Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

"WP:FTN" redirects here. For nominations of featured topics, see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates.

Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
Before posting, make sure you understand this short summary of relevant policies and advice and particularly the guideline on treating fringe theories. Also, check the archives for similar discussions. We can help determine whether the topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately and impartially. Our purpose is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but to describe them properly. Never present fringe theories as fact. If you mention specific editors, you should notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so. Deploy {{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion. Please also notify any relevant Wikiprojects to encourage an increased visibility for the discussion.
Search this noticeboard & archives Lowercase sigmabot III will archive sections older than 20 days Additional notes: Discussion of fringe theories will only depend on coverage in reliable sources. Medicine-related claims must comply with more stringent sourcing requirements, but we also generally prefer academic sources. We are not a forum to discuss fringe theories as such. Our goal is to improve articles about them, or create new ones if needed. For concerns about neutrality in articles not about fringe theories, use the neutral point of view noticeboard. Report article content that appears to violate the no original research rule at this noticeboard. Paste {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section when your concern was addressed.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Article alerts

Today's featured articles

• 25 Nov 2024 – Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (talk · edit · hist) will be Today's Featured Article; see blurb

Articles for deletion

• 04 Nov 2024 – Sonoran University of Health Sciences (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Jdcooper (t · c); see discussion (4 participants; relisted)

Redirects for discussion

• 03 Nov 2024 – Handwriting expert (talk · edit · hist) →Graphology was RfDed by BD2412 (t · c); see discussion

Featured article candidates

• 02 Oct 2024 – Roswell incident (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Feoffer (t · c); see discussion

Good article nominees

• 23 Aug 2024 – Epistemology (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Phlsph7 (t · c); start discussion

Requests for comments

• 11 Nov 2024 – Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by 87.116.177.103 (t · c); see discussion
• 29 Oct 2024 – List of common misconceptions (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by WhatamIdoing (t · c); see discussion
• 10 Nov 2024 – Bermuda Triangle (talk · edit · hist) RfC by Guninvalid (t · c) was closed; see discussion

Articles to be merged

• 05 Oct 2024 – White lighter myth (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to 27 Club by HadesTTW (t · c); see discussion
• 13 Jul 2024 – Peter A. Levine (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Somatic experiencing by Klbrain (t · c); see discussion

Articles to be split

• 08 Jul 2024 – List of common misconceptions (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by WhatamIdoing (t · c); see discussion

Great ape language and related articles

Wikipedia was covered in content treating the claims of Koko (gorilla) and other ape-human language experiments as successes despite widespread rejection by experts (outside of the primatologists who specifically study these apes and those uncritically citing them). I’ve pinged both the linguistics and primate wikiproject but frankly FTN may need an eye on it too before the effectively in-universe claims of some of these research groups percolate back into the articles, especially given the popularity of these specific apes, evidence-be-damned.

Most of the discussion is currently at the Great ape language talk page. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 00:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

...and for those who, like me, find this kinda stuff interesting; check out facilitated communication. Polygnotus (talk) 07:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Martin Gardner also wrote skeptical articles about that. Not sure primatologists are necessarily familiar with Clever Hans. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The amount of people insisting that primatologists are a reliable source for “is this a language” coupled with how easy it is to demonstrate that domain experts widely reject any finding of language in these experiments is wild. I’ve not yet found a source that rises to an explicit WP:RS/AC (but it’s still easy to find sources discussing broad consensus against this among multiple SME disciplines, just not to the exacting standard of WP:RS/AC) but people do seem willing to just make arguments researchers themselves aren’t making (“they’re using a different definition of language”) or pick and choose which source lets them still believe there are great apes with language regardless of how qualified that source is to make the determination.

There’s a lot of people who really want these experiments to have demonstrated use of sign language, couple that with a very big popular “sexy” bit of science and the impulse here is to drag these articles away from the academic mainstream. There’s currently some disagreement that the belief that language was demonstrated is WP:PROFRINGE, so I’m hoping some other editors here are familiar with this topic. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment: A discussion about whether or not primatologists are considered a reliable source on questions of "what is a language" is up at WP:RSN and may be of interest to people here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Is this actually WP:FRINGE though? Isn't this just a legitimate dispute in its field? Or is there some RS saying the pro-language side are engaging in pseudoscience or crankery or are outcasts in their field? Bon courage (talk) 02:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  Welcome to why this one is so tricky. There’s a spectrum within the research, and for certain the field itslef isn’t a mass of fringe, but the reports of successes are actually in a majority of cases (let’s leave Kanzi out of this, and there’s a few other places) fringe as hell

  is there some RS saying the pro-language side are engaging in pseudoscience or crankery or are outcasts in their field?

  Yes, and not even a small number of sources saying this. Patterson (Koko’s trainer) has been referred to as an ape-stealing quack for her research in an RS, there’s statements by Thomas Sebeok, an American semiotician specialized in nonhuman communication systems:

  In my opinion, the alleged language experiments with apes divide into three groups: one, outright fraud; two, self-deception; three, those conducted by Terrace. The largest class by far is the middle one.

  ”Terrace” here is Herbert S. Terrace, P.I. For Nim Chimpsky (widely regarded as the most rigorous of these experiments until Kanzi). In the aftermath of Nim Terrace became one of the most vocal critics of claims of success in this research, I’m going to cite his wiki page but these aren’t my edits (and they’re cited):

  While Nim was in New York, Terrace believed he was learning sign language. But in reviewing the data, Terrace came to a conclusion that surprised most everyone involved: Nim, he said, was not using language at all. … Controversy erupted over the fact that Terrace did not restrict his analysis to Nim. He claimed that other apes in other sign language research projects—most notably, Washoe and gorilla Koko—were mere mimmicks as well.

  There’s an ocean of sources saying similar things for all of the other great ape language experiments (again, except Nim and Kanzi). Essentially it’s erroneous to make this out to be primatologists vs linguists, it’s a small, small subset of primatologists vs everyone else. A lot of people (I’m assuming including some FTN readers) were under the impression that these results were a lot more robust, and so we have a generation of both academics and lay people who believe these experiments demonstrated language and cite the studies while being unfamiliar with the rigorous academic debate behind it that has been damning to the research. Keep in mind that the great ape language groups are generally more eager to contact the media with their findings than actually publishing them, which I’m sure is a pattern we’ve all seen before at FTN and the typical response to valid criticism has been either “nuh uh” or as hominem.

  So you, that’s why actually getting Wikipedia to reflect the actual scientific understanding on this is a complete nightmare. It’s big, “sexy” science backed by a media blitz. That’s why in the threads mentioned above I’ve repeatedly been invoking WP:ECREE and WP:PARITY, but I think a lot of people see my stance as unreasonable rigid dogmatism and not the actual WP:RS/AC on this topic from people who aren’t so far down the rabbit hole of being invested in these studies being real that they lose objectivity. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  As an addendum, @Polygnotus above linked the technique that’s been used in most of these studies, which is straight pseudoscience. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  Right so it's a field of apparently legitimate enquiry with, it is said, some bad research and good research (as is quite common). Relevant in WP:FRINGE is

  Poorly conducted research, research fraud and other types of bad science are not necessarily pseudoscientific – refer to reliable sources to find the appropriate characterisation.

  As usual, WP:RS/AC is a red herring except in the rare cases where a field is described literally and specifically by sources as having positions subject to "consensus". Like (say) zinc and the common cold Wikipedia would emphasize the WP:BESTSOURCES which would happen to have unsurprising, unexceptional findings while contextualizing and downplaying lesser sources. But that's not necessarilly a WP:FRINGE issue. Bon courage (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  ight so it's a field of apparently legitimate enquiry

  I’m sure this is accurate, teaching human language to apes is not viewed as legitimate at this point, even within primatology. Teaching advanced communication, sometimes with signs humans recognize from ASL, is. Sometimes research groups do both, but facilitated communication is pseudoscientific when done with humans, let alone nonhuman primates. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  As Bon courage says, primatology studies aren't pseudoscientific crankery. The primatology studies are very well-published in reliable journals. And critiqued, of course. They're controversial, but they're not going around making nonsense claims. The language abilities of Kanzi are not explained by the Clever Hans effect. Frankly, that just suggests that someone hasn't reviewed the research at all. Andre🚐 05:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  They're controversial, but they're not going around making nonsense claims

  They often, in fact, are. It’s no different from the engineers and physicists who try to publish studies discrediting anthropogenic global warming using the skills they have: it gets published and through peer review, but eviscerated by those with full expert knowledge on the specific topic. Academic training is not some universal badge of knowledge. I don’t know how many times I need to say I’m not dismissing the entire field of research as WP:FRINGE but merely certain specific claims which you’ve already stated you accept as credible, personally. This is why I’ve asked for any WP:RS from within a SME discipline (which the primatologists are not. No amount of primatological training is sufficient to make fundamental claims about language comprehension and use, especially when there’s overwhelming consensus in pertinent disciplines rejecting these findings.) supporting these claims. As for Kanzi, well, I’d highly recommend reading what you replied to :) Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  I did read it. And if you specifically except Nim and Kanzi then you aren't rejecting all primate language study evidence, since they contain it. And your idea that "in the specific field" means linguistics is doing a lot of lifting. See the study I linked by a cognitive scientist below, an expert on human brain evolution and the nature of language. Andre🚐 19:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  Neither Nim nor Kanzi have made claims of language to my knowledge. Koko, on the other hand, did. I am trying to tread very carefully with what’s WP:FRINGE here but you yourself called the difference between disjointed signs and sign language “splitting hairs” (not an exact quote, I believe, sorry) which… kind of tells me you lack familiarity with this, and I don’t mean that as a personal attack at all. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  I gave a study below which clearly says, Ape language acquisition studies have demonstrated that apes can learn arbitrary mappings between different auditory or visual patterns and concepts, satisfying the definition of symbol use Andre🚐 19:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  This isn’t even vaguely WP:FRINGE, though, which is one of the reasons I keep raising the specific nuance around language vs communication. Symbol use has been noted in more than great apes I believe, it is just not language. Again, if primatologists are using their own definition of language I’d appreciate a source saying that, I know of one primatologist who argues that a different definition should apply, but he explicitly acknowledges he’s against the mainstream in advocating that stance. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  Nicholas Wade is not among the most solid people to quote. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The quote is attributed to Thomas Sebeok, in an article by Wade, published in Science, in 1980. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

References

And then filtered through Wade, who is notorious for smelling fraud in every scientific study. He is a taint, cannot be trusted and should be avoided. If Sebeok is quoted by someone serious too, the quote is useable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it's silly and petty to disregard everything previously published by Wade in top publications (e.g. Science, Nature, the New York Times). We don't need to quote as facts his popular science books that misrepresent human genetics, but for science reporting I'd trust the editorial staff of these publications, decades ago, over Wikipedia editors who now have a strong dislike of Wade (especially since COVID). Wikipedians thinking they know better than those dumb old reliable sources is a constant source of amusement. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

It's irrelevant anyway. Something from 1980 can't know about more recent research. Andre🚐 19:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Good reasoning. Has been ignored by your opponents because they believe that what I say below is easier to handle. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Wade was incompetent long before COVID, and it is normal to reevaluate earlier works of incompetents after they have been shown to be incompetent. Sometimes what they write slips through although it should not. Just do not use that guy. When others agree with him, one can use those others. When he is the only one who says something, it's not worth quoting.

Wikipedians thinking they know better than those dumb old reliable sources This is projection. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Just do not use that guy. When others agree with him, one can use those others. We can, in fact, continue using him here in this cite, and I suspect we’ll continue to do so. @Animalparty is right, here, and I think you’re perhaps unintentionally misrepresenting a personal preference as an editing standard. It’s not a reasonable request as it’s phrased, and it’s a perfectly valid and useful source in the context it’s being used, and you should probably be a little cautious making statements like this in a place where less informed editors may think you’re describing policy and not a vibe check. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Would you say the same thing if Wade were on the opposite side of you? (He is on the same side as me in this question, BTW.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hob, you can’t invent caveats to WP:RS due to personal preference. It’s one thing to suggest a different source be found, it’s another to dismiss a perfectly reasonable source in context and insist that we can’t use a perfectly fine quote without a different source because of unrelated comments about a wholly different topic when the source in question is just fine by basically any WP:RS standards.

Stating an opinion is fine, admonishing editors for not acting on your opinion isn’t. We see that a bit too much in here with journals people dislike (like trying to ban all Frontiers on RS grounds when the issues with Frontiers are pretty situational and per-journal). Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

If you look back on the discussion, you will not find me admonishing editors for not acting. Instead, you will find Animalparty misrepresenting, mocking and dismissing me for warning about a specific source that has written several dubious things.

We are not required to always quote every source that is formally reliable. It is not, as you seem to suggest, against the rules to pick the best ones. Otherwise, some articles would have hundreads of pages of footnotes. I am fisished here. You can go on misrepresenting WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I mean I provided WP:RS/AC-passing sources that these studies are universally rejected within entire domain expert fields. If people want to advocate that these studies aren’t just a load of delusional bull they’re free to cite a single person with expertise on the actual question being looked at stating that the results are valid, as opposed to someone whose expertise is the primates themselves. See also: ape-stealing quack. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

You certainly did not provide a source which explicitly states that the studies are rejected, let alone universally. You simply provided a source for linguists' definition of language, then you SYNTHetically argued on your own logical foundation absent an explicit source, that the studies didn't conform with said definition. Consider [1]: sing a randomization study it is shown here that his performance actually vastly exceeds random chance, supporting the contention that he does in fact understand word order grammatical rules in English. This of course represents only one aspect of English grammar, and does not suggest he has completely human grammatical abilities. However, it does show that he understands one of the arbitrary grammatical devices used in many languages that is evidence for language, not proof but evidence. You claimed that there is a consensus that there is no evidence, which is untrue, and unattested. Andre🚐 18:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

When I asked if you’d have accepted “no compelling evidence”, acknowledging the imprecision in my initial statement, you said “of course not”. I, again, disagree that “if X were true it would upend the academic consensus, so X cannot be true” is WP:SYNTH but rather a mere statement of fact regarding the academic consensus, any more than we can rely on the academic consensus of the Copenhagen Interpretation to reject countering theories. WP:RS/AC doesn’t require a direct statement that a specific consensus-breaking theory is false for all possible theories, and we’ve seen those arguments time and time again in FTN. If there was compelling evidence the academic consensus wouldn’t be the academic consensus. You’ve acknowledged that WP:ECREE applies but seem loath to apply the actual evidentiary standards of WP:ECREE:

Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living and recently dead people.

while there wasn’t consensus, WP:RSN wasn’t exactly warm on primatologists being sufficient sources themselves when the relevant community disagrees. Again, I have repeatedly asked for a single solid and accepted citation from one of the primatologists themselves that they are using a distinct definition of language, rather than some nebulous allowance for primatologists to be qualified to upend the study of language. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

"No compelling evidence" is also not stated explicitly in any source. Andre🚐 19:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah this argument is common on fringe topics. I don’t think that’s your intent here, but we can accept an academic consensus of one thing as a demonstration that compelling evidence against the academic consensus hasn’t been forthcoming. It’s not like there’s a shortage of sources directly saying that some of these findings are junk science, you just want a WP:RS/AC source that directly states that “The academic consensus is X. Y arguments against the academic consensus have not been accepted.” which isn’t necessary when WP:ECREE applies, which by your own admission it does.

Notice that I’m no longer actively taking a heavy handed role in editing the articles in question, and if we’re going to get into specific content disputes around the articles then we should continue that on the talk page. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

No, that's not what WP:RS/AC says. It says you need to explicitly cite a source that states what it means about the academic consensus. This was told to you by SunRise at the WP:RSN discussion but you still WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Andre🚐 19:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I absolutely did hear it and have explicitly acknowledged that there wasn’t consensus at WP:RSN. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Fine, I'd actually say there was almost a consensus at RSN that you were misinterpreting RS/AC. ECREE doesn't weigh in here. ECREE just means that the sources must be high-quality, which they generally are. Nobody is inserting bad sources. Andre🚐 19:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Would you consider a physics journal, publishing a paper by a physicist, which attempts to discredit anthropological global warming, as sufficient to warrant inclusion in an article about global warming if only climatologists disagreed with it? Because this is a similar situation as far as I see it and this specific example is definitely a thing. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Black Jews in New York City

Black Jews in New York City seems to conflate Black Hebrew Israelites (not Jews; fringe) with Black Jews (Jews) . ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

It's really an article about three or four different populations that should be WP:SPLIT up or separated into sections differently. The chronological ordering is logical enough but it jumps back and forth from group to group and isn't cohesive. Black Sephardic Jews, who date to colonial times and are connected to the Sephardim in the slave trade and freed former slaves; converted or adopted or otherwise black Jews that aren't part of the Sephardic group, which could be Reform Jews or Orthodox Jews but is definitely at least another if not several distinct groups; Ethiopian Jews, who are their own ancient group that exists mainly from Ethiopia and Israel; and finally the BHI who are not considered Jewish by mainstream Jewish groups, but form a distinct population of self-described Jews who practice certain Jewish traditions, some sects but not all of which are antisemitic. I agree it's a bit "in-universe" right now but it's not too terrible and doesn't seem intentionally such. I think someone who didn't really know much about the BHI wrote it based on the sources, and not an intentional promotion of fringe ideas. Andre🚐 08:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't seem to be a deliberate POV-push of BHI ideology, but as it stands it isn't acceptable. And I agree that the lumping of Ethiopians with black Spharadim with any sort of African-American who is Jewish seems tenuous to me—do sources really refer to these all as one "black Jews"? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

BHI shouldn’t even get a passing mention, see also:, or any other acknowledgment in an article about black Jewish people anymore than Raël should have a discussion in List of French astronauts. Just because a religious group makes a claim doesn’t mean it has bearing on reality. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree with that Andre🚐 18:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I’ve removed all the BHI content, the remaining article probably just needs to be merged with African-American Jews. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Proposed the merge, discussion is here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Am I the first person to notice that the wikilinked article Black Jews is a disambiguation page which does still include the BHI which an IP has been unsuccessfully trying to remove? Nil Einne (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paratoari

Fringe, not notable. Doug Weller talk 11:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Is a Qaballa "discovered" or "invented"?

Disagreement at English Qaballa, where some editors insist that the Qaballa is "discovered", not "invented", as if it was a real, pre-existing thing just waiting for someone to notice it. Fram (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Is this fringe? Either way, “discovered” isn’t appropriate in wikivoice. If it was an older faith tradition I’d probably discuss it as “emerging” at a certain date but we’re talking about the 70s, so invented is appropriate. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The proponents of this system believe, in spite of a complete lack of evidence, that it is an empirical truth about the universe to the point that they think it is best described as "truth" or, as you may have seen on the talkpage like discovering a new drug. jps (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Let me rephrase: how is this not just a normal religious belief? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 00:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure whether "normal" religious beliefs make positivistic claims about material reality. I think that religious beliefs sometimes (often?) do, and, to that extent, those beliefs tend to fly in the face of the academic consensus that the world lacks a certain kind of enchantment. This is one of the WP:REDFLAGs that I use to decide when a claim is relevant for WP:FRINGE as opposed to being purely a religious consideration. jps (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

So do many faiths? I don’t think it’s making empirical claims beyond most faiths, unless I’m misunderstanding it? For all their other issues editing that article it does feel a bit out of line to call a religious belief disproven nonsense (per the talk page).

Then again the article is quite obtuse and I’m not 100% sure what it’s trying to say so perhaps I’m wildly off base here Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Let me just try to be clear here, then. When someone's faith compels them to make an empirical claim, it can be one of two kinds:

1) A claim that has a basis in reality. (E.g. Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate.)

2) Claims that are at odds with what is known about reality. (E.g. A global flood inundated the world causing most geological formations)

In instances where (2) happens, I argue (not without objection) that WP:FRINGE applies. I think we have that instance here. I encourage you to read some of the sources about what adherents claim to be able to do with this particular Qaballa. "Magick" is basically a precursor to things like the Law of Attraction, but with a bit more ritual.

jps (talk) 11:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Is this fringe? Yes. Yes it is. The fact the some empirical claim about reality is part of some religious tradition, whether one considers it "normal religious belief" or not, doesn't protect it from being considered fringe. This has been discussed to death. Trying to shield religious beliefs from criticism has always been a way to protect cranks and frauds When we try to shield religious beliefs from criticism, what we end up doing is we protect cranks and frauds. Especially so-called mediums and faith healers, just to scratch the surface. Just stop it. This is an encyclopedia, we should inform people to the best of our abilities, not protect the feelings of the credulous and the gullible. VdSV9•♫ 13:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

This is inappropriate. There’s a huge, ongoing discussion about FTN’s handling of religions at VPP and I’d very much appreciate you avoiding aspersions here. I was struggling to see the empirical claim, but as I said I was struggling to read the article in the first place. Asking if something is WP:FRINGE isn’t a call for accusing the person who asked of improper behaviour. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing you of anything. I was just pointing out the implications of your actions, not implying that was your intent. Sorry if it didn't come out as clear as it should have. VdSV9•♫ 13:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Religion isn’t fringe, it’s completely reasonable to ask if something is making the sort of claims that would make it fall under FTN’s umbrella, and there’s a bit of a track record here of open hostility to religion in editing that is best avoided. If you look at the bottom of this thread you’ll see me arguing that the consensus arrived at was too conciliatory to the in universe claims. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Open hostility to religion (an idea) is different than open hostility to religious identity (a protected class, at least in the US). I wish we could do better with this. If I deride a religion as being implausible, that is openly hostile to the idea in question, but it is not a violation of Wikipedia rules, as far as I can tell. jps (talk) 18:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Definitely not "discovered", which would be making a fringe claim in wiki-voice. Definitely not "invented", which would cast a non-neutral amount of doubt. Words like "described" or attribution with "said"/"wrote" would work. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. This is something which is described or explained or WP:SAID. jps (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

'Described' seems fine to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

“Described” seems fair, but considering the edit warring its probably best we take this to the talk page and make sure @Skyerise is aware of the parallel discussion. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

'Described' is a fine compromise edit. I said so in an edit comment when I fixed it being misspelled as 'Derscribed'. Lol! I hope you're not planning on warning me for edit warring because I removed a spurious letter. Skyerise (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Should we worry about the "neutrality" of the term "invented", when the entire article uses Wikivoice to present an in-universe perspective entirely based on in-universe sources? Isn't that what Fandom is for? Pikachu does a better job.. Austronesier (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

"In-universe"? I get what you mean but that feels like the wrong phrasing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

“According to the internal historiography of a faith tradition” can get clunky, I think “in universe” is fine on talk pages as long as it’s not being used to directly denigrate someone’s faith. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I mean, basically any believer will take offense at the use of "in universe" as a substitute for "emic". jps (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Other articles on this topic have used “formulated”, which I think is a little less passive than “described”. Are there any objections to that? @AndyTheGrump @Austronesier @Firefangledfeathers @Fram? (Sorry for the pings, I just figure changing it right after we have some kind of consensus here is better not done via WP:BEBOLD.) Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 00:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

If I dig deep for some connotation, it starts to give hints of "invented". I wouldn't object based on those hints, just noting them in case they resonate. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 11:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it probably should be giving off hints of “invented” when the authorship is well within living memory and there’s no evidence of a prior existence. I just think “invented” itself is perhaps pointlessly indelicate when other words exist which capture the nuance better without causing as many objections. Something can be formulated from pre-existing material, so it’s both appropriate in wikivoice and not just being needlessly hostile to the underlying claims, but in context of being so decent a publication that an ISBN may exist I think the average reader wouldn’t struggle to read “formulated” as “this is who came up with it”, which is the correct wikivoice (imo). Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

In normal parlance, people are proud when they have invented something. If people are offended because they want to hide the fact that someone invented it, and pretend that they instead discovered it after some deity hid it, then that is their problem, not a problem of a science-based, fact-based encyclopedia. We say "Scientology is a set of beliefs and practices invented by the American author L. Ron Hubbard" and that doesn't seem to be a problem. Fram (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I don’t disagree, but I don’t see how “formulated” is actually less in-universe than “described”, which is the language we use for discoveries. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I think formulated is the best in this case. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Huh? We're talking about English Qaballa, right? That's a system very much developed, created, devised, formulated, pioneered, or conceived by James Lees. It wasn't discovered and it wasn't described, as though a bird by a naturalist. I mean it's not even a belief system unto itself, right? It's a numerological method to access additional pearls in Crowley's work. Implying that something which was created in fact existed before it was created is going to be a WP:FRINGE problem whether we're talking about esotericism or the way a musician "discovered" their newest album. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree with this. We need to quit beating around the bush and say that this is something he created, because it's something he created. Mangoe (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Updated. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the question is whether it is something that he created intentionally or whether it is something he created accidentally after, y'know, a wild night out or somesuch. Anyway, it doesn't much matter to the point of fact that he was the one describing the thing and he is the holder of the copyright, for example. jps (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The Gospel of Afranius

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

---

A self-published Russian work containing a novelistic treatment of the resurrection of Jesus as a fraud, recently translated to English. Getting some pumping due to a sidebar review/essay in Nature (journal) but ultimately still one guy's fringe idea. Mangoe (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

This isn’t fringe, it’s a novel. Please raise this at WP:NPOVN. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Hmm, i once took objection to politics on this board, and some plot of an anti-abortion film (and got stomped on by jps for my trouble). What happened after that? A bunch of editors came along and started trying to insert content in the article which was squarely addressed by the fringe guideline. It's editors that are the problem, not topics, and i was evaluating based on an abstract evaluation of the topic and failing to take into account the issues involved with protecting content from fringe editors. Don't know if there is an issue here, but no harm at all in taking a look or watch-listing. fiveby(zero) 16:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for stomping on you, but, yeah, generally I think we do too much gatekeeping at Wikipedia generally. Let discussions happen, is my motto. jps (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

See WP:RSN#Are these sources acceptable for The Gospel of Afranius?. Doug Weller talk 13:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Should this noticeboard be disbanded, deprecated, or merged?

Copied from talk page:

Wikipedia:Fringe theories has an RfC

Wikipedia:Fringe theories has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. (Note: from continuation of ongoing discussion at Village Pump (policy).) SamuelRiv (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 02:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Shoot, snow closed. I was going to suggest kicking all the UFO threads over to NPOVN cause they are so damn boring. fiveby(zero) 12:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Stanford prison experiment

I've noticed that looking at the edit history that the Stanford prison experiment article has massively shifted from December 2020 [2] to now, seemingly largely under the influence of IPs and SPAs. As far as I can tell, it seems to have softened criticism of the experiment, which has been heavily criticised from a scientific and ethical perspective, but I wanted to get second opinions from editors more familiar with the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Philip Zimbardo's death may bring some new coverage in the news, and some new viewers of our articles. Donald Albury 12:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

IP source misattribution at Mami Wata

Over at Mami Wata, essentially a mermaid entity from the folklore of parts of Africa, we've seen various IPs come by and modify the text in a manner that wrongly attributes claims to reliable sources. We could use more eyes there. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Alonso Sánchez

Claim that this guy visited America before Columbus. Quite a mess. This source might help.[3] Doug Weller talk 14:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

MEDRS evaluation template

I have created a template at {{MEDRS evaluation}}, and I would appreciate it if a few of you would try it out and tell me if you think it's missing key points. I expect this to get used mostly for straight-up medical content instead of FRINGE content, but it might be useful here, as well. For example, here's what it says about a source that was mentioned here a few months ago:

Evaluation of qualities in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine):

• Source: Coronavirus biology and replication: implications for SARS-CoV-2 PMID 33116300
• Date of publication: 2021-03, 3 years ago.
• Journal name: Nature Reviews Microbiology
• Publisher's name: Y Nature Portfolio is a reputable publisher. The source may be available via Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library.
• Journal reputation: (This is a free-form text space to provide information, e.g., an impact factor.)
• Primary vs secondary: Y Secondary sources are best for many purposes.
• Evidence level (see PubMed's list of types): Y Review article
• Pre-clinical vs human: Not really relevant (This is a free-form text field, but it reacts to yes/no answers.)
• Independence: Y Independent sources are best.

You have to fill in the blanks, but it recognizes some responses and reacts to them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. One thing it's missing is that the journal itself isn't the only determiner of reliability; sometimes a reliable journal publishes an article that isn't suited as a source for a particular claim. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that there are multiple factors. For example, Wakefield's famous fraud looks like this:

Evaluation of qualities in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine):

• Source: Wakefield's paper
• Date of publication: September 2000, 24 years ago. N This source is potentially outdated.
• Journal name: The American Journal of Gastroenterology
• Publisher's name: Y Elsevier is one of the largest publishers of academic journals. The source may be available via Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library.
• Journal reputation: Good
• Primary vs secondary: N Primary sources are acceptable for limited purposes, but not to debunk secondary sources.
• Evidence level (see PubMed's list of types): NN A retracted paper should never be cited for biomedical information.
• Pre-clinical vs human: Y Evidence in humans is best.
• Independence: probably

This is a way of organizing the points you'd want to evaluate in a source, rather than a machine that spits out the answer. (Also, it doesn't play well with the Reply tool, because I set it to default to block formatting. I should probably change that.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

They live among us

• Cryptoterrestrial hypothesis (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Despite the grandiose title, this mainly seems like OR spun around the idea that UFOs come from underground so their crew can mingle with earthlings. Anybody know more? Bon courage (talk) 10:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Merge with Hollow Earth.I supervoted this approach. Don't really see any content worth saving, to be honest. jps (talk) 10:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  Seems sensible, but it's been restored. Could probably use more eyes to widen consensus. Bon courage (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I think an article on this actually can be written, I have seen secondary sources discussing this, but as it was the article was a disaster and would need to be nuked anyway to improve it, so for now it is for the best until someone wants to write an article that doesn't suck. It's related but distinct from the hollow earth stuff. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

It's been on my list of things I need to get around to. It's an important topic in a folkloric sense. Very influential in its day. But yeah, agree with nuke and redirect for now. Feoffer (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Feoffer If you ever get around to that, could you ping me? I would like to help to some degree. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to peek in at User:Feoffer/sandbox Cryptoterrestrial hypothesis, not really much to look at, I'm still just reading and taking notes. Feoffer (talk) 04:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I remain to be convinced that "Cryptoterrestrial hypothesis" is a concept that exists in decent sources, or that decent sources are using "Cryptoterrestrial" as an organizing umbrella tern. Either/both of these would need to be true for there to be evidence there was an actual topic here. Bon courage (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

'Cryptoterrestrial' may or may not be COMMONNAME, but the basic idea dates back to the 1940s, and there's just gobs of high quality folkloric FRIND sources that covers it. The article we just nuked was very problematic, and made it appear there might be reason to believe the so called 'hypothesis' is linked to any scientific opinion. For example, there's been recent mention in the media of the "cryptoterrestrial solution' being supported by Harvard researchers -- that's undo and fringe, doesn't belong here.

We don't need to be sourcing ANY fringe UFO authors. A good article on this, which I hope to help write, would cover it like the famous folkloric tale "The babysitter and the man upstairs". That's all it is -- it's "The flying saucers were coming from inside the house" story that first went viral in the 40s. We don't need to go to any UFO sources for this one, Barkun alone has filled whole books about the subject, and he's one of many. Feoffer (talk) 05:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

If there are good sources that consider these things as a group, that's fine. If it's Wikipedia editors assembling them into a group, that's not. Bon courage (talk) 06:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, the current article is total OR/SYNTH and we're all quite right to redirect it. As I mention below, it was all over the place, even getting it the Midrash, lol. Feoffer (talk) 06:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The article has many issues in the way that sources are presented. The UFO concept is not presented as original research but as the work of several authors. This much is basically a laundry list. Few items on the list speak directly about the article title. Consequently the title depends primarily on two sources, Mac_Tonnies#Cryptoterrestrial_hypothesis, and a paper "from Harvard" which explicitly states that is it not from Harvard. The latter paper was picked up multiple media sites which would counts for some notability.

Nothing in the article directly claims the concept is true, the tone is much like a book report. The article did not promote a fringe theory, just reported on it. It was just a poorly written article. I don't understand why it is even listed on this Noticeboard.

The article passed AfC less than a month ago and the editors are likely still around. I think the best course of action would be to tag the article and ask those interested in the topic to improve it. There is no harm in trying that path in hopes of ultimately having both a better article and more effective editors. Redirecting without engaging these editors alienates contributors.

Hollow Earth is a historical concept that was adopted in some scifi works. The Cryptoterrestrial hypothesis, or "they live among us" is not the same thing. However these topics don't have enough secondary references to stand alone. The topic should be covered under a different name and include hollow earth in its history section. For this purpose the title Cryptoterrestrial hypothesis might be a good one. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand why it is even listed on this Noticeboard ← The idea "that unidentified flying objects are a sign of a technologically advanced population living on Earth alongside humans" is a WP:FRINGE one, is why. Bon courage (talk) 05:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, but I can't see how this lead is significantly different from the leads on Space animal hypothesis, Time-traveler hypothesis, Interdimensional hypothesis, Psychosocial hypothesis, Extraterrestrial hypothesis. They all seem to start with a definition of the idea; they are all wack-a-doodle ideas. Most of these of similar quality level to the one that was removed. They all make Hollow Earth look pretty good. What about these articles makes them keepers when Cryptoterrestrial_hypothesis is not? Johnjbarton (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Unfamiliar with those; anyone could WP:BLAR where appropriate. Bon courage (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

It's a good topic for an article, but the most recent version isn't really ready for going live just yet. It's a bit of a coatrack at present -- we've got space animals, USOs, Ultraterrestrials, Nazi UFOs, Breakaway civilizations, Hollow Earth, the Jewish Midrash, and a partridge in a pear tree. Feoffer (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you that when mainstream media is running headlines about the "cryptoterrestrial hypothesis", we really should have an article on it for folks to read. Life would be simpler of CTH were the same thing as Hollow Earth, but it's not -- since the 1970s the cryptoterrestrials have mostly been living in the oceans ("The Abyss"), Dulce Mesa ("Mirage Men") and 'haunted ranches'. If only we could keep them confined to the Earth's Core! lol. But as I say above, good call on the redirect for now. Feoffer (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Yehuda Schoenfeld Article

Hello! I am currently going through and tagging intentional citations of retracted papers. While doing this for Yehuda Shoenfeld's article i noticed the page discuss his anti-vax advocacy and publications in a neutral way that did not seem in compliance with WP:FRINGE or WP:DUE. I am posting this here to get input from those more versed on the topic and subject as to whether the page is in compliance or how it could be improved. Relm (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Brainspotting

This has been briefly discussed here when it was still in Draft space. But, after it was published, it has recently been edited in a way that removed all criticism and added a lot of puffery and appeals to authority - mostly by WP:SPA Traumapsychscholar (talk · contribs · block user) and I feel tempted to revert the page to a version before they touched it. TBH, I think it would be better to summarize the whole thing and merge it into EMDR as a variation of it. Thoughts? VdSV9•♫ 14:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I thought PenguinyPenguiny did a creditable job on the draft, but they haven't been around in over a year. fiveby(zero) 14:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted to the version before Traumapsychscholar started mucking with it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, haven't really been around--thanks for keeping an eye on this. I still think Brainspotting should be its own article rather than as a subset of EMDR because at least EMDR has an evidence base and is conditionally recommended as an evidence-based PTSD treatment in the APA Clinical Practice Guideline for the Treatment of PTSD. There are similarities between EMDR and Brainspotting in terms of the use of eye movements--especially since the development of Brainspotting was influenced by EMDR--though it's unclear if the eye movements themselves actually do anything in EMDR or if the main mechanism is exposure. There's not an exposure part in Brainspotting, only eye movements, and the eye movements take a bit of a different emphasis than in EMDR. PenguinyPenguiny (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Traditional ecological knowledge

The articles traditional ecological knowledge and traditional knowledge could probably use more scrutiny by folks with the time to do so. In fact, it might be good to merge them. But in any case, while there is undoubtedly something to the idea that people who have lived in and depended on an environment for a long time have gained knowledge about that environment, this topic never seems to be too far from people who use it to science-bash, or to give credence to unreliable ways of knowing or supernaturalism. There also seems to be a lot of bloat. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

...and, sigh:

• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_98#Indigenous_science
• Indigenous science (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch.
• Coloniality of knowledge (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

fiveby(zero) 18:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Was thinking some about the prior thread during the VP discussion with Tukdam and religion. Here also we have a call to legitimize other knowledge systems by exploring alternative epistemologies, ontologies and methodologies. While the Buddhism and consciousness revolution we are assured is on the way soon, it seems to me this one already happened. How do you provide information about knowledge when knowledge itself is disputed. fiveby(zero) 20:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Related: Decoloniality Leijurv (talk) 05:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea what to do with these articles. The literature surrounding this topic, while published in reputable sources, is an intellectual walled garden that is largely ignored by non-proponents. This makes providing any sort of balance tricky. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Big garden in as you say reputable sources. What would you do with Bob Denver? Mind Beyond Brain is Columbia University Press. fiveby(zero) 00:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I was primarily talking about "indigenous science" What I mean is that historians and philosophers of science largely don't engage with the sorts of academics who write about "Indigenous science". Buddhism (the subject of Mind Beyond Brain) to me doesn't seem to come under the scope of "indigenous science" It seems more in the same sort of book genera as The Tao of Physics and The Dancing Wu Li Masters. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see an inherent difference:

1. Wikipedia should legitimize other knowledge systems for religious observers
2. Wikipedia should legitimize other knowledge systems for paranormal believers
3. Wikipedia should legitimize other knowledge systems for Buddhist scientists
4. Wikipedia should legitimize other knowledge systems for indigenous peoples

Pick all that apply.

Before anyone jumps on me that is not commenting on the groups but those who talk of new "epistemologies, ontologies and methodologies" or some kind of fusion with science. fiveby(zero) 01:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see an inherent difference: I mean, a big difference would be that, say, Christian Bible fundamentalists and UFO proponents haven't historically been the victims of colonialism, displacement, white supremacy, and genocide the way Indigenous peoples have been, and there aren't major fields of respected, university press-published academia that legitimize the former two while there is a wide range of academically published scholars who write about decolonizing knowledge.

Though I'd say the real question isn't whether 'Wikipedia should legitimize other knowledge systems for X'. The more pertinent question is 'is X knowledge system documented and analyzed as a subject of interest by reliable sources, like academic publications, and how do those reliable sources characterize that knowledge system?' Wikipedia looks to the best relevant sources for the best way to describe a topic. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe the approach you describe as the real question follows this: "De-centring the ‘big picture’: The Origins of Modern Science and the modern origins of science" i linked in the older thread. That sounds to me appropriate for a global encyclopedia. But what we have here is a critique of Western science, and so Ecosystem management is a multifaceted and holistic approach to natural resource management. It incorporates both science and traditional ecological knowledge to collect data from long term measures that science cannot. Science can't do that? fiveby(zero) 05:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

As that paragraph in traditional ecological knowledge isn't footnoted, it's hard to judge whether it hews to sources and to which sources or not. What I do notice is that the apparently main article, ecosystem management, seems to describe the practice's relationship to science differently: ecosystem management is guided by ecological science to ensure the long-term sustainability of ecosystem services.

As for the question whether science can or can't do X, that answer would depend on what relevant reliable sources say about the topic, and what is meant by 'science' in those sources (science as practiced at a specific moment in time? scientism? specific hegemonically influential scientific institutions?).

In any case, the question of what Wikipedia should do, broadly speaking comes down to simply that Wikipedia should cite and summarize relevant reliable sources. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, failed to link the TEK article, and you are right it is not cited. Look at those which are such as Kimmerer, Robin Wall (2022). "Weaving Traditional Ecological Knowledge into Biological Education: A Call to Action". BioScience., Oxford University Press, 566 scholar cites.

So on the "reliable sources" grounds that is what i was questioning in the prior thread. Why are you removing 'holistic' here. That is like removing The Trinity from Max Hedroom's views if he were all over in the academic press. Not sorry philosophers, sorry jps. If you see it reifying the false dichotomy between "Indigenous knowledge" and "science" as if Indigenous people aren't doing "real" science that dichotomy is intentional and in the sources. It's got predictive power we are told, but it's not universal so not everyone can test that power. Sorry again. fiveby(zero) 13:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, but what is interesting in this 2002 (note the date!) paper is the uncited stereotype: Western science is conducted in an academic culture in which nature is viewed strictly objectively. I guess you could just write a sentence like that in a paper in 2002 and get away with it. I doubt that would pass the muster today! I don't think the "holism" is dichotomous, then. Now the framing seems to me to be more about eliminating intentional and unintentional bias against knowledge sourced to stakeholder communities. Does that track? jps (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes i think reading the wrong sources might be part of my problem w/ TEK. I don't know if "Indigenous Science" is a concept built on or a reframing of TEK? But was reading sources which included both and seeing the text in the article (which you removed) which seemed to merge both. Anyway this: Ludwig, David; Poliseli, Luana (2018). "Relating traditional and academic ecological knowledge". Biol Philos. 33 (5). reads much better. The aim of this article is to develop an account that relates the epistemic resources of TEK and AEK while avoiding both horns of the dilemma of assimilation and division. Some criticism of a couple authors i was reading and more: these accounts typically combine epistemic and political concerns also a simple holism–mechanism divide misrepresents the epistemic resources of both TEK and AEK and holders of TEK are perfectly capable of identifying mechanisms that underlie ecological phenomena.

Reading that source i don't think i need to "construct" or "fuse" or "legitimize" any epistemoligies do i? fiveby(zero) 02:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

This indeed aligns more closely with how I see TEK presently being used. jps (talk) 12:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Christian Bible fundamentalists and UFO proponents haven't historically been the victims of colonialism, displacement, white supremacy, and genocide the way Indigenous peoples have been, and there aren't major fields of respected, university press-published academia that legitimize the former two while there is a wide range of academically published scholars who write about decolonizing knowledge. While I do agree that traditional knowledge isn't necessarily on the same level as the former - even if Christian fundamentalists and ufologists had been the victims of colonialism, that wouldn't validate their views, even if they got more sympathy from some academics as a result. So that's not really relevant here. Aside from that, apparently some academics are legitimizing certain Western ideas of paranormal beliefs by appealing to non-Western beliefs, such as in this book mentioned earlier, from Columbia University Press. Even academics can be profringe. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

What is relevant is that according to the pertinent content guideline, in Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. If decolonizing knowledge is part of a prevailing view in the relevant particular fields—in this case the framework appears to prevail in fields like anthropology and in subject areas like studies of colonized peoples, histories of colonialism, etc.—then I'm not sure how that would qualify as 'fringe' under our content guideline. I or you having a personal disagreement with the conclusions of academics isn't on its own enough grounds to deem scholars 'profringe'. On Wikipedia, we don't try to lead; we follow the sources. If there is a substantial, reputed, legitimately published scholarly field concluding that conventional institutions/systems/patterns of contemporary science are colonized/part of colonialism (that's the impression I'm getting from the thread and the articles so far), then it's not a 'fringe' position in that field. It might not be a universally conceived idea across all individual humans, but a lot of reliable academic sources describe the world quite differently from how the average human might (e. g., a god being in some way involved in human origins is a majority belief in the United States but is not at all how science understands and describes the unguided and undirected process of evolution). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

This is a red herring. Whether a group has been historically oppressed has nothing to do with whether ideas associated with that group are valid. By that logic, we should be giving significantly more weight to Mormon views on archaeology and history. Furthermore, there is no policy or guideline that says academic sources should automatically be considered reliable, and the ones you are referring to here clearly are not, because they will publish almost anything that conforms to their a priori ideology/worldview. Partofthemachine (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

By that logic, we should be giving significantly more weight to Mormon views on archaeology: Suggesting that Mormons are as colonized, oppressed, and genocided as Native Americans—now that is itself a take quite out of step from academic consensus.

there is no policy or guideline that says academic sources should automatically be considered reliable: Not automatically—context still matters—but it seems significant to me that the neutral point of view policy recommends looking to books and journal articles and that the reliable sources guideline states that Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. With that in mind, personally disliking academics' conclusions isn't on its own a good enough reason to disregard scholarship. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the worst way to describe what is happening here is ignoring scholarship. Let's take a source and me for a malicious editor on WP. "Discovering indigenous science" Cited in Indigenous science for TEK a type. Respectable publication, well cited paper. But i can look through that paper and find anything i want, reword, add to the article and cite. I've just ignored the rest of the paper, and anyone the authors might cite for opposition to their views. Let's see, the authors don't like universalism so how about:

When Western modern science (WMS) is defined as universal it does displace revelation-based knowledge (i.e., creation science); however, it also displaces pragmatic local indigenous knowledge

and

it is possible that the universalist “gatekeeper” can be seen as increasingly problematic and even counter productive.

then reword to

“ the universalist gatekeeper can be seen as problematic because it excludes both indigenous science and creation science ”

How much scholarship have i ignored there? Even if i just included a faithful representation of the source in opposing universalism i've probably ignored some philosophy of science, history of science, and maybe a couple scientists.

The paper tells me where the term "Indigenous Science" comes from and it's "Science education in a multiscience perspective". Masakata Ogawa tells me he was influence by Lucien Lévy-Bruhl and quotes him. Lévy-Bruhl wrote a book called How Natives Think in 1910 and divided the world into two mindsets "primitive" and "modern". What could i do with that and how much scholarship would be ignored there?

Those might be extreme examples—or maybe not—and might or might not be noticed by a page watcher. But it doesn't even really need to be done intentionally. Just incautiously like by the WikiED'ers at TEK. Just pick something, cut-and-paste, quote part and reworde part. There's a lot of things you can do with good sources, within policy, to make bad content and ignore scholarship. Yeah, i don't like it. fiveby(zero) 06:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

To me this seems more like an NPOV issue than a FRINGE issue. As Hydrangeans said, if these fields are discussed in reliable sources (and they are) then we can and should have articles. The problem is that "decolonisation of X" is often a fig leaf for tearing X to shreds, and we shouldn't write our articles from that kind of "in-universe" perspective. Based on a glance at the first couple of articles mentioned, it looks like they lean that way, but this isn't my field so I don't think I'm the one to edit it. As for the comment that Indigenous peoples have been victims of colonisation while UFO believers have not: Perhaps that's why university presses give them a pass, but we shouldn't. One's level of privilege has zero bearing on the validity of their ontology. If a Holocaust survivor tells me climate change is a government hoax, they are wrong. We would thus be taking sides with an article, say, on "Survivors' views of climate change" that reports uncritically that climate change is an anti-Zionist scheme to ruin Israel, or whatever. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I would say the whole talk of "other ways of knowing", "data that cannot be collected by science" and this "taking into account the suffering and exploitation, past and present, of certain peoples while evaluating their epistemologies" are very much FRINGE. Although, NPOV and FRINGE are very closely related, so it's probably both. VdSV9•♫ 12:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

As someone who has worked as a science professor at a university with a strong science-studies community, I can confidently say it is not at all fringe in the science studies and postcolonial studies disciplines. A good chunk of those scholars (maybe not a majority, but a very large minority) are pushing right-wing denialism of science and expertise (perhaps unintentionally) by dressing it up in left-wing tropes like decolonisation, queer liberation, and so on. "Other ways of knowing" is to the Frantz Fanon set what "do your own research" is to the Alex Jones set...trust your gut, They^TM are lying to you. If a sizable minority of scholars holds a certain view, then by definition it can't be WP:FRINGE even if it's demonstrably wrong. So we can have articles on these subjects, but we shouldn't give them false balance because, you know, reality exists. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

And what is your source for your extraordinary claim about "A good chunk of those scholars"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The very scholars who write about this stuff very often characterize them as "marginalized", and "outside of mainstream science" (often using the misnomer "Western science"). Those fall very much in the definition of fringe (marginal happens to be synonymous). VdSV9•♫ 18:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Fiveby's comment above that talk of new "epistemologies, ontologies, and methodologies" is nonsense. And science-bashing is extremely harmful (having probably resulted in hundreds of thousands of extra deaths from Covid in the US). But I think that there is an inherent difference between #4 and #1-3 in Fiveby's list. Certain indigenous medical practices, while not science-based, are based on centuries of observation and experience. In modern times, scientists and pharmaceutical companies have studied some of them in a rigorous, scientific way and found that they could use them as a basis for developing new, safe, and effective medicines. For example Tu Youyou was awarded the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for (according to her Wikipedia BLP) discovering artemisinin [...] and dihydroartemisinin, used to treat malaria, a breakthrough in twentieth-century tropical medicine, saving millions of lives in South China, Southeast Asia, Africa, and South America. The Wikipedia article goes on to describe how she achieved this by studying a vast number of traditional Chinese medicines, finally finding two that were the basis of the medical breakthrough.

It is also possible that a folk medical practice that's still followed in some parts of the world could be harmless and somewhat effective for some people, although inferior to the best modern medicine. People who are impoverished might not have access to the latter, in which case such a folk practice is better than nothing. (This is the viewpoint, for example, of the Cuban Ministry of Health, due to the extreme scarcity of certain imported pharmaceuticals due to the US embargo.)

Because of these two possibilities, there is an inherent difference between folk knowledge and paranormal belief, superstition, and science-bashing. NightHeron (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I think artemisinin is like one in the ten thousand TCM remedies that turned out to have promise, so perhaps isn't a representative example. Bon courage (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but has there ever been a medical breakthrough and a Nobel Prize for saving millions of lives that resulted from studying ten thousand superstitions or paranormal beliefs? NightHeron (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

TCM beliefs didn't contribute to artemisinin's discovery... Artemisinin just happened to be among the compounds whose effects had traditionally been ascribed to a fundamentally faulty mechanistic framework (or, maybe more likely, were retconned into a pseudo-traditionalist system by Maoists). JoelleJay (talk) 02:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The artemisinin discovery story has also been heavily propagandized to promote TCM. I'm skeptical there was any real link between the purported TCM uses of the parent decoction and the antimalarial properties of its active compound. JoelleJay (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Your first paragraph summed up my thoughts too. The one issue I've run into IRL with this is that the lines between historical/folk knowledge/alternative ways of knowing and transitioning to science-bashing is a very thin line that is easy to cross. This often comes up at land-grant universities nowadays and especially can get contentious and difficult to navigate at those meetings, especially when you have groups of scientists and non-scientists involved.

It's a good thing if the focus is on historical preservation of culture, finding accounts of plants to test in the current-day, etc., but I have seen talks where people try to label it Western vs. Indigenous ways of knowing that quickly gets into trouble. Labeling it "Western" science in that context, especially with dashes of colonialism mentioned in order to dismiss what is just simply science, can be a red flag. That starts to invoke a sort of special pleading to avoid the formal scientific process that we often see in other fringe topics. That's what it can easily become if a particular group is given "privileged" status in their knowledge even if that knowledge would violate something as simple as correlation ≠ causation.

So I'm glad this has been brought up because we probably do need to keep a guardrail in mind for the above, but as others have mentioned, it's a bit of a walled garden topic. I can see challenges for us editors in terms of NPOV when it's advocates primarily publishing on the topic. KoA (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

So, science has "legitimized other knowledge systems for indigenous peoples" in one case. Wikipedia cannot do that unless science does it before. --Hob Gadling (talk)

The more I think about it, the more I think we should merge traditional ecological knowledge and traditional knowledge, and probably indigenous science too. They are all the same basic topic as far as I can tell, and having it in one place will make it easier to keep an eye on so it doesn't accumulate stuff from the fringey end of this idea. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

It is an interesting idea... but I think the merge may be a pretty heavy lift as the articles are all strikingly different. Just to play devil's advocate, I think that there is a lot more to say about these concepts within the context of ecology since the idea of working with indigenous stakeholders has a much longer history in that discipline. jps (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Crossroads not sure merges are a good idea. I'm thinking TEK came from resource managers and tribes/First Nations in the 80's? I don't know about "traditional knowledge" as a concept, maybe earlier? "Indigenous Science" often points to TEK, but it came from educators in the late '90s. TEK is certainly applied in education, and likewise "Indigenous Science" to promote policy decisions. I'm having a difficult time when the sources start merging the two and not telling me exactly what they mean. fiveby(zero) 02:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Traditional knowledge and traditional ecological knowledge are not exactly the same thing. TK may incorporate TEK but incorporates things outside of Indigenous views on the natural environment (wildlife and the land). Look at Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, while incorporating Avatittinnik Kamatsiarniq (respect and care for the land, animals and the environment) one of the major aspects is Inuuqatigiitsiarniq (respecting others, relationships and caring for people) and most of the others are more than just a narrow focus on environmental concerns. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I just read through traditional ecological knowledge and I don't see the WP:FRINGE problem. Can someone explain what the problem is with reference to the current text? jps (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The opening image that dichotomizes and essentializes TEK and "Western" science as "holistic" and "reductionist" respectively seems pretty sketchy. There's also a lot of overly long quotes and descriptions of examples/case studies, and it's somewhat disorganized. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! That image needed to go, agreed. I found one on Commons that looked better to me. Poorly accounted-for, so we might want to contact the Forest Peoples Programme to see if they have information about the event that occurred in 2011 that we could add as a citation (although, vainly, I think the caption I wrote is relatively uncontroversial). jps (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I have started the process of copyediting. There are issues here with undergraditis writing with value-judgements and dated jargon. The temptation of the prior authors (and some of the older sources, even) to slip into the false dichotomy between "western science" and "noble savage" seems particularly acute. Doing a quick search for the word "western" yielded some places where rewording was possible. jps (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I did a little more work on cleaning up problematic writing. This is definitely one of those cases where the poor quality of writing by assigned students was dragging down the content. However, most of what was included was fine. It's just really, really bad writing. jps (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I think I'm done with my copyedit. I did not remove any sources. I pared down a lot of the unnecessary text. The page was a victim of undergraditis and might be a good object lesson for what happens when half a dozen classes get a hold of an article and let unprepared college students just add text in the hopes of meeting arbitrary word counts. One thing that probably needs emphasizing more with our WikiEdu collabs is that less is more, brevity is the soul of wit, vigorous writing is concise, etc. jps (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Taking hatchet to sources, rv anything where you object. Let me know if you saw any sources which should be included be aren't. fiveby(zero) 16:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I trust your judgement. jps (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Lucien Lévy-Bruhl (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I'm leaving the article alone because Tollefsen tells me there is some discussion about anomalies being a signal to the reader and might be a bad thing to remove them. fiveby(zero) 15:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of that. Regardless, bad content (either false or undue) should still be removed. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• This discussion has been listed at WikiProject Environment, WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas, WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, WikiProject Countering systemic bias, and WikiProject Discrimination. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

References

• Tollefsen, Deborah Perron Tollefsen (2009). "Wikipedia and the Epistemology of Testimony". Epistem. 6 (1). Cambridge University Press: 8–24.
• Segal, Robert A. (2007). "Jung and Lévy-Bruhl". Journal of Analytical Psychology. 52: 635–658.

Aquatic Ape annual incident

• Aquatic ape hypothesis (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

A new editor has shown up at the article with a username matching that of Elaine Morgan's son. No comment on what that might or might not mean, but there is something WP:LTA-ish about their interactions so far e.g. An admin, as well as users more generally, might want to take a look. Bon courage (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Is Josh Gates fringe?

I assume so but the article doesn’t suggest it. Doug Weller talk 09:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I would be hesitant to label a person as “fringe”. He is a TV presenter (ie an actor) who hosts TV shows. Those TV shows cover fringe topics. The place for the label would be in our articles on those TV shows and their topics. Blueboar (talk) 11:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

No He is not, his ideas are. Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The TV shows cover junk but that doesn't necessarily mean he himself is fringe. Although wording like The cast is on display at Expedition Everest, a Himalayan-themed, high-speed, coaster-like attraction where guests come face-to-face with a Yeti. is just promo. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

List of West Virginia cryptids

caught my attention because the first entry is Bat Boy (character). I'm not super impressed but lack the time or energy to think harder about it; perhaps someone here would like to. --JBL (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of West Virginia cryptids. fiveby(zero) 22:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m tickled that Bat Boy has been recast as a cryptid. It’s of no value to WP whatsoever but I chuckled when I read this. So, thanks for that :) --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Cognitive Warfare

I'd like a vibe check on this new article Cognitive Warfare because I'm definitely not qualified to evaluate military-related subjects, but this is pinging my fringe detector. Or am I just getting distracted by the highly unencyclopaedic tone? — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 04:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Also not my discipline, but from the looks of it, this might be a real thing. References 1 and 3 (by same author) seem legitimate but I can't access either one. The article, however...soooo much SYNTH, soooo many non-RS (most of the citations are to YouTube). I doubt the subject of the article is fringe, but the article itself looks like the work of someone with a fringe-adjacent mindset. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The article relies heavily on books by Gary Bonick Jr. (#1, 4, 34), all of which are self-published, and I cannot find any independent indication that Bonick is a SME. Schazjmd (talk) 13:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

This maybe help? I don't see the two top sources it cites providing definitions: (Backes & Swab, 2019) and (Bernal et al., 2020) neither of which i see cited within the article. The alter cognitive brain function in the lead differing from those two definitions looks like a big red flag. The NATO report states that the real difference between this and Information Warfare is that its target is the civilian population and the 2019 definition from Backes & Swab: "Cognitive Warfare is a strategy that focuses on altering how a target population thinks – and through that how it acts." was intentionally vague. It looks to me like that vagueness is being taken advantage of in the article. fiveby(zero) 20:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Fiveby and others, thanks for digging further. My main initial concern was that I couldn't make head nor tail out of the article and that the woolly language might be covering up a whole lot of nothing. Looks like I might have been right to sound the alarm. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 23:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

References

• Miller, Seamus (2023). "Cognitive warfare: an ethical analysis". Ethics and Information Technology. 25. Springer Nature.
• Backes, Oliver; Swab, Andrew (November 2019). Cognitive Warfare: The Russian Threat to Election Integrity in the Baltic States (Report). Harvard Kennedy School Belfer Center.
• Bernal, Alonso; et al. (x) (2020). Cognitive Warfare (PDF) (Report). NATO Johns Hopkins University.

Thread at ANI discussing FTN

WP:ANI#WP:ASPERSIONS, @SMcCandlish and a mess of a VPP thread. Doug Weller talk 08:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Advised that getting FTN involve might derail the discussion which is really about the VPP. Doug Weller talk 10:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Seems a MESS ALREADY, AND THOSE WALLS OF TEXT...Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

new article claiming that "Further genetic analysis on Easter Island indigenous population showed about 10% of the genome to be of Native American origin."

See [4] - a bit astounding, I presume an RS? Doug Weller talk 08:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Nature sometimes publishes this "sizzling new claim" stuff. RS, but from reading it it seems like they have some caveats that should probably be mentioned. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus not sure what they are. There is also this "https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-02620-1" which I can't download, which seems to support it. Doug Weller talk 12:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Nature is available thru wplibrary. "Rapa Nui’s population history rewritten using ancient DNA". Let me know if that doesn't work. fiveby(zero) 15:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Fiveby Odd, I failed to find it there, thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Searching at the top of WikiLibrary doesn't work. You have to go to the Nature page under WL and search there. I've run into that with other journals, as well. Donald Albury 18:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

In some ways, not a total surprise, considering Sweet potato cultivation in Polynesia. Donald Albury 14:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. And there is other evidence suggesting that pre-Columbian contact may have occurred between Amerindian and Polynesian populations. I really don't see how this could be described as 'fringe' at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. There are numerous converging lines of evidence here. We don't know how the contact happened but it's pretty clear that it did. Super interesting paper though! Thanks for bringing it to our attention, Doug. Generalrelative (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Generalrelative Yes, I agree now, not fringe. Doug Weller talk 17:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I was fairly certain that a study came up recently used in support of or on alongside a fringe contact theory. It may have been a study of DNA in Amerindian populations tho. fiveby(zero) 17:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

But not yet time to say that Heyerdahl has been vindicated. Donald Albury 18:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Reality Shifting

Just a heads up in the event that there is some promotion of reality shifting, How should i write about Reality Shifting/Online communities? CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Just took a look at the article and my initial reaction was "The human brain is so weird sometimes". I'm pretty sure no other animal has to deal with the possibility of being so bored that their brain literally manifests a perceivable hallucination to entertain itself. Sirocco745 (talk) 04:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Anti-Russian violence in Chechnya AfD

So, since this was restored back in December 2021, it seems like there's been quite a bit of back and forth on the talk page of the article, about 25 kB by my estimate. Someone's now listed the page at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Russian violence in Chechnya (1991–1994)), and since it's a fringe topic I figured people here might be interested in weighing in and maybe more or less settling things, instead of leaving it to people who are already aware of the article. I'm not too familiar with the topic area so I don't think I'd be much help any time soon, but I might drop a comment in a few weeks if I get the time to review it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Robert R. Redfield

• Robert R. Redfield (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

One of those COVID-19 cranks; an IP insists they know better than reliable sources do. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Crusading at Arian controversy

Self-proclaimed expert using his own site/research to push that the orthodox perspective on this is Wrong. There's already been a trip to AN/I. Mangoe (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I would just take him to ANI againHemiauchenia (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#AndriesvN_and_Christian_theology_articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to his argument, in his own Talk Page, that the Wikipedia pages on the Arian Controversy are edited not by the world's leading scholars but primarily by people intending to defend the Church. The consensus of modern scholars and the consensus of the church are very different. However, I don't even know who the leading scholars in this are, and would take me a long time to try and figure out if this argument really has any weight to it. Having said that, I'm really surprised at how long this has been going on. Guy keeps referencing his own blog and ignoring policy, no matter how many times people explain to him he's not supposed to. Pretty obvious WP:NOTHERE in my book and should just get an indef block. He has been given enough chances. VdSV9•♫ 12:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Oxford Bibliographies entry "Son of God: The Nicene Era" has:

• Hanson, R. P. C. (1988). The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318–381. A long treatment of 4th-century Christology that reads like a sustained commentary on the major texts and issues of the Arian controversy. Masterful, balanced assessment of this crucial phase of the “Son of God” in Christian doctrine.
• Gregg, Robert C.; Groh, Dennis E. (1981). Early Arianism: A View of Salvation. A significant minority view on the Arian controversy, which argues that it was not so much a Christological controversy as a soteriological one...

if i'm reading the issue correctly. Neither currently cited. Like your looking for "leading scholars". fiveby(zero) 13:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy needs some input from other editors

There have been multiple lengthy discussions of the content in this article, and now an IP user involved since last year is suggesting use of information from a, and I quote, "TECHNICALLU UNPUBLISHED SOURCE". The arguments on that talk page are giving me a headache even thinking about it. Sirocco745 (talk) 05:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

adding to my watchlist EvergreenFir (talk) 05:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

ubpubliahed source ? I took ans cropped the image from the "source" that's all SamuelRoth79 (talk) 06:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

https://osf.io/ecwf3/download/?format=pdf

That is the source SamuelRoth79 (talk) 06:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

So what's wrong with that "source" ? SamuelRoth79 (talk) 06:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Look, as it stands, I myself am still collecting information on the reliability of Soy Keita in the field of Egyptology. Until that is determined, the reliability of the source cannot fully be ascertained. Confirming the reliability of a source or the source's author is an incredibly time consuming process, so much so that I don't even really know where to start here. Sirocco745 (talk) 07:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

He is an anthropologist and even he is sited in the article. Just not the picture of the data. The information YES SamuelRoth79 (talk) 07:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

just read about him in the article, I will copy and paste what is written for you. SamuelRoth79 (talk) 07:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

n 2010 Hawass et al. undertook detailed anthropological, radiological, and genetic studies as part of the King Tutankhamun Family Project. The objectives included attempting to determine familial relationships among 11 royal mummies of the New Kingdom, as well to research for pathological features including potential inherited disorders and infectious diseases. In 2022, S.O.Y. Keita analysed 8 Short Tandem loci (STR) data published as part of these studies by Hawass et al., using an algorithm that only has three choices: Eurasians, sub-Saharan Africans, and East Asians. Using these three options, Keita concluded that the majority of the samples, which included the genetic remains of Tutankhamun, showed a population "affinity with "sub-Saharan" Africans in one affinity analysis". However, Keita cautioned that this does not mean that the royal mummies "lacked other affiliations" which he argued had been obscured in typological thinking. Keita further added that different "data and algorithms might give different results" which reflects the complexity of biological heritage and the associated interpretation.

According to historian William Stiebling and archaeologist Susan N. Helft, conflicting DNA analysis conducted by different research teams on ancient Egyptians such as the Amarna royal mummies, which included the remains of Tutankhamun, has led to a lack of consensus on the genetic makeup of the ancient Egyptians and their geographic origins.

Cleopatra SamuelRoth79 (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, can you please explain why the screenshot of the table should be included? I am satisfied with Keita's reliability, but per WP:ONUS, "while information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."

You have yet to provide a coherent reason for why adding this table is a constructive edit. This whole discussion is a pain in the butt for me to understand because I do not understand your angle here. You have presented an edit you want to make, but you have not presented a reason. As such, I cannot assess the value you perceive in the table against Wikipedia's interpretation of value.

In short, my brain hurts trying to understand all of this qwq Sirocco745 (talk) 07:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

okay, my argument is that including the table isn't a constructive edit. my reasons why are because:

- it disrupts the flow of the article

- the information found in the table has already been put into the article

- unpublished studies cannot be used as a source

What is your argument? Sirocco745 (talk) 07:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I would additionally like to add that the spreadsheet SamuelRoth79 wants included, is completely unprofessional and made in Microsoft Excel, unlike the other data charts/diagrams from studies that are incorporated into the article. The others included are professional genetics models on ADMIXTURE, PCA, F_ST ...etc and these illustrations are actually published in authentic scientific journals dealing with ancient DNA. This obscure table should be completely excluded, on top of it being highly questionable by not being peer reviewed via actual or other scientists/geneticists involved in Paleogenomics & Archaeogenetics. Neo the Enlightened One (talk) 08:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

becauae you have all the data of the 2017 Egyptians were whiter than today. Due to the "slave trade". The one that never happened through Egypt. SamuelRoth79 (talk) 10:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

That isn't exactly a reason. What value does the table add to the Wikipedia article from a content perspective? Sirocco745 (talk) 10:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

An admin needs to handle this case ASAP: we're not obliged to host them babbling about people groups getting "whiter" amid other nonsense. Remsense ‥ 论 10:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The only good reason this discussion has gone on this long is because SamuelRoh79 never made any sort of point before their last few edits. No point means nothing to understand, and you can't make a case against something without understanding the other side. Truth be told, I still don't understand Samuel's point. Sirocco745 (talk) 10:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Forgive me, I'm new to technology. Editing internet encyclopedia is a new interest. I should have put all the information in on the picture I added. SamuelRoth79 (talk) 10:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The anonymous IP user has been spamming many Talk pages with the same fringe DNA Tribes material, and the unpublished/not peer reviewed data from PopAffiliator. They were attempting to push a POV here: Talk:Bantu peoples#We've Gotten It All Wrong, the individual is also likely involved on this other page on multiple topics: Talk:Genetic history of Egypt#Inclusion Of The Study By DNA Tribes, it's obvious this is the same person. Neo the Enlightened One (talk) 06:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

no. This is not DNA tribes. This is a published peer reviewed article article using the data from the JAMA article on the Amarna mummies and Ramses III. This photo will get published. I guarantee you. Even if I have to fight tooth and nail SamuelRoth79 (talk) 06:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

and NO I am not the same person. I am white rich JEW SamuelRoth79 (talk) 07:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Any administrators handy? We have an editor walking around here with a sign that says “Please block me” in big bright letters. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 08:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I would ask a reliable/respected Wikipedian for a neutral third party perspective take on this mess, but I don't think I have enough experience or credit to my name for that. Worth a shot though. @Dr vulpes, would it be alright if you gave this a quick peek? Sirocco745 (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

No it was not reviewed by professional geneticists and published authentically, the print originally comes from here: https://osf.io/preprints/osf/ecwf3, with the picture you screenshotted being from a Google Docs https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yhTOR3PZm4v-dr5ODtv28i-Ry25GFVEvrLRuVTG0IGE/edit?gid=1243251660#gid=1243251660 Neo the Enlightened One (talk) 08:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

you already have this information on your article. You know that right? It's just the picture SamuelRoth79 (talk) 09:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

What's on the article actually comes from a review of material in 2022, not from that so called "source" above, as it did not meet Wikipedia's criteria.

Here's where: Page 108, 'IDEAS ABOUT “RACE” IN NILE VALLEY HISTORIES: A CONSIDERATION OF “RACIAL” PARADIGMS IN RECENT PRESENTATIONS ON NILE VALLEY AFRICA, FROM “BLACK PHARAOHS” TO MUMMY GENOMES '

"Analysis of the short tandem repeat (STR) data published on Ramesses III and the Amarna ancient royal family (including Tutankhamun) showed a majority to have an affinity with “sub-Saharan” Africans in one affinity analysis,[102] which does not mean that they lacked other affiliations-an important point that typological thinking obscures. (Also, different data and algorithms might give different results, which would illustrate the complexity of biological heritage and its interpretation.) This analysis was performed using an available algorithm[103] that unfortunately only has three choices: Eurasians, sub-Saharan Africans, and East Asians-the best-known received racial schema by another name, but it still gets used; this is problematic when it is local populations that constitute the historical reality of interactions. One can imagine a database with numerous global local populations.“

https://egyptianexpedition.org/articles/ideas-about-race-in-nile-valley-histories-a-consideration-of-racial-paradigms-in-recent-presentations-on-nile-valley-africa-from-black-pharaohs/

SOY Keita in the above, makes clarifications on the unpublished report about the affinity analysis, and he references a 2011 publication by the PopAffiliator algorithm creator (Luisa Pereira) showing what regions are in the PopAffiliator program, and what it actually does, and the number of loci needed, that's why its so fringey, you can't just use 8 STR and it excludes important regions: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00414-010-0472-2 Neo the Enlightened One (talk) 10:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Please see this on PopAffiliator's geographic regions, 'Eurasians' is only meaning Europeans, while 'sub-Saharan Africans' and 'East Asians' incorporates multiple human population groups whom are unrelated to each other, but the important local populations as SOY Keita was saying are not included, and thus he rightfully deemed it problematic: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/PopAffiliator_geographic_regions.jpg Neo the Enlightened One (talk) 10:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Clearing things up

Since the above messages are an absolute mess to read through, I'm going to summarize what's happened in the past 24 hours for anyone still scratching their heads. @SamuelRoth79 has been trying to add a table displaying genetic distribution for Amarna mummies to the Ancient Egyptian race controversy page. The information comes from a DNA Tribes report, a source which the community has deemed unreliable. See this Archive thread for more information. SamuelRoth79 got this information from this POV-pusher IP editor, who has made multiple attempts to dispute mainstream consensus on a variety of race-related articles with DNA Tribes-sourced material. Upon seeing the image added to the article, I took a fringe theories approach and removed it. SamuelRoth79 then proceeded to call me racist, which genuinely surprised me and made me do a bit of a double take. After that, I added this current topic to the noticeboard to draw more attention from more experienced editors than myself to the situation because I was unsure on how to proceed.

The above thread can be summed up as "a few editors dissect the source while SamuelRoth79 makes nonsensical statements with big time gaps." I still believe they made their edits in good faith and thought they were genuinely trying to improve the article, so I must emphasize this is not an attack thread. However @SamuelRoth79, I do have some words of wisdom for you. Articles related to racial heritage and genetics are often designated as contenious topics, and all content that goes against mainstream consensus is to be treated as fringe theories. Please read up on Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, it is invaluable to know even the gist of them.

Lastly, while not required, an apology for calling me a racist would be greatly appreciated. Reading that almost gave me a heart attack (figuratively) because I could not tell if the comment was a simple attack or your genuine belief. Sirocco745 (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

If you took it that I called you a racist. Than I didn't mean it. Obviously I don't even know you. But you probably don't even know much about this polémique. That has been an intellectual debate for 200 years now. And now with DNA. We have people who are purposefully using DNA samples from a random cemetery in northern Egypt and saying this represents all of Egypt, whe. We already have the DNA samples of the 18th dynasty. So if you are new to this s debate. Than I would hope you would understand why this information is critical. Black people, at least in my country go ballistic every time a cop accidentally kills a black man. They start tearing down statues, which they would have NEVER DONE in Ancient Egypt, destroying public property was the death penalty and history to them really mattered. So I think if their self esteem was raised a little bit. By the knowledge that they were the Ancient Egyptians, maybe not by ethnicity but by appearances and haplogroup matchs. They would behave a little differently. This DNA was NOT taken from DNA tribes. You keep saying that, are you not hearing me?? Thus data was taken by SOY Keita himself and run through his samples and it came back 93 percent sub Saharan African. The 18th dynasty, the RICH ONES , AND Ramses III. It is just a picture. It's not like I put a Hypnotic spell on it. SamuelRoth79 (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Precambrian chitons and another reports by Mark McMenamin

@Zhenghecaris: (contribs) is recently trying to create articles and add information from taxa described in "Deep Time Analysis: A Coherent View of the History of Life."[5] written by researcher Mark McMenamin. In this book, he claimed that there are Ediacaran fossils from Mexican site Clemente Formation, includes some surprising findings such as stem-chiton, aculiferan (Clementechiton and Korifogrammia), and trilobite-like organism (Palankiras). However, even through such finding should be important for evolutionary biology, searching google scholar about those findings only results researches by Mark McMenamin himself and almost no other studies. McMenamin himself is known from fringe therory such as the Triassic Kraken (hypothetical giant cephalopod around 30 m which hunted giant ichthyosaurs), and Near Eastern discovery of the New world before Columbus. In fact, there is no research other than McMenamin's own research regarding the occurrence of fossils from the Clemente Formation, and this may not be accepted by other researchers. However, I haven't found much concrete rebuttal to these studies, except that a 1999 study states that it is doubtful of biological origin and is much older than other Ediacaran Biota.[6] Zhenghecaris still adding information about Clemente Formation and taxa from there to articles like Kimberella, Chiton, and article of Clemente Formation itself. Also, this user doesn't seem to understand what sources are available, just that I told him like "I'm suspicious because this study was done by a researcher known for Triassic Kraken.", this user added about that to article even no sources claim like that. What especially problematic is claim in Evolution of the eye. McMenamin claimed that Clementechiton was the earliest animal with eyes, and in February User:Earthjewels830 (contribs) who seems to be a sockpuppet of McMemanin himself, added information about that even no other researchers accept. I deleted that cleim but Zhenghecaris reverted that, and this still remains in article. Zhenghecaris have some other problematic behaviors such as uploading copyvio images in Wikimedia Commons (see Commons:User_talk:Zhenghecaris), edit someone's image roughly to make it like what they claim (Commons:File:Zhenghecaris_with_setal_blades.jpg), and Complain rudely about a user's art style. I feel that something needs to be done about this user, but how should Wikipedia actually respond to these studies by McMenamin? (See also:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology#McMenamin's_taxa) Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I concur that McMenamin, despite being an employed professor, has crank tendencies and his research should be ignored unless cited by other researchers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

There are also similar examples I can provide. Muhammad Sadiq Malkani describes fossil taxa like dinosaurs from Pakistan, in the predatory journal SCIRP. Those are not considered as valid and article created are deleted, or redirected to List of informally named dinosaurs. Michael Wachtler[7] described things like Permian angiosperms in self-published books. Those are also not considered valid in Wikipedia. Now, all the taxa that McMenamin described from the Clemente Formation were described from the book he wrote. If you look at other chapters of the book (which is accessible via Wikipedia Library), you'll see unlikely things like a reconstruction of a slug-like creature with a crystal on its back... Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Publishing research in a book is unusual for Ediacaran paleontology. SO I think we should wait for confirmation from independent researchers before using those publications. This shows the risk of using primary research. Perhaps I wasted my time tracking down this book! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I get the impression that McMenamin's research is largely ignored by other Ediacaran researchers looking at scholar citations. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)