence of a political position but the absence of one specific false worldview. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Climate change is a theory, not a fact. The level of CO2 and its function as a greenhouse gas are facts, the larger model is a theory which may or may not be correct. Science can make mistakes, in fact a large part of science is learning from mistakes. Your assertion that climate skepticism must be founded on blind faith in capitalism, rather than simply skepticism, reveals how highly politicized this is, and the political bent of climate alarmists. Even more troubling is this religious belief in "The Science", as if scientific institutions cannot possibly be wrong when predicting the future of a huge, complex system, which is not only unscientific but anti-science. Xcalibur (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

File under: gravity is a theory, not a fact. Basically you're pushing WP:PROFRINGE denialism here on Wikipedia. Don't. Alexbrn (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Not even remotely similar. Gravity is a law, ie law of gravitation. The climate change hypothesis/theory (it could be either, not sure actually) has nowhere near the same scientific backing. It wasn't my intention to push anything, I brought up climate as a passing example to illustrate my point, and got dragged into a discussion. Xcalibur (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Strictly speaking to terminology, this is a category error, and Alexbrn is correct. Have a look at the page to which Law of Gravitation redirects; you'll see a description of several theories: the most accurate of which is Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. Laws are for logic and mathematics--since science is inductive, laws are not on offer. Future observations could always change things. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity. Your argument is also like "evolution is just a theory". Anti-science playing with words. I'd support a ban if this continues or manifests as damage to content. Alexbrn (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Pardon my semantic error. The point still stands: comparing current climate models to rock-solid science like general relativity or evolution is absurd and borders on the irrational. It shows a complete lack of skepticism, almost a blind faith in the current consensus, which may change and is not built on nearly as solid a foundation as the other theories mentioned. Xcalibur (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

There are huge numbers of people who deny evolution is "rock-solid science", exactly like you're denying climate science. And with the same types of argument. It's a problem on Wikipedia too. Alexbrn (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I have to say that your argument, User:Bigdan201, is just as fallacious as those who are relativity deniers or creationists. It's just as pseudoscientific and just as disconfirming for editing articles on the subject. jps (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not even similar. You're comparing fundamental scientific tenets to predicting the weather, which is ultimately what climate science is, albeit on a grander scale. Let's put it this way: if evolution or gravity were wrong, this would turn reality as we know it upside-down. If climate science is wrong, it simply means that we miscalculated how the atmosphere would respond to multiple variables. It's not in the same ballpark. Xcalibur (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The science of climate change is not the science of weather prediction. That you make such an astonishing argument as this seems to me to indicate strongly you need to take some time to learn more about this. More than that, this is a perfect object lesson as to why DGG is ultimately incorrect about the community no longer needing WP:FRINGE. Here's a perfect example. Here's an established WP:USER who is basically saying that because we have inaccurate weather predictions we therefore are unsure about whether human beings are causing a severe and rapid change to our climate. Your argument, such that it is, is one that is basically regurgitated pablum from deniers. It has no basis in reliable sources and deserves to be completely excluded from articlespace except to show how it has been debunked in reliable sources. jps (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say they were equivalent, but it's a useful comparison. Predicting the behavior of a vast, complex system is difficult, and no matter how strong your foundation is, there's still a % error, and perhaps key variables that you missed entirely. Comparing even the best predictions to fundamental scientific principles (as was done here) is in fact hyperbolic and absurd. Even if you have 100's of the best RS for your prediction, it could all be wrong, just as 95% of political analysts made wrong predictions on the outcome of the 2016 election (but that's another can of worms). Yes, articles follow RS, but the RS don't control the Earth's climate. Xcalibur (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

btw, just to reiterate: I'm not against FRINGE or related policies, I just think it's taken to excess, particularly when content which is not pseudoscience or quackery is lumped into FRINGE. Xcalibur (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

It is manifestly not a useful comparison as many reliable sources have pointed out over the decades that this particular argument you are making is ignorant at best and motivated reasoning at worst. I really do encourage you to study this subject because it is abundantly clear that you are ignorant of it. So here's an excess that I will take this guideline to: I am glad that WP:FRINGE can be used to shut down conversations like this when people argue as you are doing that Wikipedia should include more "minority beliefs about climate change". That this is not going to happen is a feature of WP, not a bug. jps (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

If you read my post about natural oscillation, carbon cycle, and albedo, you should realize that I'm far from ignorant on this. I'm also not insisting that the current climate models are wrong, just that they might be. As I said further down, FRINGE distinguishes between pseudoscience, questionable science, and alternative theoretical formulations. All I'm saying is that there should be greater acceptance of the last category. Xcalibur (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

You are ignorant enough to think that the argument that "weather prediction is a useful comparison to climate change" has not been roundly debunked in reliable sources, that's for sure. Again, you need to do more research on this topic. Since there really are no reliable sources which argue that climate change denial belongs in "alternative theoretical formulation", I also chalk this up to ignorance on your part. This is me being generous. There are some people who come to this topic with motivated reasoning. I am assuming that's not what's happening here. jps (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

That seems like a personal attack, and its based on you misunderstanding my posts. I've said plenty here and explained major points. "weather prediction is a useful comparison to climate change" I didn't actually say this. I brought it up because there's a common thread: the difficulty of predicting complex systems. If you want me to explain any further, you can ask, otherwise you can re-read my posts, which should be informative. Xcalibur (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Have a look at Strange attractor. A point is running around in a huge phase space, following a very complex trajectory based on comparably simple equations. This is probably what you are talking about - a lot of people have heard about that. The weather is the point running around on the trajectory, and because the system is chaotic, you cannot exactly predict where that point will be in four weeks. But climate is the trajectory itself. It is the attractor. Its shape is exactly determined by the equations, and by a set of independent parameters - such as CO2 concentration. The problem we have with determining the weather of next month simply does not exist with determining the climate of twenty years from now, if the parameters we put in are realistic. That is why climatologists' forecasts from decades ago are spot on, and why denialists' forecasts are not, and why drawing conclusions about climate from how the weather behaves is ignorant. So, can we please stop this now, and you either go and bring yourself up to speed on the subject or shut up when the subject comes up? --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Huh. It seems that contribution of mine was not WP:CIVIL enough, even though I said "please". See User talk:Dennis Brown#I don't think the message made it through. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

There are biological differences between any two people. There are also biological differences between groups of people when the two groups are separated by genetic distance. But race is a clumsy proxy for the latter no matter how you slice it. For example, when the American medical community warns certain races that their risk is higher for contracting a certain genetic disease, this is not an indication that the race itself is a biological marker for the disease but, rather, that a group of related people who have a higher risk for the disease are more likely to be classified as a certain race. If you really want to know whether a couple is at risk for having a child with sickle cell anemia, knowing the race of the patient is not the test. In one sense, you are correct: this is a case of semantics because the definition of race is ultimately semantic. It is crucial that the most accurate way that race has been defined is in the context of social science, and, social facts being what they are, that's the way race is made. Where I have seen many fail in this regard is that they think that because skin color, for example, is heritable that therefore race is something that is inherited. But that's not how the causal chain works. Race is a construct that is socially attached to a large number of arbitrary identifiers that come into the designation of race. Whenever a biological basis has been looked for it in a serious fashion, the findings have always been (to the extent that we say, "the science is settled") that the biological/genetic variations within any "race" are just as broad or broader than the biological variations between any "race". Brown Paper Bag Tests, phrenology, and one drop rules are all examples of what happens when people try to operationalize this in pseudo-empirical fashions.

I knew a biologist who argued that "race is a phenotype" because skin color was inherited. But the phenotypic association of the color of skin is not race as the variation in phenotypes that determine melanin concentration in the skin is broader and overlaps between racial identity groups in a way to make it basically impossible to say anything meaningful. On the other hand, we know that racism exists and that there are things that happen which are racially motivated even as many disagree that this is an okay thing to do. So this is where the question falls. When you note that, for example, black people are five times more likely to be incarcerated in the United States than white people, the plain truth of that is that this indicates a racial bias. Since the biological differences between populations selected by race have been studied in serious fashion without any meaningful distinction identified while scholarship has identified racism in the society over and over again as not just a correlative but a causative factor, it is just as pseudoscientific to argue that the difference in the American incarceration rate is due to biological difference as it would be, say, to argue that the phase of the moon is what determines the rate of hospitalizations.

jps (talk) 12:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Your points on race are well-taken. It's true, you have to guard against fallacies. To use your example of the minority incarceration rate in the US, this is sometimes used by racists to falsely claim that criminality is linked to skin color, which is fallacious. Rather, there are systemic social/cultural issues created by racism (ie discrimination by skin color) and other factors, which leads to those affected being incarcerated at a higher rate. It's also certainly true that there can be variation within a race/ethnicity as well as between different races/ethnicities, although that doesn't rule out minor baseline differences between populations. All humans are one species, this is easily proven by the fact that we can breed and have fertile offspring. However, there are minor differences, some of which you mentioned, these include not just skin color, but also facial features, fast vs slow twitch muscle fibers, hair type, and so on. I've read that people of the Himalayan region are adapted to have more efficient oxygen uptake to help them live in that high-altitude environment. Individuals and groups vary physically, and also mentally. Could there be minor baseline mental differences between races/ethnicities? Maybe, but if they exist, they must not be too significant. However, no one can research this today without getting tarred-&-feathered and losing their career and reputation. Xcalibur (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

However, no one can research this today without getting tarred-&-feathered and losing their career and reputation. There is no evidence that I have seen that there is any kind of "tar and feathering" as such at least not any more than there is in any other dead-end area. I know that a lot of race realists and IDW types like to say that this is true, but the claim is "evidence free" as they say. Let's say you spend your time trying to find out whether the moon affects people's likelihood of hospitalization. It is absolutely the case that you will not be treated with scholarly respect: you are barking up a pseudoscientific tree. jps (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. If Bigdan201/Xcalibur is open to persuasion, this source is explanatory: [86]. More can be found at Talk:Race and intelligence/FAQ. Generalrelative (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, I'll be sure to read. Xcalibur (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Bigdan201: There are also high-quality sources that present the opposite view, but they’ve been excluded from the FAQ for reasons that aren't clear. I recommend reading the comments by Stonkaments in this discussion, where he listed a few of them, as well as the subsequent exchange here. [87] [88] [89] [90]

The discussions linked above are an excellent example of the unusual way that WP:PARITY has been applied to this topic. The sources presented by Stonkaments in those discussions include a paper by Ceci and Williams published in Nature. [91] While this source endorses an environmental cause of group differences, it also is very clear that there have been attempts to suppress those who challenge this idea. Normally, WP:PARITY would not require Wikipedia to exclude a viewpoint published in Nature in favor of one published in Review of General Psychology, but that is what's been done in this case. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

It is fortunate, then, that Generalrelative's source discusses the editorial (not an article) and provides a very good explanation for why it isn't exactly relevant to the discussion you link to. Frankly, I find your WP:ADVOCACY tiresome and think it was a mistake for you to have had your ban from discussions of race and intelligence lifted. jps (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Bigdan201: But the scientific minority view that global warming is not primarily anthropogenic and/or not a real danger is not FRINGE at all Please see WP:FRINGE/ALT, explicitly covering this case. Things can be fringe without being pseudoscience or quackery. The root issue seems to be people who are insisting that we can't even call this view a minority one. One that typically strays into WP:RGW territory (ie. "The Man" is suppressing my favorite theory in mainstream scientific journals, it should be more prominent here to compensate).

even if you believe that race is a construct, there are biological differences between ethnic groups, aren't there? This is a significant bag of worms to this one (there's a good reason it's under DS), but the short version revolves around two concepts. 1) Race is not a good proxy for genetic variation, two anglo-European individuals may be more genetically dissimilar than an anglo-European and an east-Asian. 2) Defining and measuring intelligence is, in and of itself, a construct; there are numerous examples of cultural biases in intelligence testing, on top of why one culture or another values certain mental activities higher than others. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe it's RGW to point out that if a valid minority view is underrepresented in RS, that poses a problem for a neutral encyclopedia. As for FRINGE/ALT, I honestly disagree with lumping minority scientific views in with quackery, they are two very different issues. By extending FRINGE that far, you end up with gatekeepers forcing viable content out of articles for violating their orthodoxy. There are similar problems with FALSEBALANCE, which is built on good principles, but gets taken too far as well. Xcalibur (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

For Wikipedia's purposes, if the view is underrepresented in RS it is necessarily not valid for inclusion at Wikipedia. jps (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• I don't believe it's RGW to point out that if a valid minority view is underrepresented in RS, that poses a problem for a neutral encyclopedia.. The suggestion that the viewpoint deserves more representation in RS is precisely WP:RGW (Wikipedia doesn't lead; we follow), with a sprinkling of WP:CRYSTAL (Although currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community, it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections.).

By extending FRINGE that far, you end up with gatekeepers forcing viable content out of articles for violating their orthodoxy. I see WP:FRINGE/ALT as the clarification of the boundary specifically to avoid this issue. If it's being abused, address the abuse, rather than changing the guideline. Regardless, the policy of WP:UNDUE already covers the concept of a minority viewpoint being identified as such: Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. Emphasis exists in the policy, not added by me. Contrary to your view that content must be given additional prominence to remain neutral, policy says the opposite. See also WP:GEVAL: Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. (Emphasis added)

So yes, if a view is underrepresented in RS, core content policy dictates we are to give it correspondingly less representation. Your arguments against the guideline WP:FRINGE are in opposition to the core content policy WP:NPOV. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

However… in an article specifically about a fringe topic, it is appropriate to give some weight to what proponents say. More than we would in an an article on a related topic. For example: while we don’t mention what flat earth proponents say in our article on the Earth, we DO in our article about Flat earth. In fact, in Flat earth we go into some detail about what proponents believe, and cite some of those proponents (as primary sources) to establish the fact that they believe it. Context matters in determining if, when and how we cover fringe theories. Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, there are clear situations where the topics should be covered in articles. This doesn't appear to be in dispute in this discussion. This dispute seems to be revolving more around whether or not, in our discussion of an individual who supports a minority viewpoint, we state that the minority view is indeed the minority viewpoint according to reliable sources. Policy says "yes", whether or not you read the clarifications in WP:FRINGE. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Good points by Blueboar. In fact, I'm fine with proportionate representation, and giving minority views correspondingly less coverage. And yes, we should clearly state that it's a minority view. The problem as I see it is when this policy is taken to excess, when minority views are locked out, or barely mentioned except to argue against them. My issue isn't with the policy, it's with excessive interpretation. Xcalibur (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

But take, for example, an editor who shares your belief that the science is not settled on global warming attribution. We have many such accounts who have argued that such minority reports should be mentioned in our article on climate change. We, however, lock out that view per our policy. I do not consider that an excess. That seems appropriate given the overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources on the topic. jps (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Yup fringe material is left out, except to put it in a fringe box, properly contextualized by decent RS. That's what we call neutral. Alexbrn (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

If the RS themselves are not neutral, then the "neutral POV" becomes a fiction. More to the point, an encyclopedia should strive to be informative. When it comes to controversial issues like climate, it should present both sides in good faith. Naturally, this doesn't necessarily mean a 50/50 split, perhaps 70/30 or 80/20 is more appropriate. But when minority views are drowned out, strawmanned, or only attacked, it's simply not fair representation. This might make sense for pseudoscience and quackery, but not for plausible minority views. As I said, the policies are founded on the right principles, but they're taken too far. Xcalibur (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

When it comes to controversial issues like climate, it should present both sides in good faith ← this is called WP:PROFRINGE whether it's climate, evolution, JFK assassination, cancer-cure enemas or whatever. WP:GEVAL exist to stop it. Alexbrn (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Alexbrn is precisely right here, but I'm sorry, we can't bend the rules just because the reliable sources are mean to an idea. If you would like to right that wrong, you'll need to encourage the creation of reliable sources that do that. Then Wikipedia can follow. But we cannot accommodate any of the splits you propose on climate because the reliable sources on climate do not admit to any such split. That's how Wikipedia works, and it really cannot work in any other way if we are going to avoid original research. jps (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Disagreement on climate is not even remotely comparable to the other things you mentioned. It's fine to dismiss conspiracy theories and pseudoscience, but when legitimate minority views get lumped in, then it becomes excessive. RS, FRINGE, FALSEBALANCE, et al have the right ideas at their core, they're just taken too far. For RS in particular, I think we should use them prudently, rather than espousing the belief that published sources define reality. Xcalibur (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

File under: all these other fringe things are obviously insane, but my favourite fringe idea is special and deserves your respect! This is a repeated cry on fringe topics here on Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Not only is it comparable, it is a perfect object lesson for the problem with people trying to promote their pet ideas in the encyclopedia. You have made it clear that you are partial to climate change denial arguments. Others are partial to creationism. Others are partial to JFK conspiracy theories, etc. We are unable to distinguish between which of these fringe theories is correct and which are incorrect. Therefore we go by what the WP:MAINSTREAM reliable sources say. That offends the believers in those ideas. I am sure there are, even now, some fringe proponents balking at being lumped with the climate change deniers as strenuously as you are balking being lumped with them. But we have no other means to figure out what is encyclopedic and what is not. The only alternative is to name an editor-in-chief, but that's not the Wikipedia model. jps (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

ISTR the GMO conspiracy theorists here got extremely upset if they were compared to the climate deniers. Alexbrn (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I still say it's not equivalent. In fact, the FRINGE policy page provides a spectrum, ranging from pseudoscience, questionable science, to alternative theoretical formulations. I think the last category should be distinguished from the rest, climate being an example of this. Xcalibur (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Of course you say it's not equivalent. But the reliable sources disagree with you. And until you can get reliable sources that agree with you published, our hands our tied. The spectrum described on the guideline page only works if you have a reliable source that identifies a fringe belief as being in one of those categories. In our case, the category for global warming denialism is science denial. jps (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

There are reliable sources which give fair representation to climate skepticism, and criticize climate alarmism. Trouble is, the bar for RS would be arbitrarily raised for those sources, and lowered for RS that agree with the consensus. I'm not accusing you in particular, but this is the pattern I've observed. Xcalibur (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide examples, just for my own edification? I would be grateful. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

It's right that WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims require exceptional sourcing, but I'm suspicious of supposedly slam-dunk sources which are alluded to rather than actually referenced. Alexbrn (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing can be a bit tedious, especially when it's to prove a point in a pointless debate, but I'll get back to you on this. Xcalibur (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to make a daring prediction that you aren't going to be able to find any, but I would be happy to be shown to be wrong. Let us know! jps (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Bigdan201: Continuing from well above. Two hopefully clarifying points. For the sake of simplicity, let's assume a hypothetical science topic, with a mainstream and a small-but-significant minority rejected by the mainstream.

If the RS themselves are not neutral, then the "neutral POV" becomes a fiction. Here, I believe you are simply incorrect regarding core policy. If the high quality mainstream journals (ie, Nature, Science) only publish meta-analysis supporting the mainstream view, then it is indeed the mainstream that is presumed default and the minority view must be contextualized as the minority relative to. If the minority view is to be considered equivalent, it needs to be published in those top-quality journals alongside the mainstream. To 'correct' for the 'imbalance' of those journals does not improve neutrality, it harms it. It's even an example in WP:RGW: Spread the word about a theory/hypothesis/belief/cure-all herb that has been unfairly neglected or suppressed by the scholarly community. You might disagree with that policy, but it is indeed foundational content policy, and no change to WP:FRINGE would affect this concept. The more we debate this, the less focus we can spend on actionable concerns.

But when minority views are drowned out, strawmanned, or only attacked, it's simply not fair representation. This might make sense for pseudoscience and quackery, but not for plausible minority views. This is where there's room for discussion, probably. And this is where 'it depends' comes into play depending on how significant/plausible the minority is. In the specific context of BLPs for advocates of minority views, the view should very much be discussed but I don't think this is disputed. Where on the fringe scale it is will affect how it's presented. Personally, I'd want there to be a pretty high bar of prevalence for a minority view for the BLP to present the author's view as the one which gets the 'final word', like refuting a mainstream criticism. Stepping out of hypothetical world for a moment, this is the kind of thing I would sooner consider for advocates where experimental data is scant or impossible (ie. string theory or futurism) than for established fields with significant experimental data. Yes, even if it turns out they were right in the end, the article should reflect it now if reliable sources say their peers dismiss them currently. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Phantom time hypothesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP found quite a few faults, and indeed, the article needs a brush-up. I started by slight reorganizing and NPOVing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Might we rewrite this line in the lead: The hypothesis has never attracted any support from historians. Since Illig is a "historian," it directly contradicts itself. What about The hypothesis is refuted by the vast majority of scholars. And perhaps a source to pin to it. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable source that calls Illig a historian? He did German studies at University of Bremen. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Mother Jones calls him a historian, as well as numerous lesser sources, but I suppose it could be argued that he's merely an "author." German studies degree would certainly cover the early medieval period of Europe, though. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

OK... that is nomially a reliable source, but they got it wrong. [92] says, Die Historiker, das sind die anderen, er zählt sich selbst nicht dazu, und sie ihn auch nicht, weil er nie Geschichte studiert hat, sondern promovierter Germanist und Diplomkaufmann ist. The historians are the others, he does not count himself among them, and neither do they, because he never studied history but a specialist in German studies with a doctorate, and a business graduate. This is pretty consistently what sources say; only a few call him a historian, probably because they guessed he is one since he writes about history. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

There are a lot of armchair historians out there. I think it is fairly clear that "academic historian" is the sense that the sentence is trying to communicate. Sometimes there is a fine line between WP:ASTONISH and WP:ASTONISHME, and I make no judgement as to which principle is most appropriately applied here. jps (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Posted today.[93]. Doug Weller talk 17:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

What is it being cited for, and where? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

It was just posted today, and I have no idea. I guess there are three options. No, it's not reliable for anything, it's reliable in some instance and not in others, or it's reliable for anything. It might be relevant for Pretendian. Doug Weller talk 17:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't use it for anything. (Note that there was pushback on Keeler's methodology and the verifiability of her claims.[94][95]) Schazjmd (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I would say that it is reliable for the fact that an activist has compiled such a list, but this would have very limited utility. For example, it would be justified to include it on a page of the activist themself, or if we had some discussion somewhere about the generic (not specific to one person) issue of such claims being disputed it could be mentioned to illustrate the extent of the perceived problem. It is not reliable for the contents of the list (which the Post is not claiming to have independently verified) and it is not WP:PROPORTIONal to mention inclusion on the list in any BLP unless there is some independent RS about that specific individual that mentions their inclusion on the list. Agricolae (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:NYPOST is generally unreliable for factual reporting. I would look for another source or leave it out. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

This is what I expected to hear. Doug Weller talk 19:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)