Archive 100

Archive 101

Archive 102

Archive 103

Archive 104

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'm not opposed to merging indigenous science into TK, but TEK is a distinct term, and while being a subset of TK, it has received substantial scholarly attention on its own. The article being in a poor state is not a reason to merge. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:12, 20 November 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^[1] 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)

Was just angry about the "ignoring scholarship" comments. I can sure go add to his article that he was an armchair anthropologist who never went into the field and based everything on testimony of missionaries. And:

Levy-Bruhl had imputed to Africans a certain lack of mental skills and he had suggested that such a lack was due to the fact that they were black. Thus, his conclusion held that black people were incapable of logical and coherent thought. Instead, they tended to wallow in contradictions and could not distinguish between what he called the supernatural and reality.

— [1]

Then start in on Indigenous science, all within P&G, because i don't like it. fiveby(zero) 13:02, 3 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)

• 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.

Some of the material I had removed from Traditional knowledge around the time I opened this thread has been reverted back into the article by the editor who added it originally. The text claims, These systems of knowledge are often guided by intuition, and generally based on accumulations of empirical observation and on interaction with the environment. and, as before, cites this 2012 paper, which on Google Scholar only got 16 cites in well over a decade (way less than many other similarly aged papers on TK). The paper includes something called "revealed knowledge" in IK/TK, and explicitly supports animism, supernaturalism, and misuses of concepts like "expanded" consciousness and quantum entanglement:

• Intuition, particularly in its transrational form, refers to knowing without knowing how you came to know (Bernstein, 2005; see also Barrett, in press). It goes beyond patterned understandings based on experience (for example, those small intuitive leaps an experienced practitioner might make when encountering a new problem to solve) to include insights that in some cases transcend time (McCraty et al, 2004) and physical location (e.g. a mother who knows her child is hurt even when he may be in another country). To distinguish this kind of intuition from intuition based primarily on experience, we use the term transrational intuition throughout the rest of this paper. Such transrational intuitions may come through dreams, visions, gut feelings, a sudden word or phrase that pops into one's head, a "felt sense" or an unexplainable awareness of the "right" answer, or way to proceed. Transrational forms of intuition are the result of an expanded consciousness, and are accessible to all humans regardless of cultural background. They are also in alignment with many of the spiritual aspects of Indigenous knowledges. However, since they “fall outside the pale of what professional cultures are willing to accept” they are often dismissed

• Transrational forms of intuition and animism are linked....An animist ontology supports a relational interaction with those who are not human, and acknowledges that plants, animals, and spirits exist in communicative relationship with humans. Insights received often take the form of dreams, visions, a felt sense, and so forth – ways of knowing which in Eurocentric traditions, are generally attributed to a brilliant human mind (Snyder, cited by Taylor, 2005), a pathology (Vaughn & Walsh, 2000), or a higher power (e.g. Abell, 1994). From an animist perspective, these insights are contributed from non-human “persons” with whom one is in relation (Harvey, 2006a; Stuckey, 2010) and are offered to humans who have the ability, and are open, to receiving them.

• The intermingling of learned knowledge with other forms of knowing reflects the existence of a realm of knowledge and knowing well beyond conscious thought – an idea which is well accepted in many knowledge traditions (Meyer, 2008). Recent theorizing in the areas of, human consciousness, quantum entanglement, spiritual knowing and intuition (e.g. Bradley, 2007; Hart et al., 2000; Sinclair, 2011) is deepening understandings of forms of knowing that are not fully premised on rational analysis and observable phenomena.

I think this sort of thing is very clearly fringe.

The editor also cited this paper this time, which only mentions "intuitive" briefly in passing.

In sum, I don't think the idea that knowledge based on intuition, let alone "transrational" intuition, is something mainstream belongs in Wikipedia at all. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

There is a tremendous amount of literature here, coming from multiple disciplines, and many of the authors are not very careful with what they say or how they describe 'knowledge'. It seems to me those papers coming from post-colonial studies and the field of education are the worst and most incautious. This 2021 literature review has been very helpful for me in organizing the concepts and Fikret Berkes' Sacred Ecology is excellent for Traditional ecological knowledge.

At heart much of this is political and authors are seemingly willing to make outlandish and unsupported statements in order to promote their views. In my opinion everything here, despite publication within academic journals, should be treated as merely political screeds and undue for inclusion until demonstrated otherwise. Hopefully a careful author such as Berkes can be found for TK/IK. fiveby(zero) 12:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

One thing that may help here with 'animism' is that is clearly within the domain of TEK. Berkes does cover animism so you could shunt all that content over to the TEK article and i'll make sure that it follows the WP:BESTSOURCES policy. In fact anything connected to the land people live on or or how people interact with it should be primarily described in the TEK article. fiveby(zero) 12:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The editor also added this source to support their claim about intuition. But here too are multiple problems - this source is 17 years old and engages in an essentialized dichotomy between "Eurocentric" and indigenous knowledge (a claim already identified above as outdated and inaccurate), attributes intuition to science as well, intuition is only a minor point, and makes some claims that legitimize things that are clearly fringe like This holistic spiritual power expands the sources of data for IWLN to include, for instance, dreams, visions, and intuitions.... Some of these data (observations and images) are collected systematically in, for example, vision quests, fasting, smudging, prayer, sweat lodges, and various ceremonies.

In any case, based on what I've read, I've not seen intuition mentioned much in recent sources on the mainstream academic use of indigenous knowledge, and certainly not supporting its WP:UNDUE emphasis in the lead (and not in the body, against guidelines). I've removed the claim again and pointed the editor here. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Masakata Ogawa, the coauthor on that paper, is the science educator i mentioned above. First to use the term indigenous science and based on the ideas of Lévy-Bruhl. I had a source for Lévy-Bruhl's popularity in education in the '70s through the '90s and will need to find it again. I'd really like to describe the origin here along the lines of some kind of race realism and there are probably sources available to do something like that. It probably wouldn't be a fair or neutral way to approach the topic tho. Just need to find time to work on the articles. fiveby(zero) 21:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I mean if that's the history, then so be it - I support adding it. I myself have certainly noticed that ethnic/racial essentialism and 'noble savage' tropes often crop up in this discourse, with some people basically just taking racist stereotypes and inverting the polarity of which traits are considered good and bad. At least we have more recent sources with a more moderate and reasonable take on things, as you've noted. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

And Kowal2701 just reverted my changes and citation of newer review sources in favor of the problematic sources described above. Kowal2701, the discussion is here, at a public noticeboard; per WP:MULTI, we are not going to have multiple places talking about the same thing or have it somewhere less visible like an article talk page. Also, per WP:ONUS, you need to get consensus to include these claims about "intuition" and "holistic" before they would be kept. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:Traditional knowledge#November 2024. WP:AGF Kowal2701 (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I am AGF. As I stated there, aside from the first source in that heading you opened, which only mentions intuition and holism in passing, all of these sources are quite old, which has been identified above as an issue in this research field. Per WP:MULTI, this should be discussed in one place, and here is better since there are more eyes and editors with experience with this. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

P.S. Looking into one of the authors (Barrett), I also found out about #Intuitive Interspecies Communication (IIC), described in that heading below. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Reposting here from Talk: Traditional knowledge#November 2024

Hi @Crossroads, I agree that sentence isn't good and needs to be changed. The purpose of that sentence is to explain the epistemological methods rather than to give another definition. Sources comparing TK with modern science say it is intuitive and holistic, while modern science is reductionistic and analytical. I appreciate your concern over fringe implications, that was not what I was trying to do.

• Modern science favors analytical and reductionist methods, whereas, the traditional knowledge is towards intuitive and holistic view. [2]
• TEK has been accounted as intuitive and holistic as opposed to the pre dominantly analytical-reductionist character of Western science. [3]
• From the brief examples given above, it appears that by the standards of the scientific approach, TEK more closely resembles science than lay-knowledge. However, some real differences exist between TEK and science in that non-test able phenomena such as intuition and beliefs, as well as inter-generational and personal observations, are components ofknowledge in TEK. [4]
• TEK is holistic; Western science is reductionist. Western science deliberately breaks down data into smaller elements to understand whole and complex phenomena. For TEK, all elements of matter are viewed as interconnected and cannot be understood in isolation. • • • • TEK is intuitive in its mode of thinking; Western science is analytical. Intuitive thought emphasizes emotional involvement and subjective certainty of understanding. Analytical thought emphasizes abstract reasoning and the need to separate oneself from that being observed and to learn about it through various replicable measurements. [5]
• Western science favours analytical and reductionist methods as opposed to the more intuitive and holistic view often found in traditional knowledge. [6]

(@Crossroads you may want to move your comment under here) Kowal2701 (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Instead of looking for sources to justify certain terms, you should instead look at recent, reputable reviews and see how they describe the topic, like this one. This sort of essentialized dichotomy is not favored more recently. The sources you cite here are (after the first one) from 2008, 2002, 1992, and 2006 respectively, all over 15 years old. And the first one doesn't really justify these descriptors much, and in any case is just one paper in Futures, not a review. Fiveby, others, what do you think of these descriptors - should they be added? And also, why aren't they in the body? Even if they are used, it should be clearly delineated why the use of intuition and holism is academically justified; vague gestures towards colonialism or spirituality definitely don't explain why traditional knowledge should be used in environmental management, for example. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

When I first researched this I wasn't looking for sources to justify certain terms. My impression is that there is academic consensus regarding this dating back to the 2000s, such that further research repeating the same points wasn't necessary. The 2023 source repeating this is evidence these terms haven't fallen out of favour for valid, substantial reasons. That source you've linked supports the holistic descriptor. I can't find more recent sources comparing TK with Western/modern science. The TK article is C-class and has practically no information directly on the epistemologies themselves. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

"My impression is that there is academic consensus regarding this..." Absolutely not. Please read our best source here for organizing these (and as far as i am away the only source which has yet even attempted to do so) Faced with a vast and fragmented body of literature, scholars interested in the role of knowledge for sustainability must either limit themselves to a single facet of knowledge, or confront the difficult task of navigating a multi-disciplinary and often contradictory maze of concepts. These are encyclopedia articles, that "difficult task" is ours, we need to organize topics, define terms, and explain concepts for the reader.

See the section: Knowledge-related concepts are often mentioned, but rarely in focus or rigorously addressed. We need to take content from those works which are in focus and rigorously address a concept. If you are just pulling quotes from a random selection of papers the articles will be a mishmash of concepts and explain nothing to the reader.

Crossroads, have you had a chance to go through the review article's way of organizing the topics? We should probably go back to your idea of merging at some point, might help with setting scope for the articles. fiveby(zero) 15:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

This is about whether the descriptors “intuitive” and “holistic” should be used in the article? There is consensus that TK/TEK is both intuitive and holistic.

Are you referring to the use of TK, IK, TEK etc.? I agree it’s an issue, and not an easy one for us to solve. Note that that source is just on sustainability science, which is not the only discipline involved with TK, others include anthropology and archaeology. The article says most consider TEK a subset of TK/IK that specifically deals with ecological processes and humans’ roles in them. They should be separate articles. Whether we preclude articles nominally on TK from the TEK article, I don’t know. We could assess whether the author really means TEK based on their definition and focus/discipline? That is probably too much OR Kowal2701 (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Here is another source which discusses the terms IK, TK, and LK, as well as the various disciplines. Relying on and prioritising one source solely on sustainability science is incredibly problematic. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

There is consensus that TK/TEK is both intuitive and holistic. But there is no consensus on what "intuitive" and "holistic" mean. We can certainly document that these descriptors have been attached to these ideas by certain sources, but I think that's as far as it goes. jps (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, but at the very least it gives a couple page links so readers can get a rough idea. I think the comparison to modern science is useful to the reader as it puts it in relation to something they’re likely more familiar with, and it also begs the question “how do these knowledge systems fit into contemporary society (if at all)” which is a focal point of discussion. Kowal2701 (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it has been demonstrated that there is an academic consensus that TK is intuitive or holistic. A smattering of 15+ year old sources and one recent one does not a consensus make, especially when more recent sources eschew them or note that science also involves these traits to some degree. (The review linked above did mention "holistic" for IK specifically, but even then it depends on the overall conclusions which I'd have to look at again.)

Re Fiveby, I haven't had time yet to give the full review a detailed read. I'm not sure yet how best to organize it all but I think merges of some kind may be called for.

Also noting here that another discussion has opened up on the talk page there: Talk:Traditional_knowledge#Science_and_education. I think the issues raised in Science are highly relevant. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

There’s consensus among sources that compare TK to science, I’d only support its inclusion in that context. Where has it been said that science is intuitive and holistic to some degree? Kowal2701 (talk) 07:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I have been reading a lot of sources which are indicating that the sort of conflict thesis treatment of TK/IK and "science" may be problematic from the perspective of science being somehow different than the works and process of TK/IK. Claims that TK/IK are not science is an awkward and arguably fallacious form of demarcation. jps (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I've also seen those arguments but wasn't sure how to treat them. I think it's more helpful to look at these as general differences, it's why sources tend to say "modern science" and "Western science" (Western just means European-derived/Eurocentric, see this book pgs.1-2) rather than just "science". Something like:

These knowledge systems tend to be intuitive and holistic, in contrast to modern/Western science which tends to be analytical and reductionistic. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

But "Western", of course, is completely inaccurate these days. It's a truly globalized endeavor. "Modern science" seems also a misnomer. "Academic science" may be closer, but it's also a bit arbitrary. After all, it's not as though traditional practitioners are just not doing science when they, for example, use their knowledge to track changes in the forest, for example. The critics seem to be pointing out that this bifurcation between *science* and TK/IK is a kind of false dichotomy that may be losing its utility.

In collaborations where TK/IK holders and academic scientists work together, I don't see that the main conflict is between these cultures but rather it seems like the collaborations work to advance the interests of both groups in a synergistic fashion.

jps (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The other issue, of course, is that the hegemony which the source you are citing is complaining about goes well beyond science. It is arguably the same hegemonic structure the book itself is laboring under (academic discourse) and it is mirrored here at this website what with its glorification of the written word, its preference for chain-of-custody arguments when it comes to knowledge, and its linguistic preferences. jps (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you to a certain extent. That book is written by a Norwegian Africanist, it's important to treat it as an African POV. Colonialism has had wide reaching, long lasting impacts which are still being felt. Consider the psychological impacts on both the individual and community. African states inherited and still use European and colonial states and institutions. Their education systems were largely designed by Europeans and inherited. The colonial and European/indigenous paradigm is viewed as a way to parse and remove European elements and reclaim a distinct identity. I agree that the hegemonic structure goes well beyond science. Regarding this website, see Pgallert's WP:Oral citations experiment. Kowal2701 (talk) 21:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to the desire to add local cultural relevance in the post-colonial era, but something like remov[ing] European elements is deeply concerning. Europeans (among others, yes) have historically made major contributions to knowledge and science, and it would be reactionary and anti-scientific to erase that. European advances themselves built on earlier work from the Middle East and India. We should (and are making great progress on) bring in contributions from other cultures (both going forward and, where appropriate, from the past), but we cannot erase past advances. Nations like Japan and China that have become or are becoming wealthy, globally influential in science, and are as non- or post-colonial as can be, didn't get there by removing European advances in knowledge or through a total rejection of European-origin systems (e.g. universities, academic publishing, etc).

To add to jps' comments, I think part of the problem with parallels between TK and "Western science" is that a more accurate parallel is between TK and Western/academic knowledge overall. A lot of what proponents of TK seem to like is really the traditional form of the arts or philosophy, not science. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Those are only my own poorly chosen words, and not necessarily reflective of the discourse. I haven't seen anyone rejecting science, and that will never be on the agenda. It's regarding the exclusion and deprecation of native worldviews and epistemologies (the secular/religious aspect of the debate is not easily settled). I have seen it said that proponents root their support in ethics rather than the merits (regardless I think learning about a different culture/language is immensely valuable). There are enough intelligent and well-meaning people on both sides of the debate, it'll come to a functional solution. It's very unlikely it'll be developed/ex-colonial countries world-leading in this. Western science really means Western epistemologies, but per WP:Truth and WP:NPOV we might just have to follow what the sources say. How about Western epistemologies/modern science? The book above would support that terminology. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why we are not trying to follow the WP:BESTSOURCES here. This whole exercise is looking like a waste of time. Are you finished editing the articles or will you be continuing? fiveby(zero) 15:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

What are the best sources here? Are you trying to say that that one source you found covering a single discipline is the best source? Or are you just operating on WP:IDON'TLIKEIT and dismissing the sources you find unpalatable and don't identify/agree with? We follow WP:NPOV. Kowal2701 (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

What do you consider the WP:Best sources? We can look at the most reputable journals, but we should aim to cover all disciplines. Kowal2701 (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Some academic encyclopedia entries:

• Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology: Indigenous Knowledge and Traditional Knowledge (2020) (has a subsection on TEK)
• Encyclopedia of Sustainability in Higher Education: Indigenous Knowledge (2019)
• Encyclopedia of Science Education: Indigenous Knowledge (2015)
• Encyclopedia of Science Education: Values and Indigenous Knowledge (2015)
• Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics: Indigenous Knowledge (2022)
• Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research: Indigenous Knowledge (2024)
• Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research: Traditional Knowledge (2024)
• Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research: Traditional Ecological Knowledge (2024)

Can we move this discussion to Talk:Traditional knowledge and notify Talk:Traditional ecological knowledge, as this has nothing to do with WP:Fringe really. I've made a section there. Kowal2701 (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you should have restored this. No one else above besides you supports it, nor have the issues with such a dichotomy been addressed.

I figure that this discussion here is about that claim primarily, and it is a good place for it since FTN has experience with the demarcation of science and similar issues. Other stuff from other sources might be different and not problematic. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Similar diff here Leijurv (talk) 23:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

If sources from five different academically published encyclopedias support the content, I'm not so sure Kowal2701's decision to edit Wikipedia articles to be in accord with the sources is all that unreasonable. On Wikipedia we try to summarize what academic sources say; it's not about what we personally believe to be true. Things have been said about what editors think that writers about TK believe or mean to say, but isn't that original research rather than the summarization of academically published encyclopedic content? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the encyclopedias are to use as sources for the topic in general. It hasn't been claimed that they support the specific diff I just linked, which just cited the paper in Futures from earlier. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah the encyclopaedias are just for the topic in general, sorry should’ve made that clearer. Can you summarise the issues with it regarding policy? Sorry, I was under the impression there wasn’t firm opposition to it. I’ll self revert, but I do think it’s very useful to the reader to have the comparison. Kowal2701 (talk) 07:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the self-revert. I would summarize the issues above as relating to WP:UNDUE and WP:RSAGE. In general, it seems like a lot of sources that are more recent don't consider scientific or academic knowledge as necessarily categorically different from TK/IK. WP:FRINGE also comes into play if any WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims are being made that would contradict the scientific consensus on such things as extrasensory perception, as was the case with the source that kicked off this subsection. I don't think you mean to promote that to be clear, and the few of these recently posted sources that I've looked at don't seem to be like that, thankfully. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay I'm happy to exclude it based on that. I think there is merit for including but attributing or contextualising claims of extrasensory perception, as this is often how intuition (whatever we think the "reality" is) is perceived as. For instance in African animism in various cases people believe it is their ancestors speaking to them.^[a] I think it is more the issue of presenting these views as fact. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that first source I used was an incredibly poor one and I’ll be more careful and critical in future. Thank you for your patience Kowal2701 (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

the encyclopaedias are just for the topic in general, sorry should’ve made that clearer: Yes, that wasn't entirely clear. I appreciate the clear up. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Race and genetics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP wishes to change the POV of the article to include language about race being a "near perfect" indicator of ancestry despite a strong consensus among editors and the best sources that this is not the case. See this and this. Note that this IP was recently blocked for a week for Jew-tagging [7][8]. If anyone else cares to weigh in or just keep an eye on the article, that would be helpful. Generalrelative (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• Viktor Schauberger (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Known crackpot. What he wrote about physics was pure gobbledigook because he defined physics terms in an idiosyncratic way and had no clue about how science really works. His ideas are spread by quacks and frauds selling "energized water" and similar things. There are few if any good sources about him, and the article is short after the bad stuff was deleted. The German Wikipedia article de:Viktor Schauberger is still longer with bad sources.

The lead of the article says he was a pseudoscientist, which is true, but there are no sources in the article supporting that. And there have been complaints. I myself have routinely reverted deletions of that term in the past, but then got second thoughts. How should we handle that? Delete? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I think there is no reason to remove, and that "pseudoscientist" might actually be the most charitable way to describe him. The sourcing problem is real though. The German article is very extensive but relying on bad sources that are over used, The French article is short with somehow even worse sources, and it looks like no other one provides anything looking like a saving grace in terms of good sources. Honestly a few IPs occasionally complaining that the term is kinda mean in the last few years without any sort of argument is really not something that I think should influence our decision there too much. Choucas Bleu^talk_contribs 10:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure "we can ignore rules such as WP:OR if only IPs are complaining about it" is valid reasoning. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• Nick Begich (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:FRINGEBLP recently de-merged from HAARP conspiracy theories. Citations don't seem adequate to meet WP:BIO beyond WP:ONEEVENT. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Realnaga User:Realnaga. Doug Weller talk 19:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Please provide evidence to substantiate your claim. Realnaga (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

[9] Removed information identifying Van Sertima as a fringe scholar.

[10] Same thing with Yosef Ben Jochannan.

[11] This edit to Frances Cress Welsing is somewhat more marginal but still iffy. Simonm223 (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I made edits to poorly written sentences and paragraphs. I did not remove any relevant information that wasn't already covered on the pages themselves or linked articles. Realnaga (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Realnaga, as you have already been informed on your own talkpage, the lead section is supposed to summarize the article, so it's appropriate that there is some repetition between them. Have you not looked at your page and seen this? It was posted some 12 hours before your post here. As for the material being already covered in "linked articles", that's irrelevant. An article, especially a biography, is supposed to be readable and informative by itself, without the need for the reader to jump elsewhere. To sum up: you're not doing yourself any favors by insisting here that your edits were appropriate. If you're really a new editor (?), it would be better to take onboard the advice you get from experienced users. Bishonen | tålk 21:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC).

This article essentially treats parapsychology as a serious field of study whose conclusions can be seriously considered to possibly be the truth, which does not align with scholarly consensus given it is considered to be a pseudoscience. At no point does it mention this. I’m not up to cleaning it up right now but I wanted to make draw attention to it (if there’s a good tag to use, tell me). Mrfoogles (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Service: Bélmez faces (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:FRIND sources that are cited like Brian Dunning, Joe Nickell, and Skeptical Inquirer state the "faces" had been faked. Yet these sources are buried within a WP:GEVAL pile of fringe sources. Ironically, it looks like a number of the fringe sources agree that it is a fake. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Anyone who knows the sordid history of James Mellaart? There are a number of sources that have weighed in on whether a particular mural in Çatalhöyük depicts an eruption of Mount Hasan, and are cited in the volcano's article. My question is not about them, but about whether the mural itself (rather than its interpretation) is genuine. This source says that Mellaart apparently faked some of his "findings", but I don't know if anyone has cast doubt on the particular map/volcano mural. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The problems with James Mellaart were quite real and serious. However, they should not have a significant impact on interpretations of the architecture, features, and artifacts that he excavated at Çatalhöyük. I'm an archaeologist, and to my knowledge Mellaart was never accused of faking murals. The mural that apparently depicts the volcano and also a settlement with structures resembling those of Çatalhöyük is quite well-known and I think can still be seen either at the site or in its museum (I'm not certain which). I have encountered interpretations of the mural as an eruption of the volcano in books by Mellaart and also in other reliable texts. Let me know if this would benefit from specific citations to literature other than that of Mellaart. I would recommend looking at sources by archaeologist Ian Hodder, who directed more recent excavations at the site. Hoopes (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, I found out a while ago that this is the second time this issue has come up. I guess we can confidently say that the mural is real and not a fake, notwithstanding the question of what it shows. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

An interesting edit - IP removed the word erroneous from the lead as the article doesn't suggest that. They seem to be correct in that the article is about support of the idea. Doug Weller talk 13:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The word is back. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The secondary sources cited throughout the article are unambiguous about the theory having been dismissed by scholars after the 18th century. Some copyediting to make that clearer could perhaps be undertaken, although for the most part the article is pretty good about phrasing all claims in terms of the theory's popularity and history rather than its veracity. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and added referenced content clarifying the theory's fall from grace, brief resurgence, and further confirmation of its implausibility based on DNA investigations. I suspect Fenton 2020 (the book) has additional relevant information in its final appendix, but I was unable to access that with a Google Books preview. Amusingly, I ended up finding multiple useful RS to fill in that gap that this in the context of Mormon studies. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Rosguill Thanks. I did look at it again and realised the problem for me was the organisation. I've got at least one more source to use. Doug Weller talk 12:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Deathbed phenomena (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Since summer 2022, has become rather Fenwick-heavy [12], weasely and fringey. "Some scientists", yeah right. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Is it worth rolling back to prior to the SPA edits in 2022? Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Check out WP:RS/N#Yasuke_book - the author at the center is a minor professor named Alaric Naudé who seems to have started a private business school registered in France to provide a level of artificial credence to a publishing house he is involved with that only publishes his books and possibly one other author who is also a professor at the same Korean college at which he teaches. The RS/N piece is all over but the crying but Naudé is cited on a few other articles - neither of which are for things within his specialty as a linguist (one is him criticizing Prostasia and the other is something to do with the Dead Sea Scrolls). This guy is pretty fringey and getting up to some stuff that smells funny with the private college / publishing house so I thought it would be wise to get this onto the Fringe noticeboard radar. Simonm223 (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I only came across one cite right now (was the other removed?) Here he is cited for the statement that This manuscript shows the use of the tetragrammaton in the 1st century. It looks like he is the only cite in the entire paragraph that actually talks about the scroll in question (Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever), with the rest of it being a huge pile of WP:SYNTH to make an argument about what that means... but I haven't looked too closely to see if it could be fixed by finding better sources or something. The statements being made there don't pop off the page as "oh my god this is obviously fringe" (though it's so specific you'd have to be an expert to spot that at a glance), but it does look synth-y and should probably be removed or reworked based on that. --Aquillion (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, after reading that bit about the tetragrammaton that's possibly something within the area of study for which he has a degree. It's about the only use of this author to which I wouldn't immediately object. I suspect that quite a lot of the explanatory text that follows is likely sole-sourced from him though so I would worry about bit about WP:DUE and might put a WP:COPYVIO review to my eventual to-do list. Simonm223 (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

An update - an attempt to start at a COPYVIO review led me down a bit of a rabbit hole and now I am not sure if the publisher is legitimate. Considering Naudé has falsified publishers before in other contexts I am throwing the question of the publisher's legitimacy to WP:RS/N. Simonm223 (talk) 14:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine during the COVID-19 pandemic (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Article has been turned around in October and November (it now says the stuff does work [13]) based on a paper from 2022. Is this legit? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Reading the article, I don't see it as it having been turned around and now saying "the stuff does work". The overall tone of the article, especially the lead, are still strongly supporting the consensus that it's ineffective and likely dangerous. I do agree that those two studies that were included recently are problematic. There are tons of meta analysis and RCTs, so, to me, it looks like choosing to include those two is a pro-fringe cherry-picking of the evidence. VdSV9•♫ 13:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, my wording was not quite accurate. My main problems are the inclusion of that study and the subsequent deletion of the picture from the lede with the justification potentially misleading infographic, since recent research is showing WHO might have been misguided on HCL. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Much of this article, especially the Evangelism and Beliefs section, has been rewritten to be more friendly to the church whenever possible; a number of things that portray the church in a negative light have been deleted, and the Evangelism section has been rewritten multiple times to say "It has been criticized as <doing X>, but the police say it is a legitimate religion" in reference to a police statement calling it a "legitimate church" in response to allegations that it was doing human trafficking, which is not really a statement on evangelism or cult status. Large portions are cited to the church, significant parts of the history section included, and there the Hapimo section of the Controversy section is just someone saying "Protests against this calling it a cult were staged, the protesters were paid, and the evidence was faked" (which is somewhat a suspect claim with regards to a cult) with no evaluation of the validity of the claim whatsoever.

Logging this here because the editors trying to make the article more friendly to the church are very persistent, and much of the article has been rewritten; it is difficult to fix. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

This seems like it'd be more appropriate for WP:NPOV/N. Simonm223 (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Today I checked in with our Krampus and found a bizarre section on depictions of Krampus as antisemitic rather than just typical Christian imagery.

I took a closer look at the sources and found that a user there had put together a section that intentionally misrepresented several sources, most of which don't even mention Krampus at all (discussion from me here). This section has likely caused who knows what to circulate on the internet for around a year now.

We need more eyes on this article in general but an admin should really step in and take action to keep this happening again from this editor: this kind of thing is quite black and white and is just unacceptable, actively harming the project. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Good catch, Bloodofox. It is indeed a shame that this poorly sourced material was allowed to stand for a year. I've watchlisted the article. I thought about warning the user but they haven't edited since April. Generalrelative (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• WP:RSN#"Science-Based Medicine" blog

May be of interest to this noticeboard's participants. Bon courage (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Now there is round 2 [14] Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The Spooklight uses a photo of the Paulding Light. Some have said on the talk page that this is "at least misleading" and that "they are not the same thing." [15]. @Mastakos: Geogene (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I added that image to replace an older depiction of the Spooklight that I removed both for copyright reasons and because it seemed fantastical. I fail to see why one picture of a distant headlight against a dark background can't represent another distant headlight against a dark background elsewhere. Unless of course you believe this crap is actually something other than headlights, I just don't see the problem or how this is "misleading", since it says what it is right there in the caption. Geogene (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

It would be as if you used the same photo of the sun in articles about many different cities with the caption "Sunset over the city". Sure, technically, it's the same hot gaseous star and one photo of the sun could theoretically be used to represent all photos of the sun in any city on earth. But shouldn't a serious encyclopedia strive for better? - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The caption has always clearly identified where the photo was taken, so no, it wouldn't be like that. Sure, the encyclopedia could do better -- someone could go to that very specific country road in Missouri and take a public domain picture of car headlights there, just in case car headlights in Missouri are somehow different than elsewhere.

By the way, Battle of the Milvian Bridge has a photo of a Sundog that wasn't taken at Milvian Bridge. Shouldn't that photo be removed on the same grounds? That would be like what is being argued here. Geogene (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that the Paulding Light photo is placed at the top right of the Spooklight article and they are two different topics. This violates MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. If there was a significant mention of the Paulding Light in the article further down then possibly its inclusion would be warranted. It would be better to just have a link to the Paulding Light in the See also section and add Template:Photo_requested to encourage someone to provide a relevant image to the article. IMO. 5Q5|^✉ 14:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I haven't read MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE before, but it says, Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic. For example, a painting of a cupcake may be an acceptable image for Cupcake, but a real cupcake that has been decorated to look like something else entirely is less appropriate. Similarly, an image of a generic-looking cell under a light microscope might be useful on multiple articles, as long as there are no visible differences between the cell in the image and the typical appearance of the cell being illustrated. That is an exact match to the case in question. Geogene (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE begins with Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. The "topic's context" for The Spooklight is a light phenomenon on the border between Missouri and Oklahoma. The Paulding Light is in Michigan. Since there is currently no image of The Spooklight in the article, it is opinion that the Paulding Light is similar in appearance. Again, the issue here is primarily the prominent placement of the photo at top, not its exclusion from the article or placement further down. Can you find other articles on Wikipedia that provide a photo at top that is not a match for the topic of the article? 5Q5|^✉ 14:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Additional comment: Some websites, such as a Google search, will take the photo, omit the caption, and display it as though it's the real thing. 5Q5|^✉ 14:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The image is not decorative, and you have no basis for saying that it is. It is significant and relevant, and you haven't made any convincing argument that a picture of car headlights on a page about car headlights would somehow be irrelevant, unless of course you're pushing a POV that these are not car headlights. Your characterization of the subject as "light phenomena" is pro-Fringe. Your statement that "it is opinion that the Paulding Light is similar in appearance" is also pro-Fringe. Tthe non-fringe POV here is that these are all car headlights. And that is what the real problem seems to be, that some Wikipedia editors and IPs want to push a fringe narrative that the Spooklight in Missouri is somehow different and unexplained and not 100% certain to be car headlights. But sources like skeptic Brian Dunning do say that it is car headlights, and Dunning says it is the same as other locations where car lights are being misidentified as mysterious lights. [16]. Including the photo is consistent with the MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, and I don't see why it can't be at the top of the page. Nor do I care what Google does with the page when it appears in search results; address all complains about that to Google. Geogene (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPA please, and a little less WP:BLUDGEONING would be appreciated. Bear in mind that policy-based WP:CONSENSUS among editors is the preferred outcome rather than editor exhaustion. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

And additionally, The Joplin Toad [17] has posted non-free pictures of the Spooklight that are visually identical to the photo of the Paulding light that's in use in the article. There is also this non-free image [18] and this YouTube video [19] linked to from Dunning's page. So, no, it's not just some personal opinion of mine that they look the same. I'm amazed that this might require a formal RfC. Geogene (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:RELNOT: Content must be directly about the subject of the article. MOS:LEADELEMENTS: As with all images, but particularly the lead, the image used should be relevant and technically well-produced. It is also common for the lead image to be representative because it provides a visual association for the topic, and allow readers to quickly assess if they have arrived at the right page. MOS:LEADIMAGE: Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. The lead image on The Spooklight article should specifically show the Spooklight and if none is available, the Template:Photo_requested can be added to encourage someone to upload one. 5Q5|^✉ 15:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Re: The lead image on The Spooklight article should specifically show the Spooklight There is no policy or guideline that requires that. We have already gone over MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, which explicitly doesn't require authenticity Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic. For example, a painting of a cupcake may be an acceptable image for Cupcake, but a real cupcake that has been decorated to look like something else entirely is less appropriate. Similarly, an image of a generic-looking cell under a light microscope might be useful on multiple articles, as long as there are no visible differences between the cell in the image and the typical appearance of the cell being illustrated.. According to that I could use a staged photo of any distant light against a dark background and it would be usable, as long as it "looks like" a genuine photo of the Spooklight (which let me remind you is not a paranormal phenomenon). I can use any generic picture of car headlights, as long as it looks like "authentic" Spooklight photos on the web. Now that I'm aware of MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE (thank you for introducing me to that) I'm prepared to do an RfC to enforce the guideline if necessary. Geogene (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll kindly repeat my question, the answer to which will help support your argument: Can you find other articles on Wikipedia that provide a photo at top that is not a match for the topic of the article? In other words, that violate MOS:LEADIMAGE? The apparent consensus on Wikipedia is that lead photos should illustrate the topic specifically. Thanks. 5Q5|^✉ 17:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Already asked and answered above with the MOS. Suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK. Simonm223 (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

My question has not been answered. In any event, this discussion has moved back to The Spooklight's talk page. 5Q5|^✉ 13:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Those who follow this board will probably be interested in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#"Science-Based_Medicine"_blog MrOllie (talk) 03:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Noting that the RFC was closed and immediately restarted in a new section, so you might want to look a second time. MrOllie (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Denis Noble has been editing the "The Third Way of Evolution" section of his article for a while. Parts of the this section now read as promotional. There is definitely some WP:COI editing here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

He appeared in a video online? Stop the presses!

The Forbes story it mentions turns out to be a "contributor" piece. XOR'easter (talk) 03:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

This discussion may be of interest to people on this noticeboard. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Journal_of_controversial_ideas_redux Simonm223 (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I found a couple items in the Chronicle of Higher Education that may be usable; the relevant parts are quoted in this edit. XOR'easter (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• David Berlinski (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Article about a creationist and therefore a traditional playground of pseudoscience-deleting philosopher-of-science wannabes. Th last of them threw a fit after being reverted. It's OK now but both the article and the user merit watching. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what was going on there, the editor removed pseudoscientific twice [20], [21] then added it back in [22]. Looks like WP:Disruptive editing. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

They go through articles replacing "which" by "that", and they did it in that article too. As they were at it, they also removed the "pseudoscientific" as an aside. I reverted that, and they got angry, said incomprehensible stuff and called me a fool for a reason known only to themselves. Then they seemed to have noticed that was a bad idea and reverted the "pseudoscientific" deletion to save face or something. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

This is about Uzziah's name appears in two unprovenanced iconic stone seals discovered in 1858 and 1863. The first is inscribed l’byw ‘bd / ‘zyw, "[belonging] to ’Abiyah, minister of ‘Uziyah", and the second (rev.) lšbnyw ‘ / bd ‘zyw, "[belonging] to Shubnayah, minister of ‘Uziyah."^[1][2] Despite being of unprovenanced origin, they are the first authentic contemporary attestations to the ancient king.

Reason: mainstream archaeologists are not allowed to even comment upon Mykytiuk's claim. Unprovenanced objects are taboo: discussing them breaches professional ethics and maybe the law. Just to be sure: I'm not speaking about Wikipedia editors, but about professional archaeologists. Mykytiuk is a retiree and apparently not an archaeologist. And Avigad died in 1992. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be something like "According to jewish tradition," or another similar type of attribution, before the claim that "Uzziah was struck with tzaraath for disobeying God" in the second paragraph of the lead?VdSV9•♫ 12:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Metabolic theory of cancer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I lack expertise on the topic so I don't know whether the article gives appropriate weight or undue weight to the idea. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Appropriate weight, but very badly written and could easily be misconstrued. I'll get to work, since I do have expertise in this area. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

O Govinda has been adding tonnes of promotional and WP:Fringe sources at Ian Stevenson and removing sources critical of Stevenson's work. This has been going on since September. I have been bold and reverted their edits. See talk-page discussion. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I read that article recently and did feel like the whole "dismissal without consideration" and some other things there had some pro-fringe sentiment behind them. VdSV9•♫ 12:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

This is a perennial effort from one editor that has been ongoing for at least a decade or more. It begins with innocuous edits like formatting citations, cleaning dead links, improving grammar, etc. If there is no response, next very subtle POV shifts are introduced, slight watering down of criticism, etc. If there is still no response, then critical material is trimmed and credulous or supportive material is given primary weight. At this point, usually someone steps in, reverts all the edits, and the article goes dormant again for a few years, only to begin the same cycle again. I was about to do the revert when Psychologist Guy beat me to it.- LuckyLouie (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree. It is a type of stealth editing to make some slow minor edits but over time keep adding until the biased POV gets more and more. In general I am not a deletionist, over at A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada I supported a user's re-write of the entire article which was at first controversial. If edits (even controversial) are supported by good sourcing then that I will back them but in this case the sourcing is badly cherry-picked and mostly irrelevant fringe sources from non-specialists, there was a serious UNDUE problem. It's also concerning that this user claims on the talk-page that information cited to a critical source is "not upheld by the source. At best this could be WP:synth, but its not even that". Yet when you click on the source [23] the text matched perfectly. The user removed the content without any consensus [24] claiming incorrectly in their edit summary "Verifications failed. Deleted OR". It's hard to come to any other conclusion that this was not done in good-faith because this material does not fail verification nor is WP:OR. This is a case of deleting sources they dislike and leaving false edit summaries. This isn't at the level of ANI yet but there has been a repeated pattern on and off regarding this type of behaviour on their account going back years from what I could see. If it continues into 2025 a topic ban may be appropriate. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

There is a similar cycle that happens on Talk:Parapsychology every year or so, a push to 'right the great wrong' of not recognizing parapsychology as a science, citing AAAS, Etzel Cardena, etc. It's currently in the ascendant phase now. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

RE Ian Stevenson, see talk-page discussion - User wants all his fringe material restored. I disagree. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I have proposed a deletion and redirect of this article as the content is mostly about Cleve Backster which is duplicated content from his own article. I also believe it is misleading to have an article on "paranormal" plant perception as this is not an independent or recognized field of study. We have Wikipedia articles on plant cognition (plant neurobiology) and Plant perception (physiology). Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a WP:BLAR and maybe a merge of some content if appropriate would be easier. Than prodding it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I believe the best thing to do is to have an article called plant intelligence where all the plant perception paranormal content and the plant intelligence/plant neurobiology stuff is mentioned on one large article. The plant cognition article has an incorrect title as all the WP:RS refer to the field as "plant intelligence". I believe the article title needs to be renamed. These articles have been a mess for over a decade. It's important to keep content on plant physiology separate from any of this intelligence content which is WP:Fringe. Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

In that case, surely the best course of action then is to move the plant cognition article to "plant intelligence" and then WP:BLAR Plant perception (paranormal) to it? Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I was hoping to do this but Wikipedia would not let me per technical reasons. A user had already created a plant intelligence redirect years ago. About a decade ago there was a very poorly written plant intelligence article [25]. There was an old decision to redirect that article into Plant perception (physiology) which was a mistake. I have requested a rename and move on the plant cognition talk-page. Psychologist Guy (talk) 03:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

This is what Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests is for. I don't think the request will be very controversial so I would just go ahead and write it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

what's going on with this now that the title has been changed to Plant intelligence and the AfD has been withdrawn? Should Plant perception (paranormal) be merged into plant intelligence? Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I have redirected and merged the small amount of text on that article to plant intelligence. I believe the issue has now been resolved as we have 1 article for all of the fringe content on which should have been separated from plant physiology a long time ago. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The last thing to do, it to rename this category [26] Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Continued IP edit warring to include WP:PROFRINGE content [27][28][29]. This is evidently the same user picking up from where they left off last month [30][31][32][33][34]. Failure to engage on talk here. I'm going to request page protection as well, but more eyes on the situation would be helpful. Generalrelative (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Needs page protection. The IP is likely to be associated with Human Diversity Foundation. The only way to get rid of them is article protection like on the others. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Second need for protection, seems unlikely to die down on its own Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

ANI is thata way ––>
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
General comment Is FT/N really the right venue to request page protection? At some point, this just becomes WP:CANVASSING. ChopinAficionado (talk) 13:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC) That's not what WP:CANVASSING says. This noticeboard is the appropriate place to request additional eyes on a fringe topic. Note that I requested (and got) page protection at WP:RPP. Generalrelative (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC) The spirit of the law. ChopinAficionado (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Article: 2024 New Jersey drone sightings. Rapidly evolving and increasingly in the news (local, regional, national and international), and starting to get into/bump toward weirdness with the latest Pentagon revelations and claims of "Iranian Motherships". -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The correct solution is to delete the article until it's established that this isn't an irrelevant fleeting news story. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

We're not supposed to rush to create articles... But once the article is created the guidance shifts to don't rush to delete articles. Per Wikipedia:Notability (events) "As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge, which may make a deletion nomination unnecessary. Deletion discussions while events are still hot news items rarely result in consensus to delete." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I said the correct solution, not the one that will play out. :P Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Touche mon ami, touche Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Is this "hot news" or just filler? It seems pretty trivial to me. Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Answering that question is why we're told not to rush to deletion. You can't really tell until the event is in the rear view mirror (some say to wait ten years before evaluating) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

It's now international news for like 72 hours, and all over the major American networks again tonight. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Horse Eye's Back that regardless of what we should have done, that ship has sailed. The BBC have 2 recent stories about aspects of this [35] [36] and even did a live updates [37] and had a video over a week ago [38]. AP News have at least 7 recent stories [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45] and one older one [46] about this, and 4 videos [47], [48], [49], [50]. Reuters have at least 2 stories [51], [52] and one video [53]. Perhaps in a few weeks or more likely months we can re-evaluate what to do with the article but there's no point trying now. Nil Einne (talk) 10:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Geez. There's an article for that?!

I saw mention of it, a couple of posts on social media of pretty obvious misidentifications of airplanes and, in at least a few cases, even planets. And then the bandwagon of highly impressionable people, lunatics and sensationalist journalism (with a ridiculous one on a Fox channel where the story is that these sightings are close to one of Trump's properties, with the comment section of the video leading me to believe that Americans are about to begin trying to shoot down airplanes from up in the sky), but no serious coverage because there is literally nothing to it. Now I see the AP ref and a couple more RS sources covering it, but still too soon and with no sober analysis.

Looks like an absolute flap. A lot of the article is poorly sourced, it shouldn't have been created and it's currently just spreading misinformation. People see something up in the sky, they have no idea how large or how far it is, or how fast it's moving, and they start making claims. Something that looks obviously like a plane is moving toward them, they say it's a "SUV-sized drone hovering" and WP just replicates this claim? VdSV9•♫ 13:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I would like to see an article on UFO flaps. That is a phenomenon that is not well known even though I see lots of sources on the subject. jps (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Seconded, perhaps UFO crazes is a more common title though? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that UFO craze tends to refer more to the broader phenomenon of UFO fandoms. A "flap" is a particular localized event in time and space where there is a kind of mass panic about UFOs and sightings go through the roof. In fact, such flaps happened prior to the traditional Kenneth Arnold kick off. Edison ships and other mystery airship sightings were the flaps in the late nineteenth century. jps (talk) 02:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

What sources are you seeing which use "Flap"? I'm seeing more or less 0% use that language. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I have yet to see any reputable independent sources not affiliated with UFO/skeptic spaces do this. Only Mick West on Twitter, and as he knows as little as apparently even Congress, it would be credulous and absurd to consider him WP:RS (and certainly not WP:NPOV!) on this set of incidents. All of us are in the dark until the government gives up data, it still appears. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

When it comes to ufology and claims of mysterious things in the sky, scientific skeptical sources are the preferred independent reliable sources we should be giving most weight to. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not a ufology article. It would be irresponsible to frame it thus. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

They are perfectly fine sources, but certainly not preferred... And we should not be giving them undue weight. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm thinking Mick West is a reliable source for this, by WP:PARITY. I also see this as a UFOlogy article. Geogene (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

0% vs 0.1% does not a common name make... What other sources are you seeing use flap? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Mick West is quite the expert when it comes to finding out what things in the sky actually are. Doesn't matter if they are being called drones, UFOs, UAPs or alien motherships. So very much RS and NPOV. VdSV9•♫ 13:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

How are y'all not finding sources for UFO flap? I see Diana Walsh Pasulka defining here and probably in American Cosmic by Oxford. Lots of results on scholar to look through. fiveby(zero) 05:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I was surprised to see the Google search result for "ufo flap" in quotes. Quite a bit more sources than expected use the term, which apparently has a deep historical context going back to the 1950s. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

You misunderstand, we're lacking sources describing the current event as a "ufo flap" (nobody is questioning whether the term is a thing, the question is whether RS are using it to describe the events (or non-events as the case may be) in New Jersey). If for example we want to make a page which lists various "flaps" we're going to need at least some of them to actually be regularly called that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

So far the term is being used in places like Substack, Medium and the occasional local radio. It is very likely that after 6 months or a year there will be more widespread RS using the term to describe the flap in retrospect. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm less concerned about the current UFO flap being properly categorized than I am with having an article that adequately describes them as a general idea. If this NJ UFO flap never gets called that, no problem. But we still could have a nice article on this subject. jps (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm actually surprised that article doesn't exist. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

There is a lot of overlap with topics that do exist like List of reported UFO sightings. One spot I see for improvement is that we don't have a dedicated UFO history article which would more or less be an article on UFO flaps. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The sources seem to indicate that there is something substantively different between a flap and a single sighting. Belgian UFO wave is a flap. Travis Walton UFO incident is not. jps (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh then perhaps it is me who is mistaken... I agree that an article on flaps (whatever we want to call them) is valuable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Someone familiar with historical UFO lore could easily create this article. @Feoffer: if this doesn't work we could say his name three times. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes.. UFO flaps are definitely something we need an article on -- they show the social contagion aspect to the phenomenon, and of course, all the fringe stuff goes in 'flaps'. Spiritualism keeps coming back in flaps, etc. We have an article on the 1947 flying disc craze, and I keep meaning to expand 1952 Washington, D.C., UFO incident into the 1952 UFO flap. Feoffer (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. UFO flap is a good start. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Please consider putting Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Psychiatry task force on your watchlist, or subscribing to the talk page, so you can get an Echo/Notification of any new topics created on the page. It is an under-watched page and gets some fringe-related messages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Someone is arguing that the introduction using the word "delusional belief" to describe the idea that malicious actors are transmitting words and sounds into their heads is violating WP:NPOV. Would be useful to get more eyes on this. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

BTW, we now have three articles containing much the same content, which are often targeted (no pun intended) by SPAs seeking to introduce language giving credibility to various fringe claims. Keeping track of the disruptions of similar content among three articles can be difficult.

• Gang stalking
• Electronic harassment
• Microwave auditory effect

It would help if a main article could be identified and content from the satellite articles merged to it leaving a pointer link to the main article.

- LuckyLouie (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd say Electronic harassment and Microwave auditory effect could be merged, but Gang stalking (while including an element of this) is sufficiently unique I'd say it should be a stand-alone article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Microwave auditory effect is a reality based phenomenon, though. Just not one that has a lot in common with how the Electronic harassment folks portray it. I don't think merging the actual physics with the delusion stuff is a good idea. We should remove the 'Conspiracy theories' section from Microwave auditory effect and just have a very brief mention with link to Electronic harassment, though. MrOllie (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The Gang stalking article has been the object of some confusion in years past (it doesn't help that some of the cited sources use the phrase "gang stalking" to describe physical surveillance as well as fantastic forms of electronic surveillance such as microwave technology). Somebody added a brief and possibly WP:OR etymology that says it is a type of stalking, but the article quickly identifies the delusion is specific to technological "mind-control weapons", which places it far outside reality-based relationship abuse and social media harassment. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Should the paragraph on Havana syndrome stay, or should it go with the merge? Also, when the conspiracy stuff is worked out, the following redirects need to be re-targeted: Voice to skull, V2K, and Voice-to-skull. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, is there a reason there's not a separate page for Targeted Individuals at this point? We have two pages (possibly more) talking about them, but no page dedicated to an analysis of the community itself. Amranu (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Two is already too many. Content about a single topic should only be split onto multiple pages when they exceed length requirements, and this topic isn't even close to that threshold. MrOllie (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

A link to Discover Stone Mound App has been added to Karahan Tepe. The app offers virtual guided tours to a number of ancient sites. I haven't downloaded the site, but am hoping someone knows something about it, and whether it is appropriate for our articles to link to it. Donald Albury 15:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks like advertising and shouldn't be on WP. VdSV9•♫ 17:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The app is free, and I don't see anything for sale on the website. It says that the audio is recorded by archaeologists who worked on the sites. My concern is whether the information presented is in line with reliable sources. I'm not familiar enough with the various sites covered to confirm that myself. Donald Albury 18:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

App seems (would want further verification) to be associated with the "2024 World Neolithic Congress". The 2024 WNC seems to have the backing of prominent government institutions and international universities [54]. If this connection is provable, then I would say it would be a reliable source. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• The Black Monk of Pontefract (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Massive reconstruction of a REDIRECTed article places WP:UNDUE weight on a single WP:FRINGE source. Article body loaded with credulous claims in WP voice. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• Warburg effect (oncology) (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Some new accounts/IPs seem unhappy that the "Quackery" section of Lancet Oncology is being cited to call out the quackery in play here. More eyes needed. Bon courage (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

No clue if it's a fringe therapy for autism or not... apparently theres at least one scientific article discussing it as a pseudoscience [55], but i can't really tell if it falls under that or not. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-04014-9

I doubt this'll shut up the pro-fringe users, but now all of their "evidence" can be tossed outright. 2603:7080:8F00:49F1:8D86:230:8528:4CDC (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the paper was retracted by the journal's co-owners. The word "withdrawn" is often associated with an action taken by a paper's authors, which is not the situation here. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

There is an ongoing effort at David and Stephen Flynn to remove or whitewash these individual's medical misinformation section. I believe additional eyes would be helpful on this page. --VViking_TalkEdits 15:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

On the noticeboard Biographies of living persons I've requested help because this situation needs a review by neutral, experienced editors to ensure compliance with Wikipedia’s neutrality and verifiability guidelines.

The previous edits are one-sided, hence several attempts have been made to improve the neutrality of the section by adding balanced context and reliable sources to reflect differing perspectives.

In the "careers" section, edits have repeatedly removed references to David and Stephen Flynn stopping collaboration with Russell Brand, implying continued support despite this not being true.

Specific concerns with the medical section include:

1. The section title “Medical Misinformation” is to make it sensational; hence, changed it into “Health Advice and Public Response” instead.

2. Peer-reviewed studies and mainstream media articles, were added for context but reverted without justification.

3. Efforts to clarify the Flyns’ acknowledgment of errors and removal of contentious content have also been ignored. SabLovesSunshine (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I've started a convo on the article talk page. Please continue there. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some WP:PROFRINGE editing from an account with <1000 edits. I don't have time to engage with them further over the holiday (and I'm at 3RR on this article anyway). Other experienced editors are invited to take a look. Note this response I left on their user talk page to their most recent revert. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

You added a cite and I quoted it verbatim. If it's a fringe source, why did you add it? Hi! (talk) 09:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

You quoted it selectively to highlight a caveat as though it were the central point of the piece. This looked an awful lot like WP:POINT, as did your subsequent edits to the page. Generalrelative (talk) 13:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Just noticed Turkheimer had this out in November: Turkheimer, Eric. "IQ, Race, and Genetics". Understanding the Nature‒Nurture Debate. Understanding Life. Cambridge University Press. fiveby(zero) 18:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

See [56], [57], [58] and [59]. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted them. I see long-term Grail SPA @Creolus: whitewashed the Abd's article two months ago so I just reverted them as well. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Also noting for posterity that I've managed to find another decent English-language source on the topic [60], don't know if there are any more in German. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Yup, in his Grail Message he distinguished between the Son of God (Jesus Christ) and the Son of Man (himself). The morals of the book was that Christ was a loser, while Bernhardt is a winner. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I really feel that if you are to stay objective, then you should look at the evidence to come to a conclusion. It's not whitewashing if you choose to use the author's exact words to represent his legacy whilst stating the interpretation of others which are not really in accord with the author's wishes or actions.

And worthy of note, I'm not a member of the grail movement but even they shouldn't be banned from editing if the content brought is true and verifiable. 2A00:23C8:E70F:C001:A5BF:3554:E7D:7FCF (talk) 03:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm... that's not how Wikipedia works. We prefer WP:IS WP:SECONDARY sources written by real scholars to a WP:IN-UNIVERSE view of the religious believers. See emic and etic.

Also, religious preachers often state "Go left!" when they go right. We don't take WP:PRIMARY religious writings at face value. We don't take Bernhardt's statement that he preaches the rationally intelligible version of Jesus's message, but essentially the same message, at face value.

He knew that saying "Let's do like the primary Christians" was tantamount to founding a new sect. Because there were plenty of historical examples of that. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

use the author's exact words to represent his legacy

No. That's just propaganda, not reliably sourced information. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Service: Grail Movement (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

For those who are already watching the article and do not want to destroy their last-version-seen bookmark by clicking directly on a newer version. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth I've comprehensively rewritten the article on the Grail Movement based on the very useful encyclopedia entry. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Recently there was a statement which is added in heliocentrism article which claims that vedic philosopher Yajnavalkya (c. 900–700 Century BCE) proposed Yajnavalkya's theory of heliocentrism stating that the Sun was "the center of the spheres".The problem is that the reference given below is just a misinterpretation of the text which claims that vedic scholar knew about heliocentrism way before Aristachus of samos and was the first to do so.I have reverted the edit but it is keep on adding by other users.It is traditionally accepted in mainstream academia that the first person to propose heliocentrism is the ancient Greek astronomer aristachus of samos and any theory before him isn't accepted by mainstream academia or it is considered as fringe theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myuoh kaka roi (talk • contribs) 06:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

You didn't explain how it was "misinterpretation" of the text rather than direct mention of the authors 2409:40E4:11EB:FB67:8037:7716:4447:C052 (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Authors in the reference themselves misinterpreted the the text which states that the

Sun is the centre of spheres

as heliocentrism but heliocentrism itself states that the sun is the centre of the universe and planets revolve around the sun and secondly there is no mention of original text by authors in their reference most of them rely on tertiary sources and the statement itself is unscientific as it is widely accepted in scientific and mainstream academia that the first person to propose heliocentrism is the ancient Greek philosopher aristachus of samos Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Here are some reliable sources which talks about astronomy in india^[1][2]None of them talks anything related to vedic heliocentrism. Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

You didn't mention how Yajnavalkya's mention is interpreted in Heliocentric context.Vedic era philosopher Yajnavalkya (c. 900–700 Century BCE) proposed elements of heliocentrism stating that the Sun was "the center of the spheres".^[3] 2409:40E4:11EB:FB67:8037:7716:4447:C052 (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't equate to heliocentrism as it's just a religious interpretation so it doesn't belong to the article and Secondly, J.Gregory; Henley, Ernest M (2012). Physics Around Us: How And Why Things Work. World Scientific Publishing Company Isn't even credible source as neither of them are experts in these fields.Even the description of the book claims that it is suitable for a first year, non-calculus physics course not a peer reviewed journal.Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

All of the sources are authentic, nonetheless there are probably more to it, I ill discuss in that particular page of the article. 2409:40E4:11EB:FB67:8037:7716:4447:C052 (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

See here 2409:40E4:11EB:FB67:8037:7716:4447:C052 (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Just because World Scientific Publishing Co., Inc is used to publish research paper and project that doesn't mean that all research papers are credible and I had already discussed in my previous comment that the book is meant for first year non calculus students.Research books required to be reviewed by authors who are expert in that particular field to give it a peer review . Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

So what, You can't dismiss it's credibility on Anything; There are multiple other cite besided that. 2409:40E4:11EB:FB67:8037:7716:4447:C052 (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Most other sources you provided aren't credible that's the reason why it got removed. Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Credible on what basis, Yesterday or early today you were arguing good publication like Oxford Cambridge to provide and seemingly thats the only basis, and somehow provided you want other criteria and somehow getting your own opinion or research being given that way. 2409:40E4:11EB:FB67:8037:7716:4447:C052 (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion on one page-it will be easy rather switching. 2409:40E4:11EB:FB67:8037:7716:4447:C052 (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I presume that new article Modern science and Hinduism could do with a thorough check. Fram (talk) 09:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Despite the head note about not confusing it with Vedic science, most of it seems to be about Vedic science. And quite apart from anything else, most of the body of the article seems to be a paraphrase of reference 8. The headings are pretty much identical. Brunton (talk) 09:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

The same editor has also started a draft at Draft:Hindu Science Draft with some of the same content. Brunton (talk) 11:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I boldy redirected to vedic science as an alternative to a WP:TNT. I judge maybe a half dozen sentences/ideas may be useful to incorporate over there. jps (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Vedic science itself needs some serious work, particularly given the appropriation of the term by Hindutva. JoelleJay (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. If nothing else, the creator has pointed out a gaping hole in our coverage. We need something along the lines of an article on Hindutva pseudoscience. Maybe a spin-out from Hindutva itself? jps (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

many religions use science apologism to justify faith. best to understand they are mostly means to justify religion to those insecure about it, but pseudoscience might be incorrect term of talking about it.

I don't mean to say that science proving hinduism right should be taken as a fact (def would break NPOV), but that we would also be wrong to dismiss the beliefs of a worshipper as "pseudoscience" when "religious faith" and "scientific apologism" would be the more correct term to describe this. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

an example of an article section covering scientific apologism a bit better Islamic_attitudes_towards_science#Miracle_literature_(Tafsir'ilmi) Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

When there is a concerted effort to replace certain scientific disciplines with religious-inspired belief, that is pretty classic pseudoscience. There are plenty of pieces from respected scientists who are aware of the current political/religious arguments being proffered against scientific understanding within the context of Hindutva who call this kind of posturing "pseudoscience". Wikipedia need not shy away from this designation. jps (talk) 23:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

What if Hindutva pushes n pseudoscientific positions but n+1 is not pseudoscientific, do we risk n+1 inheriting the posturing stink of the others? Evathedutch (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

If Hindutva pushes a position that isn't pseudoscientific, then it shouldn't be discussed in a "Hindutva pseudoscience" article. Brunton (talk) 10:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Would a "Hindutva pseudoscience" page focus on the pseudoscientific topics itself or how "Hindutva pseudoscience" is used for other other aims? Evathedutch (talk) 04:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

i dont know what hindutva pseudoscience would entail. just pointing out terminology for the phenomenon where some guy tries to argue their religion describes the germ theory/embryology/big bang/etc first before science is scientific apologism not pseudoscience.

pseudoscience is passing off a fringe topic as science. science apologism is bending religious words to match current theories to argue your god knew it first Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The argument that Hindu astrology or ayurveda or any number of other ideas for which we have no scientific basis are actually "science" is proper pseudoscience. But "science apologism" is also pseudoscience especially in the context of arguments where there is claim that the particular religious idea predated the scientific context and was therefore privy to the evidence that led to later scientific developments. jps (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I trimmed most of the unsourced puffery added on 21 November. Frankly though whether the article should exist at all should be examined; it might be ripe for AfD. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The creator of the article had the username "HindutvaWarriors" until a bit over a week ago. Brunton (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Gonna add a reference section to the bottom of the article.CycoMa2 (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it does. The biography of one of the authors, Giorgio de Santillana, mentions the book but no criticism of it. Doug Weller talk 10:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

For your awareness, I've opened an RfC here [61] on the reliability of NewsNation, a frequent source used for UFO coverage on WP. Chetsford (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, even if I do not agree with the deprecation/depreciation system. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome, even if I do not agree with your disagreement. Chetsford (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Of course not, But an ex-navy graduate student has managed to get a paper claiming this into a book published by Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Coğrafya ve Kartografya (Geography and Cartography in the Ottoman Empire), eds. Mahmut Ak and Ahmet Üstüner, 201-86. Istanbul: Istanbul University Press, 2024 [62]. An article I wrote long ago might be relevant here.[63]. Doug Weller talk 10:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Found him being used in one article and deleted it. It was obviously a good faith addtion. Doug Weller talk 14:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

He's emailed me demanding it be added to the Newport Tower article as it has been peer reviewed. Doug Weller talk 14:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Taken it to RSN. Doug Weller talk 16:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Homeopathy crank, involved in the anti-Ernst smear campaign a few years back. (de:Claus Fritzsche was paid by Big Homeopathy to tell lies about Edzard Ernst, was exposed in an article in a major newspaper, "The dirty methods of the gentle medicine", was dropped by Big Homeopathy like a hot potato, killed himself. Walach blamed the skeptics for that.) Should his involvement be in the article? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Not sure about the new edits. My watchlist has never been so strange as in the last 12 hours. Doug Weller talk 10:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you have specific concerns? Looking over the changes, nothing jumped out at me as horrifically problematic, but I'm not reading that closely. Feoffer (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted a sanity check. :) Also seems ok to me. Doug Weller talk 11:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if any edits were problematic! I am interested in strange things. It's a bit awkward writing the... plot? When it's something like this, but it's unavoidable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Quite the rabbit hole I just went down with this one. I've added it to my watchlist. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Among other issues [64] is used as a source. Also see Cartographic expeditions to Greenland where that article has been added through the redirect Pining expedition. We don't even know if John Scolvus was a real person. Doug Weller talk 16:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

AfD'd it. I would have thrown up a speedy delete but I imagined it'd pass some very quick smell check with the way it's written looking more legitimate than normal fringe nonsense here. Didrik_Pining#Alleged_trip_to_America seems to have everything needed for now. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

And now we have Portuguese Newfoundland also saying the Portuguese got there first, same fringe book as source. Doug Weller talk 09:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

AFDd this, as well. It does appear there's a few adherents to these ideas around Wikipedia and the writing quality is high enough to mask the patent garbage underlying, which is a nuissance as it sort of rules out speedy deletion. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• Seed oil misinformation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

New IP address on talk claiming there is evidence seed oils are driving chronic disease. The usual suspects cited including a paper by James DiNicolantonio that is often cited by the paleo diet community. User is requesting that the article be renamed "Health effects of seed oils". See discussion on talk-page. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The article Electrohomeopathy appears to be in the middle of a months long Edit War to remove any mention of it being quackery or pseudoscience. I would appreciate some extra set of eyes on this article, specifically people that have more experience in this type of article. --VViking_TalkEdits 14:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Rewrote some of the intro to call it quackery, which thankfully wasn't hard to cite. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• John Yudkin (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I have no idea how right or wrong exactly he was, but sentences like The efforts of the food industry to discredit the case against sugar were largely successful sound exactly like what we hear from fringe pushers. Characterizing a rather sensible-sounding sentence by Ancel Keys as rancorous language and personal smears is inappropriate too. Who has the competence to improve this? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The efforts of the food industry to discredit the case against sugar were largely successful

Is this a fringe view? I was under the impression that this was as generally accepted as the history of the tobacco industry. GMG^talk 14:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

No it was mostly exaggeration. There were only a handful of sugar industry funded studies on CVD. The article has been on my watchlist for a while, many Wikipedia articles in the past cited this credulous Guardian piece written by Ian Leslie [65] promoting a conspiracy theory about the sugar industry which takes its information from low-carber Robert Lustig who is completely unreliable. John Yudkin was an early low-carb author who rejected the evidence for saturated fat and CVD risk; instead he blamed sugar. Robert Lustig promoted a lot of conspiracy theories defending Yudkin. There are a handful of old studies funded by the sugar industry that investigated cardiovascular disease but low-carbers like Lustig and Gary Taubes exaggerate and claim there were hundreds. It would be worth removing Ian Leslie's unreliable article as a source from the article, it promotes WP:Fringe and sensationalistic claims. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Umm... I'm not sure that's the prevailing modern view. GMG^talk 15:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I have read that paper many times. It is a favourite of the low-carb community. The paper you cited is talking about the 1960s and its cites unreliable sources like Gary Taubes and Nina Teicholz. D. Mark Hegsted received a one off payment from the Sugar Association for $6500 for a review of research. There is no evidence for 100s of studies funded by the sugar industry, if you think there is please list them. The claims are exaggerated, that's why they have so few examples. Back in the 1960s the standards of disclosure were less stringent than they are today. Hegstead also received funding from the dairy industry for his research but of course that isn't mentioned in the paper because it doesn't suit their narrative. The modern prevailing view is that high saturated fat consumption is bad for health. All the guidelines recommend limiting processed sugar but it isn't considered the main risk factor for CVD. There are many risk factors. The "blame only sugar" approach for CVD or all chronic disease is definitely a WP:Fringe view, and no different than what we are now seeing with seed oil misinformation. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Here is Hegstead's 1967 review [66], can you find any faults in the methodology? The paper admits to having received funding from the "Special Dairy Industry Board". The paper you cited by Cristin E Kearns doesn't mention this. Here Is Hegstead's conclusion from the paper: "The major evidence today suggests only one avenue by which diet may affect the development and progression of atherosclerosis. This is by influencing the serum lipids, especially serum cholesterol, though this may take place by means of different biochemical mechanisms not yet understood". Dude was right in 1967 with over 50 years of research since supporting that conclusion. Plenty of clinical evidence has since confirmed the lipid hypothesis. Most of what Yudkin was saying has not been confirmed. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Would appreciate editor input with regards to these edits: [67][68]

Discussion is here: Talk:Gain-of-function_research#Covid_Section_Update_reverted. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

This is getting so tiring, a self-admitted[69] WP:PROFRINGE editor pushing and pushing lab leak talking points on multiple articles. There are very good sources on this so writing good content is not hard. Bon courage (talk) 09:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Pushing a partisan as fuck committee report is WP:FRINGE. I think we should be requiring MEDRS level sourcing on this given how politicised it is with people like Rand Paul pushing the conspiracy theories that leads to hyper-partisan committee reports. TarnishedPath^talk 10:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

I am the person who made the edits in question. I am not a "self-admitted fringe editor," the link provided for that claim is to a talk page discussion from an entirely different user.

I would like to present a succinct argument for my edits;

1. The United States House of Representatives is not a Fringe source, nor is it a conspiratorial organization.

2. Reports generated by the US House are not generally considered the "mere opinions" of those politicians who create them, they are generally considered, at the very least, not conspiratorial. (Some even have their own Wikipedia articles)

3. Testimony from a similar event, a US senate hearing, is presented in the paragraph above my proposed edit without any issue.

4. The edit which I revised, following feedback from other editors, includes secondary source reporting on the primary source, and presents criticism and negative reception of the report, so as to not unduly push one side.

5. The report in question was submitted by a bipartisan committee of Congressmen and Congresswomen. Some of the key points received bipartisan support. Other points had disagreement. It is not "hyper-partisan dog excrement."

6. The 500 page report contains mostly hard evidence, including photographs, emails, reports, transcribed sworn testimony, and subpoena testimony. It is not pure conjecture and opinions of the politicians authoring it, it is based on and provides evidence.

7. The question of "Was there US-funded gain of research in China" is not a question which requires scientific expertise to answer. It is not a scientific question, in the way that something like "What are the cleavage sites on a protein" would be. It is a logistical and budgetary question. Thus, the fact that the authors of this report are not scientists is irrelevant and, as the body which is in control of the budget, is exactly within their expertise.

8. Sources which disapprove of the study and respond to it negatively should absolutely be included. But the fact that some secondary sources disapprove of the study is not a reason to exclude it. BabbleOnto (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

1. The US House of Representatives is full of non-experts touting conspiracy theories. Odd that you would think otherwise.

2. Reports generated by the US House are representative of the members who produced them or sponsored their production. Since (1) is true, it is absolutely possible for reports from the US House to be problematic and not representative of the best and most reliable attestations to reality.

3.Testimony is only as reliable as the person giving the testimony. Many people giving testimony before Congress are unreliable.

4. If a source reports on a primary source with criticism and negative reaction, it may be that the primary source does not deserve inclusion.

5. The bipartisanship of a committee is irrelevant to whether the points in question are problematic. Just because a committee is bipartisan does not mean that the offending text is therefore beyond reproach or apolitical.

6. "Hard evidence" in the context of academic science needs to be published in relevant academic journal and subject to appropriate peer review.

7. "Gain of research" is obviously a typo, but illustrates the point well that expertise is needed to determine whether or not there is any relevant concerns about research funding. The report authors do not seem to have that expertise. Simply being called by Congress is not sufficient.

8. We have rules for exclusion as outlined in my response to point (4).

I think this response illustrates that, intentionally or not, you are functioning as a WP:PROFRINGE WP:POVPUSHer. This is not allowed at Wikipedia.

jps (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

1. Your opinion on the current members of the house is irrelevant. The US Congress is not a fringe source. See my example provided.

2. You just asserted the opposite of my point without any explanation. This isn't a refutation.

3. Unless you're arguing any specific testimony in the report is false, that is true, but irrelevant.

4. Secondary sources reporting on any topic will be both positive and negative, depending on their own biases. The presence of negative reviews is not dispositive to a source's inclusion.

5. The bipartisanship of the committee is completely relevant to the charge that it should be excluded because it is "hyper-partisan."

6. "Did the US fund gain-of-function research in China" is not a question which is scientific in nature. Scientific expertise in the field of gain-of-function research is not required to answer that question.

7. "Did the US fund gain-of-function research in China" is not a question which is scientific in nature.

8. See point 4.

And I do not appreciate threats being left on my talk page. Extremely inappropriate. BabbleOnto (talk) 02:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

At the very least, it looks like this editor is coming in extremely hot based on the WP:IDHT responses I'm seeing just above my reply to you. With the attitude I'm seeing, it looks like they're heading to the cliff where something at WP:AE or an admin here acting under the COVID CT restrictions due to WP:ADVOCACY, bludgeoning, etc. would be needed. Controversial topics are not the place for new editors to coming in hot while "learning the ropes" and exhaust the community, so this seems like a pretty straightforward case for a topic ban to address that. KoA (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I directly addressed or refuted the challenges levied against my points. In what way can you claim my responses are WP:IDHT?

Which of my comments did I fail to substantively defend? I will be happy to do so now. BabbleOnto (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

What is your goal here? jps (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying to have the rules, policies, and guidelines, applied.

The source I've been trying to cite very clearly does not violate WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE. A branch of the US government cannot, in any meaningful way, be called "Fringe" as defined by WP:FRINGE, nor can the reports of it be considered "Unsubstantial," as defined by WP:UNDUE.

Yet, so long as 2 people disagree with source, more specifically, personally disagree with the findings or have a personal vendetta against its authors, it does not matter that my edit is perfectly legitimate and rule-abiding, it will be removed as "Against the consensus."

Which is not inherently bad, I'm willing to change the edit in response to criticism. But, despite my many efforts to compromise or edit the change, change the wording, add context, add secondary sources, those in opposition refuse to hear any compromise or even provide any constructive criticism.

There are parts of the article which neither side disagrees are, are as matter of pure fact, incorrect. However, I'm unable to change them, because one side will not approve any source that I use.

I'm making my case here because I feel I've reached an impasse where the current consensus refuses to listen to any reasonable changes, or any changes at all, even to statements everyone has agreed are just factually wrong. BabbleOnto (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

A bunch of politicians certainly can be WP:FRINGE. In every country politicians are known to spout the most arrant nonsense, especially when it comes to science. The burgeoning antiknowledge movement in the USA as exemplified by the current incident is just another example of this. That we have editors signed-up to the same agenda trying to bend Wikipedia that way, is a problem. As always, the solution is to use the WP:BESTSOURCES. Bon courage (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I mean [70]. While it doesn't deal that much with the science, I'm fairly sure there is probably some science nonsense in it, and there are far worse reports. Then there is United States House Select Investigative Panel on Planned Parenthood which again mostly not dealing with science AFAIK, did deal with it enough to result in this [71]. While not from the house, there was also the infamous Abortion–breast cancer hypothesis#National Cancer Institute demonstrating that even US federal government agencies aren't immune to publishing nonsense due to political interference. 05:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 05:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

New user has absolute faith in something that is clearly not a reliable source and insists on including it. This is a WP:CIR issue and a topic ban would be a good idea. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. We've had more competent editors receive indefs for pushing WP:FRINGE in this topic area. TarnishedPath^talk 11:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I like that you decided to pull out wikipedia articles which contain, by your own words "far worse reports." Wouldn't the fact these "Worse" reports are still allowed in the articles be evidence for my point? If worse sources are still allowed in under the rules, why would this "better" source not be? BabbleOnto (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

This reply I think best sums up what I have to work with; it is the consensus of other editors that the US Congress is a secret, fringe, conspiratorial group which is secretly manufacturing fake evidence and putting out false reports to prevent the REAL TRUTH from getting out to true believers.

And I'M the one labeled the conspiracist for disagreeing. BabbleOnto (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Nobody said "secret". That group has been quite openly anti-science for decades. See The Republican War on Science. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I directly addressed or refuted the challenges levied against my points. No. You responded. However, in your response, you have displayed the inability or unwillingness to understand what was being explained to you. That's IDHT. You continuing to claim that A branch of the US government cannot, in any meaningful way, be called "Fringe" shows that you're missing the point. As does the repetition that nor can the reports of it be considered "Unsubstantial," as defined by WP:UNDUE. even though an explanation has been given on how these reports absolutely can be completely biased, politically motivated, and from a "quality of the source" perspective - be it scientifically, journalistic or just factually -, it is deemed unreliable. VdSV9•♫ 13:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

A branch of the US government cannot, in any meaningful way, be called "Fringe"

There has been no substantive explanation of this. Only repeated assertions that it is true, and then an expression of an author's personal dislike for Republicans or the government in general. That is not an explanation as to why the statement, an objective statement, is true.

even though an explanation has been given on how these reports absolutely can be completely biased, politically motivated, and from a "quality of the source" perspective - be it scientifically, journalistic or just factually -, it is deemed unreliable

Nobody is arguing that the article should be replaced by this report. However, the US Congress's position is very clearly a prominent position. And again, I know you personally believe the US Congress can't be trusted, but WP:UNDUE actually says "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." The US Congress's viewpoint is a significant one, and even if you dislike the original source, there are dozens of reliable secondary sources reporting on it. BabbleOnto (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

You're blatantly wrong here. Politicians saying "science is wrong" is as FRINGE as it gets. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

A question of how much money, if any, was allocated to a certain project, is not a scientific question. BabbleOnto (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

We define what is WP:FRINGE based on the WP:BESTSOURCES. A politician with no expertise in medicine is a terrible source for anything related to diseases, and therefore carries no weight in discussion over whether a particular position is WP:FRINGE or not. There are mainstream politicians who deny evolution; that does not change the fact that that denial is a fringe perspective among the best available sources on the topic. Wikipedia's purpose, as an encyclopedia, is not to be an arbitrary reflection of what random politicians believe or what the gut feeling of random people on the street might be; it's to summarize the very best sources on every topic (which, in most cases, means academic sources with relevant expertise.) Keep in mind that WP:FRINGE doesn't mean that we omit a position entirely; in an article about government responses to COVID, we could reasonably cover the opinions of lawmakers who contribute to that response, even if their opinions are medically fringe. But our core articles on the topic will be written according to the conclusions of the parts of the medical establishment that have relevant expertise; the gut feelings of politicians with no relevant expertise have no weight or place there at all. --Aquillion (talk) 04:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

A politician with no expertise in medicine is a terrible source for anything related to diseases

The question of 'was there US-funded gain of function research in China" is not an epidemiological question, and is not remotely scientific in nature.

You're just not addressing why this question is scientific. You're just skipping past that part. Why does an Epidemiologist have to testify as to the US budget? What would they possibly know about Congressional funding? BabbleOnto (talk) 07:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The question what constitutes 'gain of function research' is very much is a scientific question and thus by extension the question "was there US-funded gain of function research in China" is also a scientific one. TarnishedPath^talk 07:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

That's a nonsense point. By that logic, the JFK assassination report could not be used to support the claim that JFK died unless a journal by the American Coroner's Association agreed with it. BabbleOnto (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The Member Magazine Of The American society for biochemistry and molecular biology quotes Nicholas Evans as saying "No one knows exactly what counts as gain-of-function, so we disagree as to what needs oversight, much less what that oversight should be". Evans specializes in biosecurity and pandemic preparedness.

It is a subject of active debate within the scientific community. Therefore politicians are out of their depth talking about whether there was "US-funded gain of function research in China" when scientists don't agree what that is. TarnishedPath^talk 02:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I originally also had an edit which attempts to discuss this which was also removed. BabbleOnto (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

First off, you don't know anything about what I personally believe about anything. Looks like you're both poisoning the well and mistaking me for jps... Second, and, of course, more relevant here: a report sponsored by members of Congress is not "The Congress's viewpoint". Thirdly, even if they had an assembly where they discussed the matter and voted or whatever it would take to make something "The Congress's viewpoint", it's questionable if whatever conclusion they came to would be deemed a reliable source and IF that warrants being included in an encyclopedic article about the subject they discussed. Explaining it further would just be repeating what I and others have said before. About your other point of there being articles about other, worse, reports. These reports and their coverage are reliable sources for the articles that talk about the reports themselves. The fact that these have been covered by secondary sources means they are notable enough to get their own articles, not that it's a reliable source. What you are asking for is more akin to using the "findings" of the report mentioned by Hob Gadling on something like Use of fetal tissue in vaccine development or other fetal tissue research related article. VdSV9•♫ 14:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The fact that these have been covered by secondary sources means they are notable enough to get their own articles

This report has also been covered by reliable secondary sources. Why then can this source not at least be mentioned? BabbleOnto (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Notability is not the same as reliability. The fact that these have been covered by secondary sources means they are notable enough to get their own articles, it doesn't mean they are reliable to be used as a source of information in articles other than the ones about themselves. That was the whole point I was trying to make above, please read again. VdSV9•♫ 19:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

If the fact that they were covered by secondary sources doesn't make them reliable, then you never addressed my original point, which is why are other House Reports considered reliable, but this one isn't? BabbleOnto (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

VdSV9's last remark is related to WP:ONEWAY. Article about wackos talking about scientific subjects: Sources talking about wackos talking about scientific subjects are OK. Article about scientific subjects such as this one: Sources talking about wackos talking about scientific subjects are not OK. You need to understand that context matters. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

A branch of the US government cannot, in any meaningful way, be called "Fringe" Watch me. If it can happen once in an obvious fashion, it can happen again. Ours is not the job to decide it happened, but when reliable sources identify it happening, we aren't in the business of declaring categorically, as though there is something magical about the US Government, that the reliable sources can't possibly have identified something fringe-y being promoted within the hallowed halls of the US Government. jps (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems that we have to have this conversation about conspiracism in the US house of representatives regularly. There's a similar conflict at Havana Syndrome because some of the conspiracists in the US house believe the CIA is covering up Russian involvement in the proposed syndrome for vague, poorly defined, reasons. Simonm223 (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, the key thing to understand about WP:FRINGE is that it is about where a view stands in relation to the best sources on the subject; it's not a measure of what random people think or what arbitrary big names on unrelated topics believe. This is one of the oldest elements of our fringe policies (since a lot of the policy was hammered out in relation to the creation-evolution controversy, where there very much was a significant political structure devoted to pushing fringe theories aobut it); just because a particular senator doubts evolution doesn't make that perspective non-fringe. Members of the US government are only reliable sources on, at best, the opinions of the US government itself, and even then they'd be a WP:PRIMARY and often self-interested source for that, to be used cautiously. The WP:BESTSOURCES on eg. COVID are medical experts, not politicians (who may have an inherent motivation to grandstand, among other things) with no relevant expertise. Something that is clearly fringe among medical experts remains fringe even if every politician in the US disagrees. --Aquillion (talk) 04:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  1. There are findings which are non-scientific which the report would be used to prove, namely whether or not the US government funded gain-of-function research in China. This is not a scientific claim, and the US government has the absolute most authority on that issue. There is no reason any given medical expert would be qualified at all to talk about this, as it is a logistical and budgetary question, not a scientific or medical one.

  2. There are also findings which are bipartisan. That is, they aren't just the opinions of one or two, or even an entire party's worth of politicians. They are agreed upon by all members of the committee, Republican and Democrat. That is drastically and categorically different than trying to cite one politician's personal opinion as fact.

  3. The remaining claims are still substantial, even if you or a large majority of people disagree with them, as a documentation of a significant viewpoint as required under WP:UNDUE. As paraphrased:

  If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents

  Clearly the US government is "prominent," even if you believe they're secretly a cabal of anti-scientific fringe conspirators who seek to manipulate the fabric of reality to hide the REAL truth. BabbleOnto (talk) 05:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  It is not a usable source. You need to drop the WP:STICK. Bon courage (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes. You've made your opinion abundantly clear. But you have never once provided a valid reason, other than "more people agree with me, so our interpretation of the rule wins."

  I have, at every turn, proven how the source fits the rules. You are overturning the rules in favor of your own, politically motivated consensus. BabbleOnto (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  You have, at every turn, proven that you do not understand the rules. Opposing pseudoscience is not politically motivated just because the pseudoscience is politically motivated. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  I have consistently proven how my edits fall within the rules. The response has been "We interpret the rules differently and we have a majority, so what's actually written means what we say it does." BabbleOnto (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  No, that has not been the response. You do not understand the response or you do not want to understand it. I suggest you should first learn the Wikipedia rules in a less fringey topic. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

The Men Who Stare At Goats Is one of Ronson's best works and illustrative of exactly why placing blind faith in the judgements of the government or military on scientific matters is tantamount to intellectually throwing in the towel and giving up on reality. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I find this logic hilarious when just 4 years ago good-faith editors get banned for not trusting the government sources or trying to exclude the government as a source on lockdowns and social distancing. Go and read the discussion boards on social distancing from 2020, as I just have. I hope you understand that WP's new opinion of "Government primary sources cannot be used," was literally the exact opposite just four years ago. BabbleOnto (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

That's a Strawman. No one is saying that a political report from the legislative branch and the output of public health agencies like the CDC are the same thing. Please try to engage with the arguments others are actually making. MrOllie (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Amongst other secondary sources, I've been trying to cite to the DHHS report about EcoHealth. How is that a strawman to point out that the CDC is a completely valid source, but I have been prevented from adding a DHHS report? Do you know what a strawman is? BabbleOnto (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

It feels like we're dealing with a WP:MASTADON here. You've been warned about WP:AE sanctions and you don't seem to be accepting what others are telling you. How do you want to proceed? jps (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

You've been warned about WP:AE sanctions and you don't seem to be accepting what others are telling you

I haven't edited anything since being warned. I've complied and haven't tried to edit the article or revert my changes. Don't know what you're threatening here.

How do you want to proceed?

I would like the parts of the article which are demonstrably false, and supported by perennially approved secondary sources other than the house report and reporting thereto, rectified. Such as the DHHS barring EcoHealth from receiving funds (Other DHHS reports are cited in the article, and the article still says that EcoHealth was cleared from wrongdoing).

I would of course think at least some mention of the house report, even if negatively, even if only to highlight the secondary source's reception of it, is worthy. But I believe at this point I think some editors are too unwilling to compromise to consider that but, I'll throw it out there. BabbleOnto (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Well, if you're willing to WP:DROPTHESTICK, I'm sure we can happily help you find other places at this massive project to invest your volunteer time. Maybe give it six months and see if the landscape has changed. After all, there is WP:NODEADLINE. jps (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I haven't edited anything since being warned. I've complied and haven't tried to edit the article or revert my changes. Don't know what you're threatening here.

Conduct on noticeboards and talk pages is actionable by WP:AE in WP:CTOPs. TarnishedPath^talk 23:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• BabbleOnto raise valid point: question of US government funding allocations to gain of function research not fall under definition of scientific inquiry and is squarely in purview of US Congress. Dismising report from bipartisan committee undermine the "proportional representation of significant viewpoints" required by WP:NPOV. IntrepidContributor (talk) 07:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  I stated above that the question ow what constitutes 'gain of function research' is very much is a scientific question and thus by extension the question "was there US-funded gain of function research in China" is also a scientific one. There has been no substantive rebuttal of what I wrote above. Politicians are out of depth discussing it while scientists don't even agree what it is. TarnishedPath^talk 10:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  Actually, the controversy of what constitutes 'gain of function research' intersection of science, ethics and public policy, but that is a moot point because we have public testimony from NIH deputy director Lawrence A. Tabak in US congress, which I think is useable in the article. IntrepidContributor (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  I originally had that testimony in the article but it was removed. BabbleOnto (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  and removing it was the correct course of action. TarnishedPath^talk 05:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  Uh no. If it's not agreement upon what 'gain of function research' actually is then it would be wildly undue to be referencing government reports, regardless of who is quoted, that it has happened. TarnishedPath^talk 05:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  By this logic the entire article would need to be rewritten, because currently the article does present a concrete, discrete definition of what gain-of-function research is. If you're seriously claiming there is no consensus as to what gain-of-function research is then the article will need to be rewritten to reflect that. Because currently here is the first line of the article

  Gain-of-function research (GoF research or GoFR) is medical research that genetically alters an organism in a way that may enhance the biological functions of gene products.

  Are you suggesting this is not actually the consensus as to what GoF research is, but just one scientist's opinion of what it is? If so, the article would have to be changed to reflect that. In fact the entire article would have to be rewritten to reflect your claim. BabbleOnto (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

In the article about Jaw Dislocation, in the treatment section, lies some dubious claims hidden in otherwise rational and sourced claims:

The different modalities include patient education and self-care practices, medication, physical therapy, splints, psychological counseling, relaxation techniques, biofeedback, hypnotherapy, acupuncture, and arthrocentesis. (Emphasis added)

This edit was added without a source and then a source was added a few minutes later. The source is behind a paywall, but when I got through it, I don't see any mention of hypnotherapy, acupuncture, or biofeedback at all. Even when I went to the separate page about treatments, again no mention of hypnotherapy, acupuncture, or biofeedback. (And to be frank, no mention of relaxation techniques, psychological counseling, or splints, either, but those seem to at least be more plausible.)

I think an editor put those into the actual treatments hoping no one would notice. As such, because they are unsourced and pseudoscientific, I think they should be removed. BabbleOnto (talk) 06:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

All those that aren't sourced should be removed, including treatments not in the source because they seem plausible is OR.Brunton (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Also summarize everything you do on the Talk page so that the editor is on notice in case they try to sneak it back in. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Actually, that entire paragraph is about treating Temporomandibular joint dysfunction rather than jaw dislocation. It can just be removed, leaving the second paragraph which is actually about treatment of jaw dislocation. Brunton (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I think Temporomandibular joint dysfunction#Alternative medicine could probably do with some eyes. Brunton (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• 2019 Military World Games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Noticed this since it was linked in some COVID-19 talk page. An editor keeps adding this [72] conspiracy theory about COVID-19 based largely on 2020 sources including sources which contradict what they're adding. I intend to bring them to ARE next time they try, but in case ARE doesn't see it the same way it would be helpful to get more eyes on this. Nil Einne (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

To give an example of a contradiction, the edit says "The National Center for Medical Intelligence (NCMI - a branch of the DIA within the USIC) based in Fort Detrick, MD, provided an intelligence report soon after the end of the Military World Games that indicated a contagion had begun spreading in the Wuhan region; this intelligence report was shared only with NATO member states and the state of Israel." So it's presenting this as something factual that did happen. But one of the very sources [73] used specifically includes an explicit denial of such a report "No such NCMI product exists," the statement said." While government statements can't always be trusted, with such an explicit denial reported by the very source we're using, if we're going to present the report as something factual as the editor is trying to do, we'd need strong evidence that this reported is widely accepted to exist despite this denial but there is none in those sources. And this is from April 2020. No sources have been provided demonstrating that anyone in 2025 still thinks this report exists and that's with a change in administration in the US and all else that's gone on since then. I'd note this also seems to contradict the timeline of COVID-19 which suggests it was first identified in December 2019, or with November 17 given as the earliest date in our Origin of SARS-CoV-2 article meaning it is inherently impossible for there to be a report in the 2nd week of November. Nil Einne (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I think we can go ahead and mention that the claims exist, but with much less WP:WEIGHT. I've trimmed it down to one short paragraph that properly balances everything (mentions that the rumors exist, then states why they are false). Diff. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't see a problem with that. I did consider drastically reducing and leaving something in but frankly it was such a mess with all the 2020 sources and even one or two from 2019 (which while the games were in 2019, was well before any talk of COVID so raised strong WP:Syn concerns) that I decided not to bother since it didn't seem that important. I did miss the 2022 source somehow which make it seem more likely we should mention it (since it isn't just something people make a big deal of in April 2020 then completely forgot about). Nil Einne (talk) 03:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I was reverted. Might need more eyes, or an RFC. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Thomas N. Seyfried is a biochemistry professor who probably passes WP:PROF who seems mainly notable for going on podcasts to tell cancer patients to reject chemotherapy in favour of going on a keto diet. Gorski on Science Based Medicine did a good article on him and his claims [74], which in light of current RfC alas looks unusable. The article has been subject to persistent whitewashing attempts by IPs (one of which geolocates to where Seyfried works) and SPAs, and additional eyes would be appreciated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I think he's notable for doing well-cited work on diet/metabolism and (mainly brain) cancer in mouse models, some of which on a quick glance seems reasonably mainstream (see eg Annual Reviews research overview doi:10.1146/annurev-nutr-013120-041149), but notorious for attempting to translate that early research (at best prematurely) into medical advice for people with cancer. We should probably avoid mentioning the issue at all, as none of the sources (either his or those debunking it) fall within the medical project's referencing standards for medical material. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

People are looking up Seyfried specifically because he is coming onto podcasts to make these claims [75], and if we omit them then Seyfried looks like a distinguished scientist giving mainstream advice, when he is saying things against the medical consensus. I think it would be better to delete the article than to omit this information. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I fear the problem is that he genuinely is a distinguished scientist, even if he is currently talking in areas in which he appears not to be qualified. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree with this statement in general; it should be a guideline somewhere. Dronebogus (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

It looks like the 'intactivists' are coordinating off-Wiki to influence circumcision related articles. I was made aware of this at User talk:RosaSubmarine. To quote that editor:

As we speak, pages on children's rights, female genital mutilation, human's rights, male circumcision, and genital modification and mutilation have all been recently improved upon editor notice.

More watchlisting on affected articles would be greatly appeciated. MrOllie (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not touching that article with a ten foot pole but surely the fact that the entire bioethical debate is relegated to a single sentence when it's highly contentious within that field makes an argument that the folks coordinating have a point? The question mark is sincere there, I assume any point I could bring up has already been argued to death by people who know more than I. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The wiki linked on that Talk page [76] quotes Larry Sanger and the Heartland Institute. If those people "have a point", it is by random chance since LS and HI are both, let's say, not among the 8.1 billion most trustworthy people on Earth. This is likely a very WP:PROFRINGE operation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

It's a big topic and written summary style. Most of the relevant content should be at Ethics of circumcision or Circumcision controversies and not the places the new editors have been putting things. MrOllie (talk) 12:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I actually don't really agree the summary style used there is a good one. Dumping the ethical concerns into their own article while keeping the religious concerns (which are inherently ethical concerns) present a WP:POVFORK.

But again, ten foot pole etc. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

If the choice is between summary style (since a specialized article exists) and huge manifestos that solely aim at maximal visibility of a particular POV (massive tables in the lede, excessive blockquotes), then the short-term solution is obvious. For balanced, sensible extensions beyond summary style, there is sufficient room to discuss in the respective talk pages. –Austronesier (talk) 13:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm already involved in enough eternal dumpster fire articles for me to want to get too involved in this one. :) Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Obviously the meatpuppery is a problem, but I do not really see how any of this is related to a fringe theory. It seems like a pretty clear case of activist editing to right great wrongs, which, while misguided, does not really try to introduce fringe views. The "intactwiki" article cited at the beginning of their response is obviously trash that does not help their case, but I believe they are if anything mostly a new user not yet familiar with how things are done here. I tried to point them in a better direction in the discussion on their talk page Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 17:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

We get waves of this business on Wikipedia. The main fringey positions will be attempts to draw equivalence between female genital mutilation and male circumcision. This is often a precursor to fringe medical claims (intactivists like to overstate complication rates in particular) and sometimes antisemitic conspiracy theories show up as well. MrOllie (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

That there is a notable equivalency, not in terms of harm or the damage caused, but in terms of ethical concerns around consent is a completely mainstream perspective within bioethics and calling it a fringe stance feels like using WP:FRINGE as a cudgel. That’s why dumping any concerns into their own article is a POV fork. I think it’s extremely disingenuous to discount the very real and ongoing discussions around bioethics as a fringe stance, even if the attempts to twist the harms to make it more equivalent to FGM are POV-pushing fringe edits.

Literally the first line of the Ethics of circumcision article is the statement:

There is substantial disagreement amongst bioethicists and theologians over the practice of circumcision

Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Correct. But there isn't substantial disagreement about FGM, which is why one side of the argument finds it useful to draw a false equivalence on that point. MrOllie (talk) 13:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I think enough WP:RS sources would disagree about there being no equivalency at all that brining this to FTN instead of an appropriate venue for dealing with the offsite coordination and asserting that it’s WP:FRINGE feels quite inappropriate? Either way, I’m not going to get suckered into this one and will leave it be :) Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

My opinion is that the obvious RGW canvassing and meat-puppetry are obviously bad and should be dealt with accordingly, but also the serious ethical debate around the subject shouldn’t be casually downplayed as purely “fringe”. This is an NPOV issue more than anything. It’d be like saying “opposition to human trafficking is fringe” because some Qanon weirdos are brigading articles about it— mainstream topics always have fringe positions within them, without being fringe themselves. Dronebogus (talk) 11:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

There is an IP adding a theory from an SPS that does not come from a subject matter expert. The theory claims that an act Newsom refused to sign to protect the Delta smelt caused the Palisades Fire to spread out of control. What should I tell the IP? None of the Twinkle warning templates really seem to match. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I would use the Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material ... warning, with a link to WP:RSSELF in the edit window of the message. Donald Albury 21:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delta smelt (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

More and more articles are in danger of fringe edits because of a certain random rambler. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Given that the habitat of the Delta smelt is about 335 miles north of Los Angeles and that all the decisions about the Peripheral Canal were made before Gavin Newsom was governor, and that even if Newsom had pushed hard to ship Northern California water hundreds of miles to Southern California without regard to environmental issues, and had succeeded (politically impossible), the necessary infrastructure could not possibly have been funded and built in the six years that Newsom has been governor. Add to that that the problems with fire hydrants in LA have not been due to lack of water in general but rather to power failures to water pumps caused by the massive fires, and limits to water storage that feeds fire hydrants. The storage tanks high in the hills were depleted quickly. They are bringing in portable generators as needed, and struggling to refill those tanks. When you add all that up, the connection between the Delta smelt and the 2025 Palisades Fire is non-existent, except in the minds of disinformation operatives and gullible conspiracy theorists. Cullen328 (talk) 09:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

My understanding based on watching the coverage of the fires is that it's mainly a pressure issue and not an issue of total existing water. Basically, no city has the infrastructure in place for every hydrant everywhere to be opened all at the same time. It's designed for multiple structure fires and not multiple town-size fires. Moreover, I expect that if someone tried to install the infrastructure for such a rare situation, everyone of all political stripes would be balking at the cost of something that might be used once every century. GMG^talk 12:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

See Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#Science-Based Medicine - cleanup needed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Kozyrev mirror (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Seems to have only in-universe sources. Does anybody know any better ones? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

In russian Wikipedia I deleted it in 2019 because there are no normal sources on this topic ru:Википедия:К_удалению/27_февраля_2019#Зеркало_Козырева. Only fringe sources such as Kaznacheev. El-chupanebrej (talk) 10:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Never heard of it before. Pretty outlandish stuff. Having a look. VdSV9•♫ 13:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

This just feels like it needs an AfD more than any extra eyes on it. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kozyrev mirror (2nd nomination) jps (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Exorcism in the Catholic Church (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Complaint on the talk page: the realist angle is missing. Complaint seems legit. Who is familiar with sources in this area? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

A user is edit warring to include the results of a study in the fringe journal Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing in the article about Brazilian claimed medium Chico Xavier. At minimum the additional context from skeptical writers provided in the explore article (Explore:_The_Journal_of_Science_&_Healing#Chico_Xavier_letters) should be included in the main Xavier article, though I would mind mention of the study being removed enitrely. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done this [77] but the section should still be checked over for neutrality, as the wording of the initial paragraph on the paper seems overtly promotional and long to me. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

If any of this is inappropriate to bring up, please delete and let me know. But... The Portuguese language article for Xavier is very problematic, based almost entirely on believer "in-world" sources, and studies such as this one are presented in a very credulous way. Even argumentative, and often proselytising in tone.

I have tried to make improvements to it, with very little success, because there are always a few believers watching the page who fight over every sentence and are immune to reason (the article is currently blocked by admins because of one such dispute).

Looking over at the English version, it clearly has been created as a translation of an old version of that one and has a few of the same issues, but some of the more outrageous things seem to have been improved.

This Explore paper is a good example of the sort of thing that passes as "scientific" for these spiritist editors (should I tag them here? They also have accounts in the English project). The Portuguese version even includes the fact that the paper is indexed at PubMed, in a very poor attempt at an appeal to authority fallacy. As if the irrelevant fact that the paper's abstract is available at PubMed gives it any weight or credence. Doesn't matter how many times I point to WP:FRINGE, the spiritist Portuguese language editors refuse to listen. If anything, they seem to get offended and sink their heels even deeper by the suggestion. It can be quite frustrating.

I have taken further comments about this paper over to the article's talk page. Anyone is welcome correct me or add to the conversation. VdSV9•♫ 18:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Papers authored by parapsychologists, especially ones forwarding WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims, should not be given weight in an article unless they are notable as discussed by WP:FRIND sources. Although better than the Portuguese version, the Xavier article is still loaded with worshipful anecdotes and overly credible tone, e.g. When challenged to demonstrate his abilities, Francisco impressively rose to the occasion. He was asked to improvise an essay on the spur of the moment about a grain of sand, with the assistance of a spirit. Despite the lack of preparation and the immediate nature of the challenge, he succeeded. I understand Xavier is a beloved part of the culture in Brazil, but our article has long ago veered off the path of encyclopedic. I would say WP:BLOWITUP but doubt the fans would allow it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I think Hemiauchenia did a good job in regards to the part that mentions the Explore paper. The section you quote is one outstanding example of the proselytising tone in the article. Such an unsourced fantastic claim should just be removed. The one ref in the entire childhood section doesn't have anything about an essay on a grain of sand.

This was probably taken by one of the many very credulous biographies about the man. VdSV9•♫ 21:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@VdSV9: The problem is that the coverage of Xavier is basically entirely in Portuguese, and often in difficult to access 20th century sources like old TV interviews and such. I would improve the article, but without good critical sources that's difficult to do. Do you have any good source recommendations that talk about Xavier from a non-hagiographic perspective? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it is a big problem. Almost everything that is published about him in mainstream media for the past several decades has been hagiographical. There are very few exceptions, but publishers usually err on the side of caution when it comes to hurting people's religious sensibilities, as Brazilian law typically is more interested in protecting religious feelings than it is in protecting the victims of charlatans.

It's quite a cumbersome system to navigate, but the Brazilian National Library has a big collection of searchable old magazines (link). Here is one notable story from 1971 that I added to the pt version. And another one from 1944.

A problem, especially with his childhood, is that everything is unverifiable. Everything is hearsay written decades after the fact. We can't even properly attribute things, because we don't really know who said it, or when they said it. For most non-extraordinary claims, that's fine. But when it comes to extraordinary claims, I don't even know how to handle it. VdSV9•♫ 21:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I've just deleted almost the entire childhood section. It's not sourced anyway. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

There's currently discussion occurring at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#WIV did perform genetic manipulation of SARS-related bat coronaviruses in which some editors are proposing that COVID-19 lab leak theory should be edited to state that the genetic manipulation of SARS-related bat coronaviruses was carried out at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The eyes of experienced editors is invited. TarnishedPath^talk 23:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

As I remarked on the talk page, I think the clearly non fringe thing to do is that we shouldn't ignore what a paper says even if it's primary and continue to present something which seems to be so clearly contradicted. It doesn't help convince the readers of the rest of the non fringe stuff. Instead it's just more likely to make them believe fringe stuff., Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate very much the point you make here and on the article talk page, errors such as this could make the entire article seem lest trustworthy to careful readers. fiveby(zero) 13:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

This conspiracy theory silliness is spreading to unusual pages now [78] I think, somehow, the Americans are to blame. Simonm223 (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)