Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 93

Archive 90

Archive 91

Archive 92

Archive 93

Archive 94

Archive 95

→

Archive 100

Tim Noakes recent edits

• Tim Noakes (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Lots in play here: fad dieting, MMR/autism, hyrdoxychlooquine, and the assertion that COVID-as-bioweapon is now an "accepted theory". More eyes might help. Bon courage (talk) 07:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

In the low-carb movement there is a large group of 'public figures' including Tim Noakes, Aseem Malhotra, Malcolm Kendrick, Ivor Cummins, Marika Sboros, Gary Fettke, Maryanne Demasi etc that openly promote cholesterol and statin denialism but have branched out into advocating and supporting conspiracy theories about COVID-19 and vaccines. These figures have often made pseudoscientific remarks about vaccines on Twitter and have questioned COVID-19 vaccination. However, when they are pinned down on the subject they say anti-vax is a smear word and they are not anti-vax and they are being libelled as anti-vax and they are not anti-vax (!). The user Ratel has fallen hook line and sinker to this in the sense that he claims Tim Noakes is being attacked this way by critics, and is citing primary sources on the article such as "The Noakes Foundation" to defend Noakes. I suggest that we do not include such unreliable primary sources. Psychologist Guy (talk) 09:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Too many noticeboards: note that this issue is simultaneously at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, here. The BLPN discussion was opened slightly earlier, and is already long, so I suggest keeping the discussion there — though perhaps not, as I admit it may be a better fit here. Anyway, it surely shouldn't be in two places. Thoughts? Bishonen | tålk 10:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC).

  You could argue there are two aspects: the biographical and the fringe science ones. I am very alarmed that a new bit of BLP (WP:DENIAL the text "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too") seems to being interpreted in a way that would require fringe figures to have a "right of reply" on Wikipedia to any criticism of their fringe theories. Bon courage (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  At the very least, we need to tell Ratel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that this conversation is happening. I notice that their latest contribution to the article looks to be essentially a coatrack. What is more, they are arguing on the talkpage now that a letter from respected physicians of the University of Cape Town should not be included in the article because "It's just some members of the establishment "distancing themselves" from Noakes. We already know about this. And Noakes has extensively defended himself concerning that letter. It's going to clog up the article with repetition." I have noticed that no one has given them notice of arbcom restrictions. I will put a notice on their talkpage now as well. jps (talk) 11:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

If you WP:CENSOR a professor of medicine who is advocating a new approach to diet that he has found works, and whose theories incidentally echo good, current science from colleagues like Prof Richard Johnson and many others, you are damaging WPs utility IMO. If you think Johnson is fringe, then I will concede Noakes is too. If not, put your critics' words in the article, but don't censor. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Amazingly, Dr Johnson, author of several books and author of an incredible amount of key medical research, is not on WP. I'm starting to see why. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what relevance does Richard Johnson have to this discussion? I cannot find evidence that Noakes and Johnson are collaborators or that Johnson or Noakes has ever commented on the work/statements of the other. jps (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I never said they were collaborators. Johnson is a much-venerated member of the current medical establishment, and yet his research is trending exactly the same way as Noakes. Johnson's latest books make almost identical recommendations, based on solid recent research, and nobody is calling him "fringe" that I am aware of. If he is not fringe, nor is Noakes. They even recommend the same dietary restrictions and daily carb limits! Do some research and you'll see I am right. It's just downright WRONG to put Noakes on a FRINGE noticeboard! Ratel 🌼 (talk) 12:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Why is this relevant? AFAIK Johnson writes pop-science books, but he doesn't dabble in antivax, COVID quackery and conspiracy theories so why is he relevant to this discussion/noticeboard? Bon courage (talk) 12:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Noakes has not dabbled in antivax, ffs, he linked to a tweet. That's his level of involvement. He has no core interest in any of the fringe stuff. Stop the witch hunt already. And BTW Johnson is not a pop-science write, he has around (700+) at GOOGLE SCHOLAR [1] . Ratel 🌼 (talk) 12:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

This is somebody that has been saying that there is evidence that vaccines cause autism since before the COVID pandemic started. MrOllie (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I found a 140 page preprint by Brett Chrest which documents a lot of the anti-vax commentary coming from Noakes. Not usable as a direct source, but there seem to be some sources cited in that document which may be useful. jps (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

You can restate that he has retweeted/linked to stuff that is antivax, although at the same time expressing general total support for vaccination. I'm not sure what to conclude about that — I think perhaps because of his diet battles he likes mavericks and people who seem to be truth-tellers and whistle blowers, perhaps unwisely — or that it will add more to a BLP of a man who has never published in the field of vaccines and is known for sports medicine and diet. At some point it becomes a hatchet job on your part, no? Ratel 🌼 (talk) 12:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Our job is to inform the reader about what reliable sources say about a subject. That Noakes has aligned himself with vaccine misinformation and other dubious medical claims seems fairly well-documented. This also includes his continued advocacy of paleo-diets, atkins diets, etc. As is often the case, when someone starts going rogue in thumbing their nose at experts, there often is no bottom. We have seen similar stories to this many times before. I think our readers deserve to know about it. The exact editorial decisions for what wording, sources, and WP:WEIGHT to apply to such matters is wherein lies the rub. jps (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Even the ridiculous unpublished paper you linked on this was equivocal in its findings, so your "fairly well documented" claim is OR. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 12:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

What makes the paper "ridiculous"? What did you find "equivocal" in its findings? This isn't just Noakes "linking" to antivax sources. In many instances he parrots their talking points! This doesn't even require interpretation. It's just a fact. jps (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

It's a very common step when people's work isn't accepted by the mainstream, a signpost that their credibility is spiraling lower. MrOllie (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Or perhaps they get peed off when ganged up on and start giving a thumbs up to other people that seem to be getting the same treatment? Ratel 🌼 (talk) 12:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be magnetising out beyond bio/medicine too.[2]

Noakes, an emeritus professor in the Division of Exercise Science and Sports Medicine at the University of Cape Town (UCT), uses his Twitter profile to regularly share posts opposed to Covid-19 vaccination (and associated conspiracies) and to promote climate change denialism and American right-wing views.

Bon courage (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

He has removed that tweet. Do we need a section in his BLP called Offensive tweets? Because that's what all the accusations here amount to. His BLP is about his work and his discoveries. Some people like Musk and Noakes are their own biggest enemies on social media. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 12:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

There's more to it than that. He often repeats their claims in interviews as well. jps (talk) 13:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia mirrors what RS does. It seems the gays=pedos tweet garnered quite a bit of interest in several sources. Bon courage (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Like others say here, we need to reflect what the reliable sources say. It seems he has recieved some amount of coverage in sources for fringe views, so his biography will have to reflect this (provided it complies with various policies etc.) Tristario (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

You're not kidding. I notice that his latest retweet is of Steve Bannon and Naomi Wolf having a conversation about "mass murder" via vaccination. jps (talk) 13:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think antivaxers are especially put-upon. Do you? The only justification I can think of for defending them would be to accept that they are making valid points. That sounds like antivax apology by another name. jps (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

This is more of an aside than directly related to the content, but that "report" is just a self-published source that was never intended to be published in anything else (it has been three years - if that really was a pre-print it should be in print by now) and the author was still an undergrad at the time. I think I'll need to be even more wary of OSF being used as a source from now on and be a bit more active in watching for it. - Bilby (talk) 09:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Definitely don't use the report as a source for any article. On the other hand, the document has quite a few sources itself that can be used, and it is a pretty useful account of the relevant Twitter feed that is otherwise almost impossible to sift through. These people seem to Tweet without ceasing. Good to be aware of OSF uses across WP. Always verify the publication status... this goes for any preprint server (Researchgate, arxiv, etc.). jps (talk) 09:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

True, but my assumption with pre-prints in the past as that they are used for an article that is accepted for publication, but you are posting the penultimate draft. This use of pre-print services for effectivly what would have been blog posts adds an extra degree of wariness. :) I don't have a problem with using the references, but given the lack of experience of the author I'd still be wary of completeness and balance, and whether or not everything used was correctly verified. A badly researched article can provide misleading sources. - Bilby (talk) 09:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, preprint servers do very little in the way of vetting as a general rule. This report is pretty amateurish in spite of its extensive length. To the author's credit, he includes lots of citations that, of course, would demand careful verification. The goal of the report is a riposte. It is certainly not anything I would describe as a dispassionate account. Doubtful that anything like that will ever be produced about Noakes's ideas. jps (talk) 10:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• Pardon me, but is the person in question an advocate of fringe theories? Does he publish papers or websites about them? Or does he retweet inflammatory stuff, perhaps for the attention he knows it will garner? (He's even admitted to doing this and enjoying the brouhaha, I can find the source tomorrow for this if you like). I suspect you are all falling for it. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  Not a question for us. What do the sources say? Bon courage (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Will get the source for the fact that he trolls people tomorrow. Real life beckons .... Ratel 🌼 (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be publishing fringe stuff in HuffPo rather than in journals.[3] Bon courage (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• His Twitter feed includes retweets of Real America's Voice, Jordan Peterson, antivaxers, apologists for the Russian invasion of Ukraine, COVID-deniers... if this is an elaborate troll act, it is one that is pretty one-sided. jps (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Tim Noakes is also now advocating the carnivore diet with Shawn Baker [4]. None of this is trolling it's what he actually believes. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Being a twit should be a CSD criteria for biographies. fiveby(zero) 16:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  I am convinced it would be better if quite a few of Wikipedia's fringe bios did not exist. But once they're there they're pretty much undeletable sadly. Malcolm Kendrick was an exception. Bon courage (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  Feel free to AfD it. If a person is barely-notable enough that a press-release-style article could be written, but not notable enough that a proper, balanced overview could be written, then I'd say it's fair enough to go WP:IAR. Though WP:NPROF would make it an uphill battle. DFlhb (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  Well, that probably won't work, the accepted test for inclusion in the "sum[mary] of all human knowledge" has become notability via google search. fiveby(zero) 17:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Fascinatingly, I think his co-author, Marika Sboros, has broken with him. Her Twitter feed seems like it is a direct response to Noakes's. She has even positively retweeted Alastair McAlpine which was the doctor she and Noakes were most angrily rebutting two years ago. Anyone have any more information on this? Sourcing is incredibly weak. jps (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Marika Sboros is still very close to Tim Noakes and supports his dietary views (you can check her website foodmed.net), the only topic that separates them now is that Marika Sboros spends most of her time on Twitter criticizing anti-vaxxers. This was because 2 years ago she was criticized for making anti-vax comments herself. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

She definitely used to be very close to Tim Noakes, but I don't think she is any more. I mean, she's commenting positively on McAlpine's tweets. This is the guy that took them to task. I checked her website and it looks like a transformation occurred about 2 years ago or so towards much more mainstream approaches. I have hearsay evidence that this break may have been caused because Noakes bought the claim by Donald Trump that the election was rigged and Sboros is adamant that this claim is a lie. I also see her tweeting that climate change is real. I think the split is real. jps (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Editor ජපස supplied a link yesterday to an article in which Noakes clearly relishes the controversies he is able to create and the reactions he is getting. I'm not sure if Noakes is trolling, suffering dementia or merely very misinformed, but I am not in the business of defending him from criticism relating to any of: homophobia, climate or Covid denialism, alt-vax views, or anything away from the primary remit of human physiology in relation to diet. I was unaware of all the crazy and I thank you all for bringing it to my attention. However, I must disagree that even though his dietary views differ markedly from the generally accepted (for now) views of nutritionists, his views are therefore "fringe". They are not as fringe as you imagine. Once again I direct you to the emerging science on carbohydrates such as can be found in the studies published in the last 10 years. A good example of this is the research published by Prof. Richard Johnson, as I mentioned (if you are not comfortable with PubMed and journals, you can access his research findings effortlessly via platforms like YouTube). And he is one of many. There is a lot of foment on this topic at the moment in the scientific world, a lot of confusion and indecision. Nevertheless, I don't have the time to devote to bringing some semblance of fairness to Noakes's BLP here, pointing out his denials (which just get deleted) and providing more details of the diet he advocates (which is followed by tens of thousands of people in South Africa, BTW, many of whom claim to have lost significant amounts of weight), which also just gets removed within minutes of being inserted. There is some blatantly biased editing going on there, where some Noakes-critical material sourced to news24.com is allowed but when I use the same source for details of the "Noakes Diet" it is deleted. I cannot persevere in the face of this sort of arbitrary fuckery. I'm sure if I reinserted the diet with sourcing to the Noakes book on the topic, that too would be removed for some other specious reason. Maybe in the future, when and if Big Agribusiness allows the recognition of the source of the global obesity disaster as the recommendation (which Agribusiness has supported by funding studies) to eat large amounts of carbs, the editors here will start allowing these facts to be recorded in BLPs without labelling them as fringe. Meanwhile, I can now see why eminent scientists like Johnson have no page on WP. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 01:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Be a little introspective here. You have written what I think essentially amounts to a right great wrongs essay. Fad diets are fringe. Maybe you believe everything you wrote, but what you wrote is essentially WP:PROFRINGE until you find the WP:MAINSTREAM sources that back it up. Them's the breaks at this website. As others have pointed out, it is not surprising that Noakes has fallen off the deep end. I am glad that you are swimming against that stream. Keep kicking! jps (talk) 01:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Reads like an apologia for fad diets. The science behind LCHF for obesity (Noakes' main schtick) is well-established and covered at Low-carb diet (TL;DR - don't believe the hype). Obviously we can't have Noakes' diet sourced to his own book because reflecting fad dietary advice is not encyclopedic or in any way aligned with the Project's goals. We also have an article on Healthy diet for the science there. Bon courage (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

What I find interesting here is that this argumentation is so close to the ones made at Talk:The Game Changers except there the argument was that big agri along with big meat and big dairy was stifling one-true-truth about the vegan diet. Same level of insistence, just the opposite side. It must be exhausting being a dietician. jps (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@ ජපස The Low-carb diet page contains the researcher conclusion that "the rise in obesity prevalence may be primarily due to increased consumption of refined carbohydrates". Seems to run counter to the group-think I'm getting here. I also note that the low-carb article lacks a lot of recent research and findings that run counter to the idea that low-carb and low-cal essentially achieve the same ends and are equally effective. As I said, you conclude Noakes's promotion of the Banting Diet is "fringe" at your peril. The science is anything but settled on this issue. I know this makes absolutists uncomfortable, but sorry, that's how things are, for now. I will revisit this issue in a few years when these facts become more accepted and studied, and I have review studies to use as sources. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 02:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

You seem to think I have an iron in this fire that I simply do not. Maybe you are right and all will be vindicated! A Nature paper will be published and a Nobel Prize in Medicine will be awarded! But until then, our hands are tied by WP:CBALL. Also, you seem to be adopting a much broader concern over this issue than that which started the conversation (about Noakes's biography). Might I suggest that you are perhaps running afoul of WP:ADVOCACY in this area? Nevertheless, I can totally get behind your idea that we should wait a few years to see if you're vindicated. I'm even willing to place a small bet on it. Ping me at my talkpage if that tickles your fancy. jps (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Recently the American Heart Foundation published a review which ranked diets and the low-carb/keto type diets scored 31/100 for healthfulness, which was extremely low compared to Mediterranean and vegetarian type diets [5] which scored very high (80s and 90s). This source does need to be added to the low-carb diet Wikipedia article. I mentioned it on Bon Courage's talk-page. Basically if you care about your health you should avoid low-carb fads. Psychologist Guy (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, while above I compared the advocacy at The Game Changers to this controversy, that's only in the sense of rhetoric. There really is no comparison between the diets being advocated in terms of scientific support. Healthy vegan diets exist. It's hard to imagine a healthy carnivore diet. jps (talk) 10:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

At ජපස — "It's hard to imagine a healthy carnivore diet." Are you a nutritionist now? I don't follow a carnivore diet, but some people do, or close to it, and seem to do okay. "Research shows it is possible to thrive on a very animal-heavy diet, says Clare Collins, a professor of nutrition and dietetics at the University of Newcastle. The Inuit people had a really low carbohydrate intake, a really low vegetable intake on their traditional diet, and they ate some stuff that we wouldn't eat, for example, they ate the organs of a lot of animals, they ate a heck of a lot of seafood, and they ate some of their meat raw, which is actually higher in vitamin C." Just sayin', we shouldn't be slamming articles like the Tim Noakes BLP because of our guesses at what's a good diet, or because western nutritionists have decided what's a good diet (one that has led to an epidemic of obesity and explosive increases in diabetes). I mean, if what we westerners are doing is so successful, we could then be justified in having the sort of confidence and disdain I'm seeing from the gaggle of "fringe"-condemning editors who have aborted my edits on Tim Noakes. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 02:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Why are you so upset? jps (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Of all the fringe health topics to edit on Wikipedia, fad dieting is maybe the most fraught as editors are often very invested. Anyway, we have an article on Inuit diet which says, inter alia, "evidence has shown that Inuit have a similar prevalence of coronary artery disease as non-Inuit populations and they have excessive mortality due to cerebrovascular strokes, with twice the risk to that of the North American population". There are several LCHF articles which benefit from attention from fringe-savvy editors, such as Paleolithic diet, Atkins diet, Carnivore diet and Low-carbohydrate diet. (There are also fringe claims for plant-based fad diets, but that's another matter). Bon courage (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

It's so amusing for me to see editors labeling any attempt to diverge from the (current) obesogenic, diabetogenic "recommended" carb-heavy western diet as a "fad". And BTW, the Inuits' proclivity to stroke (in fact aneurysm) is a genetic foible (they have a unique genome), linked to the ingress of Western diet items into their lives in recent decades [6]. I'm not "invested" in anything more than giving Noakes a fair shake, and making his page about him and his ideas rather than the current accepted wisdom. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 04:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Well better to be amused than upset, I'm sure. But for Wikipedia, the job is merely to reflect accepted knowledge disinterestedly, by which there are lots of fad diets and a good consensus on what healthy diets are. For WP:FRINGESUBJECTS the accepted mainstream knowledge has to be there for a NPOV framing, and fringe notions (like Noakes' various dietary formulations) not given a "free hit" without decent context. Bon courage (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, then give the facts in context, don't censor them. Tell people what he believes and the diet he promotes, then state that this is a fringe view, not mainstream, not generally accepted by nutritionists. Currently the page (incorrectly) accuses him of excluding entire food groups (which his published diet does not do) and labels it a fad. So he stands condemned, but readers won't really be sure of exactly what his diet entails, and why it differs from the mainstream. I really cannot see the need for this sort of harsh pre-emptive censorship of a senior academic's ideas, ideas with tens of thousands of followers and adherents (many of whom have stalled their diabetes and lost enormous amounts of weight). I can see no harm prevention in this censorship, in fact the obverse is more likely. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 06:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

So far as I know, it is obscure enough that no decent sources have bothered to turn a serious eye to this particular species of dietary nonsense. So the correct editing approach per WP:VALID is to omit it from Wikipedia. It's not "censorship" to be neutral. Bon courage (talk) 06:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

"no decent sources have bothered to turn a serious eye" — are you kidding or just lazy? Ratel 🌼 (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Serious - I've been looking for diet/nutrition textbooks which covers the Noakes diet, but so far have drawn a blank. It is covered in Matt Fitzgerald's Diet Cults book[7], which might be useful in a WP:PARITY way. Has anybody got this? Bon courage (talk) 07:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Just a few minutes work brings up:

Ratel 🌼 (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I said "decent sources". And for talking about dietary health effects that would need to be WP:MEDRS. None of those source are that, and some are worse than bad - WP:DAILYMAIL seriously? Bon courage (talk) 07:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

And let's not forget the published studies (all review studies, btw):

PMID: 37057184

PMID: 35215511

PMID: 34290045

PMID: 28053201

PMID: 25275931

As far as MEDRS, I think you are getting a bit confused. This is not a medical article, it's a BLP where we describe the ideas of a senior academic, well covered in the press, with review studies published (and some even featured as PMC articles). We include what his critics say for balance. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 07:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

... What his critics say for balance context Ratel 🌼 (talk) 08:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

MEDRS applies to WP:BMI wherever it may be. I looked at your first link, it's by Noakes (not about Noakes) and from a dodgy publisher (Frontiers). So not WP:FRIND or of high-quality. The second article is from MDPI which is even worse than Frontiers, and the third is not a "review" as you claimed. I stopped there. Bon courage (talk) 08:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

What you say is not a review is a review, go back to Pubmed and check the top of the abstract. I did not say these studies are about Noakes, but that he has published studies on the topic. AFAIK WP does not exclude published sources in Pubmed because of impact factor, so your quibbles about open access is not germane, especially in a BLP (again, this is NOT a WP Medicine article). And as for WP:BMI, did you actually read it? What is not biomedical information? — Beliefs: Statements about patients' beliefs regarding a disease or treatment, including religious or spiritual beliefs; religious beliefs about causes or cures for a disease (e.g., information about the evil spirits causing mental illness); why people choose or reject a particular treatment (whether that treatment is conventional, alternative, or spiritual); descriptions of the underlying beliefs of alternative medicines. There is no hindrance to describing Noakes's beliefs. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh yes, PMID:34290045 is a "viewpoint" by Noakes. Do we have any sources on Noakes' "beliefs" (other than about climate, gay people, vaccines, etc.?) Bon courage (talk) 08:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

That study refers to various data sources, so NOT a primary study. It was published in Open Heart (official journal of the British Cardiovascular Society), so NOT a low-qual journal. It was made into a full article at the US Government's National Library of Medicine too. I really think it's time you put your personal animus against this individual to one side for the good of the project. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 08:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

It's published in Open Heart (a low-impact open source journal), not the (prestigious) BMJ, And it's a viewpoint article by Noakes. It would be a primary source for Noakes "viewpoint" for sure. Bon courage (talk) 08:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks like you need to have a read of review article, because you clearly don't understand what one is. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 08:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I acknowledged it is a "viewpoint" article. However it's in a very weak journal and is not about Noakes. So how is it relevant? Bon courage (talk) 08:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh dear. The published studies are relevant because being review studies, not primary studies, they could even support a mention of his theories in a WP:BMI article like low-carb diet, never mind justify the inclusion of his allegedly fringe ideas in his own biography article. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 09:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

The source is too weak for use at Low-carb diet. As a rule of thumb an impact factor of 2 is a threshold, and in the topic area we have some much stronger sources. Re-casting it as a "this is what Noakes believes" source, i.e. primary, would not be appropriate. In an article about Noakes we need sources about Noakes and his work, not stuff by him. Bon courage (talk) 09:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

We have plenty of RSes on Noakes. In the South African context, there are few adults living there who do not know about him. He's one of the most well known people in the country. WP is not only for Americans. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 10:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

"As a rule of thumb an impact factor of 2 is a threshold" — how strange, I can't find that policy at WP:MEDRS. 🤔 Ratel 🌼 (talk) 10:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Bon courage said: "In an article about Noakes we need sources about Noakes and his work, not stuff by him". That's an interesting take on WP:BLPSELFPUB, to be sure. You seem to have your own interpretations "rules of thumb" on this place. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 10:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

It's called having a clue. Anyway, I see little point in continuing this. If there are some good sources on Noakes then great, they can be used. But for amplifying fringe view on diet your better bet would be to set up a fan site or something. Bon courage (talk) 11:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Um, no, I actually am not a fan of Noakes and I think he is way too extreme. I'm a fan of Dr Johnson and to a lesser extent of Dr Robert Lustig. These men are producing very persuasive arguments and research in this area, which would suggest these are not fringe ideas. My interest in this article has been spurred by having some vanilla edits to Tim Noakes rejected on what seem to be spurious grounds. The article should feature his responses to critics. His diet, with contrary views for context, should be detailed on his page. It's of general interest. Yet all the page currently carries are (incorrect) descriptions of his diet and lots of criticism and put-downs. He's been "cancelled", it seems, by the resident patrolling editors. This is neither fair nor encyclopedic. And I notice now that since there are no solid rule-based arguments against my proposed edits, I'm being threatened with a topic ban and my history from many years ago is being resurfaced, with suggestions that I am sock editing the article. This is pretty disgusting, low, schoolyard stuff. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ratel: What exactly are you trying to achieve here? There is enough evidence in this thread to make a pretty strong case for you to be topic-banned from Noakes because apparently you are so strongly in favor of promoting his ideas that you seem unable to bear any criticism of his dietary pronouncements. If that's not your end goal, what is? Wikipedia is not going to accommodate your right great wrongs approach. And it seems pretty clear to me that if you tried to change this, consensus would be against you. So what gives? jps (talk) 11:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I was just now about to outdent and say more or less exactly that but deleted my comment as a waste of time. This subject being notable enough for an article is not carte blanche for an editor to freely insert opinions from the subject which have no coverage in any secondary source, against all consensus. Ratel is lucky they weren't blocked for WP:3RR. Definitely WP:STICK at this point. I notice some other medical topics in this user's edit history and am growing a bit concerned, not having reviewed the edits in detail yet. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Haven't looked in detail but there's some history.[8] (so any review of editing history will need to encompass a lot of socks.) Bon courage (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

"reely insert opinions from the subject which have no coverage in any secondary source" — NOT what I am trying to do, at all. Total strawman. This is becoming a classic example of wp:WIKIBULLYING Ratel 🌼 (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

So use the secondary sources if they exist. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

They do, and I shall. I don't need to use his own websites. And BTW even though I said above that I am not a fan of his because he is too extreme, I need to clarify that I mean in his own personal life (he maintains that he has now gone to zero carbs because of his very bad diabetes and carb sensitivity). But his published diet is nowhere near as extreme, in fact it's a pretty typical low-carb diet / Banting diet, so not that controversial. I'll get back to editing the article in the most balanced and contextualised way possible some time soon, too busy now. I think I know now what is allowable and not allowable there. Bye Ratel 🌼 (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

"I'm a fan of Dr Johnson and to a lesser extent of Dr Robert Lustig. These men are producing very persuasive arguments and research in this area, which would suggest these are not fringe ideas." This is the issue, you are supporting low-carb advocates who promote outright pseudoscience. Lustig promotes cholesterol denialism and has co-authored with Maryanne Demasi and Aseem Malhotra [9]. This isn't science and you know it. This is very much in the realm of fringe and pseudo-science. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Draft article about Brainspotting

Hi folks. See Draft:Brainspotting. I'm inclined to accept it - it seems to be neutrally written and on the face of it the sourcing looks adequate, but not really my wheelhouse so thought I'd flag it here in case there are any concerns about the sourcing. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Why is "Brainspotting" capitalized in the article? A gerund like this, even a neologism, would not normally be capitalized AFAIK. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

No comment on the typography - I'm sure that the article can be improved, I'm just posting here to see whether folks think that the subject is notable, based on the available sources, and whether the draft article does a good enough job of presenting the information neutrally. I should add a bit about the history - the article was deleted following an AfD in 2009, and again a couple of times per G4 after it was recreated in 2017/2018. The current draft is substantially different from previous versions. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Wasn't sure if I was missing something about how the term was being used. I checked secondary sources and most seem to use lower case as one would expect. I also corrected that he "claimed to have discovered" for one thing MOS:WTW and for another it is not as much a discovery but an invention or development. A therapy technique isn't a discovery. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

There are concerning sources there: MDPI, Medical Hypotheses, and Grand's book published by Sounds True. But the author seems to know how to use them appropriately for neutral content. I think it would probably be best if this were merged into EMDR, but would first ask PenguinyPenguiny how they feel about that. fiveby(zero) 15:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I wonder whether 'Sounds True' is intended to put one in mind of the disparaging phrase 'sounds legit'? Girth Summit _(blether) 15:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Medical Hypotheses is pretty much a never-use journal (for Wikipedia). Bon courage (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

The best way to use MDPI journals is: "find a better source instead". They are 'caution' (WP:MREL) at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Their International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health journal in particular has a distinction of recently being delisted from the Clarivate indices, so it no longer has any impact factor at all. The topic here is human health related, so I think we should be looking towards WP:MEDRS, not reporting on our own lit-search of primary sources. The use clearly is cautious, identifying that there is an article in the journal but the journal or study is dubious. But instead we should require a secondary source to support those critiques of these specific studies (otherwise WP:SYNTH). DMacks (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the draft is competently written (not pro-fringe) and the sources are well-used. Given how it's written, and given that 6,000 clinicians were trained in it, I think it's desirable to have this article in mainspace. Though I haven't evaluated notability and my argument isn't based on policy. DFlhb (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Somatic psychology

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

From the article: "It is based on a belief, from the principles of vitalism, that bringing sufficient awareness will cause healing."

New section because it's not directly related to parapsychology but I found it listed as a specialty of one of the parapsychologists along with a whole bunch of other altmed. Doesn't seem to have any clinical trials backing to it, or to have escaped the orbit of psychoanalysis, so it's not clear how much is poor epistemic hygiene vs outright quackery. - car chasm (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

That sentence's source doesn't mention somatic psychology once; are you sure about the vitalism claim? The term "somatic psychology" is so generic that I doubt the term pseudoscience can apply to the overall topic, rather than to specific beliefs and practices. DFlhb (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I expected that such a generically-title article would be filled with SYNTH/OR and after checking most of the sources, that seems to be the case. Would appreciate if someone could double-check me on this. DFlhb (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I did a bit more digging - From pubmed it looks like "Somatic Psychology" sometimes refers to a specific discipline, like in this paper and a review of that paper. I was initially thinking AfD for lack of coverage, but there seem to be a few books and review articles written on the topic as well. From reading the descriptions, it seems to be altmed (as the lack of coverage in pubmed implies) and most of the authors on scholar seem to lead back to an author who practices psychoanalysis, integrative therapy, or transpersonal psychology.

This all leads me to believe it's still pseudoscience on top of the SYNTH and OR currently in the article - the term "somatic psychology" itself doesn't seem to have been widely used at all before 1998. If people think it would be fairly uncontroversial to say that none of the linked sources are WP:RS on the face of it, and that the topic lacks any critical coverage then I think it can go to AfD, but regardless almost all the current article content, most of which is sourced to articles written prior to that, likely needs to be purged. - car chasm (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

How Conflicts and Population Loss Led to the Rise of English Wikipedia’s Credibility

https://politicalsciencenow.com/how-conflicts-and-population-loss-led-to-the-rise-of-english-wikipedias-credibility/ For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• This is definitely worth reading and is germane to this noticeboard. Also, this article links to this research article [10], which is also worth reading. I haven't finished that one. One issue the research paper covers is how Wikipedia's endogenous institutional changes over time became supportive of anti-fringe, anti-pseudoscience, and anti-conspiracy theories. It covers how our consensus interpretation of NPOV wound up favoring this view to become a space that produces accurate information. Personally, I thought Wikipedia was always this way. But, apparently in the beginning, it was not. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  I found Table 1 in the research article quite interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Fascinating to see a paper so directly support the apocryphal "Sanger Effect" (the idea that who isn't editing anymore is as important as who is). If I can offer a single critique of the piece it is that the author overstates the case for their primary argument (although much more of interest to political scientists than wikipedians who are likely more interested in the other lines of argumentation): "First, change was not caused by the entry of new actors, but rather the loss of actors." and while I agree that "disproportionate exits early on highly consequential" I think there is more to the story and I welcome follow on research. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I disliked the author's conflation of contentious topics (e.g., American politics, conspiracy theories, and pseudoscience). Overlapping of course, but his story of changing reliable sources is basically choosing New York Times over New York Post. Comparing AP2 and pseudoscience, i would say the latter is by far the greater success story. But i wasn't around for the big fringe fights of old. fiveby(zero) 18:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

If you weren't around for the big fringe fights of old then I wouldn't worry your pretty little head about anything, you don't have any real impact on wikipedia after all. Its a good paper, but its got a hole you can drive a truck through there. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I was intending a compliment there, but in all honesty your response is probably the most helpful i've ever encountered on WP. fiveby(zero) 20:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

It is written above: "Its a good paper, but its got a hole you can drive a truck through there." That is true about any published paper. No matter how well done any publication is, they all have their shortcomings. Otherwise, there would not be room for followup research. Paul H. (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

From what I have seen over the years, editors pushing a fringe idea will naturally leave after their fringe advocacy is resisted because they only came to Wikipedia to advance their pet fringe idea. It's not like they want to contribute to the encyclopedia in a general way. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

That wasn't the case in the GMO subject where we really needed topic bans to get fringe pushers to stop. Obviously subject-dependent, and I've seen plenty of more isolated cases like you describe too, but it was nice to see that area documented in the supplemental material in this paper at least. KoA (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, so he did look at Intelligent Design. And the American Civil War. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the real problem starts in some areas when fringers get support from other fringers and imagine that a potential local consensus is going to lead to them prevailing (perhaps with a permachange to Wikipedia's overall stance). I think that was the problem with GMO, and we see it lingering for some COVID topics. In other areas (fake cancers cures, paedophilia, medical stuff generally) I think over the last decade the consensus has become tighter and clearer and it's very difficult to a WP:PROFRINGE editor to make progress. Bon courage (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

That seems like a natural result of what is and isn't fringe being fuzzier with new topics which don't yet have a long history of established scientific consensus. With the more settled topics everyone who is editing in good faith knows where the line is and what side to stay on. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Same with race & intelligence, or rather there what was needed was a series of indefs and constant sockpuppet patrolling. Generalrelative (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Alternatively they become sock masters and live forever as a ghost in the machine, we certainly have some still pushing fringe content more than a decade after being pushed out for fringe advocacy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Liver King

This guy promotes a type of carnivore diet but only gained media attention after he admitted to steroid use. I am thinking it might be worth to take this to afd. Any thoughts about this one? Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Is there any place that might be a good merge target? Carnivore diet perhaps? jps (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Honesty, I think they pass WP:SUSTAINED, as there has been news coverage of him as recently as this month [11], significantly later than the steroid scandal. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

this feels more like a recap of the whole thing that separate coverage no?... i have a vague memory of already having had this discussion but can't find it in my contribs—blindlynx 20:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive_90#Liver King --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! It doesn't seem like a whole lot has changed in the last few months. There aren't my wp:rs about him since January and even the non reliable ones are all about steroid use—blindlynx 14:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

They literally go around to his house and profile him. That's classic WP:GNG coverage. He still has a huge following still despite the steroid stuff. The article is getting nearly 1000 views a day [12]. I don't see a reason to delete, though obviously critical commentary by health professionals to his dubious claims about the benefits of eating raw meat should be added. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree, there is no reason to delete this article, my/our personal feelings about the subject aside. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't get it... It doesn't matter whether the coverage is of steroid use, humanitarianism, esoteric philosophy, or the size of his pinky toe... Significant coverage is significant coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

After seeing this [13] it would be best to expand the article. That's a very in depth paper about the Liver King published in the International Journal of Drug Policy. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion about Healthline at RSN

See discussion as to whether Healthline should be deprecated or blacklisted. I've added comments noting their dubious commercial ties, SEO optimized articles of questionable value, and endorsement of pseudoscientific concepts like Qi.

In 2019, Healthline was purchased by Red Ventures. In a 2021 NY Times article, a former Red Ventures employee said it is “all about profit maximization” and was going to earn commissions on referrals from Healthline. ScienceFlyer (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Maria Valtorta

Does archeological work conducted in the 1990s prove that Catholic mystic's Maria Valtorta descriptions of her personal conversations and time travel with Jesus are historically factual? And does this mean that we can discard otherwise reliable sources who do not treat these claims as true events? We have a user, @Yesterday, all my dreams...:, advancing just such a theory at User:Yesterday, all my dreams.../Review1 and on Talk:Maria Valtorta. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Advice to "Horse Eye": read first, type later. What I wrote on the talk page was: "It is already written in the books by La Greca and Mattriciani in Italian. ... I would not even attempt to enter that into Wikipedia now, but someone else will in the future." My guess is that someone will try to add that to Wikipedia in about 5 years. And they will have opposition and debates and all. But given that it is not in any article, nothing to do. As for my "personal space" I can type there that the earth is flat, but as long as it is just in my personal space, it is for experimental purposes. No need for any one to bust an artery. End of discussion. And have a good weekend. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no such thing as 'personal space' on Wikipedia. Start a blog somewhere if you feel the need to write such stuff. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back The community has generally shied away from conflating religious belief with fringe theories as described by the guideline. As that is intended to deal with claims of fact that are either objectively and provably false, or widely labeled by reliable secondary sources as fringe beliefs (or some functionally similar language). That said, we stick to what reliable sources say about subjects, especially controversial ones. In the case of specific claims of a religious or supernatural nature, I would opine that it is acceptable to include statements from religious sources that are widely recognized, such as the Holy See when discussing matters related to Catholics and that religion. So this is probably not the right venue to address what may be a concern over NPOV editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

"And that becomes even more obvious in view of Valtorta's superior knowledge of the unexcavated archaeology of Galilee and Bouflet's lack of knowledge of the subject as demonstrated by the example discussed just below." appears to be the sort of thing that falls under fringe no matter whether its religious or not. Yesterday, all my dreams... is claiming that Valtorta's had knowledge of unexcavated archaeology. They are using that supernatural claim to cast doubt on the validity of a secular source (and any other source which doesn't take the position that Valtorta in fact has knowledge of the unexcavated archaeology of Galilee). That is remarkable and fringe. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

"Horse Eye": I am not claiming that as my theory. It is written by Fernando La Greca (prof of ancient history) etc. and Mattriciani et al in their books. The books can be ordered on Amazon. But at some future point I would go to WP:RSN and argue that Bouflet is not a reliable source. I have just read 2 xhpters of his book, 4 or 5 more to read before I go to WP:RSN. So wait and see what they say there. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Any chance you want to open a section for La Greca and Mattriciani et al's publishing? It looks to be primarily in Open Journal of Social Sciences which is a predatory journal run by Scientific Research Publishing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

No chance. No way. Not yet. I was refering to the books, not articles. And as I have said, I am not ready to discuss or debate this for inclusion in articles at this time exactly because it is so controversial, and gets people blood pressure to extreme levels. As I said, no rush. But Bouflet should have mentioned that item in his book if he disagreed with it. My point was that it is highly unlikeluy that he had heard of David Ussishkin because he is a modern historian. End of discussion. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

You don't find that La Greca and Mattriciani et al have primarily published about this topic in a predatory journal to be relevant to a discussion about whether their (and apparently your) view is fringe or not? The ones that aren't in Open Journal of Social Sciences are in the SCIREA Journal of Sociology which is another predatory journal. Were these books published by reliable publishers? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Look, all this debate would have been hypothetically relevant if I had wanted include this "exceptional claim" in a Wikipedia article within the next few years. No way. Let someone else do that. My point has been about the incompetence of Bouflet about not noticing it, just as he missed half of the places agave was mentioned. I am not going debate this with you further because it will last forever. That exceptional claim is controversial, but Bouflet's lack of familiarity with archaeology is not. At the very least he should have attempted to discredit La Greca etal. as you are trying to do. My guess is that at this point you know more about La Greca than Bouflet! He did notdiscuss then because he did not know about them, just as he did not know that vanilla existed in ancient Judea. That is all. Anyway, I am off for the weekend. See ya... Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Except you did... You posted a condensed (but still 8,000+ byte) version of that user page to a content discussion on the talk page[14] calling the disputed content a "pathetic little sentence" and directed people to your user page "I have explained some of them here, and there is much more to come." and made explicit claims about the validity of her archeological knowledge "the cat is out of the bag about what Valtorta wrote in 1946 in section 479 of her book regarding the five towers of Jezreel. Everyone can figure out that this was confirmed by excavations in 1991 by Ussishkin and Woodhead, as I explained here." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Aaaaaaah, I am just about to leave... But for the sake of your blood pressure I will delete the link to my review. Your cardialogist can thank me later. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Repeated attempts at fringe-ifying Bigfoot

Those of you have been around here a while know that Wikipedia has long had a problem with a lack of folklorists and, as a result, we've had a lot of very poor coverage of folklore topics with the exception an amount of our coverage of myths (a genre of folklore). Sadly, coverage of folklore—everything from traditional jokes to recipes and local legends—continues to suffer on the site and attract references to whatever people find on the internet rather than, say, peer-reviewed material from scholars.

One problem this results in is a repeated attempt to inject fringe approaches from various subculture into articles, primarily the pseudoscientific subculture of cryptozoology. It wasn't long ago that one could find references to the subculture in every nook and cranny of any folklore critter on the site, usually bundled with the subculture-coined word cryptid (a pseudoscientific term coined by cryptozoologists in the early 80s to avoid the words like 'creature' and 'monster' and instead to mean 'this monster may be hiding somewhere and may be waiting to be found by we cryptozoologists').

One big magnet for this kind of pseudoscientific approach has long been Bigfoot. While the article there remains quite a mess and badly needs a source review, I've attempted to keep the introduction in line with WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:PROFRINGE when I can check in. Unfortunately, emic (basically 'in-subcultural-universe') terms keep creeping in from users in the introduction. This includes referring to the monster with cryptozoology's pro-fringe cryptid terminology and while emphasizing the importance of the subculture.

More eyes would be very welcome.

The best outcome here would really be a complete rewrite using only WP:RS from specialists, because the current article is by and large highly misleading about the development, popularization, and cultural status of the creature. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion and a bunch of definitions from WP:RS from me here. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

To be fair to the word "cryptid", I think that word has long since leaked out of containment on the internet and become a catch-all for "Creepy folktale creature". I don't think cryptozoology is the first thing that comes to mind when that word is used anymore. --Licks-rocks (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree, IMO the distinction there is largely generational. To one generation using the term signified belief and was a distinction from mythical/fictional beings and to the next its just another category of mythical/fictional beings like angel or alien and its use is universal both among those who subscribe to the fringe/woo and those who don't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has defined cryptid, e.g.; "Cryptids are animals that cryptozoologists believe may exist somewhere in the wild, but whose present existence is disputed or unsubstantiated by science." Until cryptid is redefined as a catch-all for a creepy folktale creature or just another category of mythical/fictional beings like angel or alien, the present definition ("a mythical creature") in the Bigfoot article is more accurate and less confusing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

(EC) You're confused, Wikipedia doesn't define anything. We don't do WP:OR. I'm apparently also confused because nothing you just wrote appears to be in response to what I wrote, we agree that "a mythical creature" is the appropriate wording and I never said nobody believed in it anymore I actually said the exact opposite ("among those who subscribe to the fringe/woo and those who don't"). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Re: Contemporary use of cryptid, not that it matters given our WP:RS, but I see no evidence that cryptid is more common than it was in the 90s. It's probably less so, given Wikipedia's changed coverage, and its heyday may have been the 90s, when media was more likely to promote cryptozoologists as experts. Yet according to Google Books Ngram viewer, cryptid may as well not exist when considered next to monster and creature. The vast majority of readers will have never encountered this word and it may well be waning in uncritical use. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I made an argument to that effect on the talk page. regardless of our difference about the exact usage of that word in current culture, I think we have a decent consensus that it does not belong in the lead of the article. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Thats interesting, I find it kind of shocking that you think the heyday of "cryptid" was before the fringfication of the History Channel and Discovery Channel. Our average reader is under 30 if I remember correctly so its likely that the vast majority of readers have encountered that word. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Aw Jeez, sorry for the confusion. If the indents suggested I was talking only to you and you alone, when I intended much more of a general statement, I apologize. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I was trying to make the point that no matter which reading of cryptid you choose "mythical creature" is still the most appropriate phrasing, there is no reason to use cryptid as the core description in the lead either way. Apparently that was lost in translation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Not an argument for this discussion, but if anyone missed Why Wikipedia Is So Tough on Bigfoot, it's quite interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Not an argument for discussion or comment to any specific editor, but it’s great to see Bloodofox interviewed in the media. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Alina Chan and lableak

There is an ongoing discussion here Talk:Alina Chan#Those who hypothesize conspiracies to explain natural phenomena are called conspiracy theorists. that maybe of interest to this noticeboard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Pretty surprising Lindsay Beyerstein's review[15] of Chan's book isn't cited on that article. (Add: I used it in the LL article; predictably it didn't last long.[16]) Bon courage (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Francevillian Biota

I've been getting pushback at Francevillian Biota from my rewriting of the article. To summarise, a team of authors, headed by Abderrazak El Albani, have published various papers since 2010 claiming that centimetre-scale radial structures found in the Francevillian B Formation in Gabon, dating to around 2 billion years ago, represent the oldest known eukaryotes and multicellular organisms. However, when you look beyond this particular set of authors and papers, coverage of the structures is much more critical and there doesn't appear to be a consensus that these represent fossils. e.g. [17] [18]. Given the extraordinary nature of the claims made in the papers by El Albani et al, I don't think they can be taken at face value, as people at the talkpage seem to want to. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

There is a brief discussion about the validity of the Francevillian Biota in a blog post, Fossil Friday: How an Austrian Scientist Concocted a New Domain of Life called Gabonionta by Günter Bechly. Although the blog itself is not citable, it provides ciations and links to reliable peer-reviewed papers, which are useful. The critical papers are either open access or can be found using Google Scholar. The cited papers do provide evidence that there exist serious reservations about the validity of the Francevillian Biota. Paul H. (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Evolution News is an organ of the intelligent design organisation Center for Science and Culture, which makes me leery of them, though, Günter Bechly, despite his pro intelligent design views, is a well respected paleoentomologist, and I don't doubt what he is saying here, which is corroborated by my own research. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the background. I was unaware of the connections. I looked through GEOREF, GEOREF in Process, and GeoScience World, and found only papers by Dr. Abderrazak El Albani's team. Looking through the Web of Science, I found nothing new in the way of useful papers and a negligible number, if any at all, of citations of any of the Francevillian Biota papers by other paleotology papers. Paul H. (talk) 04:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

There is quite an amount of papers either acknowledging the Francevillian biota as of biological origin in their studies, or even studying it closer, without being related to El Albani's team. Here's a small sample of them (most you'll find aren't discussing it specifically, just mentioning the fact - in the same way most articles about birds don't try to prove over and over again that birds are dinosaurs): [19] [20] [21] [22] Chaotic Enby (talk) 01:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Elizabeth Loftus

• Elizabeth Loftus (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

New section "The recovered memory / false memory debate" should be checked. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Mother Shipton

• Mother Shipton (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Defringifying going on, maybe someone is interested. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The Quiet Epidemic and chronic Lyme disease

A new article has been created for a conspiracy theorist film The Quiet Epidemic, which was created by the anti-science chronic Lyme disease movement. I have raised concerns that it does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements and that there are no reliable sources to use for the article. The article's creator @WikiTryHardDieHard has also made edits to the chronic Lyme disease article to include a credulous film review. See talk page discussion). ScienceFlyer (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Happy to answer any questions. I was going to write a synopsis of our disagreements, but it don't want to misrepresent the details. Suffice it to say the Chronic Lyme disease is a controversial topic. User:ScienceFlyer does not believe that it exists. My lived experience has informed me in the opposite direction. A small number of scientists and doctors agree with me. The larger medical community does not. So is life. None of that should necessarily matter because Wikipedia is a neutral platform. As editors, we have tasked ourselves with provided an accurate, unbiased encyclopedia for the world. Let us continue to that end. WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia's neutrality does not extend to giving any and all opinions equal consideration. In the situation where the reliable sources explain something to be one certain way, the only thing Wikipedia can do is pay attention to those sources. This is biased against the unreliable sources and things such as lived experience which are not documented in reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia. This means that we cannot really approach the subject in the way you are hoping that we would. It's simply not the way Wikipedia works. jps (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, chronic lyme is not a "controversial topic"; rather, there's broad agreement it's not a real diagnosis and the whole thing is bound up in health fraud. It's not really going to be possible to write a neutral article about this film until a decent source gets its teeth into it (maybe SBM will?). Bon courage (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I read the NEJM article cited for the claim that Chronic Lyme Disease is a fraud. The article does not support that claim. Join me on the Chronic Lyme Disease talk page for a discussion about it. WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

There is a difference between fraud and health fraud. In the case of Chronic Lyme Disease, the concern is is that doctors offering bogus treatments for reasons that may range from the controversial to the criminal. jps (talk) 02:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned my personal experience. I was simply explaining my particular interest in the topic and personal bias. I'm well aware that it is an unreliable source. Here is the real question as I see it: Does the veracity of a movie preclude it's inclusion in Wikipedia? To me the answer is obvious, given the twenty-five movies tagged under Category:Pseudoscience documentary films. WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia cares whether there are enough independent sources on a subject. In the case of topics that have generated interest from the WP:FRINGE, Wikipedia may ask for a more stringent level of notice than for less controversial topics. This is simply because if we are going to take WP:NPOV and WP:V seriously, we have to have good sources to write an article. If the only sources are rallying around a certain fringe cause and there has been no notice by any third parties, we may not be in the position to host an article on the topic. jps (talk) 02:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@ScienceFlyer Take a look at that "talk page" link. It doesn't seem to be working. WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The Real Anthony Fauci

• The Real Anthony Fauci (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

New article about RFK Junior book. Belongs on watchlists. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I think CT55555 did a good job on that article. Schazjmd (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for raising it here. Indeed it would be good to get many watching this article. And thanks @Schazjmd for your comment, I appreciate the feedback. CT55555(talk) 23:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Requesting people also add Planet Lockdown and A Letter to Liberals to watchlists for the same reasons. CT55555(talk) 16:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Eight-circuit model straw poll

• There is now a straw pole taking place that may be of interest to this noticeboard. The straw pole is intended to determine what to do with the "Eight-circuit model" page. It seems we have reached a point of decision on the talk page. The straw pole is here. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The related previous discussion is here ---Steve Quinn (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Please note: This topic is sufficiently covered with independent sources in the Post-Millbrook section of the Timothy Leary article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Macroevolution

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

What is the right application of WP:ONEWAY here? See latest discussion on Talk page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Yesterday, I thought that the discussion was over, but it seems it is not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Green Man (again)

The article Green man (spirit of nature) has recently been forked off of the main Green Man article. I have nominated the article for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green man (spirit of nature). Participate if interested. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Article on "The Dangers of Pseudohistorical Conspiracy Theories" using Tartaria and Hyperborea as examples

[23] Doug Weller talk 07:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm old enough to recall a different definition of "conspiracy theory", that the truth would never be known because a powerful, shadowy group was hiding the evidence. One particular failure of reasoning, but it now seems the term is broadening to encompass all manifestations of pathological beliefs. Irredentism and white supremacy hardly require conspiratorial thinking, what utility is there in calling Tartaria and Hyperborea "conspiracy theories"? fiveby(zero) 14:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Did you read the article? They describe how both but especially the Tartarian one involve beliefs that a powerful shadowy group is hiding the evidence. This is also mentioned in Tartarian Empire (conspiracy theory) BTW. It may be the case that not all believers of these pseudohistorical concepts subscribe to such aspects but that doesn't change the fact that those who do are engaging in conspiracy theory thinking. Nil Einne (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Re-reading I admit I misremembered the details a bit. It's true that at least in the article, there is only a small amount of clearly conspiracy thinking related to Hyperborea, although a bit more in our article Hyperborea. (But I also confused it with Tartarian thinking since some aspects are similar especially the Esoteric Nazism seems to have some similarities with Levashovism.) Still while I can perhaps see the claim made that Hyperborea is often just crazy supremacist thinking, it seems far harder to me to argue this is the case for Tartaria where there's clear aspects of how it's something being hidden from us* for hundreds of years by these evil whoevers. * = well maybe not me, since I'm only part white I'm probably one of the hiders or something. Nil Einne (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

...modern European powers conspired to cover up Tartaria, which was destroyed in a mud flood, and replace the idyllic civilisation with a globalised, degenerated society that they could control. That is a conspiracy theory, it has the grand plot and the powerful shadowy group. The adherents are fighting the global world order and they can deny the historical record because of the coverup. Grant you that i missed that in the article and focused on Given the cryptic nature of these theories, the pseudohistorical narrative straddles or embraces conspiracy, and the two can become indistinguishable in online spaces. It just seems that sometimes calling memes and manifestations of dangerous ideologies "conspiracy theories" sometimes trivializes issues. You say "conspiracy theory" i'm going to look for the plot and the shadowy group to try and understand the ideology of the adherents. I don't see that approach being very helpful here. fiveby(zero) 17:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The article says, "the pseudohistorical narrative straddles or embraces conspiracy, and the two can become indistinguishable in online spaces." So if one beleives that an ancient civilization called Tartaria once existed, that's not in itself a conspiracy theory although it uses similar logic. But if one believes that a cabal is suppressing information about it, which most adherents believe, it is conspiracism.

I agree though that articles should not conflate the two, which is frequently done in media and popular writing. That's why we should only use expert sources. TFD (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I think we have to consider why these sort of things tend to end up as conspiracy theories rather than just fantasists beliefs of stuff that never existed. The article does discuss this in a way. While it's possible to believe these things existed but it's not well known about, perhaps because experts are incompetent or otherwise in good faith claim it's not something that existed but are wrong, this isn't what happens most of the time. Instead when continually told that's bull crap, adherents who don't come to accept this start to believe that there's an active attempt to suppress the "TRUTH". I'm sure this is even more likely when adherents think whatever is it was some wondrous thing which we really need in the world nowadays. When adherents also think it's something great for their superior and deserving people then not surprisingly that this blame lashes out at the suppressors as some evil cabal of other people, probably of Jews since they're something they've been taught is an evil harm for their people. None of this is particularly unique to pseudohistory as the article mentions. You see similar things with vaccines, 5G, wonder cures, LGBT issues, and any number of things. Nil Einne (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I think that conspiracism begins with a belief that an evil cabal controls the world and then they use this outlook in approaching fringe views. If the experts dismiss a theory, that just adds to its credibility.

Anyone can read misinformation and find it credible without being a conspiracy theorist. But only a conspiracy theorist would continue to believe it when confronted with facts. TFD (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing Doug Weller! The post is now on wikidata. It links to a lot of sources, a big rabbit hole. The Conspiracy Charter and a paper about conspiracy theorists in youtube sounds very interesting. Ixocactus (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ixocactus Thanks for putting it there. Doug Weller talk 12:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

How should we handle WP:FRINGE scientific journals?

By looking at the articles in Category:Alternative and traditional medicine journals, one can observe that most of them are presented as being perfectly legitimate scientific journals, which is likely an issue with regard to WP:FRINGE. Suggestions on what to do about this would be welcome. Partofthemachine (talk) 04:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

If a journal is known to be WP:FRINGE, I see no reason why we can't put it up as red on WP:RSP like any other unreliable source. Loki (talk) 04:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

RSP is basically a list of sources that have been discussed repeatedly at RSN or elsewhere. Being obviously generally unreliable isn't enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:CITEWATCH may also be useful. RSP is a summary of perennially discussed sources at WP:RSN. But if those articles are uncritical or even promotional, they also should be improved, of course, assuming sources exist. If sources don't exist, they may not belong on WP per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and it's also often an indication of a lack of WP:NOTABILITY. —PaleoNeonate – 15:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Dark Energy

I make no claim to being a physicist, but even my elementary understanding of the topic suggests to me that this [24] addition to the Dark Energy article may be 'fringe' at minimum. Am I right in this assumption? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Is this the same guy as Sonofmankind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), or are dark energy cranks a dime a dozen? Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be different crank. Or at least, a different theory. Evidently dark matter theories have an attractive power all of their own... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

That's a crank theory alright, I've never seen folks questioning Newton's law or the basics behind the Doppler effect in mainstream physics. Mainstream critiques of the expanding universe theory generally presume that observational data which are attributed to the Doppler effect are instead due to other physical phenomena. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 04:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Not just a crank 'dark matter' theory. It seems to be a claim that physicists are wrong about more or less everything. Might pop up elsewhere if we don't keep an eye open. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Who needs Nostradamus when you have the Grump? Crank now blocked for adding similar nonsense to Time dilation. [25][26] AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Foristslow

Am I imagining stuff, or Foristslow is using sub-standard references? tgeorgescu (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

E.g. publisher=School of Five Element Acupuncture. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

This: Academy for Five Element Acupuncture? Donald Albury 17:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Tulpa revisions

Hello all, and sorry my attention is somewhat divided today and I can't do more on this page, but a user has made some large revisions which, whether intended or not, seem to take out any sort of skeptical language as well as some high-quality scholarly sources. If anyone has time to stop by and have a look, I would appreciate it. As usual, feel free to tell me I am simply wrong. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Wish I could help Dumuzid, but that page is way out of my wheel-house, no idea what is what there. Sgerbic (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

N'kisi

While working on a humdinger of a cleanup effort, I came across the article N'kisi, which appears to be heavily influenced by Rupert Sheldrake woo and a news story that was later retracted. XOR'easter (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Climate change denial

• Climate change denial (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Discussion about the correct exegesis of WP:CLAIM on the Talk page. I had my say, maybe others want to chime in. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Possible fringe material about Tiwanaku added its article bibliography

An IP editor keeps adding a book that the best that I can tell is a fringe book about Tiwanaku and Atlantis to the bibliography section of the Tiwanaku article. The book is "Cerqueiro, Daniel: Tiwanacu una nueva revelación. Ed. Pequeña Venecia. Buenos Aires (1997). ISBN 987-9239-02-4." The first time it happened at June 10, 2023, 12:37 and the second time June 13, 2023, 13:52. At best, the book does not add anything to the dicussion about Tiwanaku. At worst, book is fringe material about Tiwanaku and Atlantis. Could someone look into this book and act accordingly. Paul H. (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:Psychonautics researchers

There is currently a discussion that may be of interest to this noticeboard regarding Category:Psychonautics researchers at Categories for discussion here.

---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Diaphragmatic breathing

As part of the ongoing cleanup operation mentioned a few sections above, I came across the article Diaphragmatic breathing. Some of the sources look iffy: there's a lot of "complementary and alternative" being thrown about. Suggestions welcome. XOR'easter (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Should the be a hatnote: "belly breathing" can also refer to subcostal retractions a sign of respiratory difficulty in pediatric patients? fiveby(zero) 02:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Wow, that article is a garbage dump of specious claims, low-quality sources, and barely-related tangents, an absolute textbook WP:COATRACK. Everything below the first section, save perhaps the "benefits" section, could be taken out with little loss, and the sources replaced with better ones. Maybe that will be my next project. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Institute of Noetic Sciences

Proactively taking this here due to a potential dispute, but Institute of Noetic Sciences seems to be a rather clear-cut case of WP:FRINGE, no? I'm in the process of splitting out various parapsychology articles from well-regarded academic studies of consciousness in neuroscience, cogsci, and philosophy of mind and I've gotten a bit of friction here.

For what it's worth, the parapsychology people rarely use consciousness in the way that academic researchers use it anyway (interiority, basically), and mostly are either talking about reincarnation or perception, but it seems like parapsychology pages shouldn't be categorized or listed in with legitimate researchers either way per WP:ONEWAY. - car chasm (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Unequivocally. IONS is a somewhat notorious outfit for promoting pseudoscience. jps (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I've added the psuedoscience/medicine template. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Timothy Leary and Ram Dass as consciousness researchers and theorists

Can someone else try to explain to this editor (Carchasm) that Timothy Leary and Richard Alpert surely fit category:American consciousness researchers and theorists. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Not unless we're also adding Richard C. Hoagland to Category:American astronomers while we're at it, no they don't. Writing books about all of the drugs you did in the 60s doesn't put you in the same category as Daniel Dennett unless your contributions are accepted by the broader academic community. - car chasm (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

This comment shows that you do not know the two researchers relationship to the topic. Leary and Alpert did pioneering work in consciousness research and theory. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, I supposed it's good we took this to this noticeboard since we disagree on this. To get everyone else's input - we would also consider the "pioneering work" Eight-circuit model of consciousness to be WP:FRINGE as well, correct? Considering the other names involved seem to mostly be involved with chaos magic and parapsychology rather than neuroscience or cognitive science this seems pretty clear-cut to me? - car chasm (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

We didn't take Leary and Alpert here, I did, and now it seems you may be doing revenge editing by throwing an undue weight tag at Eight-circuit model of consciousness citing fringe. Do you really know who Leary was and the work he did? Please remove that tag and maybe consider taking a day (a week?) off to study Leary's full contributions to consciousness research and theory. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Alpert and Leary were doing what they termed "consciousness research" those decades past, but I think now that is more properly aligned with altered states of consciousness and psychadelics. Today, this kind of research is more closely matching pharmacology instead of what is actually studied by those who are interested in consciousness. Even the most woolly philosophers (and, boy, are there some woolly ones!) do not consider Leary's or Alpert's ideas as being worth serious consideration. jps (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, even David Chalmers, who tends to be one of the more... "open-minded" philosophers of mind, doesn't mention Leary or Alpert in The Conscious Mind even once! - car chasm (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Eight-circuit model of consciousness

Eight-circuit model of consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is an article that needs a clean-up, for sure. It also lacks contextualization and makes some pretty outlandish (in the sense of WP:ECREE claims! jps (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, what led me to tag it was the number of seemingly outlandish biological claims, along with the association with chaos magic. I mean... psychic abilities? Quantum psychology? And it looks like almost all of the references are sources to the claimed originators of the theory. - car chasm (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it may have influenced more pop music and movies than it has influenced actual academic research, but sourcing on this is pretty weak. There is so much written about Timothy Leary and his ideas and so little of it is useful for our purposes. jps (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

The chaos magic information is a later adoption by others. The page is about Leary's theory and its main adherents during Leary's lifetime. Leary, as far as I know, is not considered fringe nor is this a fringe theory but another way of looking at consciousness. Theories don't have to be proven correct to be notable, they are theories, and this one, which seems more of a map and another way of ordering and explaining consciousness, is only part of Leary's research and ideas. If the current field shows little interest in the description and ordering outlined by Leary that just leaves more room for things like chaos magic to claim it but does not imply that the theory is without value. Hence, Leary fits the category which there is presently an edit war over (I've asked the editor to stop the war, but they continue), the totally applicable category "American consciousness researchers and theorists". Randy Kryn (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

So you do admit at this point that "the current field shows little interest" at this point, no? So little interest, in fact, that chaos magic has claimed it? I'm not sure how that wouldn't constitute WP:FRINGE, this is starting to look like WP:IDHT. - car chasm (talk) 03:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

You should have no say in these topics. You admitted above that you removed the pertinent category from Leary because you see him as a 1960s drug user and you are instigating an ongoing edit war (unless you've stopped). The page is about a model (the word is included in the name). Maybe the present field has an interest, I have no idea, just taking the word of commentators here. But labeling an adequate model as fringe when Leary himself is not considered a fringe figure (i.e. his ideas have merit) would be a misuse of fringe as a descriptor. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

"In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." - car chasm (talk) 03:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with any of this, you're talking about a model. Nobody says a model has to be correct, just that its author is reputable and it has received commentary and explanation by others. A model is not a theory, it is a way of ordering and mapping. Signing off for now, so if you answer I'll catch it later. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

This is probably moot now since it appears the topic has such extremely limited acknowledgement in academic RS that notability is in question, but a "model" very much fits into the FRINGE definition of an "idea". JoelleJay (talk) 01:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

A note that this article would seriously benefit from the input of additional participants familiar with FRINGE and general WP PAGs. JoelleJay (talk) 06:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The reputation of the author really has nothing to do with whether a particular idea is WP:FRINGE or not. Our concern over the treatment of this idea has nothing to do with Leary's drug use. The evaluation is entirely based on the lack of WP:MAINSTREAM acceptance. Leary wore that as a badge of honor, so it's a little weird that this argument is happening here. Anyway, we label people based on how the reliable sources call them. As we have pointed out, Leary et al. are not referenced in reliable sources as consciousness researchers and theorists. They aren't mentioned at all. jps (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, chasm's concern about Leary was described above is that he was a 1960s drug user (and if that's all they knew about Leary before removing him from a broadly-named applicable category then there is the concern, because they quickly removed many others from various categories at the same time in a sustained edit run). I seem to have stepped into the lion's den by bringing this up here (and was quickly taken to ANI by chasm, apparently for doing so) to hopefully put more eyes on the question. Leary and his work may be outside of the mainstream (or he built a yacht and sailed right up it) but still seems to fit into the broadly-named category:American consciousness researchers and theorists (at least enough to not be dragged into ANI over an edit war when chasm ignored WP:BRD). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I mean, in the broadest sense he was a "researcher" and a "theorist" about consciousness, but typically we ask for recognition from other qualified experts before affixing a category like that to a person. I wouldn't call the Dalai Lama a "Tibetan consciousness researcher and theorist]], for example. I think the standards have to be acceptance of the research work in the relevant academic field. I understand that "consciousness studies" is not as well defined as, say, physics, but it is a recognized academic pursuit. Like, you can get hired to be a professor in such and, while I cannot know for certain, of course, I suspect Leary would have been very proud not to be included in such a group. jps (talk) 12:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

One more slight point here is that Leary was trained as a research psychologist who studied psychedelic drugs. These days, such academic research would not be called "consciousness studies". In the rough-and-tumble 60s, sure. But just because Alan Ginsburg says that you were a pioneer in the study of consciousness does not make that claim correct. I am reminded of conflicts over whether or not we would call Rupert Sheldrake a biologist or a former biologist. To be as clear as possible, we can definitely identify a point where Sheldrake stopped doing research biology and started pursuing parapsychology more-or-less full time. While he is lauded by his supporters as a pre-eminent philosopher of science, at no point have his writings been considered by experts in that field as being worthy of consideration (with possibly a few bizarre exceptions). Similarly with Leary, he proudly stopped doing research psychology and started pursuing psychedelics more-or-less full time. I think while he positioned himself as a philosopher of consciousness, there was never a point where he was recognized as such by the people who actually studied the concept in that way. I know that popular reputations diverge from that kind of analysis, but I see no alternative other than to adhere to a WP:MAINSTREAM interpretation of what a "researcher and theorist" is when it comes to such topics. jps (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for an actual discussion and not a knee-jerk reaction ignoring WP:BRD and being taken on a weird non-acid trip to ANI (where no donuts were to be found). Please see Timothy Leary bibliography for Leary's 1950s work on personality formation (arguably a key aspect of consciousness). As for being a theorist, the 1950s work also fits, as arguably does the model being discussed above on his 8-circuit ordering of personality and consciousness imprinting and Leary's work on psychedelics and consciousness which, I believe, he thought should be mainstream and, apparently at least in my limited knowledge of the field, either is at or moving towards that designation in current professional research and patient treatment. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Beyond the fringe. I searched APA PsycINFO, ProQuest Psychology database (limited search to journals), and EBSCOHost Psychology & Behavioral Sciences collection, full-text search terms were Leary and "eight circuit". Zero articles in the peer-reviewed psychology literature. (There are some unrelated retrievals, e.g. Eight Circuit Court of Appeals, and some irrelevant ones, e.g. a book review in the Fortean Times.) Eight circuit is so far beyond the fringe that nobody even bothers to mention it in passing. However the obvious conclusion is insufficient for Wikipedia purposes, it would be useful to find a reliable source which says so. -- M.boli (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Are there any reliable secondary sources that discuss this to a degree that would ring the WP:N bell? -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: I found a Södertörn University paper that reviews the 8-circuit model, but that is just a thesis (not great). It also cites Swedish Wikipedia, so I'm not too enthusiastic about its reliability.

There's also an article in Антропологические измерения философских исследований, but gosh if I know how reliable that would be.

After even more digging, I did find some reviews of Robert Anton Wilson's books which purportedly explain the eight-circuit model:

• Dibbell, Julian (7 December 1993). "Terminal identities". Village Voice. Vol. 38, no. 49. p. 28. EBSCOhost 9404060832. (which I don't have access to)
• Hoffman, Eric (July 2021). "The Starseed Signals". Fortean Times. No. 407. London: Diamond Publishing. p. 59. ProQuest 2542755894. Retrieved 29 May 2023 – via ProQuest. (the aforementioned book review)
• Davis, Erik (18 November 2015). High Weirdness: Visionary Experience in the Seventies Counterculture (PhD). Ann Arbor, TX: Rice University. ISBN 978-0-355-37478-0. ProQuest 1991053558. Retrieved 29 May 2023.

It's that third source I feel is the most in-depth on the topic. I don't have time to analyze it thoroughly, but it may be able to resolve some of what's in dispute here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that if the subject is entirely, or almost entirely sourced to non-RS sources, it may not pass our guidelines for inclusion. Right now the article is clearly PROFRINGE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed that the article as written right now is atrocious. However, I found some sources of varying quality (some are surely WP:RS) that I put on the talkpage out of which, perhaps, a new article might be written. jps (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

category:American consciousness researchers and theorists

category:American consciousness researchers and theorists

Whew boy!

I just went through this category and removed a bunch of people. Found some rump areas of Integral theory, transpersonal psychology, process philosophy, and process oriented psychology that likely need weeding or demolishing, but I'm pretty spent for the time being. You might see a bunch of new AfDs as well.

jps (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

ugh, upon further inspection that category is also full of people who are philosophers but don't study consciousness. There's one or more vandals who apparently think it's funny to mass over-categorize philosopher pages with a bunch of ridiculous extraneous categories, looks like "consciousness researchers and theorists" was one of their preferred categories to spam. - car chasm (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Just finished spot-checking and removed a few more, as of this comment it looks like everyone of the people in there fits in the category as a WP:MAINSTREAM philosopher, psychologist, or neuroscientist who is a consciousness researcher. - car chasm (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Category:Consciousness researchers and theorists and the other subcategories have now been purged as well. - car chasm (talk) 00:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I think this is excellent work. But this appears to be one of those many situations where different people use a technical word to mean different things. So since one of the things our article says about Timothy Leary (as far as I know accurately and centrally to his notability) is that his work was based on "optimism that psychedelics could help people discover a higher level of consciousness", is there a different category for people who use "consciousness" to refer to altered states of mind and who study that? Whether or not we classify this work as fringe, it obviously exists and has notable practitioners. We do have Category:Psychedelic drug researchers but there are other approaches than drugs to this topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

The other common term I've heard for people like Leary is "psychonaut" which more generally refers to anyone who explores altered states of consciousness. We have a page on Psychonautics which is categorized under Category:Parapsychology, maybe we could have Category:Psychonautics researchers as a subcategory of Category:Parapsychologists and distinguish the two from each other in the category description? There is also Category:Psychonauts, which is used for a video game series with the same name, that could be renamed if people think "Psychonaut" is better than "Psychonautics researcher" for people like Leary. I tend to prefer "researcher" though, because "Psychonaut" by itself may also include people who do so recreationally. - car chasm (talk) 05:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Carchasm: Category:Psychonautics researchers has been created. Feel free to populate this category as you see fit. Also take a look at the parent categories for this one. Add more if needed or change it. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Mind Machine

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

From a roundabout trip through the links, straight to AfD? fiveby(zero) 20:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Tagged as fringe, but I suspect these have generated enough outside interest to pass WP:N. They don't seem to work though and anything implying they might be usable for therapeutic purposes should probably be purged. - car chasm (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that link, all i was seeing for real sources was old spam, Bruce Conforth and Thomas Budzynski hawking his own line of products. fiveby(zero) 21:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Celia Green

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

Found in my travels through Category:Parapsychologists, appears to have been a vanity page. Unfortunately, the personal website linked at the bottom told a very different story, which made me look closer at the sources and claims on the page and revealed a number of citations to unpublished theses that may or may not actually exist, along with essentially no secondary citations. The institute she's a director of appears to be an independent research group rather than anything formally affiliated with Oxford. To AfD? - car chasm (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Afd. I'm not seeing coverage of her in independent sources and therefore fails GNG. She does not fufill the criteria for ANYBIO. And I don't see any indication that she passes the professor test ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Nominated for Afd - car chasm (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Buck breaking

Oh dear. The thing's entirely a puff piece on the pseudohistorical concept, and uncritically parrots fringe sources like the largely untrustworthy homophobic "documentary" Buck Breaking without a second thought. It's largely written by one person and seems to have slipped under the radar. Good Morning Captain (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

On the contrary, the article points out several times that it is historically dubious. MrOllie (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

The only source in the article to call it dubious is about 4chan threads on the Ukrainian war [27], which is so far removed from the topic that I don't really think it's useful. That said, I do share the OP's skepticism surrounding the veracity of buck breaking, as I can't find any scholarly sources specifically about the history of slavery discussing the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I can find only a handful of sources on scholar using the term prior to 2019 [28]. That said, the topic of "Sexual assault/rape of male slaves in the United States" has plenty of sources. [29] [30]. Maybe moving the article to a different title that focus on the sexual assault/rape of male slaves, rather than specifically the term "buck breaking" would be better? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Admittedly, "puff piece" is something of an exaggeration, but my point still stands that it uncritically parrots fringe sources. Good Morning Captain (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

This includes, by the way, the use of weasel words in a transparent attempt to build an illusion of distance from claims it parrots. Good Morning Captain (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that the sources here are too far removed from the scholarship of slavery to really be reliable or usable. I would support readirecting the article to a new one about the sexual assault of male slaves in the US.. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I've cut down the article to only use reliable sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it's much better now. Well done! Good Morning Captain (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

David Charles Grusch

• David Charles Grusch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

BLP created during the recent news cycle and based on tabloid coverage. Alleged whistleblower claims US hiding alien spacecraft and dead pilots. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I want to believe! But seriously, lots of redflags: 1) Grusch has only secondhand info, nothing firsthand. When asked to provide evidence, he's unable to because it's a matter of national security 2) Ross Coulthart seems to be on a personal jeremiad to promote Grusch. Not sure why. 3) Wag the dog. Grusch's story conveniently gets Trump's looming new indictment out of the news cycle, and it's been said that Trump has insders at the Pentagon rooting for him. Is Grusch's story an attempt to help Trump? 4) NYT, WaPo, and Politico all refused to carry the story. Why? 5) There's a coordinated trickle of extraordinary claims coming out of this story by a news outlet known as "News Nation". Yeah, nobody has ever heard of them before. 6) The latest claim is that Grusch is saying that the entire "conspiracy" originated from a downed UAP sphere in Italy that was captured around 1943 and brought back to the US, representing one of the first retrievals. Of course, this is somehow linked to Nazi UFOs. It is being claimed that this so-called original 1943 UFO/UAP retrieval can be traced back to historical US documents with a paper trail. Mussolini is invovled somehow. Not sure just yet, but this seems to be the basis of the UFO "cold war" according to Grusch, with all countries trying to reverse engineer the same or similar material to get an advantage 7) Grusch says the purported aliens are unfriendly. More to come, as Coulthart plans on trickling 11 hours of interview coverage out through News Nation over the next month. Is it real, or is it Memorex? Viriditas (talk) 10:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The tabloid media knee jerk seems to be a variation of Boyd Bushman. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

This is not a proper Wikipedia biography article. It is a COATRACK to hang a whistleblower event on, or to hang a purported existence of extraterrestrial life on. And it needs to be tagged ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Not convinced it is a coatrack, but if it doesn’t get any traction after next week (Coulthart begins releasing the interview videos on Sunday, and there’s a rumor going around that the NYT will cover this story then) then you can probably redirect or merge this into a larger topic (UFO conspiracy theories?). I’ve noticed there’s some weird stuff going on. Coulthart seems to be at odds with Kean and Blumenthal on some claims, while nobody has been able to adequately explain how and why "News Nation" popped into existence overnight with what appears to be a huge budget. Given that the entirety of the claims amount to a major criticism of the US government (and Coulthart is explicitly calling for arrests and prison time), I can’t help but notice that News Nation is run out of Texas, and their affiliates seem to be pretty conservative. It’s interesting how this story serves the interests of the right in the run up to a Trump indictment and an upcoming election. I think there’s more going on here than meets the eye and might have less to do with UFOs in the end. If they can’t produce the spheres, discs, and dead alien bodies, then it’s the same old song and dance. Viriditas (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

NewsNation with the interview has been around a long time and is based in Chicago. While i'd imagine anti-government creates a susceptibility to conspiratorial thinking and maybe a necessary ingredient for UFOlogy, there's some people everywhere. fiveby(zero) 23:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for my poor English skills. NN came out of nowhere pushing this story right before a Trump indictment regarding his handling of classified documents. NN is owned by Nexstar and is based in Texas. Their chairman-CEO Perry Sook has spoken publicly about leaning towards the center right in their coverage. It’s really convenient that NN is helping to redirect the narrative from one of Trump and classified documents to that of the federal government handling classified documents. I have trouble seeing this as a coincidence due to the timing. During the flurry of reporting in the aftermath of the J6 event and later investigations, there was some chatter in various articles about loyalists Trump had left behind in various departments, perhaps even the DOD. The idea was that even though Trump was out of office, he could still manipulate certain elements of it either through these deep loyalists or through influence alone. To me, this is what this entire incident looks like. The original article was published in The Debrief, a source with close ties to the defense community. The timing is literally within a week of an imminent federal indictment. Viriditas (talk) 23:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Hanlon's razor. Don't attribute to intelligent malice which can reasonably be attributed to bumbling journalistic incompetence. I don't see the Jack Smith investigation being buried by UFOs in any mainstream sources. As for right-wing echo chambers, well, they weren't ever going to pay attention beyond screaming witch hunt anyway. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. jps (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you’re right, in that it’s unlikely to make a difference, but I do monitor the right wing in the US very closely, and this idea that the best way to deflect from Trump’s indictment is by condemning the federal government as a whole, is one of the primary tactics in their repertoire. As if right on cue, Steve Bannon and Mike Davis of the Federalist Society were discussing just this yesterday (with no reference to this particular topic). When I watched the 45 minute Need to Know background teaser by Coulthart explaining this subject a few days ago, he repeatedly veered off into this same kind of Bannon/Davis territory, taking wider pot shots at the federal government as a whole, and calling for arrests and prison time. This is exactly what the extreme elements of the GOP are doing in regards to their attacks on the government, who they claim are politicizing the subject and engaging in a witch-hunt against Trump and calling for investigations into the investigators. I apologize if you don’t see the parallel, but I see it as more than a coincidence. Both Coulthart and the GOP are trying to undermine the legitimacy of the US government by claiming we are being lied to by our leaders. It’s not a coincidence that right wing media tends to favor these stories and amplifies their distribution. To me, the chances of this being a psyop (public, private, or both) rather than official disclosure are high. Viriditas (talk) 04:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I do see the parallel(s) as you have laid the them out. I think this is interesting. It's just for myself, I am being cautious. And I am sure you are as well. Afterall, it is true that while in office, Trump was the master of derailing one news item after another that put him in a bad light. In fact, if I remember correctly, Bannon intentionally employed this strategy in the very early period of the Trump administration, to do behind the scenes changes in rules or regulations. And then, of course, Trump maintained this strategy, after Bannon left, for again, any news story that cast him in a bad light. This means that media outlets were like fish who couldn't resist the bait - and overall they didn't even try. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

In all honesty, I think this is officially a non-story now. John Greenewalde of The Black Vault (see the 38 minute mark or so) and Marina Koren of The Atlantic have all but killed this story with their latest analysis. I really want to know what Ross Coulthart is up to, but I suppose I will have to keep digging. Viriditas (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

A surprising number of sources opted to repeat the claims at face value without comment — which made it impossible to write an NPOV article, but within a couple of days the first analysis and critique has appeared, and it seems likely there will be more to follow. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, sources repeated the claims at face value, like an echo chamber. But the added analysis and critique will save the day. Otherwise this article is one more nothing burger about UFOs and government conspiracies. I think the journalists who wrote this story in the first place are most at fault. They used specious reasoning as rationales for going around and trying to get this published. And, while I'm at it, the power of the internet is surprising. The main stream press rightly turned this story down. But the story is making the rounds and becoming well-known via non-mainstream spaces.---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

{{this}} LuckyLouie has been such a good curator of our UFO-content that his judgement is the one to trust here. In 2017, the same nonsense happened (with the same authors, no less!) in the New York Times. We've come a long way, baby, but, also, the more things change, the more they stay the same. WP:SENSATION really ought to be expanded into a full policy and the UFO nonsense is perhaps the best exemplar of why and when we should basically ignore even erstwhile "WP:HQRS" This is a fight that we've been having a lot more recently and it is likely to only get worse until we truly nail down how to handle this sort of thing when it comes fast and furious from the media. jps (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The US House of Representatives is looking into it: "'There will be oversight of that,' Comer [Republican chair of the oversight committee] told NewsNation. 'We plan on having a hearing.'"[31] Maximum level of sarcasm on So this can't possibly be some political ploy to help Trump. And soon we will know the (capital "T") Truth, the whole (capital "T") Truth, and nothing but the (capital "T") truth. Maximum level of sarcasm off -- Random person no 362478479

I agree that Hanlon's razor applies here, this is almost definitely just normal general wackiness which happens all the time, than any attempt to distract from Trump's indictment. I'd note that it's not even clear that Trump or his supporters want to distract from the indictment even given the info that has been released. It's really unclear that this will actually harm Trump at this stage especially where his primary goal is winnings the primaries, perhaps the trial eventually will and perhaps it will be harmful in the general election, but that's irrelevant now. BTW this somehow seems particularly topical. I think it was Trevor Noah who made the joke that the Trump presidency proves that the US government does not have evidence of ETs (or if they do, they kept it from Trump*) since it's hard to imagine he he wouldn't have told the world about the "little green aliens" by now. *I may be crossing the BLP line here since this wasn't part of the joke although frankly given the other stuff said in this subthread I'm not sure it matters. But probably burying the images/photos in a lot of pages of dry text would be enough to suppress the juicy details from Trump. Nil Einne (talk) 09:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

You're probably right that the original publication was probably no political ploy, but I think some people are trying or will try to use it for political purposes. Whether that's to distract from the Trump indictment or just to have a general "Biden is hiding things" bash will be seen. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The incident is being lauded primarily by right-wing sources and Republican politicians. Greenewald, who is admittedly a center-right conservative, also observed how odd it was that it was given one of the most prominent spots on Drudge, a conservative news aggregator. The Debrief published it three days before the federal indictment was announced. Both Tim Burchett and James Comer, unabashed Trump supporters and believers in the stolen election conspiracy theory, are currently pushing this UFO conspiracy and calling for an investigation. As many expert analysts in the news have noted in the last 48 hours, the primary GOP tactic being used to defend Trump right now, is to deflect discussion of Trump's indictment over the misuse of classified documents to discussion of the misuse of classified documents by other people in the government, with variations on whataboutism. The story of David Charles Grusch conveniently serves this narrative, takes eyeballs away from Trump's indictment in the conservative mediasphere, and argues indirectly that Trump's indictment doesn't matter because the government is lying about aliens. Viriditas (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

As said above: "Grusch has only secondhand info, nothing firsthand. When asked to provide evidence, he's unable to because it's a matter of national security..." This has been going for decades. Nothing notable about the "whistleblower" of the month appearing somewhere to say that he or she were told by government employees / officials having seen alien technology, alien bodies, alien hybrids, alien invasion plans, and so forth. This is too cliche to be notable. Paul H. (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

"Every decade there's been individuals who've said the United States has such pieces of unidentified flying objects that are from outer space," Rep. Turner of Ohio said when asked on Fox News about Grusch's claims. "There's no evidence of this and certainly it would be quite a conspiracy for this to be maintained, especially at this level." [32] - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a familiar story with different players. The first thing that came to mind when reading the Wikipedia article was the Roswell incident. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

This bio shouldn't exist -- there's literally no reliable sources on this person from prior to this week. Feoffer (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Feoffer, this is a good point. The topic is actually about the so-called whistleblower complaint or, likewise, a legal filing by Grusch. I prefer the latter so as to take the bloating out of all this. This is somewhat discussed on the talk page of the article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the talk page about turning it into an article about the event. Talk:David_Charles_Grusch#notability_question -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

If anywhere, it probably belongs at UFO conspiracy theories § Disclosure, —PaleoNeonate – 23:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what's going on, but there is a recent push to remove sourced and attributed criticism from the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie:. I have been arguing with another editor that this is a reliable source per subject matter expert — if you wish to chime in about the matter. It is on the talk page here. Anyone else is welcome to give their input. The discussion doesn't take long to read. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I have explained to them on the Talk page why I think - in this case - attributed opinions by Michael Shermer qualify as a reliable expert source and are WP:DUE. But I won't belabor it, I find WP:COAL works best in the long run. Especially since this story seems to be quickly unraveling. There may be some true believers who refuse to give up their dream of saying "sEe I tolD yoU aLienS" but I think it'll fall apart within the next week or so, and the article will eventually have to be reframed and rewritten as Something Something (conspiracy theory). - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

It's crumbling at the edges now. UFO Whistleblower: U.S. Has Secret Treaty with Murderous Space Monsters - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I filed a RPPI. Viriditas (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I was only sorta following this story of Grusch - Thriley posted on Wikiproject skepticism. I just noticed last night that Mick West has been doing a lot to explain what is going on with this Grusch. OMG They are all linked together, I have written multiple Wikipedia pages over the years and more and more the rolodex of names is about a dozen. Sgerbic (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

It's all the usual UFO grifters. The Grusch article is getting a lot of editors excited at the moment, so there is some misguided neutrality being applied to his fringe extraordinary claims, but it will all settle in a bit as more mainstream reportage develops. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this isn't our first rodeo for sure. A frenzy then it settles down. The comments about this being used to hide Trump's troubles is just YAWN. People calm down, it's possible for their to be several wild stories circulating at the same time. Trying to make these unrelated pieces fit is just an example of how conspiracy theories form. Besides no one managed to fit the death of the UniBomber onto the wall with bits of string connecting it all together. Until then, it's just another freak out show by the UFO/UAP community. Just make sure that people find the best information possible when they come to Wikipedia to learn.Sgerbic (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Pull up a chair and a bowl of popcorn: Story of Dramatic New "UFO Whistleblower" Begins to Crumble. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if anything like this has been proposed before, but maybe it would be good to have a general rule that articles on fringe related events should not be created for x days after first publication of news about it. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Per that article, UFO disclosure has been right around the corner for seventy years now. This is getting ridiculous. It’s been suggested up above to redirect the article to UFO conspiracy theories, but wouldn’t it help to corral all of this content into UFO disclosure conspiracy theories instead, since, as others have noted here, it’s the same players and ideas with fresh faces and new clothes? Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I love working on UFO pages but to see that this world has collided with my world of psychic mediums just feels unreal to me. I'd pop some popcorn Louie but I'm full up on it right now. With everything else going on in the world, it's just too much! Sgerbic (talk) 03:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

It is interesting to keep track of how UFO fringe theories and claims evolve. The old familiar euphemism treadmill is still at work, e.g. the term "alien" has been replaced by "non-human". Unfortunately this has caused much squabbling on the Talk page with people arguing that we must not exclude the possibility of energy beings, multidimensional time travelers, etc. What is new is the Trump-like mob-speak, e.g. "When you recover something that's either landed or crashed, sometimes you encounter dead pilots" — that is cleverly noncommittal but infers that dead aliens have indeed been recovered. Fascinating. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Dead aliens or other dead non-humans. Dead angels or dead orcs, for instance. But if they die not only from crashing but also from landing, there is something seriously wrong with their technology. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

A surprising amount of bickering at the article and some not too smart choices IMO. For example the title is now David Grusch UAP Disclosure. "Disclosure" is of course the UFOlogy term for supposed revelations about aliens. 20:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think you misread me, LuckyLouie. I wasn’t seriously proposing interdimensional visitors, intraterrestrials from the hollow earth, or time travelers, but trying to narrow the scope of the article so that it would focus only on what we know, not on what other people think we know. From listening to all the interviews, I’m getting the sense that someone is having a laugh. "Non-human" could conceivably mean bacteria, and "craft" could as well as mean meteorites. Viriditas (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Mention (and a quote) of David Grusch has been added to Interdimensional hypothesis. Schazjmd (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The interdimensional link of course being a justification for the lack of evidence to corroborate personal beliefs and experiences against, the apparent violations of the laws of physics to allow implausible contact, and of course a modern variant in the superstitious beliefs in demons/spirits... —PaleoNeonate – 23:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Or with their parking skills. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I have noted my concerns over the Shermer paragraph over at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#David_Grusch_UFO_whistleblower_claims - I actually agree with Shermer here, but I don't think a blog-level claim in a questionable publication is enough to say so on Wikipedia, so I asked for more eyes on the question in the proper place - David Gerard (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Joe Rogan

New discussion in talk about a now-reverted edit I made to the page of Joe Rogan. I also think that The Joe Rogan Experience page could benefit from better reflecting article content in the lead. ScienceFlyer (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

False memory syndrome

• False memory syndrome (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

According to the newest Talk page contribution, there is significant resistance among some wikipedians to bringing this article in line with contemporary scientific and therapeutic consensus re: trauma induced dissociative amnesia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

[33] Article was brought in line with "something", alright. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the article's POV was flipped while keeping many citations intact.

The user's first post on that talk page is the same one you quote above, so I assume significant resistance must refer to previous arguments the user made on another talk page here and here (which I know you've seen) in favour of accurate recovery of repressed memories. I remember finding issues with the sources she brought up back then and typing up a pretty long draft reply, but getting bored and binning it. DFlhb (talk) 08:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

BLPN discussion

There is currently a discussion at BLPN that might be of interest. It pertains to Michael Shermer's comments regarding the David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims. The discussion is taking place here. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 10:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

What is BLPN? —— Shakescene (talk) 10:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Biography of living persons noticeboard -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Denialism

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

Discussion about deleting GMO. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Foundation for Intentional Community

I'm honestly not sure if this belongs here or not, as I can't really make head or tails of the article as it currently stands, but it's written from a extremely in group view. It was recently rewritten by someone with a close connection to the group, who understands little of how Wikipedia is meant to work. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I see a venture promoting different, cooperative ways of life. Have we gone so far down the wrong rabbit hole that this sort of thing is seen as "fringe"? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

As I said I wasn't sure if this should be here, it's the way that it's written make it seem like fringe (as the language used is very much like fringe pov pushers). I'd happily except it's just badly written. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

If it's still necessary, I recommend WP:COIN instead. —PaleoNeonate – 11:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Systems

Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems seems to be an attempt to smoosh together everything that uses the word "system" as one related field of study. Whether this is the original work of wikipedians, or an attempt by... management theorists (?) to form some grand unified theory of everything, it doesn't seem like something that has broad academic support among every discipline, and so the extent to which its ideas have been spread all over the project is concerning, I'm constantly finding WP:COATRACKs linking back to Ludwig von Bertalanffy or Niklas Luhmann or Humberto Maturana far in excess of what one might expect of these moderately notable people. I'm also pretty sure the "systems theory" is often also a word used by various WP:FRINGE groups such as Integral theory, and the related term cybernetics is a favorite of Ray Kurzweil - but I'm not sure how much is these particular groups or other unrelated ones. Many of them also cite the pages on Principia Cybernetica, which I brought to this noticeboard before.

Most of the pages that have to do with this topic are full of WP:OR and uncited attempts to relate it to various fields of study, which I've been removing wherever I find it. But I wonder if more needs to be done - perhaps the wikiproject itself could be deleted? - car chasm (talk) 01:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I have nominated the project for deletion here - car chasm (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Spanish Empire#Area

The theory in question is that the Spanish Empire reached a peak area of ca 24 M km² 1580 and 1640/68, during the Iberian Union as purported in the thesis at p 109 and presented in the map at 138. During the Iberian Union, Portugal was effectively a vassal of Spain subsumed into the Empire. This is not a point of contention. 24 M is based on the Treaty of Tordesillas and the assertion that Spain and Portugal owned all of South America, which is quite different from what they controlled at the time.

This journal article by Taagepera is widely cited and gives 13.7 M km² (5.3 Mil sq mi) as the peak area around 1780 and 7.1 M km² for the Iberian Union (1640). Encyclopædia Britannica here, states: At its height, in the late 1700s, the Spanish empire comprised 5.3 million square miles ... Etemad's Possessing the World: Taking the Measurements of Colonisation from the 18th to the 20th Century, p. 135 gives a figure of 12.3 million km² for Spain's colonial possessions (i.e. excluding Spain itself) in the year 1760. The Oxford World History of Empire, p. 93 gives a figure of 7.1 in 1640 (from Taagepera) and 12.3 in 1760 (from Etemad). This 1948 source says that the Spanish Empire broke all records about 1763, with an area of approximately 5,400,000 square miles. This map (File:Philip II's realms in 1598.png) shows the areas that were settled and controlled during the Iberian Union and would be consistent with a figure of 7.1 M. During the subject discussion, additional sources citing 2.4 M have not been provided.

The question is whether the 2.4 M figure should be considered a fringe theory. A secondary consideration is whether the 2.4 M figure should be cited in the infobox (ie that it has a consensus in sources). Cinderella157 (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I will assume there are many sources in Spanish and Portuguese that support 24 M which would make it hard to describe as fringe. I'm no expert, but I thought Tordisillas (1494 based its presumption of Spain 'owning' most of South America on the 1493 bull Inter Caetera, which it did not do. If correct then wouldn't it be more accurate to point out that Spain's assumptions about 'ownership are wrong. If the bull is IMO correctly interpreted then there is nothing to support the claim of 'owning' most of South America. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

"This is not a point of contention. 24 M is based on the Treaty of Tordesillas and the assertion that Spain and Portugal owned all of South America, which is quite different from what they controlled at the time." This assumption is false. The author does not use the Treaty of Tordesillas as the basis for his figure of 24 million km2. The author writes, and I quote: "From a punctual and synchronic perspective, the Empire of the Catholic or Hispanic Monarchy between 1580 and 1640-68 , with the incorporation of Portugal and its overseas territories, reached around 24 million km² of effective formal sovereignty in all continents, without counting other territories of nominal or conceptual formal sovereignty." Page 109. The 24 million km2 are further supported by a representative map on page 138. On the other hand, to assume that Spain did not control South America would be the same as saying that the UK did not control all of India, Egypt, Canada, Sudan or South Africa because they did not have a soldier in every town. The British territorial calculations include all the territories mentioned even though they were not under the control of the British army in a total and effective way. The same could be said of South America, although it was under full Spanish-Portuguese control, since the Christian missions were already educating the local populations in Spanish and the Christian religion, and the royal armies had already co-opted the indigenous populations by integrating the former reigning empires into the Hispanic imperial organisation. We should first determine what is meant by effectively controlled territory. If it is exclusively at the level of military presence, we could say that today the United States is the largest empire in history, given that it is in charge of the defence of half the planet with its vassal states. On the other hand, if we make an exhaustive comparison between what is considered effectively controlled or uncontrolled territory between British Egypt or British India and the Spanish empire, we can observe that on a cultural, military, economic, religious and practically all spheres, the Spanish-Portuguese empire effectively controlled the territory much more extensively than the British. When even Egypt was not considered part of the British territory because 1° Egypt was a vassal state of the Ottoman Sultan. 2° the Egyptian population was never considered British. The same goes for India or Sudan since they were always vassal territories but never formally British territory nor their citizens British. This is the great difference with the Spanish Empire that considered the natives of Peru, Colombia or Mexico as full Spanish citizens. This is just an example for you to see the what effective control means. In spite of this, you persist in taking half of the territory effectively controlled by the Spanish-Portuguese empire out of the Spanish-Portuguese empire without a valid argument. There is a clear difference between the traditionally European colonial empires and the Spanish-Portuguese one and that is that while the European colonial empires such as the English or Dutch did not mix with the local populations and relied heavily on military deterrent force as well as terror either by controlling food production or brute force, the Spanish-Portuguese empires based their strategy on intermarriage and co-optation of the local populations which made it more durable as well as allowing them to control a much larger territory in a much larger territory in a much shorter period of time, the Spanish-Portuguese empires based their strategy on miscegenation and co-optation of the local populations which made it more durable as well as allowing them to control a much larger territory in a much broader sphere of domination than simply military. Having expressed this and having made this comparison with the British Empire, which includes vassal territories, I ask myself: Did the Spanish Empire control 24 million km2 ? Yes, it did. JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 08:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

This is the wrong noticeboard for this dispute, but come on. The Spanish Empire at the time was only interested in the coastal regions. They had never even been to the vast majority of the territory of South America. How could the Spanish Empire control the interior of the continent if the people living there had never even heard of them? Tercer (talk) Tercer (talk) 08:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm an involved party here, as is JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa above. With that said, this is obviously a fringe view. No serious scholar on the topic of the territorial extents of historical polities attributes effective control of 24 million km² to the Spanish Empire during the time of the Iberian Union, and no serious scholar on the topic of the territorial extents of historical polities uses any other measure than land area under effective control. TompaDompa (talk) 11:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi TompaDompa. Yes they do: Page 109 + page 138. Please stop please stop delegitimizing and lying about my reference. This is not a battle of ego. We are trying to get closer to the truth. JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 11:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, Iberofonía y Paniberismo is not a source on territorial extents of historical polities. One doesn't have to conduct a particularly extensive search for sources to find that area estimate for various historical polities are a dime a dozen in sources that are written by laypeople (in the sense that they aren't scholars on the topic at hand, even if they may be scholars in some other discipline), but this is really no different from any other academic discipline where you can find loads of sources from laypeople that express viewpoints that are way outside of the academic mainstream. TompaDompa (talk) 11:21, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Delegitimising my reference Page 109 + page 138 is a very pitiful recourse on your part. If you have no sources to disprove mine, withdraw. Thank you. JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 11:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm saying that "your" source is not a source on territorial extents of historical polities, which is true. I'm also saying that this source by Taagepera (mentioned by Cinderella157 above) which says that the area in 1640 was 7.1 million km² (and that the area in 1780 was 13.7 million km² and that the Spanish Empire never reached a greater extent than 13.7 million km²) is a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities, which is also true. This all just comes across as you not liking the lower figures. TompaDompa (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi TompaDompa this all comes across as you not liking the higher figures of my reference. Page 109 and page 138 that show with evidence that 24 M km2 was the Spanish Empire extent. Please withdraw. JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The source he is using marks this area as "Espacios de jurisdición, soberanía, protectorado o posesión sustantiva o formal hispánicos". Which is perfectly correct, this area was indeed formally under Spanish possession. While I think it's ridiculous say that this is the area of the Spanish Empire, this is not a fringe theory, it's just a sterile argument about semantics. To be a fringe theory you need to have a following of crackpots denying reality. There is no question about reality here, the only thing that is being debated is an inconsequential definition. Tercer (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

In this context, using that definition of area is way outside of the academic mainstream. In that sense, it is indeed fringe, though perhaps one might prefer calling it by some other term such as just plain WP:UNDUE. TompaDompa (talk) 13:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

here, here Page 24, here, here, [34] and here After all the given references I refer to the original reference Page 109 + page 138 which is not a fringe theory, it is therefore the territorial extension that should be applied to the Spanish empire in its maximum extension. JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Terner. They got inside and founded several cities from the very beginning please check, another, another, another, another, another, another, just select any city in South America in google maps and check the history and you will see that most were made by spaniards so your argument is a fallacious one. JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 11:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Please don't be disingenuous. With the exception of Manaus, all these cities are in the dark red area of this map, which excludes the vast majority of South America. You know very well that this is what I was talking about. And I'm very confused about why you would link Manaus, since it was founded by the Portuguese long after the Iberian Union was over. Tercer (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Tercer, Manaus was founded where the missionaries carmelitas were settled in 1659 which proves that the Spanish presence and control of the Amazon was real, which is what we are discussing here. Please also check the map. Beyond this example I give you the following ones: here, here, references of jesuit, carmelitas, and dominicos under the Spanish empire. More here. More Page 24. Here also. 194.38.172.194 (talk) 09:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The point is that Manaus was founded long after the Iberian Union was over. It can't be used to argue that during the time of the Iberian Union the Spanish Empire had a presence in the interior. Tercer (talk) 09:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Tercer. First Manaus was a Spanish Carmelita’s settlement during the Iberian Union. Please check the reference. furthermore, please check all the other given references and replies. JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 10:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

here, here Page 24, here, here, [35] and herehere, JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 10:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The initial settlers were Portuguese, not Spanish, and the Iberian Union ended in 1640. Tercer (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi the initial settler were part of the spanish empire and Portugal was in the Iberian Union until 1668. Furthermore the news did not arrive to america after 2 years. JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 11:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Extra references of settlements Please give me just one british settlement in Northwest Canada or West Sudan of the british empire although these territories are counted as British empire territories... JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Now you're just denying reality. 1668 is merely the date when Spain recognized Portugal's independence. And I couldn't care less about the British Empire, it's not being discussed here. Tercer (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Tercer. You are denying the reality. When there is a war at the end there is a treaty and the treaty determines the terms between the two parties. The treaty was signed on 1668. Portugal was part of the Iberian Union until 1668. Could you please stop with the historical revisionism. Thanks JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 13:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Please check where it says Portugal. Spanish and Portuguese are brothers of the same family and until 1668 they were the same Empire. JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Just in case you can't find it "Neighbouring Portugal acquired independence in 1668" JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you need to vandalize Iberian Union then, as it repeatedly puts the date of the end of the union as 1640. Tercer (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Tercer. Yes someone should change the dates as they happened. Please check page 405 and 406 JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Another one JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 11:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Another reference for you "1659 – Chegada dos missionários carmelitas no local onde se iria construir a cidade de Manaus." JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

another reference Page 307 JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

IMO this is the wrong noticeboard for this. What seems to be going on is not a fringe theory, it's a semantic dispute.

Personally, I wouldn't use the word "owned": if I had to refer to the larger area, I'd say it's territory claimed by the Spanish Empire, and the smaller area is territory controlled by the Spanish Empire. Which one is mainly referred to should be determined by the sources. Loki (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I think (but ping JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa just in case) that the whole claimed vs. controlled distinction is pretty uncontroversial. TompaDompa (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello Loki,

The territory referred to in the reference provided is owned territory since the reference indicates "formal effective sovereignty". Page 109 JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 07:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment WP:FRINGE states: In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. From fringe theory (linked therein): A fringe theory is an idea or a viewpoint which differs from the accepted scholarship of the time within its field. The peak figure of 13.7 M km² appears to have widespread acceptance, as evidenced by some of the sources specifically cited herein. The figure of 24 M km² has only been attributed to a single source - a doctoral thesis. In the subject discussion (Talk:Spanish Empire#Area) I ask for further sources that would evidence this higher figure has a degree of acceptance within the field but so far, only the thesis has been provided - both there and here. Given the P&G, I bought this question here because the circumstances do appear to fit the definition and scope of this noticeboard. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Cinderella157 same reply as previously to Tercer please check Pedro Teixeira expedition. Please check, please check page 24 the missions, please check this here

This evidence the presence of spaniards. This is better proven than the British presence in western Sudan. 194.38.172.194 (talk) 09:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Cinderella this is more than enough to prove it https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pa%C3%ADs_de_los_Maynas, also this also here JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 09:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

After all the given references I refer to the original reference Page 109 + page 138 which is not a fringe theory, it is therefore the territorial extension that should be applied to the Spanish empire in its maximum extension. JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 10:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

This is not about editors proving a figure of 24 M and adding sources (as above) to support the arguments being made by editors - which is what sources and links added by proponents are doing. It is about sources which explicitly refer to and endorse the 24 M figure as a prevailing view and accepted scholarship in the field. As Slatersteven would indicate below, it is about the consensus of what good quality sources actually say the figure is. It is not about how editors here might rationalise a particular figure as being better in their opinion. So far, the only source specifically endorsing the 24 M figure is the thesis - as far as I can see. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Cinderella the same can be said about the other figures since none of them match the previous one. Are they all Fringe theories? The latest research, which is the one I have provided, indicates 24 M km2. JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, cut it out. If you think Iberofonía y Paniberismo represents "the latest research" on the subject, you're either being disingenuous or you have no idea what you are talking about. TompaDompa (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello TompaDompa, thank you for your message. Unfortunately your comment is an opinion without academic backing. Have a nice day. JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I think people need to read wp:or and wp:otherstuff. We go by what the bulk of RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi in this case there is an original research here JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

That is not what it means, but as I do not read Spanish I shall ask a simple question. Can you provide a translation of the line about the Spanish empire's total land area? Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Slatersteven, Thanks for your question. Page 109 "Desde una perspectiva puntual y sincrónica, el Imperio de la Monarquía Católica o Hispánica entre 1580 y 1640-68, con la incorporación de Portugal y sus territorios ultramarinos, alcanzaría en torno a los 24 millones de km² de soberanía formal efectiva en todos los continentes, sin contar con otros territorios de soberanía formal nominal o conceptual." "From a punctual and synchronic perspective, the Empire of the Catholic or Hispanic Monarchy between 1580 and 1640-68, with the incorporation of Portugal and its overseas territories, would reach around 24 million km² of effective formal sovereignty in all continents, without counting other territories of nominal or conceptual formal sovereignty." JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Why the two dates, surely this should be about the empire at its greatest extent (1668)? Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Slatersteven. It represents the extension during the Spanish Empire when the Portuguese were part of it. Until the treaty of Lisbon. JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Folks, this is a noticeboard. It is for notices. When an article is linked on this noticeboard, it means that people frequenting this noticeboard should go to the Talk page of the article and discuss there. Not that the entire discussion from that talk page should move here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

A good point, so is this a fringe theory, does it accord with standard scholarship? Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

This is not a Fringe theory as already discussed. JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

From experience, this will trigger a new discussion here about whether it really isn't. To avoid this:

• If it is not a fringe theory, you should continue the discussion at Talk:Spanish Empire.
• If it is a fringe theory, you should continue the discussion at Talk:Spanish Empire. People from the noticeboard can join you there.
• If it is still an open question whether it is a fringe theory, you should continue the discussion at Talk:Spanish Empire. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Pressure point

• Pressure point (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Seems to be in a bad state. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

disambig seemed like the best option. fiveby(zero) 14:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I've undone your edit changing it to a disambig. There's already a disambiguation page at Pressure point (disambiguation). It seems the dab should be moved to the primary title and the content already at pressure point should either to to AFD, be moved to another title (Pressure point (Traditional Chinese Medicine) perhaps?), or merged with something like Acupuncture or Meridian (Chinese medicine). ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Oops, glad you caught my mistake before i started fixing links. Would think the primary if any would be bleeding control, but the reader probably better served by WP:NOPRIMARY. fiveby(zero) 15:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

COVID-19 misinformation

Discussion on the COVID-19 misinformation talk page on an edit that removed discussion about bioweapons conspiracy theories due to a Sunday Times piece. There's similar discussion on the COVID-19 lab leak theory talk page, and proposals to not make it in "wikivoice". ScienceFlyer (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Just gonna drop this here XOR'easter (talk) 05:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

There is now a related RfC. XOR'easter (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

And another discussion on the lab-leak-theory talk page. XOR'easter (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Salvatore Pais

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

This article on a aerospace engineer could use some more eyes - especially whether the article should speculate that Pais invented technology used in UFOs and whether we should link to youtube videos claiming that. MrOllie (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

YouTube links and Forbes contributors are not considered reliable sources. Another red flag is that a number of WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims are sourced only to thedrive.com. One would expect wider attention for such allegedly groundbreaking technology. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Looking closer, I find myself wondering if this BLP fails WP:PROF. There are an awful lot of WP:PRIMARY citations to Pais papers and patents. The Popular Mechanics source mentions Pais, but only in passing within a discussion of the technology. The coverage is all about the speculative technology -- there are few if any details about Pais as a person -- not what you'd need for a BLP. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a pass of WP:PROF to me: just a lab researcher with a not-very-high-profile citation record. So if he's notable, it's for the press attention to his (fringe?) inventions, not for scholarly attention to his scholarly publications. That said, if there is indeed in-depth independent coverage of his inventions, it would be appropriate to call him notable for that. That's exactly the sort of coverage one would expect to have of inventors, not the sort of puff piece about love lives and taste in restaurants (or as you phrase it "details about Pais as a person") that would be more appropriate to famous-for-being-famous celebrities. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

UFO-centric editing has resumed. MrOllie (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I just tagged it. I'll be looking at this some more. As far as I can see, this doesn't make the cut for GNG. Especially with only "The Drive" and descriptions of patents for sources. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 21:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Call for more eyes on Multiplicity (psychology)

Multiplicity (psychology) has experienced some editing disputes recently––as a topic with aspects overlapping between medicine and subcultures, attention from editors experienced with fringe and MEDRS would be greatly appreciated. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Bengali Kayastha

According to Banu, the Bengali Kayasthas migrated to Bengal in the ancient era; however, except for this source, the migration of the Kayasthas was not mentioned by any other reliable sources. According to Kayastha kulajis, they migrated to Bengal under King Adisura in medieval times; however, some historians still consider this migration fake. My question is: can we give information on Wiki by using only one source? I think WP:EXCEPTIONAL does not allow that. This theory by Banu makes the kayasthas immigrants, which is a very bold and exceptional claim.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk • contribs) 12:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

You're referring to Razia Akter Islam in Bangladesh? Banu is not part of the surname. fiveby(zero) 12:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

...it appears she cites for this statement:

• B. Gosh (1981). Bangali O Bangla Shahitya [Bengalee and Bengali Literature]. Calcutta: New Age Publishers. pp. 2–4.
• A.K. Chattopadhyaya (1957). Introduction to Ancient Bengal and Bengalis. Howra: Locknath Pustikalaya. pp. l l-12.
• N. Ray (1950). Bangalir Itihas: Adi Parbo [History of Bengalees: The Ancient Phase]. Calcutta: Lekhak Somobay Samiti. pp. 850–63.

Well, since Bengali Kayasthas are human and all humans are decended from ape-like ancestors in Africa, they obviously had to immigrate at some time. Why do you call that a very bold and exceptional claim? --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes I know that, every human migrated from africa. But Banu did not claim Kayasthas migrated from africa rather she claimed Kayasthas migrated from aryavarta (land of aryans/ North India) to Bengal. Bengali caste groups like Kayasthas are not migrant but Banu claimed they are. Thats why I am asking for another soources under WP:EXCEPTIONAL. NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

What Razia Akter (Banu) states is: Most of the upper-class Hindus of Bengal—Brahmans and Kayasthas—seem to be descendants of these Alpine Aryans, whose numbers at the time of immigration were not very large citing Gosh and Chattopadhyaya, then The Guptas also brought into Bengal a large number of Kayasthas to help run the administration citing Ray. Is she actually making weaker claims than what you are ascribing to her? "seem to be descendants"? Is there a way to reword or add to the article text to address your point? fiveby(zero) 14:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

"Most of the upper-class Hindus of Bengal—Brahmans and Kayasthas—seem to be descendants of these Alpine Aryans, whose numbers at the time of immigration were not very large" well Aryan migration never happened in Bengal. So this statement is clearly a fringe theory. NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, i missed 'alpine' is this then a Homo alpinus ala Ramaprasad Chanda#Proposed theories? Someone more knowledgeable would need to take a look. fiveby(zero) 18:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Joe Donnell

Article was just created based on the wacky fringe claims that he's been making on the QAnon grifter circuit. Not sure if the article should be kept, deleted, or fixed. I leave it here for the self-anointed experts to decide. Viriditas (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Donnell jps (talk) 12:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh my, a can of worms was opened that I had not realized! I misinterpreted WP:NPOL and I am amazed as what, apparently, is the status quo interpretation of that standard. Not relevant to this board, per se, so I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#WP:NPOL_BLP_issue. Never a dull moment! jps (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

But we would lose this gem: "Donnell went viral after he described how he believed God revealed to him that there is a direct ley line from the Mount Rushmore National Memorial to Washington, DC, which God is going to break. He suggests that this is due to demonic forces that are using the monument as an altar, creating a portal that will allow communism to enter." -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I know. But apparently we will not lose it because the WP powers-that-be think that every legislator is notable. jps (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I can only recommend taking it to AfD again under the auspices of failing GNG, or BIO, or BLP. The sources are mostly local/ regional but the coverage is not biographical. It's about his campaign and his fringe claims in The Hill. That means the coverage is mostly routine, if that can be argued in this instance. So, how can this be a biographical article or a BLP? It's more like advertisement for his campaign, now and in the future. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

What parts read more like an advertisement than a biography? We can and should fix any tone issues on the page. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to the article itself as an advertisement for his campaign because much of the source material seems to be about his campaign. And, I was looking at the sources more than I was looking at the article. Hence, the article can be interpreted as an adjunct to his campaign. Also, the article presents him in a mainstream light which is good PR for him as a candidate and as a South Dakota legislator. But his stated views on Mount Rushmore as a demonic portal for communism present him in a much different light. This view indicates he engages in conspiracy theories and an editor in the above mentioned something about making the rounds in a QAnon grifter circuit. Anyway, all that is what I was referring to. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I notice you are one of his supporters or defenders? I say this because you Ivoted Keep at the AFD . Anyway, I am not going to do an AfD here in case you have that in mind. --Steve Quinn (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Neither supporter nor defender of him. I just edit biographies of state legislators. That's why I asked about fixing tone issues in the article. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely (2nd nomination)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely (2nd nomination).

Of relevance to board watchers, I believe. Please offer your thoughts.

jps (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Analysis of UFOs by Joel Achenbach

I missed this article when it came out two years ago! It is truly excellent analysis that applies today. Would love to see it highlighted in some relevant articles: ufology, UFO, Pentagon UFO videos, Luis Elizondo, etc. jps (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Paywalled? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Not as far as I can see. Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I was able to get around the splash screen with Chrome+Just Read. There's probably a more couth way to do it through WP:RESOURCE. jps (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

https://archive.today/https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2021/08/11/stop-ufo-mania-no-evidence-of-aliens/ Rjjiii (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Red meat

About 6 months ago there was heavy traffic to the red meat article as carnivore diet advocates were adding a new NutriRECS review, and another flawed meta-analysis that red meat does not increase cancer risk. Two of those users were blocked.

The same studies are being added again by a new user. The NutriRECS review uses a different methodology and has been heavily criticized by health authorities as flawed, see [36] which includes Signatories by many cancer organizations rejecting the NutriRECS review. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Piri Reis map

The Piri Reis map is notable for incorporating a lost map from Columbus, the earliest European map of the Americas to survive in some form (Happy 4th of July to anyone reading in the US). It's also notable for a long-disproven hypothesis that it's an out-of-place artifact depicting an ice-free Antarctica.

Over the past few months, I've rewritten much of the article. I realize it may be odd for an editor to post their own work here, but it seems appropriate to put this up for scrutiny as this board previously looked at the article. I imagine I've either reorganized, reformatted, or rewritten much of that. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

introduction looks sound! one question, in the following sentence, would a better word be "claimed" rather than "noted"?

Some writers have noted visual similarities between places on the map and parts of the Americas not yet known to have been discovered.----Licks-rocks (talk) 11:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:CLAIM is a WP:WTW. Sometimes it is appropriate, but if a better, less argumentative synonym can be found, that's usually preferred. jps (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Licks-rocks. While cleaning up the intro, I've tried to make that section more clear. If it looks weird to you, I'm sure it will to others. It now reads Some authors have noted visual similarities to parts of the Americas not officially discovered by 1513, but there is no textual or historical evidence that the map represents land south of present-day Cananéia. I didn't use "claim", because it's not strange for someone to say, "That part looks like the Valdés Peninsula," as that's a kind of subjective evaluation. There's just no evidence that it represents the Valdés Peninsula, especially on a map where things like Puerto Rico, really look nothing like our modern understanding. Rjjiii (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Root Cause (film)

Alerted by my brother, a dentist, I created this stuff in pt-wiki some time ago. Now this old fringe documentary with wild claims was recently created in en-wiki. More eyes needed. Cheers! Ixocactus (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over. If it is even notable in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

It definitely is notable, because many sources talked about its misleading claims, but it may need a rewrite. Partofthemachine (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I've cut down the article and brought it closer to NPOV Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

"Nearly every sickness is from the teeth." - Flann O'Brien, The Third Policeman. Brunton (talk) 09:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Attunement

Attunement [37] needs a lot of work. It presents the nonsense ideas without criticism. Chamaemelum (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Specified complexity AFD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Specified complexity may be of interest to this noticeboard. Partofthemachine (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Highest IQ in history

I feel like it would be better for someone else to join the conversation at Talk:Adragon De Mello about whether this person's "projected IQ" (as personally projected and heavily promoted by his own father, and uncritically repeated by the Reader's Digest and a few similar sources that explicitly attribute the claim to the Reader's Digest listicle) is 400. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

They probably just omitted the error bar of +-350. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh dear. I thought Christopher Langan was the highest IQ in history. I guess we'll never know. I will join the conversation. jps (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Ancient astronauts

• Ancient astronauts (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Acquired a slightly WP:WEASELy WP:CSECTION recently, which should be worked into the rest of the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I started overhauling that article. There are now excellent sources out there that we can use to improve this page. It's actually a great time to revamp this article. jps (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Second American Civil War

I am concerned about the state of Second American Civil War, which started out much more along the lines of World War III (broadly discussing a hypothetical future event), but has now become excessively focused on propositions that we are currently in the middle of (or at the outset of) such an event. There is, of course, a real-world fringe position (reflected in various low-level political commentaries) that such a state of affairs exists. BD2412 T 01:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I haven't taken a look at the article, but there have been recent, fairly reliable articles that have seriously suggested the idea that the US is currently engaged in a cold civil war. This idea is being taken very seriously at certain professional levels, with some experts suggesting we have entered The Troubles kind of conflict in regards to what appears to be an irreconcilable difference of opinion between the ultra MAGA right wing (and the stochastic terrorism that emerges in their wake) and the establishment political process represented by whatever moderates are left in power at this time. If that power balance is upset in the next election, with the right wing vanquishing whatever is left, these experts suggest we are close to losing whatever democracy the US has left. Former president Obama has even recently commented about this. I understand some people are still not aware of how serious this problem is or appears, so it's understandable if you think the idea of a second American Civil War is still considered fringe in 2023. I would like to suggest that it is not. Viriditas (talk) 09:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Careful, you might piss off our resident MAGAts with language like that. 2603:7000:CF0:7280:E5B8:A4BD:3D4D:726C (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

"we are close to losing whatever democracy the US has left" So there is mothing to worry about. The United States has been in a state of democratic backsliding for nearly a decade. You can not lose again what was lost years ago. Dimadick (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas: you forgot to link the articles. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

This article needs some serious trimming. The "reinterpretations of past events" section is perfectly valid. But the rest of it? I don't know what can be salvaged. The biggest problem, as you've said, is that fringe editors have gotten to it and tried to present it as a current events article. But beyond that, it seems to use a lot of WP:SYNTH to present it like this, there's no rhyme or reason to what's actually included, a lot of it is just "here's something that some person said once", I'm seeing a lot of WP:PROCON/WP:HOWEVER, and of course there's the dreaded WP:INPOPULARCULTURE list. I'm thinking this is probably going to need a "consensus required" WP:CTOP sanction sooner or later. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The "In popular culture" section would be more accurately entitled "Second American Civil War in fiction" and could be broken off into an article by that name, it really isn't a pop culture section at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

This needs to be deleted as serious WP:CRYSTAL since it sure as heck isn't history. We don't win points for prescience, and the exaggeration is obvious. Mangoe (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)\

Yeah, I kind of missed that. I think that’s the best argument against it here. Viriditas (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• Huge parts of this article should be scythed, or outright deleted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Now up for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second American Civil War (2nd nomination) (the original nom was an April fools joke). Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Post-truth politics seems like it's starting to go down the same path. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Except it’s not. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

After the original article was deleted, someone redirected this to Second American Revolution and added the term to the lead, but that article is also nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second American Revolution (2nd nomination). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Single top for interdimensional hypothesis/being

Do we really need two separate articles on interdimensional hypothesis and interdimensional being? Wouldn't it make more sense to redirect the latter to the former? Viriditas (talk) 09:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I guess there could be a single article, but right now the two articles deal with different things. ih deals with UFOs while ib deals with fiction. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 11:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The IB article is mostly WP:OR with only two references: a ufology book, and a book about Buffy the Vampire Slayer which I have not otherwise attempted to verify. Therefore, I'd suggest deleting that article. I have not attempted to assess notability as a literary trope or as a Spiritualist belief like that connection to the IH suggested in the Jeffrey J. Kripal source at the IH article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

With no further comment in 15 days, I have opened the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interdimensional being. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Misc antivax

• Dan Burton (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• Sharyl Attkisson (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• Peter Hotez (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Some articles are moving towards an antivax-friendlier position today. --20:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Sent relevant user to WP:AE for a discussion. Sigh. jps (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.#RFC_on_use_of_terms_in_first_sentence

This RfC may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

NBC has called him "one of the world's foremost conspiracy theorists" [38]. That seems like a reference we ought to be using somewhere, but I'm not sure where. XOR'easter (talk) 23:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

This is still going on for a few more days, it looks like. XOR'easter (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Recovered-memory therapy

• Recovered-memory therapy (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Scientists who do not think one can recover lost memories in therapy are pedophiles, right? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Why does the username of the person writing that not surprise me? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

He has now reverted four times.--2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:80DB:DADC:C6B5:DCE1 (talk) 07:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

All of the user's contributions both here (Special:Contributions/StefanoProScience) and on the Spanish Wikipedia (es:Especial:Contribuciones/StefanoProScience) consist of POV pushing in this topic area. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

He is still reverting without consensus. He has two edit warring notices now (one from JaggedHamster two days ago and one from me just now). Hopefully we can resolve this issue civilly. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

There is now a discussion of the proposed changes on the article's talk page. I invite you to participate in the discussion. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

RS noticeboard

There is a recently opened discussion that may be of interest to FTN participants [39]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Spoiler alert: It is about Journal of Parapsychology and Rhine Research Center. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I have a feeling these two articles would benefit from academic sources rather than regular news orgs. Most of them are parroting Rhine Research Center's words without secondary analysis. Ca ^{talk to me!} 07:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with your assessment. I also think these articles would benefit greatly from academic sources. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Manifestation (popular psychology)

Even ignoring recent attempts to turn this into the TikTok guide to manifestation (see [40]) this article lacks substantive counter-woo. Needs fixing, or deletion... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I've weighed in on the editor's talk page. There's a bit of a spike in interest in religious studies academia about the emergence of faith-esque things from social media, of which manifesting is decidedly one. While I don't think they're going to succeed in getting a guide to manifesting on Wikipedia for obvious reasons, I do think that offering them an opportunity to work on what they wanted to add to Wikipedia in a stylistically appropriate manner may work in this case; they do appear to be attempting to edit in good faith. Warrenmck (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Given that the article is a clear content fork of Law of attraction (New Thought), I've prodded it. Any academic discussion of such beliefs can be covered there. We don't need two articles on the same subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I was suggesting the editor work on it in a sandbox regardless, they're clearly new. Warrenmck (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I'd not say it was clear at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

"I had hoped that the Wikipedia community would provide a supportive and collaborative environment, where constructive feedback and guidance would be offered to newcomers like myself. Unfortunately, this has not been my experience thus far."

Warrenmck (talk) 02:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Not everyone who claims to be a newcomer here is one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Good thing we assume good faith. Warrenmck (talk) 02:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Good thing we don't do that all the time... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Most of us active here have been burned enough times in these scenarios that it's just not something that seems like an efficient use of time. By all means, please try to help them out. But seeing things like this play out before, I have a feeling I know how it will go, unfortunately. jps (talk) 02:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Four new low-edit count SPA's showing up since June is a little suspicious. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this is really a fork of Law of attraction (New Thought). Having a quick skim of these two Guardian articles: this one and this one, it seems like with the internet (particularly TikTok) the idea of "manifesting" has taken on its own life as its own modern meme, somewhat seperate from the original New Thought/law of attraction stuff. Arguably all this material about the modern meme could be a section in the law of attraction article, but that doesn't make it a fork. Endwise (talk) 13:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

If American cop car sirens go waaaaah waaaaaah waaaaah and European ones go wee-woo wee-woo wee-woo what sound does the skeptical cop's siren make? Counter-woo counter-woo counter-woo. That being said I would go for fixing over TNT, agree with Endwise that the term has evolved beyond the law of attraction (clearly The Secret isn't to manifest yourself a monopoly on the concept) but could be covered there. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Olavo de Carvalho

• Olavo de Carvalho (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Believed in a lot of crazy stuff, died from something he did not believe in. Discussion on Talk page about whether his ideas are allowed be sourced to SPS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Somehow he is not listed in Deaths of anti-vaccine advocates from COVID-19. Tercer (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

A number of sources have been added in Portuguese. Editors familiar with which Brazilian sources are reliable or fringe would be helpful. Llll5032 (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Monoamine oxidase A

• Monoamine oxidase A (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Over the past several years this article has become a repository of questionable claims about this gene's influence on violent behavior, and on its prevalence in different ethnic groups. Ten years ago a user was blocked for edit warring over some poorly-sourced figures, but at some point those same figures crept back into the article. Editors with some understanding of psychology and statistics should have a look at the article and its talk page. Many of the issues raised with the "genetics of educational attainment" article above probably also apply here. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is a lot of that stuff not WP:MEDRS-compliant? It's one thing to use a non-MEDRS source to say that the "warrior gene" was discussed by a criminal trial, but for some of the claims in the article I'd expect a MEDRS source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)