Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 60

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Ian Stevenson revisited

Reviving the following discussion from mid-March (now in Archive 59):

O Govinda is a Hare Krishna editor who is obviously a believer in reincarnation. He has done mass edits on Ian Stevenson's page. His source is mostly James Matlock a parapsychologist. Does not look like a reliable source. I reverted some of his material but the Stevenson article is rife with fringe sources. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Eek! the editor seems to be on a mission. Might be time to comb through the contributions? jps (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I have been bold and reverted his content on Ian Stevenson. No doubt he will take issue with this, but I will wait and see what happens. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

───────jps, I'm hardly on a mission. While editing the Ian Stevenson article, I naturally followed the link to Paul Edwards (philosopher). To me the article seemed mostly good, but I noticed three shortcomings:

1. The article included an unsourced opinion that Edwards's book on reincarnation was "notable" for its criticisms of Stevenson's cases. In fact, less than 10 percent of the book deals with Stevenson's work. The book spends nearly twice as many pages on Elizabeth Kübler-Ross.
2. The article included the half-truth that reviews of the book were "positive." Some were, some weren't.
3. Rather than evenly presenting both positive and negative assessments of Edwards's work, the article exclusively presented assessments that were positive.

I edited accordingly.

Skeptic from Britain, you wrote, "I will wait and see what happens." Well, to start something happening, let me say: I hope that if I continue to edit these two articles--Ian Stevenson and Paul Edwards--we will work together as colleagues to improve the articles by making them more informative, more accurate, and more even-handed, regardless of our own points of view. How does that seem to you?

Thank you.

Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 05:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

You are under the misapprehension that Wikipedia should marginalize a WP:FRIND source. This is not how it works. Edwards's work was praised by everyone who was not a true-believer in reincarnation. That makes it a powerful rejoinder to the pseudoscholarship that infects the field of so-called "reincarnation research". To remove this discussion is to remove the very thing which allows us to write a neutral article on the subject. It is important to understand that Wikipedia's preference is for sources that are independent in order to establish a discussion that is not skewed towards a fringe perspective such as the one you seem to be according which is that reincarnation has been validated through the work of Ian Stephenson. jps (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

1. I'm not sure why you're addressing an editor's supposed misapprehensions rather than his specific edits. From your response, it's hard for me to know which of my edits you're objecting to.
2. You write, "Edwards's work was praised by everyone who was not a true-believer in reincarnation." If we have an RS for a statement to that effect, by all means let's include the statement and its source.
3. I understand the importance of independent reliable sources.
4. You write of "a fringe perspective such as the one you seem to be according [with,] which is that reincarnation has been validated through the work of Ian Stephenson." Again, I'm not sure why you're addressing my supposed perspectives rather than my edits.
That apart: I don't at all believe that reincarnation has been "validated" by Stevenson's work. But then again: My beliefs -- or those of any other editor -- are irrelevant. What matters here is how we edit -- and, I might add, the civility and respect with which we treat one another.
Best wishes.
Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
No, you don't get to hide behind a complaint that WP:PARITY doesn't exist by pretending that we need reliable sources to back up what Edwards is saying when Edwards is a reliable source. It doesn't work like that. You need to provide the high-quality sources that claim to do what you are claiming. Edwards is, as far as I can tell, one of the best sources we've got on Stevenson. The WP:ONUS is on you to show that this WP:REDFLAG position you are taking is warranted. It's not our job to show you why reincarnation is fringe. jps (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. It seems we're talking past one another. I don't wish to defend arguments I've never made or positions I've never taken. And so I think that for us to continue this discussion would be pointless.
Also, from what I understand, this noticeboard is meant to be a place to request input on possible fringe theories and seek advice on whether a particular topic is fringe or mainstream or whether fringe theories are being given undue weight. It seems to me our conversation has gone well past that scope.
I suggest, therefore, that we end here. For any specific edits, we have the talk pages of the relevant articles.
If this discussion has served any useful purpose, perhaps it is to remind contributors: Even if we fail to comply with the request, emblazoned in red at the top of this page, that we notify any specific editors we mention here, this noticeboard is public, and those editors may nonetheless see what we write about them.
Thank you again. Best wishes.
Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 07:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Mark Z. Jacobson

This article has a troubled history due to editing by the subject, particularly around his failed libel suit against people who published a critique of some of his ideas. An editor with limited experience is insistent on changing the lede to include, e.g. "Controlling soot is the fastest way to begin to control global warming and it will likewise improve human health" - not a view I can find widely supported, and not something I think we can state as fact in Wikipedia's voice in this way. More eyes on this would be appreciated, especially anyone who is familiar with the field. Guy (Help!) 10:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


I came across Premastication while resolving old tags. The health section has been tagged as biasing Fringe Medicine. I was hoping someone more familiar with MED/RS and access to the cited journals could help me determine if this tag is necessary. I would like to know if we can remove it or how easy it may be to fix. Most of the journals seem like reasonable quality (I removed a section not reliably sourced). Thank you. AIRcorn (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

That entire section looks like a novel synthesis from primary sources. I would be tempted to remove it and discuss line by line on Talk. Guy (Help!) 10:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I think I will remove the Advantages/Disadvantages section in part per Wikipedia:Pro and con lists to start with. It sounds like we are giving advise rather than providing encyclopedic information. If that gets reverted I will look into the novel synthesis aspect. I will see if I can get access to some of those journals in the first paragraph and then maybe check, attribute or change as necessary. Not a fan of "Health" as a subheading. Is this common or are there better headings for this type of informatiom? AIRcorn (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Glad someone is looking at the article. I'd added it to my watch list when there was some celebrity gossip on the topic, but never got around to working on the other problems. --Ronz (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Identitarian movement

Identitarian movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I know this is more politically fringe than scientifically fringe, but we're getting some users insisting that a movement based on kicking out everyone who isn't white somehow isn't white nationalist. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. Yeah. I've seen this popping up on my watchlist and thought "You took the last one there GMG. Surely you've done your part pal. You don't really have to wade into this again do you?". GMGtalk 16:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I feel your pain. Guy (Help!) 14:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Sanity check

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I'm...pretty sure this is basically a Russian government advocated conspiracy theory, and for my own part, I can't confirm that basically any reliable source whatsoever has covered this. But I'm open to being shown I'm wrong, and would very much like a second opinion. It's sourced to this, which looks an awful lot like deliberate misinformation. GMGtalk 14:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I suppose for the sake of due process I'd notify @Wakari07: of this thread. GMGtalk 14:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice. It's Russian MoD primary source info. Some very tiny bits of actually verifiable information, that have been debunked by no fact checker as far as i know. It's a relevant hypothesis and an essential part of the Russian official argument. It's geopolitics and science, not drunken local pub politics. Wakari07 (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Sputnik News is not RS[1]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Can you reliably say that the Russian MoD's Igor Rybalchenko, who is a reputed scientist, didn't say what he said? On content of the Forbes propaganda allegation, the December 2016 Josh Earnest bit was outright threatening against Russia, and the financial sanctions (CAATSA) against Russia for its role in Syria soon came true after those words. On 3 January 2017 came the sanctions. In this context, I consider it more as a reliable mouthpiece than as toxic propaganda and its use warranted. Wakari07 (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
How is this being used?Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
The Russian allegation is A-234 = Mirzayanov formula The chemical name of the substance used in the Skripal case would be A-234, in the Novichok family of Soviet and/or Russian Foliant-spree of nerve gas development, the same agent described by Vil Mirzayanov. Four or five of these chemical agents would likely have been weaponized. Russia, in my opinion, takes a serious risk by divulging this information, it's a bit like gambling with history. Nobody forced them to say these things. Also allegedly, someone in the US published the same formula C8H18FN2O2P at NIST in 1998. That's the Russia Ministry of Defence chemical lab director's 275 bitsbytes, which i think is a non-fringe notable scientific hypothesis and nation-state position also. Wakari07 (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Maybe it'd be better to make it more clear that this is an unsubstantiated claim of the Russian Ministry of Defense, rather than some expert's testimony. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Check the source, the author is an expert, not simply a teacher, politician or columnist. He has 14 publications, and 36 publications citing him: in Journal of Analytical Chemistry, Chromatographia, Inorganic Materials, Pure and Applied Chemistry. On top of his official top function, he is a top expert.[1] Wakari07 (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
TASS, Daily Star, SOHA, Timeturk. Wakari07 (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
And from the non Russian soruce "The country’s defence ministry claims", so yes it is a claim by their defence ministry. So I think we can say "that according to the Russian defense ministry".Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
This is the disputed bit: "[Rybalchenko] affirmed that the A-234 nerve agent substance exactly corresponds to the formula published by Vil Mirzayanov. “The chemical name of this substance is A-234 and was named 'Novichok' by Boris Johnson, as a substance available in the Porton Down laboratory.” [...]" Wakari07 (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Then this is a bit of a non sequitur, what does then whole passage say?Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
You mean, allow revert? Wakari07 (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
No I mean what does the whole passage say (I have not looked myself). OK we attribute it and do not claim it is true, so not seeing an issue here. It may well be a conspiracy theory, but is one propagated by a state sponsor by an official organ of government, I think this is OK to include.Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
It said Rybalchenko said Wakari07 (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
The text you added had "He affirmed" in it. "Affirm" carries certain implications and is not appropriate in this context. Otherwise, as long as its clear that this is the position of a Russian Ministry of Defense chemist, I don't think there's any problem including his statement. It seems that his claim in unverifiable, since by his own account the US record of the chemical agent that he claims is the toxin no longer exists, so he could easily just be making this entire thing up. But if this is the official position of the Russian Ministry of Defense, then it probably belongs in the article, whether true or not. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
So that makes it the citation of the allegation of a verifiable affirmation. The affirmation is verifiable since logs must surely exist. If logs disappeared, that doesn't change the facts that happened or didn't happen in 1998. Whether logs are negative or positive, they could be produced by either party. If logs are falsifiable, then that's a fixable technical issue. Otherwise, we're left to compare (their) published sources. Wakari07 (talk) 05:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
You use "affirm" in wikipedia's voice: "He affirmed that the A-234 nerve agent substance exactly corresponds to the formula published by Vil Mirzayanov." This wrongly implies that we are certifying his statement as true, and is unacceptable under WP:SAY. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Well the dictionary definition fits, he emphatically stated it (in fact he uses the word Affirm). Seems to be then to be an accurate quote of what he said.Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Umm...the thing is, I'm not entirely sure we should be covering the claim even as a claim. From the headline Russian MoD Says A234 Nerve Agent Allegedly Used Against Skripal Developed in US. That's a big freaking claim, one that is exceptionally self serving, and one which has implications for living people (although at least two of them are not living persons for lack of trying). That seems, on the face of it, to be a moon landing level of claim. That it has not, from what I can tell, been given even lip service in mainstream reliable sources seems to implicate one of two things: either the body of mainstream reliable sources are...what's a word you could use here...maybe, conspiring to suppress the information, or it's completely bonkers, and entirely without evidence other than the opinion of a partisan political actor being quoted in a propagandistic government lap dog masquerading as a news organization. GMGtalk 10:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
If the only issue is the word “affirms”, just use a different word... replace it with “states” or “asserts” or something similar. Blueboar (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
GreenMeansGo has it right. This is an exceptional fringe claim in a suspect source. Unless it's discussed properly in a decent secondary sources (thereby establishing weight) its inclusion is WP:UNDUE. Alexbrn (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
The...issue is more of...if a Russian political partisan says that the US secretly developed an internationally banned chemical weapon, and then attempted to kill two Russian ex-patriots on the streets of the UK, in an elaborate scheme to swing international opinion against the Russian government, and that's subsequently printed in a source that is a state controlled propaganda machine, and not given so much as a rebuttal in mainstream journalism, does including it at all have the effect of making a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. GMGtalk 11:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Just to be clear and to resume: the essence of the now-censored so-called "fringe theory" is chemistry. Russia claims that the material substance has a molecular formula. Their MoD's chief chemical analysis bozo risks his academic reputation by advancing a coherent hypothesis on its name and properties. Who feels threatened in this thread? Wakari07 (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, escalating it into a question of censorship and threat is odd. It's just a matter of the WP:PAGs. We base article on secondary sources; extraordinary claims need exceptional sources; sources must be reputable. Wikipedia is not a collection of arcana. Alexbrn (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not going to close this since the discussion is fairly far along, but this really does not belong here. This is a fairly run of the mill content dispute. Fringe Theories are a different specie. We deal with beliefs and theories that are clearly and demonstrably false and which have been widely labeled as such. Think Flat Earth, Homeopathy, and Birtherism. Fake news and Propaganda rarely fall under that heading. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, after unproductive discussion on both the article talk and my talk page, FTN seemed like an okay fit to verify know...the Commerce Department is not secretly developing chemical weapons. It might not be your run-of-the-mill conspiracy theory, but it still seemed to fairly well fit under an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. GMGtalk 15:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
    • It's fine here. We use "fringe" in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. Alexbrn (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the moderation. My try at a discussion on the Talk:Fake news page, specifically an example of "false/wrong representations of real news as fake news", was archived without comment after less than two weeks, less than two weeks ago. Back on subject, I'd call that fringe archiving. Wakari07 (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC) Also, "to verify know...the Commerce Department is not secretly developing chemical weapons" User:GreenMeansGo — sorry but that's not at all what the proposed blurb is saying. It's an additional, inferred and non-explicated allegation that i chose not to mention as such in the blurb. Again, the full paragraph that is now deleted: I fail to see how this is fringe or propaganda or fake news.

Also on 25 March 2018, Igor Rybalchenko, head of the laboratory for chemical and analytical control at the Russian defense ministry said the Russian side cannot make any conclusions as it still hasn't received the samples from the UK that Moscow had requested. He affirmed that the A-234 nerve agent substance exactly corresponds to the formula published by Vil Mirzayanov. "All that we know is that all substances of this class are very difficult to overcome in case of injuries, and the antidote therapy will hardly bring about the desired effect."[2][3][4][5][6]

Today also, Lavrov said the US and UK are playing children's games instead of providing evidence. I didn't know before i read it here that Moscow apparently "had earlier called for a meeting of the UN chemical-weapons watchdog, the OPWC, on April 2" to have “an honest conversation” about the Skripal case; but Lavrov, in this source, notes that Britain seemed to have no interest in establishing the truth.[7] Wakari07 (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Propaganda from a propaganda outlet. Why on earth would Wikipedia have any interest in that? Once again, we need reputable secondary sources to form the basis of out article matter. Alexbrn (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Well if we go back to what was originally in the article (which I probably should have already linked to for context), it does include that bit, and that bit of unfounded conspiracy theory is the entire premise of the source. Without that bit it makes no sense to include the additional bit about what matched what, because the thing he is talking about matching is the bit that he supposedly read by the Commerce Department in 1998, in, as republished by the similarly unreliable Daily Star "a document in existence". Presumably they could not come up with anything more vague and unverifiable to base their theory on than a 20-year-old recollection and "a document" that "exists".
Even if it was based on a reliable source (which it isn't), or if the allegations had been subsequently covered in mainstream sources (which they haven't), it isn't even an official position of the Russian government (which we can find in reliable sources). The entire source is a naked attempt to muddy the waters about whether a Russian nerve agent used to kill Russian ex-patriots was Russian. Propaganda from a propaganda outlet puts things rather nicely I think. GMGtalk 16:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Of course it's not an official government position. It's an MoD scientist's statement, covered by the state. The state is, for me, more authoritative than the government stricto sensu. Is there an ISO norm on propaganda? I guess not. Wakari07 (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC) Slatersteven: maybe this answers your question. This snippet was also removed. Together with the text mentioned by GMG, that would leave us:

Also on 25 March 2018, Igor Rybalchenko,[1] head of the laboratory for chemical and analytical control at the Russian defense ministry said the Russian side cannot make any conclusions as it still hasn't received the samples from the UK that Moscow had requested. He affirmed that the A-234 nerve agent substance exactly corresponds to the formula published by Vil Mirzayanov. "All that we know is that all substances of this class are very difficult to overcome in case of injuries, and the antidote therapy will hardly bring about the desired effect."

He also affirmedproposed that it was added to a public US database by a member of the US Army Armament Research and Development Center in 1998, but was not found in later editions of the database, and "this substance was named “Novichok” by Boris Johnson, as a substance available in the Porton Down laboratory."[2][3][4][5][6] Wakari07 (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Replace proposed with suggested (or maybe asserted).Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Indeed, "asserted" fits more in a context of testing if a condition is true. "Suggested" or "proposed" is rather open-ended and non-committing. Wakari07 (talk) 12:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Neither is appropriate if the content is not published in reliable sources. GMGtalk 12:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
It was clear from many other discussions for me that government-owned news agencies are an appropriate source for government messages. If you're so hell-bent on chasing real fake news spooks, can you maybe help out on a simple question from the Talk:Fake News forum? What examples of Fake news on Russia Today? The question by respected User:CaribDigita awaits answering since 10 March. Wakari07 (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
This is not an official government statement. Whether you use a buzzword like "fake news" is irrelevant. It's not a reliable source. GMGtalk 13:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I didn't choose to be on this forum. I didn't spread the fake news. I ask for your constructive additions, not your parroting of the same blurb, endlessly. I offer five different sources on the same blurb. Will you please make the effort to understand that five (5) is not one (1)? Wakari07 (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and the types of sources that reprinted it are things like TASS, owned by the government of Russia, and the Daily Star, an unreliable tabloid. My constructive addition is that we're not putting propaganda in our articles. Full stop. GMGtalk 14:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Lol. I just can't take it serious anymore. It's about an MoD scientist's scientific stance right on spot of the article's topic. To me your point of view looks like an idée fixe designed to waste effort and time. Wakari07 (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC) Did you try looking up French, German, Spanish, Russian-language sources? There are so many of them. Wakari07 (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
If you can't take it seriously, then drop the stick, and move on to something else. This is the third lengthy unproductive discussion on the topic. The problem originally is adding content from a conspiracy theory born out of government propaganda. That issue has not been fixed. So long as it is content from a conspiracy theory sourced to government propaganda, it doesn't belong. There are plenty of other website where it may belong. Wikipedia isn't one of them. GMGtalk 14:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
It's chemistry and logbooks. Wakari07 (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure how I can say this more clearly. It is content from a conspiracy theory sourced to government propaganda. When it stops being content from a conspiracy theory sourced to government propaganda, it may be appropriate. Until that time, it is not. GMGtalk 14:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
It's telling from both censors' userpages that I'm facing the ISO Pentagon squad. Wakari07 (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC) Besides: it's more state communication than government propaganda. More of this kind of information could (have) save(d) lives. Wakari07 (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I think we should not allow to misuse WP for promoting conspiracy theories, and especially the ones which originate from Russian government (that is what Facebook allowed to happen!). How to achieve this? Based on their very poor reputation for fact checking, all statements by Russian state officials and Russian state-controlled media should be automatically considered as WP:FRINGE. For example, any comments by Igor Rybalchenko should be considered as "fringe" simply because of the place where he works. He would not be allowed to tell any truth even if he wanted. To the contrary, he will say whatever his superiors will order him to say. My very best wishes (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Are you sure that you think? Wakari07 (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Lay of the PA's please people.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The question was if the claims by such sources should be treated as deliberate disinformation. The answer: yes, they absolutely must be treated as such. It does not mean that everything they said was lie. To the contrary, 95% are usually true, and only 5% are "the kernel of disinformation" - as that man said. But he is already dead. Of course. My very best wishes (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Yup either omit the claims or frame them cleanly as the propaganda they are. NPOV in other words. Alexbrn (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
So, which Novichok? Wakari07 (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC) Today, the Brits are pointing to a specific lab in Russia... their so-called evidence is mere blah blah. Wakari07 (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
This is of topic and this is not a soapbox.Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
This is the fringe noticeboard. It's definitely fringe to accuse people without evidence. Wakari07 (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
No, fringe is holding a view that the consensus opposes, not that it lacks evidence (that is unproven).Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I feel so lucky to be able to hold a consensual evidence-based view freely in my country, for now. Wakari07 (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • So, this has been open about a week, and seeing as how we've apparently ridden the merry-go-round from discussing the actual subject, to whether certain of us work for the Pentagon, do or do not actually think, on to basically admitting that Wakari07 simply feels the international consensus of both nations and independent sources is well, as they so eloquently put, so-called evidence is mere blah blah and they'd like to pretty please push that POV just a little bit there really a reason to keep this open? GMGtalk 16:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I would rather you had not chosen to talk about another edds actions, but yes I think this is over.Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
26 of 41 countries at the OPCW in The Hague didn't vote to exclude Russia from the Skripal investigation. I wouldn't call that fringe. Wakari07 (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
And this is not about that, this is about the Russian defense scientists claims.Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Note that you answer your own statement: it's about a scientist putting a verifiable claim and me wishing to see it verified or falsified. Blindly censoring that (scientific, military) hypothesis is simply not an option (for me, at least). Wakari07 (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
What? Yes it is verifiable, but so is the fact that people claim the moon is made of green cheese. The problem is that as far as I can tell no RS have reported this. This then makes it a bit iffy for inclusion. I personally think we can include it with proper attribution "according to official Russian sources", but I also have some sympathy with exclusion, as it is (in essence) a rather vague claims that is not supported by RS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I never planned to insert blurbs without proper attribution. This is not the point. But that doesn't solve the allegation above of "'fringe' simply because of the place where he works". Wakari07 (talk) 17:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually yes that is the point. Anything else is an irrelevance that has no real place here. So can I now ask all users to make one statement expressing what they think, it will make it a lot easier to see what kind of decision we have made (if any), p[lease keep it to the topic, should this statement be included (we can discus the exact wording latter), anbd just that, a simple yes or no will suffice.Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I think I've already well stated my position. It's sourced to garbage government propaganda, and until it's covered by actual mainstream reliable sources, we have no reason to think it isn't deliberate misinformation/conspiracy theory, that we should not include at all, even as a attributed statement, because it's giving undue weight to a fringe assertion with essentially no evidence whatsoever. GMGtalk 18:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • include we can argue over exact wording latter.Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • include '"propaganda" must be spread', it's etymologically logical. Wakari07 (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC) Two weeks ago, i'd say it was five-star propaganda: it was tactical, strategical, to the point, multipronged and timely. Now it's not really fresh anymore, I think it's still worth four and a half stars. Wakari07 (talk) 07:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:NOTAVOTE. Per WP:VALID we must omit dodgy information where including it would unduly legitimize it. Until/unless this disinformation is picked up in decent sources it stays out of Wikipedia. This has got to the point of trolling. Alexbrn (talk) 07:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
So you cry troll? Wakari07 (talk) 07:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I am aware it is not a vote, I am also aware that there was some misunderstanding as to where some of us stood on this issue. Thus it seemed to me just having a clear cut unequivocal statement of position by each of us would clear up any confusion. It is pretty clear that there is no consensus for inclusion, so end of debate.Slatersteven (talk) 08:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Wow. End of debate, information denied. Remember this is a free encyclopedia? Will nobody ask the question later, what must the Russian military have thought of all this? Wakari07 (talk) 09:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes as it is impossible for you to get consensus for inclusion, all we are doing is going round in circles. As to what the Russian Military think, who cares they are not editing Wikipedia, we are. By the way cost is irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I see. They prefer one-star US/UK propaganda. Wakari07 (talk) 05:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC) One star for tactical ignorance. Wakari07 (talk) 05:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Hat this now please.Slatersteven (talk) 08:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

See Also for pro-Catalan revisionist 'institute'

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Institut Nova Història regarding the addition of Institut Nova Història to a large number of articles. This 'institute' is founded on the belief that there has been a centuries-long conspiracy by Castilian Spaniards to scrub the accomplishments of Catalans. Among historical figures they claim were actually Catalan are Columbus, Da Vinci, and Cervantes (who, of course, used the pseudonym, William Shakespeare). The article itself lays out their fringe status in the lead, but an editor has been adding them as a See Also to many articles. They have now agreed, I think (language skills are an issue), not to add it back to the historical figures they claim, but they still want to add it to the pages of many current politicians whom they say hold similar beliefs (though have no direct association with the organization). The question under discussion is whether this is an appropriate use of See Also, or just fringe-spamming. If anyone has an opinion on this, drop a note there. Agricolae (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Washington Post op-ed see us as an antidote to fringe nonsense on the web

Heh... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Conspiracy videos? Fake news? Enter Wikipedia, the ‘good cop’ of the Internet
Things are bad.Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I can definitely see problems if YouTube starts posting links to Wikipedia in videos promoting fringe idiocy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I can't "appreciate" the Washington Post's argument, since it's behind paywall. Wakari07 (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
From the article: "Conspiracy videos are top draws on YouTube, whether the subject is the moon landing (humans never set foot on it) or the Parkland school massacre survivors (they’re “crisis actors”). Last month, Susan Wojcicki, YouTube’s chief executive, proposed an antidote to these poison pills: Wikipedia. For each fanciful conspiracy peddled on YouTube, she said, there soon would be a link to a corresponding article from Wikipedia." OMG get ready for "conspiracy" type articles to be overwhelmed by lunatic trolls.Smeat75 (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the excerpts. I agree there's a serious problem when trolls start acting like lunatics. Wakari07 (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Or lunatics start trolling. Not sure which is worse. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • More coverage [2]. Apparently the whole world knew about this but someone forgot to tell us. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
There is a case to be made for semi-protection of fringe articles targeted by crank IPs. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC).

───────────────────────── See this topic from March.--Auric talk 23:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I suggest that semi be put on all articles in the fringe category. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC).
Lets wait and see, we do not know this will happen.Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

A Third Of Millennials Aren’t Sure The Earth Is Round, Survey Finds

"A new survey has found that a third of young millennials in the U.S. aren’t convinced the Earth is actually round."[3] --Guy Macon (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Please tell me that their only objection was that an oblate spheroid with continents, mountains and stuff protruding from its surface isn't perfectly round. No? OK. Well, instead, please tell me the millennials were being sarcastic when asked such a silly question. I mean, if somebody phoned me up and asked me what shape the Earth is I'd probably say something sarcastic and would probably have been even more sarcastic when I was their age. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
The survey itself is available. The largest category other than that 66% is "other/not sure". Also, it appears that as people get older they become more convinced that the earth is round. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
It's not a good conclusion that people become more convinced as they get older since the survey wasn't run every decade for the past 50 years or what have you. It's also not surprising with school budgets and priorities like they are that the average person is getting stupider (more ignorant if you insist) after many decades of the opposite. I do like the sarcasm explanation though, I think a lot of flat earthers are just kidding or trolling. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree with some of what DanielRigal said above. I cannot take a question like that seriously. The question "Do you believe that the world is round or flat?" is likely to be interpreted as a facetious question, worthy of a facetious response. Bus stop (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Also to further address DanielRigal, some of the "other/don't know" could definitely be attributable to legitimate uncertainty whether "round" means "spherical", or if being merely spheroid means that it is round. If you heard in class once that the earth wasn't perfectly round that might stick as a vague memory, and it is possible that younger people have been exposed to this more recently than older so the vague memory sticks better - or that it has been discussed in schools more recently than in the past. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
When I was the current age of millennials, I responded to some silly surveys with "Fuck off!". (I'm much nicer now.) I imagine that response would have been counted among "other/not sure" if I had provided it in this survey. We should NEVER make assumptions about what "other/not sure" actually means. HiLo48 (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

"A new survey has found that a third of young millennials in the U.S. aren’t convinced the Earth is actually round."

I am not that surprised. Some time ago I watched a YouTube video where random passerby people (several of them college-aged) in an American city were asked basic questions concerning geography. Several of them did not know that Africa was a separate continent, and a few of them were convinced that Mount Rushmore was located in Australia. In Greece where I live, Americans have a poor reputation (as either insane people or poorly-educated people, often depicted as such in Greek comedy), though I often wonder what kind of educational system they have. Dimadick (talk) 11:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Was the video actually random, or was it edited to remove those boring people who knew the answer? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
That's what those videos always are. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Some Americans believe Mount Rushmore is a naturally occurring Rock outcrop. Bus stop (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
What's a millennial? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
A fictional creature (supposedly between the ages of 25 and 35) created by news media (by blowing out of proportion any incident involving someone under 50) to make baby boomers feel better about fucking the economy and environment with a rusty cheese grater. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • All age groups and countries have some fact of science they don't firmly grasp (for example, climate change among baby boomers). In the case of millenials, there has been memes, some spread by trolls, some caught up by the dumbest 10% that exist in any age group, some taken up in quasi-Gnostic conspiracy theories (basically, that the Earth is a flat 11-dimensional object that only looks round in 3 dimensions) which make jokes about a flat-earth in some way (either accepting the idea, jokingly using the idea as a non-sequitur with or without acceptance, or joking about it as a sign of the decline of society). Rapper B.o.B. has given these (and other) views an unfortunate amount of prominence. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Any fool can look out his window and see that the earth is flat. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
      • People who live in Florida think the Earth is flat. I am a Californian and know that it is bumpy. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I have taken enough years off my dad's car's suspension to know better than believe anything besides tires can be flat. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

This kind of survey can say anything that a news channel wants to promote. The exact text at the site says YouGov, a British market research firm, polled 8,215 adults in the United States to find out if they ever believed in the “flat Earth” movement. Only 66 percent of young millennials answered that they “always believe the world is round.”. This means that approximately 0.003% of the US population was polled. Not sure what size of the sample as defined as young millenials. Nothing is being said what the survey was about. I mean, why exactly should anyone take this page seriously? --Wikishagnik (talk) 10:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Waddell's chronology

This is an article by the banned Paul Bedson about a fringe chronology by Laurence Waddell. Not surprisingly I just removed a quote he used that looked as though it might be praising the chronology without its full context. I don't see what the whole, possibly inaccurate, chronology does for Wikipedia more than the section in Waddell's biography. Doug Weller talk 16:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah... I would be interested in having a condensed version of the purported events "this Sumerian king did X and this Indian king did Y, so the supposed 'historical' king would have supposedly done Z" (mostly for Tabletop role-playing game material), but just a list of kings and dates with no context or explanation would honestly be kinda useless for real history. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
As is, chopping the chart and redirecting it to the Waddell article would probably be best. I feel like it'd go against WP:UNDUE for me to dig up Waddell's stuff and make a useful chart, no matter how much we also expand the article with sources explaining why Waddell should have stuck to documenting his experiences with Tibetan Buddhism. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
@Ian.thomnson: tempting, but there's a new editor there who I've already had to revert elsewhere and it would end up an edit war. Maybe a move request. Doug Weller talk @Ian.thomson: Correct ping. Doug Weller talk 13:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Gilbert Ling

Old article I came across when I was more WikiYoung than today, about a fringe-pusher of some repute. Beyond the usual puffery that I try to clean up shortly, the article makes many claims with dubious sourcing; for instance, the claim that Raymond Damadian offered financial support when Ling's laboratory got defunded. TigraanClick here to contact me 14:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi. You're my only hope.

I need help at Talk:Shroud of Turin. The shroudies are burying me in claims and references, and I simply don't have enough time to properly address the situation and still meet certain real-world obligations. Note: I am offering triple the normal pay for editing a Wikipedia article. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I've actually held a piece of thread from the shroud, in a glass phial. It was cotton, if anybody is interested. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
A glass phial made out of cotton? I don’t believe it. Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Is it on E-Bay? - Nunh-huh 21:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Christ myth theory at NPOVN

WP:NPOVN#Christ myth theory. Just fyi. Doug Weller talk 11:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Smith (psychologist)

An AfD for a parapsychologist seems relevant here. XOR'easter (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

What to do about List of cryptids?

Folks, what should we do about list of cryptids? It has two crucial problems:

  • Scope: This list has an impossibly huge scope (cryptozoologists call any creature from the folklore record that they believe could be hiding somewhere a "cryptid", a hallmark of the pseudoscience's approach).
  • Sourcing: There's not really a way to source this list (essentially everything we'd be using for it would be emic WP:FRINGE). It's been tagged for years.

What we've got here is a relic of the past, a leftover from the days of yore when cryptozoologists were allowed to run free on the site and use it as their personal Pokédex (if you're unfamiliar with the pseudoscience of cryptozoology, please read this — it's not anything like, say, folkloristics). Of course, the Great Reclaiming has been well underway for a while now to improve Wikipedia's folklore coverage, yet this list still exists. So, what do you recommend that we do with this thing? Simply redirect it to cryptozoology or... ? :bloodofox: (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

As I recall the reason the list is like that was to avoid having loads of stubby fringe 'cryptid' articles. This way they all in one place. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
It's true, the cryptozoological sourcing presents WP:FRINGE issues. And not just the list articles are affected. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I very much like the Category:Mythic humanoids though. The concept of cryptozoology is only a part of the category of cryptids. Mythic humanoids is a side category of Category:Legendary creatures, which itself contains the shapeshifters and the Yeti. Wakari07 (talk) 11:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC) I made it the main article for the Category:Cryptids. Wakari07 (talk) 06:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I’m not sure I follow — you’re aware that the term ‘’cryptid’’ is restricted to cryptozoology and cryptozoology circles, right? It’s a sure sign of pseudoscience and not a term used by, say, folklorists or any other academics who handle the folklore record. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, I use the term for the list of creatures whose sighting and existence are disputed, not only animals and not only in folklore. For me, gods and zombies and the mysterious Health-related incidents at the United States Embassy in Havana and the like belong to this category. But apparently this is a disputed matter. Sorry for the interference, I'll try to pull myself away from this noticeboard now, after having been summoned to it by "cryptoids". Wakari07 (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'm just seeing a list of fringe stuff with absolutely no scope (any creature or entity form the folklore record can fall within its parameters) that cannot be sourced and attracts drive-by edits. This sounds to me like this article just needs to redirect to Cryptozoology. Any arguments to the contrary before I start discussion about this elsewhere or before I turn it into a redirect? :bloodofox: (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Since I can't think of a way to source this or how one would measure its scope, I've gone ahead and just redirected the page to Cryptozoology. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

You've been campaigning against this page for years, including multiple discussions and even an AfD which was closed as snow keep. Now you're claiming there's consensus on this page (without even so much as a notice on the article talk page) to redirect. That's just disruptive. Open a discussion there or send it back to AfD if you want it gone. Withholding more substantial arguments until that time. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

This "campaigning" you refer to consists of me completely rewriting cryptozoology to GA standards and editing essentially every associated article connected to the topic, as well as developing our folkloristics coverage, including an array of templates and crucial articles we lacked, such as folk belief. It looks like you're willing to edit war to restore this page: And why? Are you planning to solve its numerous problems? Can they be solved? The list has no sources because it cannot be sourced. Please, WP:PROVEIT. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
So in addition to what I said above, you then undid my revert (i.e. obviously problematic per WP:BRD) and then tell me that I'm edit warring. Good stuff. Kudos on the GA, but I didn't say anything about that page. If you start an RM or RfC on that talk page, I will likely weigh in there. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
WP:PROVEIT is on you — please kindly propose a solution for the list or revert your reversion. As I see it, you're the revert-warrior here. I restrict my reverts to once in 24 hours and the onus to source the material you've restored is on you. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I will say that after looking at the talkpage there is certainly no consensus there (or here for that matter) to redirect the list. I would have expected someone to revert that within a day. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
WP:PROVEIT plays a major role in this case. There's no reason for the article to be gridlocked if there's no solution as to how to even approach it. The article has been tagged for all sorts of issues for years, and additions are regularly reverted due to being unsourced. It's a huge mess. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Wait a minute. consists of me completely rewriting cryptozoology to GA standards When I actually look at the article for the first time in a while, you completely rewrote cryptozoology to nowhere near GA standards. It's now a tiny section on "terminology, history, and approach" and a giant section on "reception and criticism" and that's it. Also, and editing essentially every associated article connected to the topic -- and you're disputing "campaigning" (I didn't use that term in relation to anything but the list page, but it sounds like you're disputing that it's limited to the list rather than disputing that it's an appropriate word). Also, regarding the numerous issues -- in your revert you mentioned that it's been tagged for years... yes, because it was you who tagged it and has been dissatisfied with other attempts to change the list. I'm done engaging with this here, however. If you would like to propose a major change to the article, do it on that talk page. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually, yes, it is to GA standards. It's rock-solidly referenced to reliable academics sources. When it comes to pseudosciences, this is what the sausage looks like. I won't nominate it until associated articles are up to par.
Again, I get the impression that you're keen on edit-warring and flashing policy, but you're not keen on following through when it falls on your shoulders (WP:PROVEIT). You've restored the material, now please — per WP:PROVEIT — kindly source it and cite it. The responsibility falls on you.
There's a link on the talk page to this discussion. Please don't revert-war me and then bread crumb me from page to page to get out of WP:PROVEIT. If you're not interested in actually doing anything about this article, please revert your reversion and let us move on. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Bread crumb you? For crying out loud how about don't redirect an article that was snow kept when you sent it to AfD without finding consensus on that talk page first and then don't edit war to force that redirect you didn't even propose on the talk page, and then don't accuse the person asking you to follow those really basic behavioral matters of edit warring, etc.. This is my last post to this thread. I have a suggestion I'm going to post to the appropriate talk page. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

This thread continued off board, but Rhododendrites raises a valid point: List of cryptids is a pseudoscientific content fork of lists of legendary creatures. Please consider weighing in over at Talk:List_of_cryptids#Merge_proposal_with_lists_of_legendary_creatures. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Pseudomathematics up for deletion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pseudomathematics (2nd nomination). Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Shroud of Turin

Chronically infected by shroudies. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Now at DRN: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Shroud of Turin#Deleted sentence "However, none of the hypotheses challenging ..." as not sourced According to the rules at DRN, comments by uninvolved editors are welcome, but not until a DRN volunteer opens the case. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Looking at this article - holy crap it's poor. Surely there must be some decent secondary sources we can summarize rather than (as now) pretend that Wikipedia ia a secondary publication by reviewing loads of primary material - some of very doubtful origin. Alexbrn (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
The secondary sources are open-and-shut - the shroud is medieval, good night. However if we stuck to that, a) the article would be only 6 paragraphs long, and b) it would hardly be notable, and c) it would constantly be bombarded with believers trying to insert some article they read in a church blog. Obviously we need to manage the level of reliability, but it hardly helps to delete everything and start a war. This article has taken years to stabilize, and its really not a place for dragons. Wdford (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
We summarize accepted knowledge. If 6 paragraphs does it, then so be it. We do not bend the WP:PAGs to try and police suspected behaviour from anticipated editors (we have mechanisms like extended protection for that). The article as-is is amateurish faux-secondary material. Alexbrn (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
That's not a helpful mindset. "Amateurish faux-secondary material" is hardly helpful either. The secondary material is sparse but clear, and the article relies on it correctly. However this is not a field where there are tons of secondary sources, so much of the notable research is still primary (although we do obviously carefully consider the reliability of the sources, and word their material appropriately). I have removed the HuffPost reference - we already have the actual journal source in the article. It doesn't really help the reader to delete everything that happened after the most recent secondary source, or which is not addressed specifically in a secondary source. Wdford (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
My take as a neutral editor, I don't believe the shroud itself falls under fringe theory. Its the claims regarding its origin and / or significance, that may fall under fringe theory. The shroud has been studies by various experts, who in turn have presented their analysis. The shroud in my opinion is Notable enough, due to its mention in these, that have been shared and mentioned in reliable sources. However, I also believe claims and counter claims can be summarized with the most significant findings, to reduce the length of the article, and the rest can be explained in sub-articles. --Wikishagnik (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
The sentence under dispute doesn't even mean anything. It's never true that all alternate hypothesis are answered by scientific literature. Of course. If I say "leprechauns did it.", and nobody proves I'm wrong, does that mean the disputed sentence should stay in the article? ApLundell (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeesh, judging by the leads alone, it's pretty clear that this article is indeed "chronically infected by shroudies". There's no reason to let fringe theorists rule the roost. In fact, I'd say we have a responsibility to make sure that doesn't happen. This article definitely needs *way* more scrutiny. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I dipped in briefly but gave up swiftly: WP:OWNership and WP:LOCALCON are maxxed-out. Alexbrn (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
It sounds like it might be time to bring in the admins then. We're not here to give credence to relics and reliquaries. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree. Most of the following pages contain poorly sourced claims, and are magnets for pseudoscience editors. Some are WP:COATRACKS, some are WP:POVFORKS, and a few are unrelated articles with material from shroudie websites tacked on to the citations.
--Guy Macon (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources discussion at dispute resolution noticeboard

At Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Shroud of Turin#Deleted sentence "However, none of the hypotheses challenging ..." as not sourced there is an ongoing discussion about what sources are and are not reliable regarding the Shroud of Turin. It would be helpful if some knowledgeable editors from this noticeboard would look over the discussions and comment on the decisions being made. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Mark Z. Jacobson

Rwbest has engaged in tendentious editing of the article on Mark Z. Jacobson, who is a controversial figure in the real world due to his attempted use of libel law to silence scientific criticism, and on Wikipedia due to his editing of his own article.

At DRN, DGG suggested blocking Rwbest per WP:NOTADVOCACY. That would seem to be an option, but Rwbest does have a non-trivial edit history. That said, evidence from the Dutch Wikipedia suggests that some of his edits there are distinctly WP:FRINGE. I do not know if that is the case here. I would ask for a topic ban from Jacobson, and probably from zero-carbon more broadly, but whether it's worth helping Rwbest avoid an outright ban probably depends on how people view Worldwide energy supply, which is essentially a monograph by him. The Banner certainly has a beef with Rwbest, as the history of that article shows, but Ronz and others have also reverted his edits elsewhere.

So, is with worldwide energy supply article cromulent? Should I be advocating a topic ban or a simple block? Guy (Help!) 15:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Is this forum shopping or canvasing?Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
No. It's asking people experienced in fringe theories to look at an article I can't judge. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • No comment on whatever protracted dispute this is a piece of, but is there some respect in which Worldwide energy supply is something other than a big stringy ball of SYNTH/personal essay that randomly duplicates content from about a dozen articles based on no specific criteria, and should for some reason actually not be redirected and maybe selectively merged into Energy supply? GMGtalk 16:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
That was my strong impression, but I don't actually know. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Fringe theory? No, in the debate about the Paris Agreement on Climate Change the analysis of Jacobson and his co-workers was supported because it provides the greatest detail across time, analyzes individual nations, and includes a comprehensive set of technologies from which to choose, M. Cooper, The economic and institutional foundations of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, section III, January 2016 See also which clarifies also that the lawsuit was over factually false statements and not to silence scientific criticism. Rwbest (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
See WP:SYN. His zero carbon no-nuclear agenda is not mainstream. At all. Guy (Help!) 17:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You're basing a scientific argument on a story in HuffPo? Really? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Just a cursory glance at the lawsuit itself makes it clear that the lawsuit was not about "using libel law to silence scientific criticism" but instead to correct falsehoods that damaged someone's reputation, which libel law is intended for.
Others aside from the Huffington Post author clearly recognized this. One author states, "Well guess what? This isn't a scientific dispute. Authors of a paper willfully and flagrantly telling lies with a scientific journal's tacit acceptance isn't a matter of science. They may be lying about a scientific publication, but this lawsuit isn't intended to settle a scientific dispute. This lawsuit is intended to address the blatant dishonesty of people who fabricated claims to trash a person's professional work." As such, it seems Guy has misrepresented the lawsuit.
Guy may respond by citing blogs and news articles that claim the lawsuit was over science, but what is the original source of that claim? The very first article on the lawsuit, which all other articles, including the Washington Post and others, followed chronologically, was by the nuclear advocate Shellenberger Many subsequent articles parroted the same claim. But, what is Shellenberger's or any of the other authors' source of the claim that the lawsuit was over science? None. They just make the claim without a source. For example, Shellenberger merely claims the lawsuit "is an appalling attack on free speech and scientific inquiry..." without stating what the lawsuit is about.
Guy is not done. He then misrepresents that Jacobson's "zero carbon no-nuclear agenda is not mainstream." Well, aside from the fact that 82% of 26,000 members of the public in 13 countries worldwide supports this "agenda" for the world to go to 100% renewable -- and that 131 international companies have committed to Jacobson's "agenda" to go "100% renewable" -- as have 64 towns and cities in North America alone and virtually no nuclear is being built in countries with liberalized markets, --- other scientists clearly recognize the importance of the Jacobson and Delucchi roadmaps. For example,
"This (new Jacobson, Delucchi, et al. paper in Joule roadmaps for 139 countries) helps push forward a conversation within and between the scientific, policy, and business communities about how to envision and plan for a decarbonized economy. Given the urgency of the climate challenge, however, the imperative for action—not just modeling or scenario analysis—is clearer than ever. To that end, neither the present paper nor other analysis performed by researchers with approaches, technology lists, and toolkits different than those of Jacobson et al.5 should be seen as a definitive scenario or roadmap for how to combat climate change. Different authors with different assumptions and techniques will understandably find different “answers” for long-term decarbonization. Yet most debate about particular conclusions misses the massive uncertainty of the inputs that drive those answers."
"Thus, what we should take from this growing body of work from Jacobson et al. and from others is an embrace of this inherent uncertainty surrounding a multi-decade energy transition."
"The scientific community’s growing body of work on global low-carbon energy transition pathways provides robust evidence that such a transition can be accomplished, and a growing understanding of the specific levers that need to be pulled to do so. Jacobson et al.’s present study provides sharper focus on one scenario and refines a set of priorities for near-term action to enable it"
There is no evidence from the above independent analysis that Jacobson's studies are fringe in any way. To the contrary, the author states explicitly that neither Jacobson's approach nor the other approaches, which Guy calls "mainstream" are definitive and that Jacobson's study "provides sharper focus on one scenario and refines a set of priorities" thus contributes to the literature.
Finally, Guy seems to be unaware that Jacobson is not alone on his papers. He has had over 80 coauthors on his WWS papers, and they have been peer-reviewed by an estimate of over 35 anonymous scientist peer reviewers. So Guy must be calling the 115+ professional scientists who have contributed to and worked on these papers "fringe" when in fact there do not seem to be any other competing roadmaps nearly so comprehensive, co-authored, or peer reviewed as the 100% WWS roadmaps. 2601:647:4C00:6C69:DA30:62FF:FE4D:EED7 (talk) 06:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)2601:647:4C00:6C69:DA30:62FF:FE4D:EED7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Sorry, but without reliable sources, this is just your opinion. Also, your focus on other editors rather than on reliable sources and what they say is inappropriate here. --Ronz (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Can you be more specific? Several points were made where a reliable factual reference was provided (e.g., Dyson's published article in Joule; summaries of the facts that the public, companies, and cities/towns are moving to 100% renewable energy as Jacobson proposes) and easily verifiable facts (e.g., number of coauthors, etc.). You made a sweeping statement without evidence. Let's parse this out and get to the bottom of it. Guy has made two charges that you are supporting, and so far I have not seen any evidence to support the charges aside from blog posts, commentaries by nuclear and fossil fuel advocates who have a financial conflict of interest in Jacobson's work, and comments by news outlets, which are not scientific sources. The first charge is the lawsuit was over scientific questions rather than specific false factual statements. The second is that the WWS roadmaps without nuclear are "fringe" but roadmaps that include significant growth of nuclear are "mainstream." Please cite any and all original sources for these claims. If you want to make a claim that the lawsuit was about science, you need to find an independent article that analyzes the exact arguments in the lawsuit submitted by Jacobson and still concludes it is about science. So far, I have seen none, and I have analyzed this in detail. If you want to claim that WWS is fringe, you need to show that no other peer-reviewed papers support 100% or near 100% renewable energy and that other scientists only propose using nuclear and that mainstream scientists (not just advocates for nuclear) believe that 100% WWS is not possible or realistic. However, your goal fails immediately, because there are at least 30 peer reviewed papers (at least 25 of which are not coauthored by Jacobson) that support the conclusion that energy systems can be 100% or near-100% renewable energy without nuclear power or carbon capture. This list of peer reviewed papers was compiled several months ago and has been publicly available, so you should have been aware of it Now that you are, you can no longer make the claim that the 100% WWS plans are fringe. It seems to be the opposite. There are far more scientists supporting 100% than support the contention that nuclear will play a large role in any energy transition. 2601:647:4C00:6C69:DA30:62FF:FE4D:EED7 (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
You made a sweeping statement without evidence. Please read WP:BATTLE, and skim the rest of WP:NOT while you are there. --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes I am aware and that seems to apply to you. You supported a contention that something is fringe without citing any source then claim without specifics that someone responding to the contention doesn't refer to reliable sources, then claim when someone responds to this new claim of yours that that person is creating a battle. It seems you are distracting from the subject. How about focus on the issue with facts and evidence, since accuracy is what Wikipedia is about. 2601:647:4C00:6C69:DA30:62FF:FE4D:EED7 (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I'll not reply further unless you clearly change your approach and demonstrate you're here to build this encyclopedia. --Ronz (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
In the interview, you stated that it was not about suppressing scientific dissent. But literally nobody else has ever said this. You are the only one who sees this as anything other than a SLAPP suit. I say "you" because it is blindingly obvious that you are blocked user:Mark Z. Jacobson. WP:DUCK level mallard in spring plumage. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Please read the following quote. It shows that what you just stated, that "literally nobody else has ever said this (that Jacobson's lawsuit was not about suppressing scientific dissent)," is incorrect on its face. "Well guess what? This isn't a scientific dispute. Authors of a paper willfully and flagrantly telling lies with a scientific journal's tacit acceptance isn't a matter of science. They may be lying about a scientific publication, but this lawsuit isn't intended to settle a scientific dispute. This lawsuit is intended to address the blatant dishonesty of people who fabricated claims to trash a person's professional work." 2601:647:4C00:6C69:DA30:62FF:FE4D:EED7 (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you may be blocked for continuing as you are doing. You are using this venue to attack others, with apparently no reliable sources. Please stop. --Ronz (talk) 03:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I didn't mean to offend you, but where is the attack? Is saying that something is "incorrect on its face" and then providing a quote proving the statement is incorrect on its face an attack or being accurate and forthright? Regardless of whether the source is "reliable" or not, the fact is a person said it and Guy claimed that "literally nobody else has ever said this." Others have said it too (including in the Huffington Post article).
While I agree the Izuru piece is self published, it is the most detailed analysis of the actual lawsuit itself (you are welcome to present another article that is more detailed). All other news articles and blogs do not actually delve into the details of what the lawsuit says like the Izuru Article does. So, an actual analysis can easily prove that the Izuru article is the most reliable of all 2nd-hand articles published on the subject. As stated at, "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." Thus, one cannot just willy nilly say that an article is reliable because it came from a known source. The source must be judged on its own for its content and the reason for the content.
The fact is, Jacobson dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice before a decision was made so no one will ever know if the suit would have been found to be a SLAPP suit or whether his charges of defamation would have been affirmed by a jury. As such, by definition, there is no source for the claim that it was a SLAPP suit. It is only speculation and opinion.
Wikipedia states,"Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately; do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space."
Thus, the unsourced and poorly-sourced factual claims on this page that (1) the lawsuit was a SLAPP suit over science and not false facts and (2) that his 100% WWS roadmaps are fringe and not part of a large body of papers on that subject that have been authored and reviewed by dozens should be removed. No evidence has been presented to support such claims and plenty of evidence has been presented on the present page alone to debunk such claims. When applying Wikipedia's contexting rule "Each source must be carefully weighed..." and the fact that "articles, books, monographs, or research papers that have been vetted by the scholarly community are regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources" -- it is easy to show that the sources debunking this claim are reliable sources. 2601:647:4C00:6C69:DA30:62FF:FE4D:EED7 (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Art Bell has died

Before Alex Jones, Art Bell was the king of woo. Sadly his article is in such poor shape that unless it's drastically improved I don't think it will get posted to RD under WP:ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Resonnant cavity thruster

I tried to clean up the article on the so-called Resonnant cavity thruster, and got reverted. Could someone weigh in in the discussion on the talk page? Basically, Resonnant cavity thruster is supposed to generate propulsion by sending microwaves into a cavity. It is supposed to operate in space without ejecting reactive mass, so it would be a very excellent mode of propulsion indeed. Unfortunately, the device suffers from very specific specific practical and theoretical problems. The practical problem is that it doesn't work, and the theoretical problem is that it is proven theoretically that such device doesn't work (Newton's third law and such). There have been several tests which don't disprove that the device can produce a very small amount thrust, very near the limits of the experimental error. Apparently this is enough for some people to defend that this design and continue testing it, but it seems to be about as useful as homeopathic apothecary. Heptor talk 14:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

No, you added WP:NPOV wording that is apparently based on your original research. That's not permitted. You should bring your ideas to the talk page, with sources to back them up.- MrX 🖋 14:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Where is the NPOV and OR with calling pseudoscience what it is?[4] See [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Macon (talkcontribs)
Explained on the article talk page and [12][13][14][15][16][17]- MrX 🖋 16:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
BTW, please try to spell "resonant" correctly. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
You talkin' to me?- MrX 🖋 16:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC) (Actually, I was talking to Heptor). --Guy Macon (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

MrX, third law of motion is Isaac Newton's research, not mine. The fact that the contrivance of our present conversation attempts to violate the said law has not been contended by anyone on the talk page and it furthermore easily verified by reliable sources[18][19]; since this law very much remains a cornerstone of mainstream science, I really thought that this would be an open-and-shut case. PS: Guy Macon, many thanks for correcting my spelling. Heptor talk 21:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Dorothy Kilgallen (it never ends)

The latest attempts to get the Fringe Conspiracy Theories back into the article. here -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Are there any objective reliable sources that could be used to add a paragraph noting the deprecated conspiracy theories, similar to how we treat the conspiracy issue at HAARP? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think so. This stuff is so fringe it has been pretty much ignored by reliable secondary sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The OP has now opened a discussion at WP:DR where I have responded. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Nicolae Densusianu is fringe

Thread moved to Talk:Origin of the Romanians. Further discussion should take place there. GMGtalk 16:27, 19 April 2018 (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.

This is about Talk:Origin of the Romanians#Densusianu is fringe, namely including fringe authors in a mainstream history article. I have stated that WP:DRN is not the proper channel to advocate for such inclusion. By fringe authors I mean Nicolae Densusianu and Protochronist authors.

The gist of the matter:

Dacia Preistorică by Nicolae Densușianu is a close encounter of the WP:FRINGE kind. All Iovaniorgovan could quote from among the contemporary "scholars" are Protochronist authors and their walled garden. Per WP:ONEWAY pseudohistory is not welcome in a mainstream history article.

Source for ND's book is "mystical delirium": Dan Alexe (2 August 2016). Dacopatia şi alte rătăciri româneşti. Humanitas SA. p. 95. ISBN 978-973-50-4978-2. (Alexe's book is of the popularized science sort, but it was published by the prestigious publishing house Humanitas — prestigious by Romanian standards).

Here is an article by Zoe Petre: [20], one by Mircea Babeș: [21], and one by Eugen Ciurtin: [22]. All of these articles treat ND's book with high contempt, noting that there is nothing new about such contempt from notable Romanian historians in the past 100 years. The articles exemplify such contempt with quotes. They note that all the interest for ND's book was from dilettantes and that his book was not appreciated by professional historians. (ND had some serious historical contributions, but not in respect to the Antiquity.) The verdict of conscious Romanian historians is unanimous: ND's book is pseudohistory/fantasy trying to pass for history. It is totally ignored by the international scholarship and rejected by the Romanian academics by consensus. As Ciurtin notes, nobody (i.e. scholars) reads ND's book any longer, this is shown by consulting the somewhat recently published historical scholarship.

In respect to the claim of Dacian continuity, this is an odd claim and I would like to see mainstream sources supporting it. It should not be conflated with the theory of Daco-Roman continuity which, although not proven, is taken seriously as an explanation of the origin of Romanians. I.e. stating that there is a purely Dacian continuity, with little or no Latin influence is an oddball in respectable historical scholarship (Protochronists are by definition eccentric and marginal, thus not a respectable position in historical scholarship). Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

DNA studies such as this, Ancient DNA from South-East Europe Reveals Different Events during Early and Middle Neolithic, as objective and NON-fringe as it gets, agree with Densusianu's main thesis, that of continuity of the same people over the same territory over millennia. "M_NEO and modern populations from Romania are VERY CLOSE, in contrast with Middle Neolithic and modern populations from Central Europe."[p.11] As one can see from the yellow diamonds in Fig 2 & 3 in that article, modern-day Romanians/Moldovans are closer to their Middle Neolithic ancestors than to any modern European population. Other people/ethnicities passed through that area over the centuries (as shown in the Late Neolithic sample from the same study) but there was minimal admixture of mtDNA, except with already related populations. This study alone (there are others) disprove the "Romanization" theory (no DNA study to date has shown any "Roman" input in the ethnogenesis of the Romanian people). This DNA study clearly shows that the Romanian ethnicity had already formed (in the same area occupied today) by Middle Neolithic. This is a fact, not a matter of opinion, so we must allow for competing theories that take this into consideration. I don't suggest that Densusianu's work is the historical bible that we must all follow to the letter, but to call him "fringe" is to go to the other extreme. Dacian continuity (with minimal Roman influence) is a perfectly legit theory that is now supported by DNA research (all other theories are NOT), and many reputed scholars have subscribed to it. Here goes again: Iosif Constantin Dragan, Dumitru Berciu, Ștefan Pascu (member of the Academy), Conf. Univ. Dr. G.D. Iscru, Grigore Tocilescu (member of the Academy), Ioan Andriesescu (correspondent member of the Academy) and even Vasile Parvan, initially critical of ND's work, came around to his way of thinking towards the end of his life (see his posthumously published work). And since you anchor your argument to a book by Dan Alexe, a journalist/filmmaker, please allow me to quote the greatest Romanian poet/journalist, Mihai Eminescu, who said that in light of the historical record, "Everything should be Dacicized from now on". Finally, I would also like to mention recent work from two reputable linguists (doctorates, the works) who also subscribe to this view, that no "Latinization/Romanization" ever took place: Carme Jiménez Huertas (We Don't Come From Latin; Original Spanish Title: No venimos del latín; ISBN 9788490503645), and Dr. Mihai Vinereanu (The Evolution of the Proto-Indo-European *BH Sound in Latin and Why Romanian Doesn't Come From Latin)--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
One other thing-- one does not need Densusianu's writings to prop up the Dacian continuity theory. The theory can be thoroughly supported without resorting to ND's work, although people (myself included) do it out of convenience (one-stop-shopping kind of thing).--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
From the article Iosif Constantin Dragan:

According to historian Lucian Boia, Drăgan promoted an extreme version of protochronism, which claimed that the Romania was the cradle of civilization, and the Romanian people the oldest in Europe:

As the author of We, the Thracians (1976) and editor of the periodical of the same title (Noì, tracii) that was launched in 1974, he was the leading figure of an entire movement aimed at amplifying the role of the Thracians in European history, a movement supported by all sorts of amateurs (even a lawyers’ group!) but also by some less than scrupulous professionals (among them the archaeologists Dumitru Berciu and Ion Horaţiu Crişan). In the periodical Noi, tracii it was possible, for example, to claim that the ancestors of the Romanians lived 100,000 years ago, eloquent proof that the Romanian people is the oldest in the continent, if not in the world. As for the extent of the Thracians’ territory, Drăgan generously allows them almost half of Europe, centered, evidently, on the present-day space of Romania.<ref>Boia, Lucian, ''History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness'', Central European University Press, Budapest, 2001, p.105</ref>

The work of Densusianu begins with (I translate):

Behind the populations known in ancient times as Dacians and Getae there was for many thousands of years a genial, powerful and glorious nation, which much time before the Trojan times [the Trojan war, sung in Iliad], founded the first vast empire of the world, established the first cultural unity of Europe and established the basis of moral and material progress in West Asia and North Africa

From ro:Dacia preistorică:

Alexandru D. Xenopol stated "The theory of the author that Dacians have established the first civilization of the humankind shows that it is a product of chauvinism, not of science". Vasile Pârvan, in his monumental work, Getica, mentions the author and his work - "his fantastic novel Dacia preistorică, full of mythology and absurd philology, which from its publication has awakened wonder and unbounded enthusiasm among the Romanian archaeology dilettantes"<ref>Quoted by M. Babeș</ref>.

According to WP:SCIRS and WP:HISTRS I want to see many mainstream (i.e. not from the walled garden of Protochronism) secondary sources which support the Dacians-only continuity claim. Not one or two pieces of DNA study wherein the authors claimed that they had not studied enough people. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Again, all you offer is... opinions, NO arguments. As for Lucian Boia, your leading man, and former University of Bucharest Secretary of Propaganda for the Communist Party (up to the Revolution), here's what Ioan-Aurel Pop (Istoria, adevarul si miturile, Ed Enciclopedica, 2014; first published in 2002), an advocate of the Daco-Roman theory and the recently elected President of the Romanian Academy, has to say "Lucian Boia is not able to read a document in Latin, Slavonic, or Greek.[...] His entire so-called expertise is restricted to the end of the nineteenth century and beginning of the twentieth century. He's not a historian of ancient times, he simply borrows from here and there. He even acknowledged that he does not apply historical methods in his books because the historical methods are outdated. [...]He is a falsifier of history." So, we can go back-and-forth on this until the cows sing the blues.
The DNA study I mention clearly states that it performed a "genetic analysis of a RELATIVELY LARGE NUMBER of samples of Boian, Zau and Gumelniţa cultures in Romania (n = 41) (M_NEO)", which is the period in question. It says that further studies are necessary to draw conclusions in regards mostly to the Late Bronze findings-- that is, ancient populations that are not related to any modern populations. That's to be expected-- Romanians were not the only people to ever inhabit those lands, other people came and left (like the Celts), they're just the only ones who have been living there continuously. Speaking of DNA studies, here's another recent one (from last year) that made waves at that time because of its surprising finds, DNA from ancient Egyptian mummies reveals their ancestry-- "Johannes Krause, a University of Tubingen paleogeneticist and an author of the study, said the major finding was that “for 1,300 years, we see complete genetic continuity.” Despite repeated conquests of Egypt, by Alexander the Great, Greeks, Romans, Arabs and Assyrians — the list goes on — ancient Egyptians showed little genetic change. “The other big surprise,” Krause said, “was we didn't find much sub-Saharan African ancestry.” What the study found was "that ancient Egyptians are most closely related to Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in the Levant, as well as to Neolithic Anatolian and European populations (Fig. 5a,b). When comparing this pattern with modern Egyptians, we find that the ancient Egyptians are more closely related to all modern and ancient European populations that we tested." This came as a shock to everyone EXCEPT readers of Densusianu. So here you have not one but TWO major DNA studies published in the last two years, both confirming Densusianu's version of ancient history. These are recent studies and it takes a while to enter the mainstream but eventually this new and (re)emerging version of history (closer to the truth) will win out. Too bad that the pace is made slower by irrational detractors. Wikipedia should allow these theories to be represented on its pages, lest one will start branding DNA studies as "fringe."--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I did not say that the DNA studies would be fringe. I have stated that WP:SCIRS and WP:HISTRS demand many WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SECONDARY WP:SOURCES. Also, Densusianu's work is comparable to the hallucinations of a drugs addict, so whatever the DNA studies show, he cannot be right. Protochronists maintain that Dacians have conquered the Americas and Japan, so far goes their ludicrousness. Besides, Pop has stated on Acad. prof. univ. dr. Ioan-Aurel Pop - Despre falsificarea istoriei on YouTube that he has nothing against Boia dispelling the myths of National-Communist historiography, he only maintains that Boia is not an expert who can provide positive information about the history of Romania. In Pop's view Boia is good at removing the weeds from the garden of Romanian historiography—and he should stick to doing that (he is qualified for doing it, but not in other fields). "Wikipedia is behind the ball – that is we don't lead, we follow – let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements and find NPOV ways of presenting them if needed."[8] Wikipedia is a place where we kowtow to the academic mainstream. If you don't like doing that, you won't like it here. See WP:ABIAS. Since you cited Densusianu and Iosif Constantin Dragan as if they wrote reliable sources, you don't have the faintest idea of what WP:RS means. I suggest reading it thoroughly, and please take notes. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Now you're using specious arguments: Densusianu = "protochronist" and since one "protochronist" said "X" then Densusianu must have also believed "X". Densusianu wrote nothing of the sort. In fact, I only linked to his work once in the entries that you deleted. Every author should be scrutinized, including ND, but one should be able to quote from a work (if fitting) without dismissing the entire work just because the author didn't get everything 100% right. Else, we'll be left with no books to quote/cite. And that also goes for all those ACADEMICS I just quoted.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
ND's work has been flat out rejected by all serious Romanian historians of the past 100 years. So it's not WP:RS, it is an exercise in mythomania. Also Dragan is not regarded as a scholar, he hardly published peer-reviewed articles in serious historical journals, so for us he isn't an academic. He was a propagandist for Fascism (Ion Antonescu), Protochronism and the like. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, I disagree. Anyway, like I said before, there are actually two arguments here: 1) Densusianu is "fringe", 2) Thraco-Dacian continuity is "fringe". I don't need Densusianu to prove Dacian continuity, and to say (2) is true is just... preposterous. Recent DNA studies support the Thraco-Dacian continuity theory, famous historians and writers (including Romania's greatest, Mihai Eminescu) advocated it, contemporary university historians and linguists (not just Romanian, I linked to a Spanish one, too, just for good measure) also support it... It's never been "fringe" and will never be "fringe".--2602:301:7769:EF70:1D88:8886:4A13:2F40 (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Paraphrased from Jimbo Wales' September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
    — WP:DUE
Please note that Protochronists are not WP:MAINSTREAM, Densusianu is WP:CB and DNA studies aren't WP:SECONDARY. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I named plenty of "prominent adherents". I rest my case then. --Iovaniorgovan (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Protochronists, as a rule of thumb, do not count as academics, and even if some count, they certainly do not pass WP:RS. They fail WP:FRINGE—this is why we don't allow their claims inside Wikipedia. Our encyclopedia isn't an everything goes forum for crank science. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
You seem a little confused, to say the least, and you're resorting to all sorts of conflating and specious arguments (taint by association) to make your points, which only exposes the weakness of your arguments. Protochronism was a national/political movement that used a theory/idea, in this case Dacianism, for political purposes. As we've seen in history, just about ANY idea/theory can be used for political manipulation or economic gain. One can use atomic energy for benevolent purposes, another can use it to start wars... that doesn't make the science wrong. Just like in our case, Dacian continuity is simply a theory that has ZERO political value in and of itself. We're only concerned with historical truth here. Hope you can understand this much.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
That's a red herring: Protochronists are unreliable as sources because they are ideologically tainted, they make fanciful claims, they are not published in mainstream peer-reviewed historical journals, such works are not cited approvingly by mainstream historians, their viewpoints are not taught as fact in faculties of history (yes, even in Romania), they have their walled garden publishing houses, these are all WP:REDFLAGs of fringe theories. So, unless you cite mainstream WP:HISTRS/WP:SCIRS, you cannot add that to our article. The problem that Protochronism/Dacians-only theory are fringe is not ours to fix, see WP:RGW.

The Bible is the voice of God, not the voice of scientists. If we want the voice of scientists, we ask the scientists. Most of them do advocate the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and evolution as the most visible means of how the world came to be. Whether or not this was God's doing is up to the reader to decide. If the scientists are mistaken, this has to be shown to them on their own grounds, which anti-evolution folks are not really doing, because they are not reading up on the same literature, they are not using the same standards and experiments, and they are not speaking in the same circles nor getting published in the same journals. If it does not walk like a duck, does not talk like a duck, and avoids ducks like the plague, there is little reason to assume its a duck. Or scientist, in this case. I'm not saying the anti-evolution folks are wrong, I'm just saying that they are not mainstream scientists. This is why they're not consulted for the voice of scientists. Now, they can be consulted for what they think if their views are notable.

Mutatis mutandis, this applies to your WP:SOURCES: these are not written by mainstream historians, so we don't use them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
That's circular reasoning: If one adheres to the (strictly) Dacian continuity that makes him a "protochronist" and hence he is unreliable and ideologically tainted. Anyway, it looks like we've been going around in circles too. Okay then, no problem, I'll make sure to cite only mainstream sources, and if you don't think they're mainstream then feel free to delete them (and let me know why). However when/if I do that I may need to add a header, etc, for clarity.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
p.s. you're really reaching there, mutatis mutandis.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Here is why: the only people who champion the Dacians-only view are Protochronists (and other wannabe-scholars who are their fellow travelers), Protochronists write unreliable sources, so this is catch 22 for getting the Dacians-only claim in our article, which defaults to it being fringe. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I get what you're saying but that doesn't make it right or true (your first statement above is patently false). The theory doesn't just magically default to "fringe", it does so because people like you deem themselves the absolute arbiters of what is "mainstream" and what isn't (if members of the Academy are not mainstream, what is?) Not that Wiki doesn't need policing, it does, but there should be a way to mitigate such "conflicts". Again, I'll just post mainstream sources (as mainstream as possible in my estimation) and hopefully we can reach a ceasefire.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, don't cite any Protochronist (or fellow traveler) for a start. Cite only mainstream WP:RS compliant with WP:SCIRS or WP:HISTRS. And a thing to remember: Wikipedians do not have much regard for WP:PRIMARY sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

This discussion does not belong here. It belongs on the Talk page of the article this is about. This page is for notifying people who are interested in fringe topics that something fringey is going on somewhere. That has happened by Tgeorgescu's first contribution here. All the rest of this discussion is happening at the wrong place. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I have copy/pasted it to Talk:Origin of the Romanians. May someone close this discussion? Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2018 (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.

The Menk, the Dyatlov Pass incident, Crackpots, and the So-Called "International Center of Hominology"

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

So, while cleaning up folklore-related articles on Wikipedia, my attention has turned to Wikipedia's Menk article. It appears that this creature stems from the folklore of the Mansi people, a minority group in what is today Russia (see these Google Books hits, for example). The figure has seen very limited coverage in English language folklore studies sources, which isn't surprising given its obscurity to western audiences. Still, with some digging around, I'm sure there's an interesting article to produce here.

Unfortunately, rather than encountering a well-researched piece discussing the development of the figure with factors such as attestations, an etymology, and comparative discussion from folklorists, what I instead found here was the usual monster-hunting pseudoscience (cryptozoology, use of the term cryptid) that continues to plague so many of our articles on folklore topics. More troubling still, there seems to be an active effort to use sources like and to promote an idea that the Dyatlov Pass incident may have been a result of the menk, which the authors have gone to pains to paint as a Bigfoot or yeti-like entity (essentially in an emic perspective). Right now the article still includes discussion regarding the "International Center of Hominology", which appears to in fact be a Russian cryptozoology group. (No idea if it consists of say, more than a single person.)

Every now and then, a user appears and reinstates a variety of these links, including stuff from Youtube. Can we get some extra eyes on this article? :bloodofox: (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Added a couple high quality sources. Someone with the time can use these to expand the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Washington State Fusion Center accidentally releases records on remote mind control

--Guy Macon (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Should Creationism be identified as pseudoscience?

There's a university called Liberty University that teaches creationism (the pseudoscientific belief that the Earth is 10,000 years old). I've been editing the LU article[23], and as part of my edits I've tried to clearly note that Creationism is a "pseudoscientific" belief. Other editors are pushing back at this and are saying that we should note identify creationism as pseudoscience.[24] Which of the following sentences is more appropriate:

  • Liberty University teaches young Earth creationism as an explanation for the appearance of life on Earth.
  • Liberty University teaches young Earth creationism, the pseudoscientific belief that the Earth was created less than 10,000 years ago by God.

To me, the second sentence seems clearly in line with WP:FRINGE whereas the first sentence fails to identify creationism as a fringe theory even though it obviously is one. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Believe it or not, this question has arisen before! If you look at the lead of Creationism and the main branching articles, and poke around the talk pages and articles, you will see the WP position that has been arrived at. Creationism and Young Earth Creationism (taught at Liberty I think) are "religious beliefs"; creation science (which they may also teach) is pseudoscience. Johnbod (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
:They teach creationism in biology classes[25]. Does this mean that pseudoscience is the appropriate term? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes they teach creationism as a valid scientific equivalent to mainstream thinking [26] I suggest looking for academic sources over newspapers this may help your argument. I will see what I can find I have a few books lieing around--Moxy (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
In the case of Liberty it looks like they teach creationism as a religious belief of the appearance of life on earth, as well as evolution in some other classes. Not pseudoscience. WP position has already been arrived at, affirming this stance. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
According to the sources cited in the LU article, they teach creationism in biology classes. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
No guess work pls over creationism and......Susan L. Trollinger; William Vance Trollinger, Jr.; William Vance Trollinger (2016). Righting America at the Creation Museum. JHU Press. pp. 210–. ISBN 978-1-4214-1951-0.
If they teach it as a science subject, yes. If they teach it as a religious subject, no.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
They do....."This week, Liberty University students will have the opportunity to see one of their professors, Dr. Marcus Ross, present the case for young-earth creationism (YEC) on the big screen, using his expertise in geology to show how scientific evidence supports this view.".--Moxy (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
According to that link, "In his science classes, Ross teaches students how the greater scientific community interprets evidence while also sharing how they can be viewed from a YEC perspective."(emphasis added) And here we learn that another biology professor "believes in young Earth creationism instead of evolution — and he’s not afraid to teach it in the classroom." That settles it -- they really do teach creationism as science. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Does LU teach creationism in science courses? Yes:

  • WaPo: "In certain situations in an Earth science course, for example, a student would learn the case for biblical creation alongside the science of evolution."[27]
  • NPR: "He enrolled in nearly every core class each Liberty student is required to take: Old Testament, New Testament, History of Life — a creationist biology course — and Evangelism 101, a course that instructs students on converting nonbelievers."[28]
  • News Advance (the local paper): "At Liberty, the science classroom is exactly where students learn about creation, and the content also is woven into many other areas of coursework... DeWitt, who is director of the school’s center for creation stud-ies, teaches biology and two versions of creation studies — one for students in the sciences that includes more “scientifically detailed subject matter,” he said, and another that most students take, which does not. He teaches both evolution and creation."[29]
  • DailyBeast: "Creation Studies is taught in Liberty’s Center for Creation Studies, described on their website as “a dynamic, teaching-based academic center.” The center’s purpose is to “research, promote, and communicate a robust young-Earth creationist view of Earth history,” with the goal of equipping “students to defend their faith in the creation account in Genesis using science, reason and the Scriptures.” Students in the Creation Studies class are assigned a “scientist contrast interview, where we are required to interview several scientists on both sides of the origins debate.”"[30]
  • Politico: "According to Liberty’s website, the purpose of the university’s Center for Creation Studies is to “research, promote, and communicate a robust young-Earth creationist view of Earth history. Beginning with sound biblical interpretation, we seek to understand how science can inform us about God's magnificent creation.” The Center operates Creation Hall, which boasts fossilized bones from an Allosaurus, which according to young-Earth science, are 6,000 to 10,000 years old—as old as literally everything else in the universe."[31] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the RSs. Relating to the original sentence question, I would phrase it "Liberty University teaches the pseudoscientific young Earth creationism, based on the religious belief that the Earth was created less than 10,000 years ago by God." StrayBolt (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

LU Creation Studies, which teaches "History of Life" class, says, "The purpose of the Center for Creation Studies is to promote the development of a consistent biblical view of origins in our students. The Center seeks to equip students to contend for their faith in the creation account in Genesis using science, reason, and the Scriptures." This is not science. They begin with the end, cherry picking scientific studies, using the language of science, using rhetoric over evidence, and a host of other techniques, guaranteeing the results. This is pseudoscience or worse. In the recent doc on POV about Bill Nye[32][33], he pointed out how creationists will push the debate to belief, belief of science. StrayBolt (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

So is the the latest in a series of questions of the type: should ${obviously pseudoscience} be called pseudoscience? -- with a bunch of religious POV-pushers arguing in opposition. It's getting tiresome. Alexbrn (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. It’s a pretty blatant WP:PSCI policy violation, so it doesn’t look like there’s any reason to entertain those who want the pseudoscience language removed (or allow them to edit war it out). If it continues to be a problem, probably best to take it to WP:AE under the pseudoscience DS since those were set up to quickly remove disruptions like this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Any modern form of creationism short of theistic evolution is pseudoscience. Any editor insisting otherwise needs to be notified of the discretionary sanctions on pseudoscience articles. If such an editor continues to downplay the pseudoscientific nature of creationism, discretionary sanctions need to be applied. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
The key words here are "young earth". There exists old-earth creationism, the religious belief that the scientists are right about the origin and age of the earth, the origin and age of the universe, the origin of life and the origin of species, but that God is behind it all pulling the strings and making it happen. Old-earth creationism isn't pseudoscience because it does not dispute the scientific consensus, but rather interprets it in a unprovable and unfalsifiable religious framework. Young-earth creationism is pseudoscience because it claims that the biologists are all wrong about species, the geologists are all wrong about how old rocks are, the astronomers are either all wrong about how far away the stars are or all wrong about how long it took light from those stars to reach us, the linguists are all wrong about the speed at which language evolves, the physicists are all wrong about radiometric dating -- the list goes on and on. That makes it pseudoscience. Looks like Liberty is teaching young-earth creationism. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I've seen forms of old-earth that grant the geologists are "right," but still deny evolution. Hence "any form of creationism short of theistic evolution." YEC tends to insist that the world has to be 6000 years old, while some of the shorter forms of Old Earth will say 10,000. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
That subset of old-earth creationists would clearly be pushing pseudoscience. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don’t see the main distinction as between OEC and YEC. While it’s indeed much easier for proponents of the former to stick to theology, not having to explain away YEC’s blatant contradictions of observable facts, some of them do make use of such pseudoscientific notions as irreducible complexity, or try to support an argument-from-incredulity against the ability of chance to produce adaptive mutations with spurious statistical reasoning.—Odysseus1479 19:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Where the article says, "Creationism is taught as a science alongside evolution in biology classes, and are instructed that the former offers the better explanation of biological diversity," we are obligated to explain that creationism is not a science but rather a pseudoscience, and that such claims are rejected by the overwhelming majority of life scientists. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I think we are veering into activism when we call religion pseudoscience. Pseudoscience masquerades as science. I don't think religion does, even when it is presenting explanations that clearly cannot coexist with scientific explanations for the same phenomena. Religion is not science. This is generally understood. There is no need to distinguish between religion and science. The use of the term pseudoscience comes up when we need to distinguish between something that pretends to be science but is not. I think we are overreaching and quite frankly being non-neutral when we unnecessarily apply the term "pseudoscience" to religion. That is taking an activist role that doesn't benefit the reader unless we are preaching an anti-religion message, which we should refrain from doing. Bus stop (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
How Liberty University Creates Creationists
-Guy Macon (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Religion is religion, science is science. Religion taught in science classes *as science* is subject to the same rules as all other science. I agree that Liberty University and other advocates of so-called "creation science" are creating a number of issues for themselves and others by proclaiming their religious beliefs to be a scientific explanation for the development of life. But they've made that choice and we cannot simply ignore it.

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly right. In a religious / doctrinal context, creationism just is what it is. When presented as science - explicitly or implicitly - then it needs to be flagged as pseudo. JohnInDC (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Depends. Young earth creationism is religious belief dressed up to look like science. If the concept is being presented as a religious belief there's no need to qualify it as "pseudoscience" any more than you need to preface "blue" with the word "color" in an article about the rainbow. Blue is defined as a color. So I disagree that it needs to be flagged as pseudoscience at each and every introduction; and I think it's perfectly permissible to say, without more, that "at Liberty University, they teach YE creationism to explain where the world comes from". Now - it's different, when you are trying to cloak YE creationism in scientific clothing. Then it's helpful - necessary - to denote the true nature of the thing. So if LU teaches YE creationism in its biology classes then it should be noted that YE creationism is not, in fact, science. How one does that smoothly is a matter of copyediting more than anything else. JohnInDC (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to echo a few of the comments above: if it's under any other context than presented as science, then no, but if it's presented as science, then it must absolutely be labeled as a pseudoscience. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
And see, that’s the thing. It’s not being presented as science – it’s being presented as what Liberty University does. We as editors don’t need to remind our readers at every turn that something that is manifestly pseudoscience is, in fact pseudoscience. Do we really think that they are so credulous, so poorly informed, but they won’t perceive it without our editorial assistance? JohnInDC (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
We make no assumption about a reader's age or academic background. It seems to me than if an academic institution attempts to pass a pseudoscience off as a science — whether dressed in euphemism or buried in jargon or what have you — it's Wikipedia's duty as a neutral tertiary source to cut through that and present a pseudoscience as a pseudoscience. This is especially important given Google's intention to use Wikipedia articles to debunk, say, conspiracy theories. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, I disagree. Our job is to report, in NPOV terms, what third party sources say about the topics we write articles about. Our job is not to adorn articles with superfluous words to ensure that readers are not taken in by unsound & scurrilous ideas that achieve wide circulation. We report what third parties say, not our own distillation of what is "true" (even where our conclusion is inarguably correct). Liberty University, for its own religious and / or political purposes, is seeking to pass off pseudoscience as science. But when we say, "Liberty University teaches young earth creationism to all of its students" we are saying exactly that already. It's a nasty slippery slope, making sure that our articles have language in them to ensure that readers will be able to distinguish truth from seductive falsehood. JohnInDC (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
It's being taught in biology classes, as science, which your allegedly NPOV version leaves off. NPOV ALSO means not helping lies by omission or furthering deceptive public relations campaigns. --Calton | Talk 01:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
After a moment's quiet reflection I think you will realize that it cannot be sound Wikipedia policy, that editors have an affirmative obligation to ensure that "deceptive public relations campaigns" are all identified as such, and refuted with additional, editor-supplied narrative or qualifiers. We're all fact-checkers now? Of course I may be mistaken, and, in fact NPOV does in fact mean that; so if you can show me where, I'll withdraw. Separately - I'd be just as content with, "Liberty University teaches, as science, young earth creationism to all of its students". Finally - "allegedly"? You've been around a long enough time to WP:AGF. JohnInDC (talk) 02:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
"Do we really think that they are so credulous, so poorly informed, but they won’t perceive it without our editorial assistance?" A large share of readers are obviously not capable of discerning pseudoscience and fringe theories from actual science and mainstream theories. Even many Wikipedia editors do not discern the difference. For instance, AlaskanNativeRU, the editor who has been mass-removing content on the LU article, says "creationism is a theory just like evolution". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
So then you ask the editor on the article Talk page or on their Talk page to explain their reasoning in equating creationism with evolution. I don't think you automatically slap on a label of pseudoscience in article space. Bus stop (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • In church? No. Everywhere else? Hell yes. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • What JzG said. The scientific context means, yes, the adjective "pseudoscientific" is called for. Omitting it is an active disservice to readers. --Calton | Talk 01:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Policy says (WP:PSCI) we need to label pseudoscience prominently when pseudoscientific views are mentioned. That is all. Anything else is WP:PROFRINGE pov-pushing. Alexbrn (talk) 06:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Is it that simple? If something has no pretense of being scientific, should we label it pseudoscience? I think religion should be respected for the sort of entity it is. I think there is a general understanding that religion and science are two different realms. I think that in most instances that distinction is clear. We should invoke the term "pseudoscience" when there is the realistic concern that the reader could be mislead by something that might sound scientific but is not. Bus stop (talk) 12:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, and any reader who's a little unclear on the concept of young earth creationism can click on the wikilink and learn within the first 5 or so words that it's a religious belief; and by the second paragraph that it's pseudoscience. I really don't understand the eagerness to add, to insist on adding, extrinsic editorial commentary to every mention of this term. If it's that important we should change the name of the linked article to "Young Earth Creationism (pseudoscientific theory)". And I say that only about 60% tongue-in-cheek. JohnInDC (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
We follow the sources. It is that simple. The policy is absolutely explicit. Religion gets no special pass any more than any other irrationality, from homeopathy to flat-earthism (though of course these have religious elements too). Alexbrn (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Hm. I guess we should get started on flagging references to the virgin birth as inconsistent with the current scientific understanding of parthenogenesis. JohnInDC (talk) 13:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Without sources it would be likely to get you on the path to a ban. As is WP:POINTy behaviour in the topic space generally. Alexbrn (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
No, it was a facetious comment, Alexbrn. It wasn't a realistic suggestion. Same thing with religion—it doesen't purport to be scientific, in most cases. Bus stop (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
But where it obtrudes into the realm of science it becomes pseudoscience, and if we have sources saying so, we are obliged to make this prominent in our articles, per policy. When creationism is mentioned we need to label it as the nonsense it obviously is, to be neutral. Why is this hard? Alexbrn (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
It always obtrudes into the realm of science. That alone doesn't make it pseudoscience. And we don't have to include in our articles everything that is found in sources. We exercise judgement. Bus stop (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Here's Popular Science on the subject of the science of the virgin birth. There are many others as well - it seems to come up a lot around Christmas. No one was making LU's argument for them - that creationism is scientific - but rather just reporting that they teach creationism in a science class, as science; which is already such an obvious contradiction in terms that it doesn't need more. JohnInDC (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @Bus stop: You are exhibiting WP:IDHT. For the last time, WP:PSCI obliges us label pseudoscience as such. Religion does not always obtrude into the realm of science, any more than Harry Potter stories do. So long as it's confined to the realm of religion no problem. But as soon as religious beliefs claim to bear up the reality of how the world works, we are into PS territory. Alexbrn (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

(It's kind of funny how the discussion of these opposing viewpoints has become almost theological.) JohnInDC (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, I overstated that, Alexbrn. Religion doesn't always obtrude into the realm of science—but it commonly does. I just think it gets a little silly when we think we need to inform the reader that assertions made in the context of religion do not concur with the scientific understanding of that or a related phenomenon. And there often are not any related phenomenon. If Noah's Ark is pseudoscience, what is the corresponding "scientific" explanation for the phenomenon addressed by the Noah's Ark story? There is none. And this is my point. These two activities in human output take place in categorically different realms. Religion doesn't often impinge upon science, not in the modern age. We can say that religious activities are pseudoscience but in my opinion most of the time we would be wasting our time doing so. It is not as if there is an enormous amount of confusion between what is religious and what is scientific. We should be careful that we are not doing this out of personal animosity toward religion. I read you saying "When creationism is mentioned we need to label it as the nonsense it obviously is, to be neutral." Your personal feeling is that religion is "nonsense". I think that personal feelings should not determine how we move forward. Bus stop (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Noah's Ark doesn't have to be pseudoscience, but it almost always is presented pseudoscientifically. It can be presented as a funny little story our primitive ancestors made up and believed about their relationship with a god that punishes them for evil, but which certainly never happened. That would be Noah's Ark as myth. But generally religious pseudoscientists go on to say that the story "explains" a world-wide flood (though no such flood ever occurred), and that actual scientific evidence which demonstrates no such flood ever occurred should be reinterpreted in such a way as to make it seem plausible. And that's Noah's Ark as pseudoscience. Once someone brings in evidence (strata, fossils, the age of the earth), their Noah's Ark story is not merely myth, it's pseudoscience. - Nunh-huh 16:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
So: In a (hypothetical) Wikipedia article describing a Museum of Creationism with a famous exhibit about Noah's Ark, which uses the flood story and the Ark to explain features we find in today's natural world, Wikipedia policy requires that we add in text to alert readers that the story of Noah's Ark is a Biblical myth and has neither historical basis nor scientific validity. JohnInDC (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes. See Creation Museum. Alexbrn (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. I thought I was just winging it. Probably another sad example of unconscious plagiarism. Anyhow, in that article, the critique isn't an editor-supplied gloss, a belt-and-suspenders addition to make sure readers know what's science and what's myth, but rather staight-up NPOV reporting of what abundant sources have noted, namely, that the museum exists for the purpose of injecting Biblical belief into the scientific debate. In the LU matter, the addition isn't sourced but is rather an editorial addition, a digression that we are apparently compelled to add in order to clear up any possible confusion on the matter. It's unsound practice and I don't believe that, where an article references the existence of a pseudoscientific concept, we are or should be obliged to inform readers that the term is contrary to scientific method & consensus. Again it's a dangerous place to be - let sources speak, and leave editors out of it. JohnInDC (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
There's also the Ark Encounter (Ken Ham's pet boondoggle), Kent Hovind's Dinosaur Adventure Land, the Genesis Museum of Creation in the UK, and others. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

"This week, Liberty University students will have the opportunity to see one of their professors, Dr. Marcus Ross, present the case for young-earth creationism (YEC) on the big screen, using his expertise in geology"

"Marcus Ross" is probably Marcus R. Ross, a once legitimate paleontologist who converted to Young Earth Creationism: "In 2007, Ross was featured in a report on creationism.[1] Ross "believes that the Bible is a literally true account of the creation of the universe and that the earth is at most 10,000 years old." This is in contrast to his previous position as reflected when he earned his Ph.D. in geosciences from University of Rhode Island with a dissertation about "the abundance and spread of mosasaurs, marine reptiles that, as he wrote, vanished at the end of the Cretaceous era about 65 million years ago."[1] Ross has been criticized by some for taking this academic route, but Ross claims that it only firmed his belief in young earth creationism and has enabled him to find academic ground upon which to base the argument for his scientific credentials.[1]" Dimadick (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Yes, include "pseudoscientific", per WP:PSCI. Not everyone knows what creationism or young earth creationism is, so a neutral descriptor of this nature is appropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


  1. ^ a b c Dean, Cornelia (2007-02-12). "Believing Scripture but Playing by Science's Rules". The New York Times.

What happened to this page?

Until recently, this page was used as what it is: a noticeboard. All the chapters were short notices and informed readers about currently hot fringe articles. Now it contains lots of discussions that belong in the Talk pages of the fringe articles. Could we please stop that? --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Lamar Smith

The old fraud himself is unhappy with his article and has started to complain in stiff, legalese words, sometimes about minor inaccuracies, but also about the correct characterization of the pseudoscience he has been strong-arming for, climate change denial. Not very hot at the moment, but could become so. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Leszek Pietrzak

The following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leszek Pietrzak might interest this noticeboard.Icewhiz (talk) 08:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I removed a use of him as a source in Jan Karski (the content was also off-topic there). Other than that, he is used in Marian Bernaciak (using a work he published under the IPN - so probably OK), and in Collaboration in German-occupied Poland (which was published in 2014 in a newspaper - [34] - after he started the "forbidden history" series - which is probably not so OK).Icewhiz (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Brain Overclaim Syndrome (BOS)

A brand-new article that seems to me to be one guy's hobby-horse, but I don't know enough to judge properly. Anyone here know about this? --Calton | Talk 00:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, this article from Nature presents it as a inter-disciplinary dispute: basically it's about neuroscientists claiming they know more about the basis for behavior than they are justified in doing. So the article we have is pretty much bilge, but the original article see here is very heavily cited. Mangoe (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
It seems pretty clear to me that Brain Overclaim Syndrome is just a bon mot and the author of the article is having some fun running with the concept. - (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
(And, as such, the article probably shouldn't stick around for much longer.) - (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
To quote the man himself: All of the above is really just a “high falutin,” partially tongue-in-cheek way of suggesting that people need to think more clearly and make more transparent, logical arguments about the relationship of anything to criminal responsibility. The article in its current state is well within WP:HOAX territory. - (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Yuck. Neurolaw. F*cking David Eagleman again. What a self-promoter. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 07:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Antonia Fortress

The Antonia Fortress is an important ancient building in Jerusalem. An IP wants to insert a fringe theory from the Base Institute, which is a group of unqualified Bible fundamentalists. See Bob Cornuke for information about the group's president, who claims to have found Noah's Ark, the Ark of the Covenant and several other biblical goodies.

I think this material fails both WP:FRINGE and WP:RS but I'm tired of reverting. Zerotalk 14:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

What is the information?Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I believe we are looking at this edit. Mangoe (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Still need help at Talk:Shroud of Turin.

The shroudies are not only refusing to follow the clear language of our policies and guidelines, but they also refuse to even talk about what the policies and guidelines tell us to do, preferring instead to try to drag every conversation into a debate about the claims of various shroudie sources. I could really use a few more eyes on this one. I am offering double the usual pay. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, quickly looking at this article, it definitely needs more attention. I'm checking it out more deeply now. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Günter Bechly again

For those intersted: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Günter_Bechly Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Silurian hypothesis

Silurian hypothesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The original topic is two mainstream scientists asking "how would we prove or disprove that an industrialized global civilization didn't far enough in the past that geological activity would have ground all their buildings back into minerals?" If scientists follow through on trying to answer it, the results will be interesting regardless of what is found. Not really fringe.

The topic is not "There were definitely lizard people who developed atomic weapons and their own internet!" That is fringe.

Again, though, the original topic is not fringe, but it's only a matter of time before the topic attracts folks who insist that it's proof that David Icke, Helena Blavatsky, James Churchward, or some dentist were right all along. That's why I'm bringing it up here, to make sure we have extra eyes on it. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

This is a really, really interesting idea but aside from the recent flurry of press attention I'm not sure it's notable. Lots of stuff like this gets discussed over a beer during the poster session and some of it turns into an article or two. Watchlisted in any case. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
I've put this on my watch list. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I also agree. The article itself seems to be reasonable and valid research, but there are many ways in which it can be misconstrued to imply that there were lizard people. I added another paragraph to the article, hope it's good. Heptor (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Newsweek: News You Can Use. "Pac-Man Effect" Stops Us Falling Off the Edge of the Planet. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

More from Science Alert: --Guy Macon (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Christian Whose Rapture Prediction Failed Now Says It’ll Happen Later This Year

  • Eventually he'll be right. Or die. Wait, I think that will happen first. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I just don't get what's so hard to understand about Matthew 24:36. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
It says "no one knows" in the present tense. So it's a statement of fact at the time the statement was made, not necessarily a promise. The secret may yet be revealed a few months in advance to the right and righteous, perhaps so they can max out their credit cards. You are welcome, Ian. Cheers, Heptor (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Michael Persinger

A single purpose account has made many edits to Michael Persinger recently and when I tried to restore balance to the force lead, it got a bit personal, so I'm going to step back from editing that particular article for a while and would appreciate if somebody else could keep an eye on it. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 13:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Good luck! Your version was the last one in, so I didn't didn't have to do anything there. I did a copy-edit however, prioritizing what this person is primarily known for. Hope it is alright. Heptor (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I have posted discretionary sanctions notices concerning both pseudoscience and biographies of living people on the user's page. Thanks for reporting, Famousdog. Bishonen | talk 14:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC).

List of cryptids

List of cryptids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

3RR by editor removing mention of pseudoscience in lead because "it is only one opinion", etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

What if aliens met racists? Mufon resignations highlight internal divisions in ufo sightings organization

Newsweek story last month.[35] I added it as an EL since I don't have time to edit the article. Doug Weller talk 18:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Black Shuck, English folklore, and cryptozoology

Hello! Just a heads up that we've got some fringe activity over at black shuck, a ghostly dog from English folklore. This, like may articles on Wikipedia (see here), was hijacked by cryptozoologists once upon a time (deeply in violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, as usual). However, now we've got a user issuing threats and revert-warring to keep a category ("Stop vandalizing cryptid articles or I'm going to report you." ([36]). I restrict my article reverts to one revert per 24 hours, but this article could use some more eyes. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The reason your edit was reverted BloodofFox was due to there being no discussion as to why that category was removed (something you have done with a lot of Cryptid articles).--Paleface Jack 00:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Please review Wikipedia's policies on pseudoscience, specifically WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. In fact, discussion was (and is) ongoing on the article's talk page on the topic, although you have yet to participate. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
If the discussion is still ongoing then nothing should happen until a consensus has been made.--Paleface Jack 01:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
"I have a life", your original comment here in response to my mentioning the above policies, seems to sum your attitude about policy up in a nutshell. If you'd like to contribute to discussion regarding pseudoscience, fringe theories, and related matters, I must insist that you become familiar with associated policies, which I've outlined in my previous comment. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, the "i have a life" comment was a reference to the creator/admin from my Monster Archives days (I make a lot of references that only I get). I reverted that when I realized that might not be taken the right way (which it has) since people don't get that reference... My bad... Looking at User:Bloodofox/Cryptozoology, it seems very one sided. All of the references made are from a non-neutral perspective by skeptics of the field. All articles should reflect a NEUTRAL standpoint. By adding mythological creature, creature from folklore to cryptozoological creatures reflects a non-neutral editing style that is both disruptive and forbidden on this site. It seems to me, this might be just my perception, but BloodofFox's activity on the Cryptozoology related articles are feel like an active attempt to classify them as mythological/legendary. Nominations of List of Cryptids to merge into List of Legendary Creatures and mass removal of cryptid categories from cryptozoology related articles/subjects support my perception of this issue and my "threat" was merely a warning to cease and desist fro such edits without any input from the WikiProject Cryptozoology staff and members. So far as I know there was never any discussion of this with them at all.--Paleface Jack 02:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I must again direct you to WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. These "skeptics" are experts in their fields, namely folklore studies and biology. Biologists in particular are extremely (even harshly) critical of cryptozoology, which our cryptozoology article provides. As policies like WP:UNDUE dictate, Wikipedia is not the promotional organ of small groups deep in fringe territory. WikiProject Cryptozoology has no "staff" and, like most WikiProjects today, has no apparent active members. (It's also worth noting that Wikipedia never had a WikiProject Folklore Studies, Wikiproject Folklore, or any other configuration of the expected title!) :bloodofox: (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

And so are the Cryptozoologists. Jeffrey Meldrum is just a small example. I have message the WikiProjects coordinators and will be waiting for their input on the issue.--Paleface Jack 02:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

We've established without a doubt that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience. Please read WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. Wikipedia does not accord fringe perspectives equal time with academic perspectives. As you're interested in this stuff and Wikipedia needs editors on these topics, I strongly encourage you to consider leaving behind the pseudoscience and digging into academic sources on these topics. I'd be glad to help you find resources and dig into relevant subjects such as, say the Aarne–Thompson classification systems or Propp's morphological approaches to folk narratives. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Already a member and a major contributor of WikiProject Film, and WikiProject Horror. I messaged members of the project just to see what thoughts on this are. I'll let you know what consensus is when I get it.--Paleface Jack 03:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
What does this have to do with the comment that precedes it? I see you messaged members of Wikiproject Cryptozoology, and you might want to take a look at WP:CANVAS. If you've got a conversation about "consensus" happening, bring it over here. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm kind of a stickler for second opinions and neutral standpoints. Asking members of the WikiProject for their thoughts on the issue and to see how we should proceed with how we do things there was my main reason for doing that. I've sort of noticed that that WikiProject has been inactive (or semi-active) for a while now. An unfortunate thing that has plagued us over at WikiProject Horror as well. A revamp/resurgence might be necessary in order to save the WikiProject from going "extinct". As for rewording cryptid articles to say that their mythological/legendary seems to regulate them towards that WikiProject. I suggest that we just reworded to say purported (insert species resemblance) rather than legendary/mythological creature since the former seems more accurate.--Paleface Jack 15:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Not sure he should be listed as a Cryptid, unless RS make the link.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

A question for all concerned, what has the issue of Pseudoscience got to do with whether or not we can include Black Shuck as a Cryptid?Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment - I'm going to refrain from formally voting, since I was asked by Paleface Jack for advise on the matter as someone who has dealt with disruption in the past, and voting would be treading too close to the line of WP:VOTESTACK (even though that wasn't his intention). What I will say is that I think the reverts are valid for the same reason I told Bloodofox (in this message that he has chosen to ignore). Bloodofox has been trying to have List of cryptids deleted for years now, and has continously failed. When that didn't work, he silently opened a side discussion to have it merged with List of legendary creatures without notifying anyone involved with the article, then he merged the articles and promptly edit warred when it was unsurprisingly reverted. He has since been going through Cryptid articles, mass-removing all mentionings of cryptozoology with zero discussion, and reverting anyone who undoes these edits. DarkKnight2149 17:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Note #2: This discussion is currently open here, and at Talk:List of cryptids. @Bloodofox: Respectfully, you need to pick a spot and keep it there. And if your attempts to merge the topics continue to fail, at a certain point, you need to just drop the stick. Wikipedia is consensus-based and, to an outside editor, this is beginning to smell more and more like WP:POV pushing. If the community doesn't agree with you, then continuing to fight against it (not to mention edit warring, opening duplicate discussions, and silently opening merger/deletion discussions when things don't go your way) is disruptive. DarkKnight2149 17:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
This all looks like forum shopping.Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
First, that's a blatant mischaracterization of both my actions and what has occurred on these articles. As much as you're trying to help your friend, you'd be best served to take him aside and tell him behavior like this is simply inappropriate. I opened this entry specifically to talk about Paleface Jack's revert-warring over at Black shuck and to request more eyes on the article. Note also that it's a little tough for me to revert war when I restrict my edits reverts per article to once per 24 hours.
Second, it is in fact Paleface Jack and yourself who have repeatedly brought of up list of cryptids here, which I once suggested be deleted and have recently suggested be merged. The article itself has in the mean time also seen some level of merging, which I was involved with, and it remains full of problems, including lacking referencing and scope. Nobody seems to have a solution as to what to do with it yet. Please don't maliciously mischaracterize my actions in an attempt to help your friend. We've got discussion going on there about that article — please keep it all there and restrict this to discussion about the black shuck article.
Third, as anyone who has taken a serious look at improving Wikipedia's folklore coverage knows, it swarms with WP:UNDUE emphasis on pseudoscientific topics, which myself and other editors outline quite succinctly here. When something violates policy, such as WP:FRINGE, we take care of it. That includes rooting out the pseudoscience and the 'maybe it was a dinosaur!' approach, which is entirely unacceptable. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Firstly, Paleface Jack is not my friend, I am not even sure we have ever edited the same pages until this dispute.
Secondly, I have never reared the issue of Cryptids here.Slatersteven (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
That was in response to @Darkknight2149:, who appeared here due to a plea from Paleface Jack. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
@Bloodofox: 1. If you feel there are any "blatant mischaracterisations" of your actions, you are perfectly free to explain them. So far, the only thing I have said that you have come close to properly refuting is this being a duplicate of the merge discussion at Talk:List of cryptids, and yes, this does appear to be a duplicate given that your opening statement is largely complaints about the exact same P.O.V. of WP:FRINGE that you have been using to merge and remove cryptozoology from many Wikipedia articles, as well as continuously attempting (and failing) to merge List of cryptids with List of legendary creatures (including a currently ongoing discussion at Talk:List of cryptids). Your edits at Black shuck, ETC, were made under the same reasoning as your edits at List of cryptids, or every cryptozoology article that you have mass-removed the category from. Forgive others if we see this seemingly unnecessary discussion as "forum shopping".
2. You can still edit war without violating the three revert rule, or even a self-imposed one-revert-rule. You also clearly have not been following a 1RR, as demonstrated from this edit war from a whopping two weeks ago. Please refrain from blatant dishonesty.
3. The only one "maliciously mischaracterisating" other users' edits is you. I am not here to "mischaracterize [your] actions in an attempt to help [my] friend" (an accusation you made without evidence); I came to the observations I made of your edits the old fashion way... by looking at your contribution history and making observations of my own. These observations are specifically mine. Paleface Jack asked for my opinion due to my extensive history with monitoring articles and dealing with disruption, and the only opinion of his that he gave beforehand were that your edits "looked like vandalism" and I said afterwards that no obvious vandalism took place (from what I saw). I also seem to recall telling you directly how your edits appeared to the outside user, which you chose to ignore. As for any WP:CANVAS concerns, I am only here to make my observations and opinion known, which is exclusively mine and may or may not reflect the opinions of Paleface Jack. Because he brought this to my attention directly, I will not be voting directly and I am only replying to those who reply to my post. My minimal activity here is to avoid any CANVAS behaviour.
4. You keep bringing up this edit like it's some kind of mic drop, but I fail to see how it supports your position in any way, shape, or form. It was in response to your point that he "had yet to participate". Pointing out that you have a life outside of Wikipedia is disruptive? I'm sure you are also going to use this point to justify your argument about him being "my friend", but you will be hard-pressed to find any administrator that's going to take action against "I have a life" in this context. DarkKnight2149 05:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, this edit does sum the situation up pretty well. The editor expresses explicit disregard for WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, the core of the issue here. As for the rest of your analysis (much of which is distracting off-topic this-and-that), I have little more than to say other than to say to talk to your friend about his behavior. It's not helping his position. Please take any further attempts at analyzing my edit history to my talk page rather than further clogging up this board with it. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not going to waste too much time arguing, especially when you are making disembodied claims without sufficient evidence or explanation. I'll just say that your methods of enforcing your point of view are indeed pertinent to the discussion, hardly "off-topic". DarkKnight2149 17:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I am going to stop this right here, @Bloodofox: you need to stop taking every single piece of constructive criticism and difference of opinion personally. I have already explained myself and now you're starting to gang up on people who are offering criticism. That is both unprofessional and inappropriate. I am all for improving articles, especially cryptid-related articles since they've been sorely lacking any sort of attention by editors as of late. I do think if enough information from reliable sources can show that Black Shuck isn't a cryptid then we can strike it off the WikiProject Cryptozoology list. However it must be for a neutral standpoint as having only sources from skeptics is unbalanced coverage. Balanced coverage for BOTH viewpoints is essential. As for DarkKnight, he was just coming here since I really don't deal with this sort of disruption/negative response from editors. I am perfectly capable of defending myself in an argument which unfortunately this has turned into. I'm mainly experienced in editing/expanding articles to meet Wikipiedia's guidelines and standards, this is a whole new thing for me and I was just asking DK (who has experience with this sort of thing) for his advice. All I can say is that I am both confused by this sort of a response from an edit of mine and the negativity generated from a single user.... (sighs) .... I was going to take a short hiatus from major edits for a while so I could focus more on film projects of mine, but considering this I might postpone that until this whole thing is resolved.--Paleface Jack 22:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Once again, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE dictates that we do not offer equal time for pseudoscience. Rather than expressing hostility toward Wikipedia policy, you'd be doing yourself a favor by taking the time to read Wikipedia's policies on pseudoscience (WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE). If you want those policies changed, try lobbying the policy talk pages.
Given your numerous messages to anyone associated with WikiProject Cryptozoology (complete with the heading "WikiProject Cryptozoology Emergency" and claims that my edits "look like vandalism", such as this one [37]), I also recommend reading WP:CANVAS.
Again, if you're interested in improving Wikipedia's currently abysmal coverage on folklore-related topics, I can offer advice on resources. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

(Slaps palm to face) I give up... This looks like a job for the admins.--Paleface Jack 23:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

"However it must be for a neutral standpoint as having only sources from skeptics is unbalanced coverage. Balanced coverage for BOTH viewpoints is essential."

While I am far from a fan of Bloodofox (and personally think folklorists are unreliable), that has never been the way Wikipedia works. We have a specific policy against false balance:

"While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world." Dimadick (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Equal coverage to all perspectives (if they are reliable) while maintaining a neutral standpoint/format is pretty much a given. If one account outweighs the other, then that is unbalanced coverage. Writing/formatting two different standpoints (if such standpoints are "legitimized" such as those by Jeffrey Meldrum) comparisons/ arguments between the shouldn't be accepted as it's not encyclopedic and more around the lines of a debate. Rather, each theory/scholarship should be written so that it remains as transparent and balanced as possible. Any unproven and/or statements are only theories so they should be mentioned as such and only as such. No matter how legitimate a theory might be they are still only theories and unproven. Skeptics have for years been putting out scholarly papers based on their theories on cryptids but a lot of the arguments often result in counter arguments from cryptozoologists that sort of negate the previous theory. I would classify both cryptozoology and theology as different branches of science that haven't been officially legitimized (although I could be wrong) by the skeptics in the scientific community because of the controversy that surrounds them. That would not make them a pseudo-science as Blood of Fox claims since science itself is based on theories and attempts to prove theories by examining purported evidence that might support it. A lot of animals out there were once considered cryptids until evidence proved that they existed. A few examples of this include Mountain Gorillas, Komodo dragons, Giant Pandas, and Pygmy Hippos. ryptozoology is As both DarkKnight and I have stated, BloodofFox has been WP:POV pushing for a while now, trying to merge List of Cryptids with List of legendary creatures to no success. When that has failed he has been making some pretty questionable edits such as removing any Cryptozoology categories from articles on cryptids as well as covertly rewording those articles so that they fit under Legendary/mythology categories (again POV pushing). No matter how much he claims this as being UNDUE , FRINGE, and THREATING, my reversion of his edits and warnings to him to stop have been just that, Reversions of Vandalism/POV pushing and warning him to cease and desist from doing it. When others have reverted or corrected such edits, he has always reverted them to his original edits. When I, being the eccentric person that I am, made a reference to something from my Monster Archives days and realized that it might be misunderstood, I removed it. However BloodofFox has been using it as some sort of threat of administrative action regardless of my following post explaining why I posted and removed it (I doubt he read it). I have tried to explain and be nice about the whole thing but has started to get to the point where I just want this resolved so that I can move on to other things (sighs).--Paleface Jack 18:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Whether or not you think cryptozoology is a pseudoscience, and even regardless of whether it actually is a pseudoscience, reliable mainstream sources state it is a pseudoscience. The policies of wikipedia demand that the viewpoints of cryptozoologists be discounted, or ignored entirely, in favor of independent mainstream sources. I assume that the go-to sources on mythical creatures would be academic experts in folklore and mythology, and articles about such creatures should primarily be devoted to those viewpoints. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Then that would be unbalanced coverage. Criticism, and theories from professionals including cryptozoologists still need included if they are reliable enough sources.--Paleface Jack 23:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Reintroduction of fringe theories into article

Despite discussion above, @Paleface Jack: appears to be reintroducing fringe material into articles. Note that none of the sources used in the article use the term cryptid. Humanoid reptilians, anyone? :bloodofox: (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Pretty sure I didn't do anything with the reptilian humanoid article. Nice try attempting to pin a non-existent edit on me. Please stop doing this. It's not fun for anyone when someone starts vandalizing articles and ganging up on someone. I'd love to keep what little sanity and brain power I have left on more important matters.:(--Paleface Jack 01:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you.... I think?--Paleface Jack 03:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment about external links to Fringe theories

Hello, your feedback is requested at Draft talk:Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin#External links, about whether links to fringe theories are appropriate in the External links section of an article about such theories. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

in general, external links to things that would be bad or questionable sources for an article should probably be avoided. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Advice about article naming needed

Per discussion at Draft talk:Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin#"Fringe", what is the best name for this article?

Candidates so far are:

  • Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin
  • Alternative theories about the Shroud of Turin
  • Discredited theories about the Shroud of Turin
  • Pseudoscientific theories about the Shroud of Turin

--Guy Macon (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

How about "deleted POV fork containing crap that doesn't belong in the article on the shroud of Turin"? Guy (Help!) 22:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Sidebar or nav template

I was looking around for a Template like a fringe theories sidebar, or a bottom material Nav box, and didn't see anything in Template space, or in the archives here. Is it worth creating a nav box, with grouped lists of links to various hoaxes, fringe theories, conspiracy theories, and so on? OTOH, I'm wondering if there's an undesirable slut shaming effect to being listed there, but OTO, if the articles are properly titled and referenced, it is what it is, and as long as we're vigilant for spamming it should be okay, and could be quite helpful. Any thoughts? Mathglot (talk) 05:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this would be very useful; worse, it would not be fair. Most of these theories are held by people who hold to one or two of them, or at most a complex/grouping, and consider many or all of the other ones totally absurd: silly, stupid, superstitious or even evil. We would be lumping them together in one giant nutball soup, in a way that violates (IMHO) our NPOV and possibly BLP policies. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

Several pseudoscience-related articles are currently up for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I was afraid of this...(sighs)--Paleface Jack 00:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: for the benefit of those of us who are a bit slow on the uptake, could you list the specific articles? A quick skim shows things like Nintendo, and Glamor, but nothing that jumps out as pseudoscience. Thanks. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 4
1.2 Mythical being 1.3 List of botanical cryptids 1.4 Cryptid whale 1.5 List of cryptozoology organizations 1.6 Alien and Paranormal Creatures 1.7 Portal:Cryptozoology 1.8 Cryptid

--Orange Mike | Talk 01:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, got it. Didn't scroll down far enough. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

List of reptilian humanoids

Hello, folks. I'd like to draw your attention to List of reptilian humanoids. After noticing a list of "reptilian humanoids" listed as cryptids here (in other words, a classic example of the deepest of the deep fringe — and everybody's favorite — reptilians!) and doing some other general cleaning (lots of confusion here regarding myth vs. legend, etc.), it seems that this list could use more patrolling. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Ten Lost Tribes

New editor adding fringe, I've reverted once and am going out to walk my dog. Doug Weller talk 07:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Also in East Asian Jews and History of the Jews in South Korea. Doug Weller talk 07:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Reverted all, loved the "Haplogroup tests are used to determine if it is Jewish Christian(Haplo J and C : Jesus Christ)." Doug Weller talk 14:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Actually I realise I haven't reverted at Ten Lost Tribes. The haplogroup nonsense is there also, as is a lot of OR, but there is a legitimate quote from " In the Footsteps of the Lost Ten Tribes" by Avigdor Shachan which I checked on Amazon and is accurate.[38] So there are claims for the lost tribes in Korea, although this one is badly written and sourced. Doug Weller talk 14:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Darwin on Trial

The plot summary keeps on increasing, and it now looks very much as if we're presenting Cliff's Notes rather than an encyclopaedic overview of a book of pseudoscientific piffle. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Wow. Why not just cut and paste the entire contents of the book in there? I WP:BOLDLY made a fresh start by restoring the 1 December 2017 version with a few tweaks. I wouldn't mind seeing another paragraph or two added to the section. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

AfDs for Meher Baba subjects

A group of AfD discussions have been started for several articles related to this supposed avatar:

The main issue seems to be WP:UNDUE but I suspect there are sourcing and POV issues with them if they were to be kept. Mangoe (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Lamar Smith again

WP:SPA, WP:TEXTWALL, WP:IDHT. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Wow. Wibble of the first order. Guy (Help!) 21:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • In all fairness I think their version of the marijuana section is better. Mangoe (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell

At the very least the sections on his "EXTRAORDINARY BELIEFS" 'documentaries" need cleaning up. "The series is a multi-project film endeavor with an artful approach to complex topics and investigations. Corbell explores the Extraordinary Beliefs of enigmatic people deep within the aerospace, military, conspiracy, extraterrestrial and underworld communities." Lots of poor sources in the article. And the obligatory link farm one expects in an article like this. Doug Weller talk 17:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Fails WP:ARTIST and WP:ANYBIO. The only marginally reliable sources are a HuffPo blog post and an LA Times article; the rest are dubious passing mentions, usergen, self promotion, video clips, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Cryptid whale

Although there was no consensus for its restoration, cryptid whale was recently brought back from the dead ([39]). Those of you familiar with the usual cryptozoology tomfoolery on Wikipedia will no doubt palm-face at the sight of this because here we have all the usual suspects: deep fringe approaches to biology or folklore and fringe sources masquerading as biology or folklore texts, as well as the application of pseudoscientific terminology (such as cryptid to biology concepts). As expected, a Google Books search for the phrase "cryptid whale" pulls up nothing but deep fringe and pseudoscience sources. Article could use some eyes at the very least, but how to proceed? :bloodofox: (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

There was a consensus to restore it BloodofFox... You were a part of the consensus (against it) and there was more people in favor of restoring it. I myself didn't restore it since the discussion was not done yet but it seems to me that this is another fine example of POV Pushing. Call it what you like but this is the last time I'm warning you to stop vandalizing articles and placing your views on them.--Paleface Jack 23:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
This is, of course, a request for eyes on the article beyond those of our resident cryptozoologists, as their presence is clearly a given. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
@Paleface Jack: In case you were unaware, unsubstantiated allegations of vandalism are considered personal attacks and may lead to sanctions. Please choose your words more carefully. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I have substantiated them before. But you're right I will behave myself unless it continues....--Paleface Jack 01:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Can we have a link to the discussion?Slatersteven (talk) 07:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Which discussion?Paleface Jack 15:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

If it's about the link to the discussion on the restoration of the article then here it is. Note: There was only one vote to remove it and that was BloodofFox. The rest speaks for itself. Hopefully this helps.:)--Paleface Jack 15:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I count 2, but still less then the 3 for restoration. And yes the result was restoration.Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

BloodofFox not all consensus' that don't vote in favor of removing Cryptozoology articles are done by "the resident cryptozoologists". Please refrain from making unfounded accusations towards things that don't go the way you'd want. The cryptid whale article is notable enough to warrant its existence, all it needs is some cleaning up and given more citations from neutral sources which it has an issue with. But that can be easily remedied... I think.--Paleface Jack 15:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Ruggero Santilli vs. Pepijn van Erp

Fascinating story...

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Chemtrails and Template:Alternative medicine sidebar

Discussion at Talk:Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory#Sidebar,_again, if you have an opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Send for Catpol. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 11:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
[ ], [ ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Good one! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


[40] [41] — twice removed — opinion of the Commission on Pseudoscience and Research Fraud of Russian Academy of Sciences that considered socionics to be a pseudoscience. Need your help. --Q Valda (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Wedge strategy

Looks like this needs an overhaul - the lead seems to fail NPOV, there's too much stuff from the Discovery Institute and Philip Johnson in it, needs a better balance of independent sources. Doug Weller talk 07:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Tweaked to remove self-sourced apologia. Still needs work. Guy (Help!) 10:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC) and

An editor is insisting that we use sources like and over at list of cryptids (Talk:List_of_cryptids#Man-eating_trees). (As the article is something of a hive for cryptozoologists, if you're not familiar with the pseudoscience of cryptozoology, you'll save yourself some trouble by reading this or this first.) :bloodofox: (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that's more of a personal opinion rather than an actual thing.--Paleface Jack 20:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think either passes WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 11:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
And this is being discussed here [42].Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Geoscience Research Institute - no longer makes it clear in the lead that it's Creationist

Creationist organisation but the bit in the lead "that specializes in original research and the study of scientific and Biblical literature. " seems copied mainly from their website.[43]. The lead has mentioned Creationism for some time but it was changed in April. User:BullRangifer reverted but that didn't stick. The whole article may need an overhaul. In October last year User:Robynthehode noted that nowhere in the article was Creation science challenged, and that's still true. Doug Weller talk 08:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

At last I found a useful ifnobox. When I opened the page, the first thing I saw was "Part of a series on CREATIONISM. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 08:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Sure, but did you read the earlier lead for Geoscience Research Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - up until l[Geoscience Research Institute this] edit it mentioned creation science in the lead. Pseudoscience seems to have been only in the lead for a few edits. Doug Weller talk 09:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Doug Weller, it appears there is a diff missing above: "up until l[Geoscience Research Institute this] edit it". With that I can know where to start. I grew up in Loma Linda, in a very conservative SDA family, and have actually been in their building several times. The pseudoscientific nature of their "research" really must be clearly stated in the article. They do archeological digs and had a collection of fossils and rocks the last time I was there in the 1980s, back when I was a creationist. They basically try to reinterpret everything to justify young earth creationism. Conservative SDAs will not accept an earth older than 6-7 thousand years. Even 10,000 years is stretching it for many of them. BTW, thanks for your help in other matters. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Since they are clearly young Earth creationists, I have taken content and refs from other articles and adapted it for use there. Take a look. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@BullRangifer:, I am really sorry. I saw that and though I'd fixed it. The edit I meant was this one which in fact you reverted, only to be reverted again.[44] I see that editor has added two fact tags for the same source - basically just incomplete details. Thanks to you and User:JzG this is a better article now. Doug Weller talk 17:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

AfD for Anna Poray

The following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Poray may be of interest to the community. Poray self published a book and gave a couple of interviews in which she promoted fringe views on Poles rescuing Jews in the Holocaust. Poray has received very little attention in RSes (at all), however she has been given as an example for this fringe theory (footnote 94 refrerences here, this is context) or myth ((footnote 85, search for myth). I'll further note that the existence of the Wikipedia article is being used to justify use of her WP:SPS book in other Wikipedia articles (diffs: [45], [46], [47]). See also Talk:Żegota#Anna Poray - SPS.Icewhiz (talk) 06:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

What "fringe" views on Poles rescuing Jews in the Holocaust did she promote? Can you give few solid examples? (compact, precise, solid few examples please, not a wall of text.GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
There is little coverage of her in WP:RS, however she is mentioned as an illustative example in the footnotes of a RS as follows:
  1. Bringing the Dark Past to Light: The Reception of the Holocaust in Postcommunist Europe first, to underscore the large number of rescuers; second, to downplay or ignore the low societal approval of rescue activities; and third, not to differentiate among the various among the various categories of rescuers, protectors, and helpers and their motivations. The same tendencies are currently being advocated and fostered by historians and journalists practicing polityka historyczna.(94) As a tool to normalize the dark past, to claim that Polish anti-Semitism and nationalism did not have much of a damaging influence on Polish-Jewish relations, and to restore the image of Poles as.... Footnote 94 mentioning an interview of her in a Polish newspaper as an example.
  2. Also in “I will never forget what you did for me during the war”: Rescuer — Rescuee Relationships in the Light of Postwar Correspondence in Poland, 1945–1949 - For recent mild and strong expressions of this myth see, for example, Mark Paul .... interview with Anna Poray-Wybranowska, “Nation of Heroes,” Nasz Dziennik in footnote 85 - whose context is Writers, journalists, and historians continued to disseminate the myth of “the ungrateful Jew” in publications in the 1970s and 1980s,(84) and the myth has persisted in popular historical consciousness in the post-communist era.(85).Icewhiz (talk) 06:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
You paraphrasing your original post. I'm asking - What did "fringe" views on Poles rescuing Jews in the Holocaust she promote? Fringe claim and ref. to the fringe claim please, not a cherry-picked negative opinion of somebody else. Thanks.GizzyCatBella (talk) 07:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree, this seems like WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Not that I generally think WP:CANVASS is a helpful policy, because the more people invited to the discussion, the better. But yeah, what's fringe about her views? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
As for FORUMSHOPPING - posting in a single, relevant, noticeboard is not forum shopping - it is a means to get uninvolved editors involved. Others have commented on: I'll just leave here the idea that the AfD mentioned seems to be populated with a number of people using CAPITAL LETTERS, as ... oddly, do some of the AE reports above this one. Examining the contrib history of some of said editors (not Poeticbent) may be interesting. Just an observation, like ... - the circumstances in this AfD.Icewhiz (talk) 07:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
It would seem that per the sources I quote above, Poray promoted a fringe theory or myth regarding the motivations, scope, extent, and of Polish rescue and "the ungrateful Jew" regarding recognition of such. I find the following in the 2004 interview with her instructive: Dlaczego tak się stało? - Ten uratowany Żyd nie chciał uznać ich zasług, nie podając powodów. Jestem z nim w kontakcie. Jemu wydawało się, że oni chcieli go zgubić w lesie. Nie bierze on jednak pod uwagę tego, że to były jeszcze dzieci, które dodatkowo żyły pod straszną presją, między zagrożeniem ze strony Niemców i ze strony Ukraińców. Zdaje się on zapominać, że jednak go dwa lata trzymali. - (via google translate) - Why did this happen? - This rescued Jew did not want to acknowledge their merits, without giving reasons. I'm in touch with him. It seemed to him that they wanted to lose him in the forest. However, he does not take into account the fact that these were still children who, in addition, lived under terrible pressure, between the threat from the Germans and the Ukrainians. He seems to forget that, however, he kept him for two years.. So it seems this is an example of ingratitude.Icewhiz (talk) 07:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
An example of out of context circumstance of somebody who did not want to acknowledge their merits, without giving reasons is a "fringe view"? Having a constructive discussion seems to be a challenge. But I'll try again, What fringe view did Anna Poray promote? - Solid facts and refs. Please.GizzyCatBella (talk) 07:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I presented sources - from the peer reviewed Yad Vashem Studies which is an expert journal in the topic area, and a book published by University of Nebraska Press. It seems variations/copies of this footnote were also published by Berghahn Books[48], Routledge[49], Yad Vashem Publications[50], and possibly a few other book chapters/journal articles. There is also coverage in this PHD dissertation:Kwiatkowska, Hanna Maria. Conflict of images. Conflict of memories. Jewish themes in the Polish right-wing nationalistic press in the light of articles from Nasz Dziennik 1998–2007. University of London, University College London (United Kingdom), 2008. - Nasz Dziennik constantly reminds its readers about the lack of Jewish gratitude for Polish heroism. The most dramatic in tone of those reminders was the interview with Anna Poray-Wybranowska from Canada who documents Polish heroism in saving the Jews during World War II. She claimed to have convincing evidence to estimate that `1 million of Poles were saving Jews'. She criticized the `restrictive conditions of Yad Vashem in acknowledging the Righteous Among the Nations' - it almost sounded like a deliberately unjust system that belittles the Polish efforts. Wybranowska made a plea `to erect a memorial wall with the names of all those who saved the Jews because `those Poles are the greatest heroes in the world 17l The article asserted what the title implied, not only a great number of Poles were heroes during the war, Poles in general are a `nation of heroes'.Icewhiz (talk) 08:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC) Addendum - note that none of this coverage is sufficient for notability - for a general bio and all the more so under NFRINGE - all the footnote variations above cite the 2004 interview in Nasz Dziennik as one of a few examples of this myth. The PhD dissertation gives this one paragraph, and is mainly focused on the the editorial line of Nasz Dziennik (which is the scope of the work - covering how the Polish right-wing nationalistic press covers Jews - with the Poray interview given as an example of "the most dramatic in tone" of coverage of "lack of Jewish gratitude").Icewhiz (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

As for FORUMSHOPPING - You posted this on 4 additional different panels, NOT in a single, relevant, noticeboard as you claim:

GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Adding DELSORT categories is not forumshopping, it's totally standard procedure in an AfD. The only way it might be disruptive is if it was added to irrelevant categories. If you're going to cast aspersions, at least get your facts right, please. Black Kite (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Indeed, and they probably would've ended up on those delsort lists without me - Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting volunteers go over AFDs which haven't been added (or partially added) to delsort lists - often shortly after the nomination. However, as I am familiar with the AfD process (and the article I'm nomming) I tend to add most of the AfDs I nominate to the delsort lists - you might see this in other nominations I've made in the past - so not to burden other volunteers (though I do not always get it 100% right - sometimes it does get added to another list or two - but I'm usually fairly accurate on the lists).Icewhiz (talk) 09:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Ryuho Okawa aka Lord El Cantare and Happiness

That is, Happy Science and the Happiness Realization Party. Maybe these don't qualify as fringe however, but at first glance he certainly seems to. He was married to a self-proclaimed reborn Aphrodite and now to someone believed by some Happy Science members to be the goddess Gaia. Doug Weller talk 14:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Gary Null

In April there was a flurry of activity by a single-minded individual aimed at making Gary Null's biog less damaging. I have rewritten and npov'd a lot of it. Please keep an eye on it. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 12:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps related, right around the same time as the above, Null wrote a two-part anti-Wikipedia screed on the website of the network that carries his radio show (see [55] and [56]). More details about his recent comments about criticism of his work at the SBM blog here. --Krelnik (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Myers–Briggs Type Indicator

Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This in Category:Pseudoscience. Is it pseudoscience, fringe science, unproven science, disproven science, or what? --Calton | Talk 03:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Just from having read the article, it seems to fit the definition of pseudoscience pretty well. Proponents claim it is a scientifically valid tool for analyzing personalities, but repeated testing by independent experts reveals that is produces meaningless results. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
"Seems to fit" is not good enough. I'm looking for an explicit reference as such. --Calton | Talk 06:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
The user ist just eager to have a revenge for opposing him on one page, so he noticed this edit of mine in my contributions list and got curious whether there's a chance to pick up a fight.Miacek (talk) 03:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Grow up. If you're wondering what's fueling Miacek's persecution complex, go to WP:AE here and this AFD here, and see what he seems to think are reliable sources. --Calton | Talk 06:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Pseudoscience. It wasn't when it was dreamed up, but it has become so through being artificially sustained after it was shown to be bollocks. Guy (Help!) 08:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Quantum healing

The article is slowly becoming an ad for Chopra, and is presenting the topic as if there was serious study of it. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd be happy with a smerge. I doubt he'd like it much after I've finished with it anyway :-) Guy (Help!) 18:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Alternative medicine

This is to inform you that there is a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Alternative medicine, which seems to run foul of WP:FRINGE and WP:ARBPS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Hard info on Tellinger seems difficult to find. This might help search for something.[57] Also see [58] and [59]. Doug Weller talk 13:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Adam's Calendar "an important site of a lost ancient civilization" and Michael Tellinger

Created by the same editor, Tellinger might be notable but he's also fringe, the calendar is nonsense. What's shocking is that "Slave Species of the Gods:The Secret History of the Anunnaki and Their Mission on Earth" is published by Simon and Schuster.[60] The book on Adam's Calendar is published by Zulu Planet that seems to be owned by Tellinger.[61] Same publisher for "Temples of the African Gods" and "Ubuntu contributism". Doug Weller talk 13:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The calendar page is now nominated for AfD. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Did you know that young blood transfusion may make the ageing process reverse?

Yep that is an actual hook approved for the front page.

The article is Young blood transfusion and the DYK "discussion" is at Template:Did you know nominations/Young blood transfusion.

I opened a discussion about that at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Promoting_FRINGE_snake_oil_on_the_front_page.

Perhaps folks can look at the article in the meantime. Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see that the article is generally MEDRS compliant in the first place so is definitely not ready for any aspect to be Main Page viewing.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC))

Kidnapping of Aldo Moro

Those of us of a certain age will recall when this was one of the biggest news stories of the 1970's. Unfortunately the article looks like it has become a collection of really fringey conspiracy theories and the like. I opened a discussion on the talk page and tagged the article. Additionally I notified WT:ITALY. Regrettably I have no Italian so while I can definitely say that I smell fringe stuff, I am not in a position to read or make determinations over the sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Young blood transfusion

We have FRINGE pushing here a la Burzynski Clinic. ffs Jytdog (talk) 02:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Coincidence? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Ideological bias on Wikipedia

This article included assertions of bias sourced from creationists and Conservapedia critiquing our content on evolution, and commentary by Brian Martin (social scientist) supportive of antivaxer Judy Wilyman. Needless to say I do not think either of those constitutes a valid scholarly critique of Wikipedia's accuracy. More eyes would be appreciated. It is my firm view that critiques of our "bias" by WP:FRINGE advocates has no place there, or at least that we would require reliable independent neutral sources that contextualise it. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

With regards to Brian Martin's claims of bias (Martin, Brian (June 21, 2017). "Persistent Bias on Wikipedia: Methods and Responses". Social Science Computer Review. 36 (3): 379–388. doi:10.1177/0894439317715434.), User:JzG has a WP:Conflict of interest because he was criticized by name in Martin's study. No matter how valid his concerns, he should never have removed it, edited it, or commented on it as he's done here. -- Netoholic @ 18:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
No, you should never have included it. It is blindingly obvious that the article is motivated reasoning. Someone who advocates for anti-vaccinationism writing about how we are biased because of how we covered his own antivaccinationism, sourced directly from the primary source, is something that no Wikipedian should have done. It's a single author article in a journal in an unrelated field, where the single author's own view of our treatment of his reputation is the primary subject, and the author in question supports the debunked OPV-AIDS hypothesis, holds up Andrew Wakefield as a martyr and supported a PhD thesis that is a copy-paste grab bag of antivax tropes by an avowed antivaxer, so removing it from the article is mandatory per WP:FRINGE - and we also do not leave in material that is plainly an off-wiki personal attack while we study our navels. Guy (Help!) 18:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • It seems to be a notable topic and I would appreciate the Fringe Theory Noticeboard attack dogs not going with their customary ferocity littering it with WP: links thanks. It isn't some woo-woo medicine or totally crackpot theory. Dmcq (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Wait. It is a totally crackpot theory! -Roxy, the attack dog. barcus 20:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. There is some scholarly material in the article, but it was written by an editor whose main motivation appears to be his repeated failure to change articles due to Wikipedia's "ideological bias", the studies are primary sourced, and a third of the article or more as he wrote it is criticism of our "bias" by creationists and other nutters. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Just noting that I nominated this for deletion. (not the it matters, but I nominated it before seeing this thread -- reliability of Wikipedia is on my watchlist). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Frankenstein authorship question

An edit war on the page in question has not technically occurred, but users have been brought to the cusp of it. A concerned but somewhat conflict adverse friend of mine feels strongly and asked that I would say something to a relevant party. He feels that the theory that Percy wrote Frankenstein is not being appropriately labeled as a fringe theory and says that when he attempted to resolve this, another editor reverted him.

(I can guess my friend's wikipedia user name from the edit history but as he didn't specifically tell me I will refrain from adding 2+2)

In my opinion, neither editor is sufficiently using the talk page to discuss their concerns. However, I do think the page is giving undue weight to a fringe speculation so I am hoping someone would be willing to look at the article with fresh and disinterested eyes.

IMHO, the page is too biased in one direction and too much of it reads as a persuasive essay rather than an objective literature review of the topic.

Having new sets of eyes review the page and the situation would be most helpful.

Thank you.

Wickedjacob (talk) 09:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The page in question has been edited by Stolengood, an editor who has made several edits to articles related to articles dealing with the Frankenstein authorship question. These edits are, quite frankly, among the most blatantly biased and poor-quality edits I have had the displeasure to come across in a long time (setting aside edits by vandalism-only accounts). They include removing properly cited information, apparently simply out of disagreement with or dislike of that information, adding uncited claims and original research, and inappropriate editorial commentary. I am not sorry for reverting them. To be honest, I think Stolengood needs to avoid this entire topic area if he or she cannot edit neutrally. I realize that the mainstream view of the issue needs to be properly represented, but Stolengood is going about this in completely the wrong way. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate you responding. I am glad we agree that the mainstream view needs to be properly represented and I hope that the page can continue to improve in that regard. I do not personally have any insight into how that would properly come about but maybe someone else will. I think we also both agree that no harm can come from more sets of eyes passing over the page, which is my main ask here. be well. Wickedjacob (talk) 09:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

David Icke

Seems to have attracted at least two editors very upset about the article. One even calling for editor(s) to be banned. See a couple of threads on the talk page and the recent rewrite. Doug Weller talk 13:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Arguing that Icke is not an antisemite is doomed to failure, but given the editor's polemic re. Campaign Against Antisemitism and their role in the recent conviction of two holocaust deniers (Alison Chabloz and Jez Turner) I wonder if they might be here for some other reason than whitewashing the article on Icke. Guy (Help!) 15:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Kensington Runestone

See these edits, my comments at the editor's talk page, and a minor point, the translation, the discussion I started on the article talk page. I don't see this 2007 film which seems to have been ignored as a source we should be using. Doug Weller talk 05:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Definitely a WP:RS violation. There's plenty of solid scholarship out there on this topic. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Fringe IP editor at Newark Holy Stones and Michigan relics

Deleting sourced material, adding original research and a fringe source. I've reverted but it might be useful if others have it on their watchlist. Note I started this post last night but got logged out, Wikimedia servers got borked, etc. Doug Weller talk 12:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Continuing problems at Newark Holy Stones, see also the latest talk page posts. Doug Weller talk 13:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The time Davy Crockett met Bigfoot who warned him about the Alamo

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Enthusiastic magic categorizer

I've noticed at least two IP editors, Special:Contributions/ and Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:BC32:7E00:DD99:F8FC:476B:AF5D, have been adding (mostly) Category:Magic (paranormal) to a lot of articles where this addition may be questionable. In a couple of cases, I have done reversions, as either subcategory of existing category or clearly an inappropriate category to apply. I noticed that another editor, Huntster, rolled a lot of these back on the first-mentioned IP. I'm still leery of category debates because the criteria for applying a categorization still seem a bit unclear to me. Magic itself is not well delineated and sometimes spills over into mythology, folklore, and religion. The impression I'm getting is that these categorizations are being applied as if magic is "real" (as opposed to the scholarly approach the magic (paranormal) article tries to take) and that the editor(s) adding these categories want to claim influence in every conceivable topic. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Noticed that too, should be reverted. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Is there a bot that checks articles for parent category / subcategory issues? Every one of these that I've looked at should be reverted for that reason alone. - (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I went through and cleaned up the second set of contributions. - (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Li Ching-Yuen

Li Ching-Yuen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Behold, the strange case of the 250-year old man. The article is filled with extraordinary claims with poor sourcing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

256*** Could probably trim the spurious content, but by-and-large this is an ok article. Kingoflettuce (talk) 08:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
It is indisputable that he was at least 111 years old (and he was already looking like an old geezer when people took real notice of him!) Kingoflettuce (talk) 09:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Louis Vuitton hired a shaman to stop the rain for fashion show

Nice work if you can get it.

"...while the guru had also been hired to tame the weather at previous shows around the world, skeptical execs at parent company LVMH had recently axed the jet-setting holy man from the budget. But when a downpour unfashionably soaked an outdoor Dior show last week in Chantilly, France, the shaman was back on the payroll..."

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Ganzfeld experiment

Ganzfeld experiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Telepathy has been scientifically proven, according to [62]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Living dinosaur

As it involves the meeting of deep fringe topics like cryptozoology and Young Earth creationism, members of this board may be interested in the RfC happening at Talk:Living_dinosaur#RfC_on_changing_"Living_dinosaur"_from_a_standard_article_to_a_disambiguation_list_page. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Establishment of Cryptozoology as a "fringe" subject is only a matter of opinion. If it's done right and well balanced then it's fine. Again this article seems FINE enough to keep. Just because it's a part of a subject that you don't like or agree with doesn't mean it shouldn't be included as an article.(sighs)--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Cryptozoology is well established as a pseudoscience. It is inarguably deep fringe territory. I get that you're a cryptozoologist yourself (as other users have noted, you've been lobbying on cryptozoology websites to get other users to help your cause here), but until you can convince academic consensus to the contrary, you're wasting your time promoting your cause on Wikipedia. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Says the one who lied and said that the Cryptid Whale article was "inexplicably" restored. Something that you were practically the only one against its restoration when that was up for discussion. I'm starting to get why DarkKnight didn't want to continue arguing with you about this. You're determination to undermine and destroy the Cryptozoology WikiProject is becoming more and more apparent. Removing categories and the WikiProject banner from articles that clearly fit with the project and then reverting edits that add them back then seems to me like POV Pushing and covert Vandalism, and that is not an accusation I make lightly.This is NOT a threat although my WARNINGS have been misinterpreted as such. The Fringe Theories was set up to avoid POV Pushing and non-neutral "reporting" of articles on pseudoscience and not the removal of them all together. I have tried multiple times to get you to stop doing that and have even tried to "extend an olive branch" so to speak but you still persist and ignore warnings and requests for you to stop. I'm tired of dealing with this anymore, so this is your last warning to please stop making such edits. I'm sorry that you feel this way but this site CANNOT and WILL NOT tolerate active attempts of POV Pushing which constitutes as vandalism no matter how one may say to the contrary.--Paleface Jack (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
WP:PROFRINGE would seem to apply here. The article was originally created promote the fringe theory that non-avian dinosaurs (with marine reptiles and pterosaurs sometimes lumped in) continue to exist, gradually expanding and adding unreliable sources, with a sprinkling of counter arguments and their sources. The thing is, counter arguments aren't necessary if you aren't already promoting the fringe theory. Then in 2013 it turns into something closer to the glorified disambiguation page we have today, with paleontology and biology section, but those appear to exist to provide "balance" to the cryptozoology/creationism section - without that section, it seems unlikely anyone would be arguing for more than a disambiguation page. --tronvillain (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Although the article could use some cleaning up and reworking the material, it is notable enough to warrant it's existence.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Is it though? What, exactly, is there in the article that shows the subject "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" other than disambiguating origin of birds and Paleocene dinosaurs? --tronvillain (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't constitute the entire deletion of an article. Only that it be rewritten to comply with Wikipiedia's guidelines and standards. Finding more primary and reliable sources seem more appropriate a response than just outright deleting it.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
To do that would presumably require actually having "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", without just becoming a content fork of origin of birds and Paleocene dinosaurs. --tronvillain (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know, there are some independent sources that can be added to this. The main reason that Fringe Theory guidelines are there, so that we have balanced coverage and not someone stating one side of theory. Criticism on theories can be added if they are from legitimate sources. That doesn't stop people from attempting to place their own opinions on articles pertaining to anything, including pseudosciences. I have been and always will be a HUGE advocate for balanced and neutral coverage of ALL subjects, the article in question may have a non-neutral standpoint which will need to be fixed and balanced accordingly, but deleting the article seems a bit extreme a measure to take when all it needs is to be rewritten and given more independent sources so that it's in a proper neutral standpoint.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Are there though? The entry in The Skeptic's Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience is almost entirely about Mokele-Mbembe[1], which pretty much leaves Pseudoscience: A Critical Encyclopedia[2], which also says "the best known is the Congo's Mokele-Mbembe." There's already a Mokele-Mbembe article. Not every term needs a stand-alone article. --tronvillain (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I can help look for more independent sources once my schedule opens up sometime this or next week if need be. I just want to exhaust all other options BEFORE deciding whether or not this article will need to be deleted.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
A shift to a disambiguation page isn't a delete though. --tronvillain (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Removing everything and making it a disambig page is basically like deleting the article. You're just removing all information and adding links to "other uses".--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Unless you can provide sources that establish notability and don't violate WP:RS, you're wasting your time. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

(sighs) I somehow knew that you would chime in BOF... Thanks for the "positive" input...--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


  1. ^ Shermer, Michael; Linse, Pat (2002). The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. ABC-CLIO. p. 71. ISBN 978-1-57607-653-8.
  2. ^ Regal, Brian (15 October 2009). Pseudoscience: A Critical Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 104. ISBN 978-0-313-35508-0.

Fringe Egyptology being added at African related articles

See [63]. It's based on a UNESCO book, and such books are inevitably political. Doug Weller talk 09:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Creationist SPA

currently foaming at Jonathan Sarfati and edit warring at Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

See Talk:Jonathan Sarfati#Motion To Strike where the editor insists that ' Eugenie Scott and Glenn Branch of the National Center for Science Education called Sarfati's Refuting Evolution a "crude piece of propaganda". must be removed from the article. They did, I reverted, they reverted me. Doug Weller talk 18:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, it's the same user who nominated Gish gallop for deletion. XOR'easter (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd be tempted to let them carry on as they wish. The next block will almost certainly be indefinite. Black Kite (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)