Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the fringe theories noticeboard
This page is for discussing possible fringe theories. Post here to seek advice on whether a particular topic is fringe or mainstream, or whether undue weight is being given to fringe theories.
  • Discussions related to fringe theories may also be posted here, with an emphasis on material that can be useful for creating new articles or improving existing articles that relate to fringe theories.
  • The purpose of this board is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but rather to ensure that neutrality and accuracy are maintained.
  • Familiarize yourself with the fringe theories guideline before reporting issues here.
  • To aid in promoting constructive dialogue with advocates of a fringe theory, {{talk fringe|fringe theory name}} may be added to the top of the corresponding talk page.
Sections older than 20 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so.

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

  • If your question regards whether material constitutes original research or original synthesis, please use the no original research noticeboard instead.
  • Discussion of fringe theories will depend entirely on their notability and reliable coverage in popular media. Above all, fringe theories should never be presented as fact.
  • Volunteers: To mark a discussion resolved, place {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Article alerts

Did you know

Articles for deletion

Categories for discussion

Requests for comments

Rupert Sheldrake[edit]

I only glanced at it after removing a recent major expansion of the lede, but it appears there are basic BLP and FRINGE violations. My impression, especially of the Selected Books section, is much of it places popular responses (out of their FRINGE context) over science. --Ronz (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, this one is an oldie but goldie. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
So old in fact, that this, if memory serves, Deepak and NLP were what converted me from a SPA to a cynic. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Hey Roxy, I think this may have been where we met: Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_8#Sense_of_being_stared_at. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
It's remarkable how far you can get down the article without finding out that "morphic resonance" is pseudoscience and has pretty much no supporters other than Sheldrake and woo-mongers. Guy (Help!) 14:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, we have to be neutral. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
We do indeed. Even when it hurts New Agers in the feels. Guy (Help!) 00:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

In case anyone missed it, there's now a NPOVN discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Rupert_Sheldrake, where scientism is the concern of some editors. --Ronz (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Move request at Talk:Thiomersal and vaccines[edit]

See Talk:Thiomersal and vaccines § Requested move 19 February 2019.

The proposal is to move the article back to "thiomersal controversy", in line with the anti-vaccination narrative. Guy (Help!) 00:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

That is not a neutral description of the move request. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Given that the original move was done WP:BOLDly without discussion, it would have been entirely proper to simply revert it without discussion.
If the original move was contested, that's the move that requires consensus. ApLundell (talk) 03:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
ApLundell is correct, I chose not to move it because I thought JzG might revert me, and the discussion could just as well be first before any more moving. However, this does mean that a "no consensus" close on this must result in the article being reverted back to "thiomersal controversy". Tornado chaser (talk) 05:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
It was discussed alongside other moves at Talk:MMR vaccine and autism, where the moves had broad support. Guy (Help!) 16:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
You moved it and a few editors indicated support for your move, but there was no real consensus. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Several people familiar with the subject expressed strong support. And of course it should be remembered that some editors have a long history of sympathy to anti-vaccine tropes. Guy (Help!) 19:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
You have a long history of making false accusations of support for antivaxers, which can be shown with diffs if needed. Tornado chaser (talk) 04:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
For values of false that are actually true. This entire area would be better off without your input. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Edits I (or anyone else) make should be assessed on their merits, not on who made the edits, encouraging editors to do otherwise is WP:DE. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific metrology[edit]

Terrible article, mainly just puts forward a bunch of fringe ideas using primary sources. Doug Weller talk 17:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

...By someone who doesn't undersand the difference between metrology and measurement. Please AfD it. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The article does seem to be about metrology? —DIYeditor (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Not really. Yes, it claims to be about metrology, but most of it is about various measurements as opposed to being about the science of measurement. It's the difference between a fisherman and an ichthyologist. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
The topic is an historical curiosity in much the same way that Newton's interest in biblical numerology (an article in serious need of attention) or alchemy is.[1] See for example The World's Baseline? Competing Metrologies and the Great Pyramid of Giza, 1859-1884 for a recent analysis. I'm certainly not suggesting that this article, as it stands now, covers the topic well... but the subject is notable in relation to the development of science during the early modern period.[2] --mikeu talk 16:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Notable fringe/outdated theory vs. non-notable[edit]


I have a question about how much coverage a fringe theory in a generally not very well discussed topic area merits on Wikipedia.

The source in question is this one and the article I am wondering about is Coropuna. The theory discussed in the source envisages that during the last ice age glaciers in the tropics reached the ocean; there is no support for this in all other sources I've consulted on glaciations (for the Pleistocene glaciations) which all have the glaciers end far from the sea. However, the source has a few cites to itself, not that few by the standard of the topic.

I am wondering if this should be documented in the article as a notable fringe view or not documented at all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

If there are no citations whatsoever to this particular idea from the paper, it probably runs afoul of WP:UNDUE to mention it at Wikipedia. jps (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I would say that notability means, RS have noticed it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Not quite. See WP:Notability vs. prominence. It's tiresome jargon, to be sure. jps (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Is also an essay, not policy.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
That's totally beside the point. The essay is describing how jargon is used in Wikipedia WP:PAGs. jps (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
We will have to agree to disagree on whether or not this describes how the community describes the jargon, this is a side track we do not need to get into. Do you agree that notability means that third party independent RS have noticed it?Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
No, I do not. And you would understand that (and perhaps even WHY) had you bothered to read past the boilerplates on the essay I linked. jps (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't regard that idea as notable. I only read the english summary but I wouldn't describe it as fringe, per se. It looks more like a suggestion that was ignored by the field. It also doesn't appear to be a relevant detail to include in that section of the article. The ice cap description and history seems fairly comprehensive. I would be more concerned that a novice would have some difficulty due to the level of detail included. I would suggest that the threat to the local water supply is a more important topic to expand. I enjoyed reading that section, fascinating. --mikeu talk 20:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


A herbal tea and famous fake cancer cure - there's a new editor at work who has a different take. More eyes welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Nazi gun control argument[edit]

Reliable sources overwhelmingly characterize the so-called Nazi gun control argument - which holds that gun regulations in the Third Reich helped to facilitate the rise of the Nazis and the Holocaust - as a "false" "debunked" fringe theory.[1][2][3][4]


  1. ^ "Fact-checking Ben Carson's claim that gun control laws allowed the Nazis to carry out Holocaust". @politifact. Retrieved 2019-01-31.
  2. ^ "Florida lawmaker mangles Nazi gun control history". @politifact. Retrieved 2019-01-31.
  3. ^ "Facebook post claiming guns could have prevented the Holocaust met with backlash". The Washington Post. 2018.
  4. ^ "Shot down: the myths distorting the US gun debate". Channel 4 News. Retrieved 2019-01-31.

If reliable sources overwhelmingly characterize something as a "false" "debunked" fringe theory, are we allowed to state that in Wiki voice? An editor, VwM.Mwv, on the Nazi gun control argument article claims that this is not neutral, in part because "There's no such thing as a "fact-checker"".[3] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

  • this is false, BS, debunked and illogical. Legacypac (talk) 02:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes we are.Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I am usually one of the first to call a fringe theory what it is, but I honestly have reservations about this one. The whole argument hangs on a couple of things. First, did the Nazis disarm Jews? Yes. See Disarmament of the German Jews. Would things have turned out differently if the Jews were better armed? Almost certainly not, but I am reluctant to call something that is based upon "X would have been different if Y had been different" as fringe. Fringe does not equal "speculation that is probably wrong". We do know that some Jews fought. The best-known example of this would be the Bielski partisans, but as far as I can tell the Bielski partisans had few problems getting guns, using the tried and true method of gathering the guns and ammunition from dead soldiers. Would more Jews have fought if they hadn't been disarmed? Probably not (but speculation is generally not fringe). Our section on The Holocaust#Jewish resistance says "there was practically no resistance" and our article on Jewish resistance in German-occupied Europe says "few Jews were able to effectively resist the Final Solution militarily". It's not as if the railroad terminals had big signs saying "line up here for the death camps" and the death camps had big signs that said "the showers are actually gas chambers". The Nazis made a reasonable effort to keep what they were doing secret from the Jews.

I am also concerned with the fact that most of the discussion on this has been from pro-gun and anti-gun activists. What do the historians say"? Well, we have one source that says "the historians have paid scant attention to the history of firearms regulation in the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich". That doesn't sound like it fits very well with our "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field" definition.

I say that we present the conclusions of the historians who have commented on this in their own voices, but without calling the idea fringe. Probably wrong, yes. Fringe, no. I just don't see it as meeting our criteria. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

so how many historians of the Holocaust (or even Nazi Germany) support this view?Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
we could also ask: So how many historians of the Holocaust (or even Nazi Germany) oppose this view? We end up with the same answer either way we pose the question... “very few”. The problem isn’t that the idea is dismissed, the problem is that the idea hasn’t even been explored. Historians simply have not discussed it. Blueboar (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Like cryptozooology or ghosts, serious scholars have rejected it by not giving it the time of day. Thus this is as much a fringe theory as any other fringy claim that reputable scholarship has been dismissive of with an airy wave of its hand. But a few have j=rejected it, how many have accepted it?Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I am not a big fan of assuming that "saying nothing at all" is equal to "dismissive of with an airy wave of its hand".
I am even less of a fan of saying "the raving lunatic pro-gun nuts say that X is true while the historians say nothing, therefore X being true is fringe. On the other hand, the raving lunatic anti-gun nuts say that X is false while the historians say nothing, therefore X being false is mainstream". Are we going to follow our own "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field" (WP:FRINGE) standard or are we just going to make shit up? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Seconded. I know it's repugnant to agree with a POV-pushing editor, as is the case here. But I think we should just place prominent subjective criticisms in the lead instead. Describe the theory, describe how it's been used, and then describe all the people who think it's full of shit.--Shibbolethink ( ) 18:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
How about we just go in, delete everything that isn't an academic source on the grounds they don't know their asses from a hole in the ground and then assess if there's enough left of this... topic to make a stub? Simonm223 (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Wait...what? We are supposed to not use sources that don't know their asses from a hole in the ground? Oh, man. I have been doing it the other way round for years... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Soft Disagree-I think we should at least keep the news-based sources. They are arguably as useful in this as the scholarly ones. Especially those with wide readership like the Village Voice and the LA Times...But I would definitely Hard Agree that the way these sources are used is problematic. The article reeks of WP:CHERRY.--Shibbolethink ( ) 19:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Honestly I'm at the point of thinking that the use of news articles in Wikipedia at all, anywhere, is a severe detriment to the stated goals of the project. Simonm223 (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I used to agree with you, but then I found articles like Waldorf education and Anthroposophy, where the scholarly sources are heavily bogged down by POV-pushing overly-erudite in-universe nutjobs who believe in magic and want everyone else to believe in it too. And these people have PhDs and MAs from universities that adore this type of over-intellectualism, and publish their own little pro-magical-thinking journals and pro-magical-thinking books, which have a readership in people who believe in gnomes and spirits as well. It is only news sources that call the bullshit out for what it is in places like this. There is, unfortunately, no one-size-fits-all solution. :( --Shibbolethink ( ) 19:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
"X would have been different if Y had been different" That is typically the realm of counterfactual history.: "a form of historiography that attempts to answer "what if" questions known as counterfactuals. Black and MacRaild provide this definition: "It is, at the very root, the idea of conjecturing on what did not happen, or what might have happened, in order to understand what did happen." The method seeks to explore history and historical incidents by means of extrapolating a timeline in which certain key historical events did not happen or had an outcome which was different from that which did in fact occur. It has produced a literary genre which is variously called alternative history, speculative history, or hypothetical history. ... One goal is to estimate the relative importance of a specific event, incident or person." Dimadick (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
On another side note, there is a legitimate argument that can be made here: While Jews possessing more guns wouldn't have stopped the Holocaust, it can be argued that it's better to go down fighting rather than helplessly led to the slaughter like sheep. Case-in-point: the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Jews used smuggled guns into the Ghetto to fight against the Nazis. According to our article, 13,000 Jews died in the uprising. But they killed 10 Nazis. But I haven't seen anyone advance this argument. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I see this line trotted out by American communists sometimes, "if there's gun control how can we have the revolution?" To which I'd ask why any rebel group - be that the very real Jewish resistance to fascism or the fantasy resistance to capitalism that commie twitterati like to imagine - would want to use legal firearms? Simonm223 (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
In Greece, the far-left terrorist organizations, such as Revolutionary Organization 17 November (1975-2002) and Revolutionary Struggle (2003-), mostly smuggle in weapons and explosives from other countries. Less oftenly, they simply steal weapons from the Hellenic Army. The following 2002 article lists major thefts/raids in Army facilities between 1977 and 2000. Last year, we had a minor scandal because they somehow managed to steal weapons from a department of the Hellenic Police. Not that they are that well-trained in using the weapons. On December 17, 2018, explosion at the headquarters of Skai TV damaged the building, but failed to kill the TV station's personnel, which were the main targets.Dimadick (talk) 10:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Right?!? Simonm223 (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

"legitimize outright murder on a large scale – without any legal proceedings whatsoever"[edit]

On a side note, isn't "legitimize outright murder on a large scale – without any legal proceedings whatsoever" wrong?[4] The Nazi's passed a law retroactively legalizing the murders. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

OK lets see how fringe this is.[edit]

Sources again the proposition (historians)[edit]

"Ben Carson Is Wrong on Guns and the Holocaust" [[5]]

Sources for the proposition (historians)[edit]

David Strickel[edit]

David Strickel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bio of a non notable prosperity religion guru. Was rejected at AfC but WP:SPA published it anyway. I’d send it to speedy deletion if I knew what criteria code applied. -LuckyLouie (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and nominated for CSD under A7: Unremarkable person. If that doesn't go through, we can go to an AfD, where I have few doubts it will get deleted. To my eyes, there's no question: it definitely doesn't meet WP:GNG.--Shibbolethink ( ) 04:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Has been deleted.  Done --mfb (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Kenny Biddle article[edit]

Hello, I published an article about ex-ghost hunter and now scientific skeptic Kenny Biddle about a year ago and it was deleted for lack of notability. It has been a year since then, and Biddle was covered in a NYT article about a sting operation done where a "psychic medium" was caught doing hot reading. What brings me here is that in the debate (see here) about resurrecting the Biddle article (see here), an editor has dismissed the NYT article this NYT article as fringe. When I pointed out that it is the exact opposite of fringe, he said: "Anti-FRINGE is an interesting twist on FRINGE. It still needs FRINGE type care." So, can someone here explain what "FRINGE type care" means and why it would apply to the NYT article or Biddle at all? Feel free to chime in on the debate page as well. RobP (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

To the extent that the article you propose deals with fringe theories, it certainly helps to consider the WP:FRINGE guideline. Arguing over the minutiae of this is probably not worth your time. The New York Times profile certainly mentions Biddle, but the bigger question is does it mention Biddle prominently for us use it as a key source of notability for a WP:BLP? To the extent that Biddle is famous for various ghost hunting activities, we have to keep in mind some of the commentary in WP:FRINGEBLP. I can see an argument that the New York Times article may be running close to WP:SENSATION, but I am not convinced. I think the article is a pretty solid source, but it may not necessarily be enough to establish the notability of Biddle. By all means use it in other articles (for example, our article on hot reading). I hope this helps! jps (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
After looking at the draft article, I'm pretty convinced. This guy is at least as notable as the many psychics we have articles for here on the wiki...--Shibbolethink ( ) 18:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Conceivably. But then, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's possible the psychics should have their biographies removed. jps (talk) 11:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI[edit]

Content fixed by Legacypac, I sprotected the article. Guy (Help!) 13:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not sure whether here or WP:RSN is the best place for this. Can I ask people to take a look at Resignation_of_Pope_Benedict_XVI#Controversies_over_the_Act_of_Resignation? It seems conspiracy theory tinged to me alleging, among other things, that Pope Benedict XVI's resignation may have been because he was subjected to intimidation, harassment or even death threats(!) The three "sources" used to support the section are



"NATACHA JAITT, ACCUSER OF Gustavo Vera WHO IS A CLOSE FRIEND OF FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL, FOUND DEAD IN ARGENTINA Whistleblower Found Dead: Accused Gustavo Vera, Close Friend of Pope Francis, of Human Trafficking"

Which really doesn't inspire confidence in its reliability.

I removed the section and pointed the ip who is adding the material to WP:BRD and WP:SPS, but they just respond with accusations of vandalism and personal attacks, restoring the material. Valenciano (talk) 08:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked the IP for a week for disruption even after being given an explanation by you. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't think that's going to solve the issue, as the questionable material is still in the article and the ip has evaded their block to launch another personal attack. Valenciano (talk) 10:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Effects of blue light technology[edit]

light bulbs are going to kill you, don't you know? makes you blind, makes you craaaazeeee health claim I wrote a bunch of stuff on the effects of blue light technology page before I made an account as mitigation toward all the scare marketing but I'm still a bit concerned about the other ones and cant really see much of a justification for a lot of the health claims on those pages. As background, I just did simple math with references to point out that researchers have been basically frying rats eyeballs out of their heads with welding mask tier near-UV bright lights and comparing it to green light as some sort of proof that you need magic glasses to stop your eyeballs from falling out because they used the wrong equipment to check the light levels.

The basic problem is that people doing the research are in ergonomics departments which use colorimeters because until recently they were studying office space light levels and i guess nobody told them how they work. Verify references (talk) 03:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh my god. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I have to admit I've always been concerned with the severe idiocy that can accompany discussions of the effects that visible light has on human health. jps (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Weeding the garden[edit]

I think we should start to pare down this mess of articles. To that end, I proposed a merge of Effects of blue light technology and ‎High-energy visible light. They are both about essentially the same subject (and the latter article title should conceivably just be redirected to blue or violet, fercryingoutloud.

As I removed a bit of EMF paranoia from one of the articles, I discovered that we have TWO articles on essentially the same topic: Mobile phone radiation and health and Wireless electronic devices and health. So I propose we merge those too.

Help is appreciated from all you wonderful people.

jps (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  • merge would agree with merge-Mobile phone radiation and health and Wireless electronic devices and health.-Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • merge that merge makes sense irrespective of the fringe-ness of the topic: they are both about global population exposures to fractional-watt radio transmissions in the overlapping bands used for cellular, DECT, and WiFi devices. Whether the hazard is large, small or merely speculative, there is a great deal of sloppy science being published on the topic, mixed in with a few careful works. The press-driven furor is as usual nearly devoid of useful information. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Highgate Vampire[edit]

Highgate Vampire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The vampire-hunting bishop named in the article now adding unsourced argumentation against detractors and rivals to the text. I’ve reverted once, but this situation may eventually need administrative remedies. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Coloniality of gender[edit]

I have just removed a tremendous amount of synthesis and unrelated material from the article Coloniality of gender: (Original version:[6]) It seems to me that the article still has fundamental problems worth bringing up here: although the body is mainly general information about the pre- and post-colonial status of women in various countries, the lead asserts that

The idea of gender itself was believed to be introduced by Western colonizers as a way to distinct two dualistic social categories which are men and women.The colonizers had introduced the idea of gender itself into Indigenous groups as this was originally a colonial concept which was made to organize production, territory and behavior. The desire for the colonizer to put forth the idea of gender onto an Indigenous group was to have control over their labor, authority, influence their subjectivity and ideas of sexuality.

I think it's pretty fringe to say that the idea of gender is an invention of colonialists and unknown to (all?) indigenous groups. Should the article be renamed to something like "Women and colonialism", and the gender-theory material discarded? Cheers, gnu57 18:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

  • It still looks like an awful lot like an undergraduate-essay-shaped-peg trying to fit into a Wikipedia-article-shaped-hole. GMGtalk 19:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Conflict Theorist Sociology grad swoops in The statement presented is a misinterpretation of what most scholars say about colonization and gender - that indigenous communities often had their own systems of gender that didn't match those of colonizers, and that colonizers brought a homogenization of gender that often introduced new problems into the societies of colonized people. Examples include colonial actions in North America and India, sometimes Thailand is referenced in literature to a lesser extent IIRC. But it's rather infantilizing to suggest indigenous people had no concept of gender. Rather they had their own concept of gender that didn't necessarily match the strict binary of European colonists. Simonm223 (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Yonaguni Monument[edit]

I've just removed a couple of photos added today and replied to the editor on the talk page where he challenges an academic source because he thinks the investigation was poor. Eyes and maybe another reply would be useful. Doug Weller talk 12:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


Additional eyes on Judeopolonia please. An editor believes it is correct to describe this as "an idea positing future Jewish domination" rather than "an antisemitic conspiracy theory positing future Jewish domination of Poland" (cited to a couple of academic books and from a quick search it seems there is little trouble finding more). I'll also note they added unsourced (+ a 1941 CIA report, Czerniakow diary (died 1942), and Ringelblum (died 1944)) to Ewa Kurek (a BLP born in 1951) - diff - who is known for rather fringey views regarding Jews, ghettos, and fun.[7][8][9][10] Icewhiz (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Good find. This is the sort of crap that attracts nazis. I'm inclined to suggest AfD as the whole thing seems to be a non-notable fringe political position. Simonm223 (talk) 14:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
But also how could there be a CIA report on anything from 1941. Wasn't the CIA founded in 1947? Simonm223 (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Good point, had not picked up on that. I assume they mean the OSS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Likely, but if a source is referring to the CIA explicitly reporting things in 1941 then I'd say that alone is reason to treat the source as a fringe one. Simonm223 (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I would say unreliable for any statement of fact, fringe aside.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Good point on the CIA - it [11] was in the CIA archive - but it is a US intel report from 1941 (so - unlikely to contain anything on Kurek who was born in 1951). As for Judeopolonia - I think it is a notable canard - google-book the thing and you get quite a bit. Joanna Michlic - googlebook (available in preview) describes it at quite some length. Sadly - some of these canards are notable - but we need to describe them as they are (e.g. this one appears to be the Polish equivalent of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion). We have entries on other notable hate concepts - e.g. Nigger. Icewhiz (talk) 14:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I hear you. When it comes to discussing hate literature we always have to walk a fine line between denying bigots a platform and being a comprehensive encyclopedia. TBH this particular piece of antisemitic conspiracizing is new to me. Poland isn't within my usual remit. However I do think we need to be clear and unambiguous that it's a conspiracy theory at the very least. Simonm223 (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Same here, never heard of this (though of course the idea is an old an well know one) particular EXAMPLE OF THE Jewish DOMINATION CANARD.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Just nominated for deletion. See here.--Shibbolethink ( ) 15:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory lead RfC[edit]

Editor input is requested at Talk:Conspiracy theory#Lead (RfC). Thank you. Levivich 20:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:Researchers of the assassination of John F. Kennedy[edit]

Should Category:Researchers of the assassination of John F. Kennedy contain conspiracy theorists? Barr McClellan is just one example.

I think it shouldn't, it should only contain serious scholars, but maybe there are other users here who have more experience with that subject... --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I see the problem: when Roger Stone and Jesse Ventura are categorized as researchers, it diminishes the classic interpretation of the term as a scholarly, objective, and systematic pursuit. Unfortunately, the term has been co-opted widely in media. It has come to mean anyone looking over records or talking to people and then having an opinion, e.g. Researchers questioning the mainstream media account of 9/11. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Galileo Galilei[edit]

Did you know "the Inquisition had science on its side" and "Galileo was a bad scientist"? Somebody puts lots of text on the Talk page in order to turn the article inside out. --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Yup, the common wisdom is that he faked his famous physics experiments (i.e. never performed them in real life). Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, he certainly did not fake his telescope observations. But anyway.... the main argument on the talkpage seems to be that because the Inquisition homed in on a few points (tides, the sizes of stars) about which Galileo wasn't correct, it is somehow irresponsible to call Galileo the harbinger of a Scientific Revolution based on empirical fact. What this fails to take account of are the points that Galileo actually got right. Another weird hang-up is a proposal that he should have, for some reason, preferred the Tychonic system (which basically puts Venus and Mercury in orbit around the Sun and everything else in orbit around the Earth). I don't understand why anyone would bring that up as a reason to re-evaluate Galileo. Why should Galileo prefer it? Why should any one? Galileo liked Copernicus's model because it could explain the phases of Venus and Ptolemy's system could not, even if the ephemeris is less accurate. Tycho's system also gives you the phases of Venus, but it provided a more inaccurate ephemeris than Copernicus. The only reason you would want to force a Tychonic system is if you wanted to keep the Earth stationary, and Galileo did not think this was a good justification. And he was right. jps (talk) 04:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Gerard Gertoux[edit]

This is about [12]. My claim is that Gertoux is WP:FRINGE: he seeks legal remedy against "the great French academic conspiracy against Christian fundamentalism" (although many Catholics, Eastern-Orthodox and Protestants would not recognize him as a Christian). On the internet there are details about his PhD candidature and how he accused his own professors of discrimination. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I've seen some citations made to his works to contradict other scholars in the past and my impression is similar. —PaleoNeonate – 08:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Hmm I will ping two editors who are not regulars here, but may have more valuable advice in relation to this topic than me: Jeffro77 and PiCo, in case they would like to comment. —PaleoNeonate – 08:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I have occasionally seen 'Gerard Gertoux' inserted as a source on articles relating to the topic of 'God'. The sources involved are generally self-published and do not reflect scholarly consensus. Agree with an assessment as 'fringe'. Whether he is 'recognised as Christian' is quite irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I've never heard of Gerard Gertoux. I gather from a quick google-search that he's a graduate student at Université Lyon, which is not a very high academic ranking. (I mean being a grad student isn't - nothing against U.Lyon). Still, it's not the individual who's supposed to be reliable or fringe, it's the idea expressed - on academic subjects we should look for widely held positions common to people at the top of their profession, in this case biblical studies. Gertoux is not at the top of his profession, and I'd prefer to look elsewhere for the same ideas.PiCo (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
(From the abstract of another paper by Gertoux: "Chronology is the backbone of history" is usually taught in schools but what is very disturbing is the total absence of reliable chronology to fix the Exodus because the date goes from 2100 to 650 BC (Sparks: 2015, 60); such a 1500-year gap is not at all serious. Furthermore, Exodus pharaoh identifications and theories (page 61) are absurd because the pharaoh of the Exodus died suddenly in the Red Sea according to the biblical text (Ps 136:15) and it is easy to see that the state of the mummy of Seqenenre Taa (Cairo Museum, The Royal Mummies CG 61051) proves that his body received severe injuries and remained abandoned for several days before being mummified. In addition Crown Prince Ahmose Sapaïr (Musée du Louvre, Paris: statue E 15682), who was the eldest son of Seqenenre Taa (1543-1533), died shortly before his father (Ex 12:29), who himself died on May 10, 1533 BCE. According to the biblical chronology based on absolute dates, not to the scholarly chronology of Edwin R. Thiele, the pharaoh of the Exodus died on May 10, 1533 BCE (exactly the same day). Consequently Seqenenre Taa was the pharaoh of the Exodus, according to absolute chronology." Not confidence-inspiring.)PiCo (talk) 09:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
(And....: To be or not to be is a crucial question regarding Moses as well as the Exodus because, according to the Bible, the character related to that famous event forms the basis of the Passover which meant the Promised Land for Jews and later the Paradise for Christians. However, according to most Egyptologists, there is absolutely no evidence of Moses and the Exodus in Egyptian documents, which leads them to conclude that the whole biblical story is a myth written for gullible people. Ironically, if one considers that “truth” must be based on two pillars: an accurate chronology anchored on absolute dates (Herodotus’ principle) and reliable documents coming from critical editions (Thucydides’ principle), that implies an amazing conclusion: those who believe Egyptologists are actually the real gullible ones. According to Egyptian accounts the last king of the XVth dynasty, named Apopi, “very pretty” in Hebrew that is Moses’ birth name (Ex 2:2), reigned 40 years in Egypt from 1613 to 1573 BCE, then 40 years later he met Seqenenre Taa the last pharaoh of the XVIIth dynasty and gave him an unspecified disturbing message. The eldest son of Seqenenre Taa, Ahmose Sapaïr, who was crown prince died in a dramatic and unexplained way shortly before his father. Seqenenre Taa died in May 1533 BCE, after 11 years of reign, in dramatic and unclear circumstances. The state of his mummy proves, however, that his body received severe injuries, in agreement with Psalms 136:15, and remained abandoned for several days before being mummified. Prince Kamose, Seqenenre Taa's brother, assured interim of authority for 3 years and threatened attack the former pharaoh Apopi, new prince of Retenu (Palestine) who took the name Moses, according to Manetho (280 BCE), an Egyptian priest and historian. In the stele of the Tempest, Kamose also blames Apopi for all the disasters that come to fall upon Egypt, which caused many deaths.
From the first page of that article we have this: The present chronology of the Bible is an elaborate system of life-spans, ÒgenerationsÓ, and other means which delineate the events over the 4,000 years of narrative time between the Creation of the world and the re-dedication of the Temple in 164 BCE. And this footnote on the same page: The early Church Father Eusebius, attempting to place Christ in the chronology, put his birth in AM 5199, and this became the accepted date for the Western Church. As the year AM 6000 (800 CE) approached there was increasing fear that the end of the world was nigh, until the Venerable Bede then made his own calculations and found that Christ's birth took place in AM 3592. Martin Luther placed the Apostolic Council of Acts 15 in the year AM 4000, believing this marked the moment when the Mosaic Law was abolished and the new age of grace began. This was widely accepted among European Protestants, but in the English-speaking world, Archbishop James Ussher switched the focus back to the birth of Christ (c. 1650), which he found had occurred in AM 4000, equivalent, he believed, to 4 BCE, and thus arrived at 4004 BCE as the date of Creation. Al of that is taken from OUR wikipedia article on Biblical chronology - I should know, I wrote it. Much as it hurts to say this about my own material, this is not reliable. PiCo (talk) 09:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "what is very disturbing is the total absence of reliable chronology to fix the Exodus because the date goes from 2100 to 650 BC" How do you fix the dates of a fictional event that never happened? There is no more evidence about the historicity of Moses, than the historicity of Little Red Riding Hood. And frankly, her tale is more realistic. No miracles or divine interventions.
  • "Seqenenre Taa" is Seqenenre Tao. The injuries on his corpse indicate death in battle, or assassination.:
    • "it is not known whether he fell upon the field of battle or was the victim of some plot; the appearance of his mummy proves that he died a violent death when about forty years of age. Two or three men, whether assassins or soldiers, must have surrounded and despatched him before help was available. A blow from an axe must have severed part of his left cheek, exposed the teeth, fractured the jaw, and sent him senseless to the ground; another blow must have seriously injured the skull, and a dagger or javelin has cut open the forehead on the right side, a little above the eye. His body must have remained lying where it fell for some time: when found, decomposition had set in, and the embalming had to be hastily performed as best it might."
    • "The wound on his forehead was probably caused by a Hyksos axe and his neck wound was probably caused by a dagger while he was prone. There are no wounds on his arms or hands, which suggests he was not able to defend himself."
    • "Until 2009 the main hypotheses have been that he died either in a battle against the Hyksos or was killed while sleeping. A reconstruction of his death by Egyptologist Garry Shaw and archaeologist and weapons expert Robert Mason suggested a third, which they saw as the likeliest, that Seqenenre was executed by the Hyksos king. Garry Shaw also analysed the arguments for the competing hypotheses and other physical, textual and statistical evidence concluding "that the most likely cause of Seqenenre’s death is ceremonial execution at the hands of an enemy commander, following a Theban defeat on the battlefield." "Dimadick (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
"There is no more evidence about the historicity of Moses, than the historicity of Little Red Riding Hood" - See also The Truth About Hansel and Gretel. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

About [13] mentioned before and [14]. The deleted arguments are in secondary sources: Robert J. Wilkinson (2015). Tetragrammaton: Western Christians and the Hebrew Name of God: From the Beginnings to the Seventeenth Century, Studies in the History of Christian Traditions. Brill. p. 93, 94. ISBN 9789004288171., Pavlos D. Vasileiadis (2014). "Aspects of rendering the sacred Tetragrammaton in Greek". Open Theology. 1: 56–88., Didier Mickaël Fontaine (2007). Le nom divin dans le nouveau testament (in French). Editions L'Harmattan. ISBN 2296176097., and Didier Fontaine (2009). S. Pizzorni, ed. Il nome di Dio nel Nuovo Testamento. Perché è scomparso dai testi greci nel I e II secolo? (in Italian). Translated by S. Appiganesi. Azzurra 7. ISBN 8888907106. (primary source is not a self-publishing source Gertoux, Gerard (2002). The Name of God Y.eH.oW.aH which is pronounced as it is written I_Eh_oU_Ah: Its story. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America. ISBN 0761822046. and its French version, Gérard Gertoux (1999). Un historique du nom divin: un nom encens. L'Harmattan. ISBN 9782738480613.). Thanks in advance. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

If the arguments appear in valid secondary sources, cite those sources, giving due weight based on how those views are considered by experts in the field. A PhD candidate would not appear to meet the criteria for inclusion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
As I demonstrated above, Gertoux has plagiarised Wikipedia for his articles. He is not a reliable source.PiCo (talk) 06:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I sincerely thank you very much for taking the time to answer. I am not dealing with the subject of Exodus, Pharaoh or Moses, but the arguments that I mentioned before and why should not be included, if they are supported by secondary and even tertiary sources of experts in the field?. Gertoux does not have a high degree, but the authors of those secondary and tertiary sources, so that I consider that it would not be the problem anymore. I agree with Jeffro77, I will analyze how the information is presented, in places where it is not a direct textual quote. Sorry for the insistence. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Then why would we just not cite to those sources? Yes it would still be a problem, we use high quality sources when available (in fact we are encouraged to use the best available), so why would we use him?Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
About secondary and tertiary sources, I would be grateful if you would allow me to ask why they are not high quality sources, if they come from the authors mentioned above in conjunction with the publishing house.Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Anyone know anything about theosophy?[edit]

Subtle body has just had some major changes sourced to Blavatsky. Doug Weller talk 08:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Some say Madame Blavatsky was a conscious fraud. Some say she was an enlightened being.PiCo (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Patrick Moore (environmentalist)[edit]

Patrick Moore, currently described with the disambiguation "environmentalist" on Wikipedia, is best known for being for anything the environmental movement is generally against, all the while backing industry-friendly talking points, many of them quite fringe (comically, such as claiming one could drink a quart of glysophate without harm, only to refuse to do so). His apparently false claims about his former Greenpeace involvement (see the organization's statement on him) provide him cover to claim to be yet so concerned about the environment, especially when sources like Wikipedia claim he's an "environmentalist".

Predictably, this is red meat for his intended audience: the petroleum industry, and America's right wing, "environmentalist" figures in the orbit of the Trump Administration (resulting in Fox News articles like "Greenpeace co-founder tears into Ocasio-Cortez, Green New Deal: ‘Pompous little twit'" and Breitbart articles like "Greenpeace Founder: Global Warming Hoax Pushed by Corrupt Scientists ‘Hooked on Government Grants’" (link blacklisted)). This is deeply fringe stuff.

Moore himself appears to have been involved with the article under a few different names (for example, [15], [16], and [17]). This article needs far more eyes, particularly this talk page section on what to change the article's name to. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Good grief, there's a few half-witted Oppose comments in that move request. Anyway ... Black Kite (talk) 01:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Arguably, refusing to drink an unspecified liquid of unspecified concentration is a completely reasonable thing to do. You very likely could drink a quart of glyphosate at an "as-sprayed" concentration without ill effects. --tronvillain (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
We need to have an article on eating/drinking DDT. See Mickey Slim and [18][19][20][21]. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Just saying, you could drink a quart of piss without harm too, doesn't mean you'd happily do it when prompted. (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Moore is now asking his Twitter followers to edit his Wikipedia page. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Extra eyes please on Universal Medicine[edit]

I received a courtesy notification from an editor that they are planning a major copy editing of the article and advised them to tread carefully if they plan to make substantive changes.[22] I am noting that there has been some editing going on there recently. We may want to keep an eye on this given the history of PROFRINGE editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:Types of scientific fallacy[edit]

Category:Types of scientific fallacy somehow feels wrong. It contains Category:Cognitive biases‎ Category:Scientific misconduct, Category:Pathological science and Category:Pseudoscience. Also a few articles like Just-so story and Hume's four Idols. There were more articles and categories in it, but I removed those that were already in subcategories.

So, the category contains things that are science gone wrong. But almost none of them are fallacies per se. I do not know what to do with it. The category is from 2007, but it seems to stick out like a sore thumb. Is there a better name for it, or could its contents be moved somewhere else that fits better? --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Roxy's Ruler[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roxy's Ruler. Describes an astronomical distance measurement that implicates a non-standard cosmology. --mikeu talk 22:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Fantastic article. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

SU(6) (physics)[edit]

A user and his corresponding IP has entered a good deal of original research and pseudoscientific nonsense about consciousness into an article on quantum physics.[23] Can someone with knowledge of quantum physics help to separate the wheat from the chaff? Or maybe a wholesale revert is preferable. Magog the Ogre (tc) 01:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Particle physicist here: Full revert was the right action. --mfb (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Yonaguni Monument#RfC on a statement that a distance between points A and B is N km[edit]

Note that the context is scattered among other threads. Doug Weller talk 09:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Moberly–Jourdain incident[edit]

Moberly–Jourdain incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article about a book called The Adventure published in 1911 by two women who claimed to have traveled back in time and seen the ghosts of Marie Antoinette and others. Under the header of Some explanations, our article presents "what is now called a time slip" on par with natural explanations. I believe the distinction between fringe claims (time travel, ghosts, etc) and mainstream understandings (natural explanations) should not be vague, ambiguous, or completely absent. Sadly, my efforts to correct this and add non-fringe clarifications have been rejected [24]. Also why is this identified as an "Incident"? Shouldn't our article title be The Adventure, since the book is what WP:RS identify as notable? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

See talk page of article. Having researched and written much of the debunking section [25] myself including discovering the Montesquiou explanation, I think the section is balanced. The only fringe explanation is that of Moberly and Jourdain's book, as clearly stated. All the others are rationalist explanations. This article has long been a battleground between fringe cranks (who know that they are right) and anti-fringe cranks (who know that they are right). A plague on both their houses. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC).
It sounds like you've been struggling to keep the article "balanced" between time travel/ghosts and no time travel/ghosts so both concepts appear roughly equally credible and the article doesn't make any radical conclusions 'for or against' reality. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I think the problem is that most of the claims (either paranormal or not) appear to all be a bit fringy (or at the very least widely assumptive, not being based on any thing more then assumption).Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Of course. The only paranormal claims are those made in the book by Moberly and Jordain. Historian Roy Strong has noted that although the Moberly-Jourdain story has been debunked it "retained its hold on the public imagination for half a century."[1] Xxanthippe (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC).
Yes, when it comes to fringe claims like time travel and ghosts, we report what independent third party sources have said about those claims. No problem with that. The problem is WP:GEVAL, which I assume you've read up on. You've reverted attempts to change the WP:WEASEL-ish header from "Some explanations" to "Natural explanations" or modify the awkward text which cites ghosts and time travel as one of the plausible explanations. How do you suggest we proceed? - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
The section "some explanation" reads to me like a "time slip" would be the default explanation, and then in addition to that there is an alternative presented. That is clearly not the impression the section should give. And the last part about being lost is important, too. I strongly prefer the version from LuckyLouie. --mfb (talk) 04:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Time slip was indeed the explanation implied by the two women, as I am sure you found from reading the book, but their explanation was not supported by any independent authority, not even the Society for Psychical Research. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC).
You made it worse. It still sets up time slip as the default explanation and presents non-supernatural as alternative views. Again, I'll ask, have you read WP:FRINGE? - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I had a go at it. The article was, surprisingly, in somewhat better shape than I had remembered when I asked for a GA-reassessment (and despite an acrimonious discussion resulted in no consensus and not even a single !vote for keeping or delisting). I fixed some obvious WP:ASSERT problems and tried to neutralize the more audacious claims and prose. jps (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not at all convinced that we should link time slip to this article per WP:ONEWAY (the time slip article could certainly link back to this one, IMHO). Dunning of Skeptoid makes reference to this proposal in the title of his critique even, but I think that the use of the term time slip is highly anachronistic. Of course, neither of the claimants ever used that term as they were quite dead by the time it was coined. jps (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Much improved as the result of recent edits. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ Strong, Roy. (1991). A Celebration of Gardens. Timber Press. p. 362

Modern Monetary Theory[edit]

The article Modern Monetary Theory fails to clarify to readers that it is a marginal idea within economics and the article fails to cite "reliable sources... that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner", as WP:FRINGE instructs us to do. Most of the article reads like a personal essay, and the article cites a lot of working papers by heterodox economists. The lede to the article is a word salad that fails to clearly explain what MMT is. Furthermore, there also appears to be gatekeeping going on in the article, as one editor removed the IGM Economic Experts Panel survey of leading economists, which showed unanimous rejection of MMT by leading economists.[26] This is a problematic article which is not compliant with WP:FRINGE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I left a note at User talk:Lawrencekhoo -- he being an actual economist and all -- so maybe he can weigh in. --Calton | Talk 00:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
There can be more discussion of the mainstream viewpoint. The lead definitely needs some discussion of how most economists reject the assertions made by MMT. However, I think the body of the article is OK as of today, since it makes clear that this is a heterodox theory with very little support outside the circle of adherents. Will edit the article a bit, hopefully uncontentiously. LK (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
There is a problem with the criticism section of the article that you reference, listing the mainstream response to a claim of "deficits don't matter". That claim is not a part of MMT, and prominent/founding MMT academics like Randall Wray explicitly refute it ( ). Any representation of mainstream views regarding MMT, should be relevant to what MMT actually states - not what other people incorrectly claim it states - otherwise it will just be subject to consistent straw-man misrepresentations. Arfed (talk) 06:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, no. Any representation of mainstream views regarding anything should be, well, representation of mainstream views. It's pretty straightforward. --Calton | Talk 07:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

BEMER Therapy[edit]

BEMER Therapy, a new article, says it "is an alternative medical treatment method." May need looking at. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Does it heal cancer, without even discussing the type? Let's check. Oh yes, of course it does. Could be speedy deleted via G11, unambiguous advertisement? --mfb (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Not much RS. But from this it's safe to say it's dodgy as hell. Alexbrn (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


User:Mountain157 has persistently attempted to edit Tartary to assert over the past few days that Tartary was a historical country, and has recently claimed in Talk:Tartary that the reason the country of Tartary is completely unmentioned in modern academia was because of a conspiracy to suppress its existence. Midnight-Blue766 (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I cited a document from the CIA on page 12[[27]] which mentions this. I never made a statement of that type in the talk page[[28]] and I believe this constitutes WP:PERSONAL.Mountain157 (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
You clearly stated "In other words, Tartar history was to be re-written --let us be frank, was to be falsified== in order to eliminate references to Great Russian aggressions and to hide the facts of the real course of Tatar-Russian relations", which is complete conjecture and extrapolation from the given article. I would also like to add for benefit of moderators that [the concept of Tartary being a real country has already established by various fringe theorists.] Midnight-Blue766 (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
What you just quoted was by the DOCUMENT, not by me. As I said before this user is clearly abusing the word fringe repeatedly in order to force his POV which in his mind is that "Tartary did not exist" and that it is just "rumours"[[29]]. Mountain157 (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history): historical articles should always comply with the major content policies as Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:No fringe theory and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I think the promoted idea about Tartary as a separate Empire does not meet the criteria above. Jingiby (talk) 09:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Do you realize that the source I gave for the information comes from a government agency? Wikipedia's fringe theory policy states that "Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources", for which I am pretty sure the CIA meets the definition of.Mountain157 (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
To determine scholarly opinions about a historical topic, consult the following sources in order:
  1. Recent scholarly books and chapters on the historiography of the topic
  2. "Review Articles", or historiographical essays that explicitly discuss recent scholarship in an area.
  3. Similarly conference papers that were peer reviewed in full before publication that are field reviews or have as their central argument the historiography
  4. Journal articles or peer reviewed conference papers that open with a review of the historiography.
  5. Earlier scholarly books and chapters on the historiography of the topic.
Your source does not meet no one. Jingiby (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Should a discussion continue here if it is also pending at WP:ANI, or should the discussion here be closed until the conduct dispute is resolved? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - It was already closed there. Jingiby (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
The original thread was closed, but it was immediatly reopened at ANI as a boomerang. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 21:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - My intention in opening up the threads both at ANI and here was to cover use conduct there, and the actual article content here. If it is decided that they are redundant, I will accept their ruling. Midnight-Blue766 (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

White genocide conspiracy theory, editor adding material showing that low birth rates can be beneficial[edit]

See WP:NORN#Are these edits to White genocide conspiracy theory original research? and particular Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory. Doug Weller talk 17:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

It's worse than that. The basic idea behind the white genocide conspiracy theory is that whites are having fewer children while minorities are having more children. The editor pushing WP:OR on Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory insists that white supremacists are just as concerned about declining birthrates among blacks. I guess that's why the racist bastards advocate sterilizing all blacks... :(
This one calls for the liberal application of a Clue By Four... --Guy Macon (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Ghost hunting[edit]

A student enrolled in a college editing course needs help understanding WP:OR. They have WP saying that Kirlian photography "introduced the use of technology and cameras as a method to find evidence of ghosts during paranormal investigations“, when there isn't any sources for that connection. Also they are rather fond of large scale cut-and-paste from other articles. Another voice appreciated here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)