Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:30, 9 December 2021

Proposed deletions

• 07 Jan 2025 – British Society of Dowsers (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by CoconutOctopus (t · c): Non-notable organisation. No independent sources exist on the article, merely a link to a (broken) website of the organisation and a link to companies house. A BEFORE search brings up passing mentions in opinion pieces about dowsing, and a few self-p ... and endorsed by Bearian (t · c) on 12 Jan 2025

Categories for discussion

• 05 Jan 2025 – Category:Ancient near eastern cosmology (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Marcocapelle (t · c); see discussion
• 21 Dec 2024 – Category:Possibly fictional people from Africa (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Smasongarrison (t · c); see discussion
• 21 Dec 2024 – Category:Possibly fictional people from Asia (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Smasongarrison (t · c); see discussion

Good article nominees

• 15 Dec 2024 – Misinformation about the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Dan Leonard (t · c); see discussion
• 14 Dec 2024 – Flying saucer (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Rjjiii (t · c); see discussion
• 23 Aug 2024 – Epistemology (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Phlsph7 (t · c); see discussion
• 30 Dec 2024 – Havana syndrome (talk · edit · hist) GA nominated by Noleander (t · c) was not promoted by IntentionallyDense (t · c), see discussion

Requests for comments

• 30 Dec 2024 – COVID-19 lab leak theory (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by Slatersteven (t · c); see discussion

Requested moves

• 06 Jan 2025 – Deep state in the United States (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Deep state conspiracy theory in the United States by BootsED (t · c); see discussion
• 02 Jan 2025 – Seed oil misinformation (talk · edit · hist) move request to Health effects of seed oils by 73.40.102.35 (t · c) was not moved; see discussion

Articles to be merged

• 02 Dec 2024 – Amulet (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Ta'wiz by Klbrain (t · c); see discussion
• 24 Nov 2024 – Omphalos hypothesis (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Last Thursdayism by Викидим (t · c); see discussion
• 13 Jul 2024 – Peter A. Levine (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Somatic experiencing by Klbrain (t · c); see discussion

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Ann Coulter

List of scientific misconduct incidents

• List of scientific misconduct incidents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While tracking some paranormal activity I recently reverted an edit there (I didn't take the time to see if it was legitimate but this criticism exceeded what was at the actual BLP article and was added by an obvious sock, so removed per WP:BE). But this also made me realize how this type of article is problematic. Since it concerns a topic that's important in science I thought I'd notify FTN rather than BLPN. My impression is that we'd generally prefer a main article like scientific misconduct where the most notorious cases can be mentioned, rather than an always-growing list article (that also has potential BLP implications, other than constant issues with inclusion criteria and patrol). I didn't take the time to really check but there's no AfD template at the talk page, it possibly never was discussed yet by the community. Input welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 23:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• I immediately searched for Tuskegee Syphilis Study and, on not finding it, think that the article is far from comprehensive and worryingly, perhaps some sort of WP:POVFORK at best. jps (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

  Which made me think of Josef Mengele, who is also not mentioned. Actually letting people die or killing them in exchange for knowledge is obviously a blind spot of the people who wrote that. Well, it is an order of magnitude worse. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

  Probably because (rightly) its concerned with the ethics of conducting research and publishing, falsification of data etc, not the ethics of "Should this research have been done in the first place?" which would be variable given the time and place it is conducted. This does mean that Mengele slips through (although I agree it misconduct should cover obviously unhumanitarian abuses), but equally if it passed moral judgments, how much stem cell research would be labelled 'misconduct'?

  I did a spot check of about 10 random people on that list. The sourcing is all sufficient to justify the *science* was misconducted, eg data falsification/manipulation or plagiarism followed by retractions or sanctions. Its probably worth someone doing the entire list to check however. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

  The title of the list does not lead me to understand that this would be a list of academic scientists who have been accused of research misconduct since 1970, for example. jps (talk) 12:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

  Agree that "this research prompted new ethical rules that didn't exist when performed" would make the already arguably unmaintainable list even harder to draw the line. I feel like this is probably better as a category for existing articles, with the notable misconduct already taking up the bulk of said articles about people (ex: Cyril Burt, Joachim Boldt, John Darsee) and particular treatments (ex: High-dose chemotherapy and bone marrow transplant). But many of the incidents either don't have their own article or reference an otherwise non-notable scientist, including the very first entry, which feels like a weak case for WP:LISTCRITERIA. Sure, scientific fraud is a notable topic, but do we really need a collection of every time a kid cheats in the local science fair? If it isn't notable enough for another article, it probably isn't notable enough for an unmaintained list. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

  Then there's always the issue that categories in relation to BLPs are constanly challenged even when well sourced (all excuses are good), with the technical issue that when linking them there's no associated slot to tie a source to (only the article itself and its sources to verify)... —PaleoNeonate – 16:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: While I agree that would trim the list further, I'm not convinced it's necessarily a bad thing. The instances most worth putting in a category seem relatively unambiguous, including direct references to their misconduct. It's not a case like "conspiracy theorists" categories that have WP:COATRACK fights, as in most cases we can point to authoritative decisions made regarding the misconduct. And, per the sample I looked at, either they aren't notable enough for an article, shouldn't be in the category because it's a WP:COATRACK (the Richard Eastell article and his entry in the list both note he was negligent but didn't engage in actual scientific misconduct, so I removed it), the article already is primarily about the misconduct (Joachim Boldt, Steven A. Leadon), or there's even a section on the topic (John Darsee#Wider misconduct, Andrew Wakefield#Fraud and conflict of interest allegations). I'd rather see maintenance fall on the individual scientist articles themselves, than have things fall through the cracks of a massive list. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps the article can meet with broader community approval by restricting inclusion to people with an existing BLP article on enWiki? That would certainly cut down its size and limit the rate of future expansion, and I am willing to begin that editing process. Lastly, although I understand where you are coming from, Bakkster Man, with the "kid cheats in the local science fair" comment, AFAIK all of the misconduct documented in that article is supported by RS, and a great majority of the listed people in that article attached their misconduct directly to research projects/grants totaling millions of dollars. That is of course nothing compared to the crimes of Mengele, but it ain't no children's science fair, either. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@JoJo Anthrax: I'm of course being extreme, but being reliably sourced doesn't necessarily mean notable. And it's not unreasonable to suggest that a science fair project could produce reliable reporting about misconduct, as in this case. I think we agree that inclusions should be notable enough for their own article (this instance in the list without an article didn't even get barred from grant money). But I also think changing from a list article to a category not only makes enforcing such a restriction easier, but also reduces the possibility of the list being a WP:POVFORK with limited visibility by keeping the discussion of the misconduct on the article about the topic. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Did the Nuclear Boy Scout commit scientific misconduct to earn his Atomic Energy merit badge? What about the professor in Japan who recently published a proof of the ABC conjecture, or the machinations in the Manifold Destiny controversy? As a crimelike designation it should have a certificate, similar to being convicted of a crime, in order to assign someone to the list or category (i.e., in Wikivoice). Retractions are not enough as they frequently result from error not misconduct. Sesquivalent (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

We don't always agree, but I concur here, that a retraction doesn't always mean misconduct, we could expect sources to mention misconduct, like we'd expect them to mention a conviction in the case of a crime. —PaleoNeonate – 16:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with all that you wrote in the initial post and consider having almost any variant of this list to be inherently problematic. In addition to the already discussed reasons, misconduct and related allegations are subjective whereas retractions, dismissals, admissions of fraud, and legal proceedings are objective events. So if this type of list or category is to survive I would prefer to organize it around objective indicators, such as "academic firings in the 2010's" rather than some Index Of Wrongdoing. Even that would be hard to do without appearing to imply misconduct in cases that generated the indicators for other reasons (such as error or political pressure). Sesquivalent (talk) 05:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Is there a difference between "Scientific Misconduct" and "Misconduct by Scientists"?

My understanding, and the definition in the Scientific misconduct, is that scientific misconduct is specifically misconduct with the actual handling of scientific data. (Fabrication, Plagiarism, influencing peer review, etc.)

Nobody doubts that the Tuskegee experiments were a horrible form of misconduct, but do they fit that narrow definition of "Scientific Misconduct"? ApLundell (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It's a magnet for problems. As one omnibus article for all branches of science it would have to be overly long or extremely selective (currently the latter). Even if split into multiple articles there is a demarcation problem. In psychology for example it excludes Cyril Burt, Hans Eysenck, and Marc Hauser, all of whom were credibly accused of misconduct, but includes Philippe Rushton who was accused of many other things but not scientific misconduct in the normal use of that term. And are accusations enough? For the dead they tend to be controversial and unresolvable, for the living there are BLP restrictions. Without a clear and definite criterion for inclusion it becomes a political battleground of who is and is not included. Sesquivalent (talk) 10:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

(Rushton) Apart from manipulating his students into taking part in his research under the threat of additional work. Thats misconduct by any standard. But lets be fair, there is plenty of criticism specifically about his research and methodology as well as his data analysis. The problem with highly intelligent people is that you can never really credibly claim they didnt know what they were doing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Using students in a class for research is par for the course in psychology, and whether he violated any policy depends on whether the research or the use of students is viewed as illegitimate (Rushton obviously didn't think so). Scientific misconduct refers to falsification of data or fraud, as opposed to sloppiness, writing shoddy but honest papers, unprofessional conduct toward students or other failings other that are (1) relatively common, and (2) concern the quality but not the honesty of the work. Sesquivalent (talk) 10:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

p.s., a relatively objective indicator that whatever Rushton's sins, they were not considered (scientific) misconduct is that his university never was able to dismiss him. Research malfeasance is always sufficient for that, and in Rushton's case there was outrage and protests at all levels from students to faculty to the provincial governor denouncing him as a racist. Yet he kept his position. Sesquivalent (talk) 12:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with those identifying the page as a problem magnet. I also agree a good first step is to remove entries that aren't associated with a Misplaced Pages article. If the people aren't notable, listing misconduct or allegations thereof is a BLP vio. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I have started that process. I do not believe the page has been a "magnet for problems," or if it has its H-field is quite weak, but BLP issues are certainly paramount. When that weeding process is complete I will review the remaining entries and remove any for which actual misconduct is not explicitly cited/mentioned in the sources (as opposed to, for example, retractions arising from honest errors). Having previously worked on this page I do not anticipate finding many, if any, such entries, but you never know. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Came upon this by semi-coincidence (I'm a frequent reader of the article for new-article ideas and have written articles from it in the past). I respect this is certainly a complex article from a BLP perspective. I have concerns about the height of the threshold being used for omission, and particularly its disparate impact in terms of what topics enwiki does and doesn't cover. A disproportionate number of the removals have been of subjects from non-English-speaking backgrounds/regions, which are notoriously underrepresented on the project as a whole; as this is a list where not-yet-bluelinked subjects often do have sufficient coverage to be notable, this risks having broader knock-on effects on the erasure of notable non-Anglosphere/non-Western subjects. "No enwiki article" is an understandable threshold, but it's both stricter than WP:LISTCRIT necessarily recommends for a list of this limited scope, and one that risks playing into the biases of when subjects do and don't have enwiki articles and stymying their creation. Vaticidalprophet 02:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Restricting diversity is not the goal, of course, and one could argue that adding entries in this list for people who don't yet have an article is not a service to them, considering that this is about misconduct of usually living people... I understand the concern about having a list of people to write about though, certainly an effort could produce and maintain such a list, like as part of a wikiproject (it may exist perhaps? It does for Women in Red for instance and a countering systemic bias WP also exists). —PaleoNeonate – 07:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that this list has limited scope, as it's going to be very difficult to ensure 'completeness' as suggested in the third WP:CSC. I'd also argue that we'd be making the "not enough coverage of non-English language topics" problem worse by expanding notability for "non-English speakers behaving badly". Making the limited coverage more biased is worse than having a smaller amount of balanced coverage. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, at least the well-sourced entries where sources label the incident as misconduct, such as Zhong and Liu et al. should be re-added. I see that an IP user has already restored the entry on C. David Bridges for similar reasons. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

QAnon expecting JFK to be resurrected, won't leave Dallas

"Why hundreds of QAnon supporters showed up in Dallas, expecting JFK Jr.’s return""QAnon followers who went to Dallas to look for JFK Jr are refusing to leave". Lots of other sources. And how about this Protzman guy mentioned in the Independent article and elsewhere? We don't seem to have anything on this weird fringe stuff. Doug Weller talk 11:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Why Dealey Plaza in Dallas? He did not even die there, his father did. Don't they know the first thing about how ghosts operate? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

They aren't interested in the first thing, since it is clearly faked by the people behind the thirty-seventh thing... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

You may have something there Hob Gadling. Where should they have gone? Has that been faked yet? ϢereSpielChequers 12:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm wrong anyway, it is in the QAnon article. But Protzman isn't. And it belongs at John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories I'd think as it's arguing for a conspiracy that he's still alive. Doug Weller talk 12:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

They think that JFK (b. 1917) is still alive as well as JFK Jr? jps (talk) 12:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure they think either are still alive. From your second source: "Others believed that John F Kennedy would also return along with his son..." I think that means that they believe there will be a resurrection, but that they really did die. jps (talk) 12:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It’s Elvis that’s still alive, surely? Brunton (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It's JFK Jr some think is still alive "Will Sommer, author of the upcoming book Trust the Plan: The Rise of QAnon and the Conspiracy That Reshaped America and a longtime observer of the conspiracy theory, estimates that about 20 per cent of Q followers believe in JFK Jr’s re-emergence, but that those who do, “100 per cent believe”." See John F. Kennedy Jr.#Conspiracy theories. Doug Weller talk 15:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Should we have a section in John F. Kennedy Jr.'s article on conspiracy theories? That seems... inappropriate. jps (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It would be. If this lunacy belongs anywhere, it belongs in the QAnon article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, definitely the best place for any of that... It's quite incredible, I can imagine a type of opportunist variety show (by them or by third parties, to parody or exploit them) with a bunch of lookalikes... —PaleoNeonate – 22:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, others have disagreed and now I have removed the section twice. I wonder if it will return. Seems pretty obvious to me that it doesn't belong on that page, but what do I know? jps (talk) 12:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

ජපස, While discussion here is fine, the consensus you need for wholesale removal is at Talk:John F. Kennedy Jr.. It's inappropriate to forum shop if you don't get a consensus where you want it. Yes, discuss here, but get the consensus where you need it. Anyone commenting here is welcome to comment on the JFK Jr. talk page. Sundayclose (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Race and intelligence again at Talk:The Bell Curve

As usual, more grown-ups in the room would be helpful. Generalrelative (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm too far out of the loop nowadays, its been a decade and a half since I read Bell Curve and Mismeasure of Man. Do we have any applicable consensus (RFC, or otherwise) on the topics at hand, namely the relation of IQ to intelligence/'cognitive ability' and race to genetics? I've got my own perspective on the matter, but what matters is scientific consensus (with WP following from that).

But yeah, comments like "The fact is that, as measured by IQ, blacks are on average less intelligent than whites" throw up a ton of red flags for me. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I've kept out of this subject area by and large but haven't we reached the point where a few WP:PROFRINGE editors are causing disproportionate drama? Probably best to WP:DENY them and revert any bad edits rather than indulge their evident desire for ballooning talkpage threads that go nowhere. Alexbrn (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Part of my comment above is determining if we have an unambiguous consensus that "IQ is an absolute measure of intelligence" or "some races are less intelligent, because that's what IQ tests say" are fringe views, rather than mainstream. The less ambiguity, the easier to address the topic as a whole. Wishful thinking, I'm sure...

Arguably, in some cases "intelligence" and "cognitive ability" are MOS:WTW, having been defined by different people in different ways. For instance, when IQ is tautologically defined as intelligence (or vice versa), or cognitive ability is used in place of intelligence to try and hide meaning ("this race isn't less intelligent, they just have reduced cognitive ability"). Bakkster Man (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The issue of whether IQ can be used as a valid proxy for intelligence is discussed at Intelligence quotient#Validity as a measure of intelligence. I'm not aware of any past RfCs on the matter but the section has been largely stable since I created it back in June of 2020. Two top-quality sources there make clear the mainstream view on the matter:

• IQ tests are valid measures of the kind of intelligence necessary to do well in academic work. But if the purpose is to assess intelligence in a broader sense, the validity of IQ tests is questionable.
• and to base a concept of intelligence on test scores alone is to ignore many important aspects of mental ability.

The latter of these is Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns, a comprehensive review published by the APA specifically in response to The Bell Curve.

If there is a need to establish a more robust consensus on the matter, I would happily engage in that here so that hopefully the pro-fringe editors over at Talk:The Bell Curve can be safely denied, and we can definitively reject the WP:RACISTBELIEFS being trotted out there. But without some kind of additional support, these very committed POV-pushers are not likely to give up their efforts to state in Wikivoice that black people are intellectually inferior to white people anytime soon. Generalrelative (talk) 18:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The first source is a book used in high school intro classes, written by a nonexpert.

Anyway, both quotations are about IQ measures for individuals, and are not nearly as applicable to the present discussion of group differences. Yes, IQ differences between individuals, unless large and repeatable, don't necessarily mean very much, don't encompass all that is meant by intelligence, and the SKYISBLUE. But a 10 or 15 point IQ difference on average between large groups is very meaningful -- Palo Alto versus Podunk.

Additional dimensions of intelligence are nice but don't change anything unless there is some reason to suppose they could wipe out or reverse the difference if included (with appropriate weight according to their importance or predictive power). Since the more influential factors tend to be discovered first, the natural expectation is for new dimensions to have lower weight, which would require very large differences, such as 20 or 30 points or much more, in the opposite direction to fully compensate the differences on the currently utilized dimensions that make up IQ and g. In other words, there would need to be measures that don't correlate with IQ test batteries, do contain strong predictive information, and show a gigantic reversal of the original group difference. If there is no reason to suspect such a thing, such as amazing specialized mental skills found in the lower scoring group at which they consistently dominate others (the intellectual equivalent of Kenyan marathoners or Nepalese sherpas), the uncertainties you are trying to support with the quotations are wishful thinking rather than "the mainstream view". Sesquivalent (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• At this point I highly recommend leaving a brief message at WP:ANI. This is disruptive WP:CPUSH. ––FormalDude 01:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  I appreciate the suggestion. Pretty sure there would be a greater chance of remedy if someone less involved than myself were to take up the task (for anyone not following the ongoing drama at ArbCom, I'm currently being accused of conspiracy or something over there by members of this group). Generalrelative (talk) 03:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

You were accused of tag team editing, which is also in the purview of ANI. Sesquivalent (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The issues there are being misrepresented here. Misplaced Pages RfCs decree that genetic race differences in intelligence are to be treated as fringe and that such is supposedly the scientific consensus. The point that has now come up at the Bell Curve talk page in connection with the lede of the article is a similar sounding claim that is an entirely different kettle of fish in its level of acceptance; it is the standard mainstream view, not fringe. Namely, the claim that there are differences in intelligence (irrespective of whether or not they have to do with genetics) between groups when there are large gaps in IQ and g scores between them. On that there is near unanimity among experts, i.e., that the score differences reflect real group differences, in the same way that differences in numerical concepts like total assets or years of schooling reflect, on average, real differences in fuzzier concepts like "wealth" and "education", provided the differences on the numeric indicator are large. This is not a controversial point at all in psychometrics, though it may have been one several decades ago, and it refers to observed ability at the time of testing, not innate potential or genetics which are the subject of controversy and WP:FRINGE determinations. Some of the editors who consider themselves anti fringe crusaders in this space are having a violent reaction to this information or maybe just the wording of it by some of the commenters. But as information, it is what it is. Sesquivalent (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

That is not what the issue is at Talk:The Bell Curve. The issue is whether to keep the word purported in the phrase purported connections between race and intelligence. The word purported does not imply that what follows is necessarily fringe, but it implies that it's opinion rather than fact. In this case there's no clear definition of the vague terms connection (can mean either correlation, causal connection, or something else), race (a social construct, according to RS), or intelligence (also a contested term). Claims of a connection between race and intelligence, whatever the speaker means by it, are usually made for the purpose of promoting one race and disparaging another one. It all depends on what you want to look at. Racial hereditarians love IQ tests. But someone could plausibly claim that the proportion of anti-vaxx covidiots in a population group is a good measure of group intelligence (or rather lack thereof). By that measure Blacks in the US are more intelligent than whites, and especially white Republicans. NightHeron (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

We are not talking here at FTN because of the word "purported". We are here because in the course of discussing that word, a user or two discussed group IQ differences as differences in intelligence (the real thing, not IQ), another user or two became hostile, at which point the psychometric facts of life were explained to the crusaders. Those facts and whether they can be talked about are the issue here and now. Personally, as I wrote at the Talk page thread, I am against rubbing the reader's nose in this stuff in articles when it can be reasonably avoided. But I do not at all support this current posting spree (though canvassing at NONAZIS was epic) calling for crackdowns both on particular individuals and allowed content on talk pages. Sesquivalent (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Since one of the WP:CPUSH gang has arrived to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion, I'm going to WP:DENY from here on out per Alexbrn's suggestion. If anyone would like to take up FormalDude's recommendation I would of course support that. Generalrelative (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I've hatted the discussion; it seems to clearly be focused on advancing a fringe POV. This and this in particular seem unambiguous (note particularly The authors make clear they think genetics likely makes some unknown contribution—but they're exquisitely clear that they do not claim it does and no one who accepts that IQ tests have even basic validity claims that blacks don't have lower average intelligence than whites—they simply euphemize it, as do Turkenheimer, et al. in acknowledging as a "deficit in cognitive ability", followed by the response of They were anathematized for purporting something controversial. You are right that purported "likelihood" (of genetic influence on...) is the most accurate. Obviously describing the view of purported "likelihood" (of genetic influence on...) as being anathematized falls squarely afoul of WP:PROFRINGE - note particularly that the argument that their views on a genetic link between race and intelligence are being unfairly stigmatized and suppressed is common among people pushing that particular fringe POV. I suggest taking them to WP:ANI or WP:AE if it continues; those two comments alone are probably enough to justify a topic ban for both of them. --Aquillion (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree, fully support the hat. ––FormalDude 09:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

"purported likelihood of ..." is a nearly exact description of what is in the book and anathema(tized), vilified, ostracized etc are common descriptions of the fallout, by writers of all political stripes. That such vilification is unfair is not something I wrote or implied, and instigating an ANI case on personal powers of mindreading to know better what I "really" meant will not play well. All that I posted in the thread is mainstream in psychology, and what the other two editors were objecting to (i.e., saying, implying or creating ambiguity around the idea that large IQ differences might have nothing to do with real intelligence) is a FRINGE position. The reason for the current drama is that Generalrelative was unaware of how fringe it is and how mainstream the opposite assertion is about differences in realized (not innate) intelligence. It would be easy to provide additional quotations, limited to anti hereditarian sources if you like, to support this point. Sesquivalent (talk) 12:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Race and crime

The Race and crime article has long been problematic, and has been discussed on this noticeboard several times before. A fundamental issue, beyond the obvious one of attracting proponents of fringe perspectives, is that it doesn't cover the supposed subject matter from any sort of global perspective. As has been noted on numerous occasions, in practice it only discusses the supposed relationship between 'race' and crime the United States in any detail at all, while managing to imply that it is giving some sort of broader perspective. This is of course entirely misleading, and contrary to Misplaced Pages policy, given that the article Race and crime in the United States already exists: it is either redundant, or a POV fork. I'd appreciate WP:FTN regulars taking a look, to se if anything merits merging elsewhere, because beyond that, it is an obvious candidate for deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

This arguably because "Race" is primarily an American construct that doesn't really apply elsewhere, with "race" often being a euphemism used for black people. I'd recommend a redirect to Race and crime in the United States. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The supposed relationship between arbitrary 'race'-based social constructs and crime has certainly been discussed beyond the United States. Not that it really matters though when discussing the content in question, since it doesn't actually cover any broader studies. Which of course couldn't be discussed without pointing out just how arbitrary it all is anyway. Quite likely explains why the POV-fork doesn't do that... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think a redirect to race and crime in the US is appropriate. Race is absolutely not a US concept, it's just that race means a different thing to each culture and so there is a US "version" of race. The US is also not the only country that has a race disparity in crime. That all being said, this article is 100% a fork. But we should get WikiProjects Discrimination (and probably BLM) to help decide what to do about it. --Xurizuri (talk) 07:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Nominate it for deletion or redirect to R&C in the US. The alternative is actually edit the article to a point where it reflects the varying situations worldwide rather than the current US-centric construct. Since no one has seemed interested in doing that (probably because it would be a mountain of work) the first two seem more appropriate. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• I definitely agree with the WP:POVFORK concerns. I've started a proposal to redirect the article. Pinging those involved in the discussion: Only in death, Hemiauchenia, AndyTheGrump. ––FormalDude 11:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

US vaccine mandates and the Third Reich?

• Vinay Prasad (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Some interesting recent edits on how to deal with a celebrity doctor's view on all this, a WP:FRINGE connection I'd say. Note potential BLP and COI considerations may apply. Alexbrn (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

My initial thoughts… we are giving the entire incident (both the initial blog post and the various reactions to it) too much weight, and should not mention it AT ALL. It was a blog post, not something published in a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The fact that it got picked up by The Cancer Letter lends a certain amount of weight, no? Alexbrn (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

He's a signer of the Great Barrington Declaration and involved with a dubious new think tank. The Cancer Letter article is here also here. He's recently been accused of anti-semitism and racism by Arthur Caplan reported here. Doug Weller talk 11:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The irony is that the Third Reich was against vaccine mandates, as were their core supporters. TFD (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Yep, trying not to let people die, it's not a million miles from what Hitler was doing.Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Claim that an anti-Islam professor has proved statistically that a large part of Islam is political, not relgious

This is Bill Warner (writer) (a pen name}} where someone has added the statement " Warner with the help of statistical methods proves that a substantive part of the Islamic doctrine is not religious but falls within the domain of politics." There are three sources for this - all are the subject himself. I think that the use of mathematics to define a religion is fringe. Doug Weller talk 09:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the article for a long time. This diff maybe a better one to see the changes made. Doug Weller talk 09:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

"I think that the use of mathematics to define a religion is fringe". Stupid would be a better term, I think. Does Misplaced Pages need a stupid theories noticeboard? As for the article, recent edits certainly haven't improved it. Given the subject matter though, I suspect that might be a losing battle. Just how notable is this guy and his ' Center for the Study of Political Islam' anyway? AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Its incredibly bad wording they have shoved in the article but its not actually a stupid idea to statistically model what is political and what is religious in a given text - thats actually used in a number of places on historical documents to analyse what the motivations behind a document are. (eg X % devoted to human rights vs much bigger % devoted to commerical concerns would indicate money was more important than people to the writers). The 'proves that' part is publisher hyperbole however. Its what you read on a dustjacket. What Warner did was show with statistical methods how much of the Koran is concerned with certain topics. The conclusions however are the fringe bit. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Bullshit with added numbers is still bullshit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

(ec)The idea that religion and politics are closely intertwined is about as surprising as the idea that water is wet. Both are systems of social organisation. Start reading at Divine right of kings... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dodger67: of course they are closely intertwined. But trying to apply statistics to what must be subjective interpretations - GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). Doug Weller talk 16:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Warner has committed violation #1 of "doing bad science" which is that he started with a pre-determined conclusion (that Islam is a political, and not religious system) then generated a set of data that "confirms" what he already believed was true. This is bullshit, and if it is to be mentioned, should not be presented as though he "proved" anything; at best we can say he "claims" that he showed it. But it is bullshit, plain and simple. --Jayron32 13:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The article is even worse now, using Warner as a source far too often. Doug Weller talk 16:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Trimmed, but I expect that'll be edit-warred over, because that's how these things go. XOR'easter (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Just trying to understand: In a biography article persons' own opinions whether those are right or wrong, mainstream or fringe can not be quoted or how it is? Idk if I have misunderstood the issue here.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

These opinions certainly can be quoted, but not stated in Wikivoice as happened here. –Austronesier (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Further, in general Misplaced Pages does not use the article's subject as a source for themselves. The only exception is that when a secondary source has commented in a noteworthy manner on the beliefs of a person, it is legitimate to clarify with their own words (because it is not uncommon for critiques to mischaracterize a target's beliefs). This is entirely driven by the coverage given and any quoting should not be disproportionate to the original claim - one should not give an elaborate explication just to clarify an off-handed comment that may not merit mention at all. Misplaced Pages should not be used as a platform to propagate/proselytize beliefs the person happens to hold that have not drawn particular notice in independent secondary sources - not every opinion a notable person holds is inherently a noteworthy aspect of their biography. Agricolae (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Per Agricolae, if a secondary, independent source notes that Warner holds a particular opinion or has published a particular bit of bullshit he calls science, it would be appropriate to cite the original bullshit as a source alongside the secondary source, since it is likely that a person may want to read such a thing. What is not appropriate is using the original bullshit to write its claims into Misplaced Pages's voice uncritically or to make those views more prominent than should be. If Warner is a noted critic of Islam, and that is a key part of his notability, then perhaps mentioning his bullshit calculations would be appropriate. However, unconnected to any discussion of such in a secondary source, then it also isn't appropriate in Misplaced Pages. That Warner did such <fingerquotes>"research"</fingerquotes> is only worth mentioning in the article if other sources have also mentioned it.--Jayron32 18:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Astrology AfD's

Possibly of interest to the community here:

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Angle (astrology)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Descendant (astrology)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Derivative house

Cheers, XOR'easter (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I did not nominate this one, but on reflection I think it suffers from the same problem: Midheaven. Salimfadhley (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

That one's at least fleshed out. IMO the issue is acting like it's a standard term that astrologers also use, rather than a wholly astrological terminology. I made some quick edits to clarify that. But really, most of these articles could just be redirected to Horoscope#Angles, with any notable details placed there. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Does anybody else feel creeped out by all this interconnected nonsense. We cover worthless stuff in this project, lots and lots of it, but this stuff ranks up there with Merkian Professional Wrestling in its absurdity, and frankly, meaninglessness. Aargh. -Roxy the dog. wooF 15:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Compared to COVID origins and treatment, or race and intelligence, this is refreshingly straightforward. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I am concerned that proponents seem to be suggesting that fringe sources should be permitted in order to show that these subjects are notable. Salimfadhley (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:NFRINGE may be pertinent, in that case. Alexbrn (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• I see only one user making the "astrologers exist, therefor notable" argument, and each place they made it another user brought up WP:NFRINGE. Then there's this comment on the Angle (astrology) AfD that gives multiple independent sources (some stronger than others) in their suggestion to keep.

I think it's completely reasonable to say that the topic of astrology (and its major concepts, like the signs and angles) should be covered as a notable topic. It's just making sure it's coverage of pseudoscience as a pseudoscience, rather than a credulous WP:NOTHOWTO guide or with entire unmaintained articles about the minutiae. Of note: WP:WikiProject Astrology has over 200 low importance start/stub articles, which I expect will include a number of other articles with similar issues (no citations, stub length, could be rolled into a larger existing article), such as Diurnal sign. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Here's another one for y'all Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Malefic planet Salimfadhley (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• In general, these are better as merge/redirect than delete. The terms are likely link targets or search terms, and while they cannot support a stand alone target, an article on astrology (or one of the sub-articles thereof) would likely touch on these concepts, therefore we don't need to remove the content or delete the article. There are many ways to deal with non-notable sub-sub-topics like this, and AFD isn't always the best tool for the job. Not every problem is a nail, and you don't always need to use the biggest hammer. --Jayron32 17:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Slightly different subject, but related. Profringe editors teaming up on the Talk page, untoward consequences expected. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

First, you should know that notices like this must be neutral in their presentation.(see APPNOTE) Second, calling Apaugasma and Aingotno "profringe" is a personal attack (see NPA). Please stop treating editors who are acting in good faith this way. Springee (talk) 13:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello again gatekeeper. A little hypocritical, wouldn't you say? -Roxy the dog. wooF 13:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you should also read NPA. I'm not editing the page in question so how am I gatekeeping. Springee (talk) 13:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

there's nothing constructive to be expected from them and Profringe editors teaming up have about the same quality. But apparently the second is bad and the first is not, according to one person, and there is indeeda word for that. Could you please go WP:SEALION somebody else, somewhere else? Isn't there any article about a right-wing nut needing removal of criticism? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

CIVIL is policy. The first paragraph makes it clear that it applies even in the case of content related questions. It's quite possible you are correct on the content but if so why not do it politely? Springee (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: I admit I was not being polite here, and I see why it provoked the reaction it did. I apologize for that. I hope that on reflection, you will come to perceive that the other editor on that talk page and I are not WP:PROFRINGE. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

It certainly looked that way to me at the time. I associate you with a false-balance worldview, with rejection of scientific skepticism and with misunderstanding what NPOV means, based on User talk:Apaugasma#Reflections and response, but I guess "profringe" is not quite the right word. On top of that, profringe editors never apologize, so, definitely not the right word.

Also, Aingotno is too fresh to say anything, so you are right: that was rash of me, and I am sorry. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I hope there will be an occasion for me to show you that a false-balance worldview and misunderstanding of NPOV (I fear I've misworded a few things in the talk page comments you link to) are also not among my attributes. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Who's really 'teaming up'? There is a content issue being raised there, a reliable source has been quoted, etc. Anyone who doesn't want to engage with that should not be posting to that talk page. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Why dont you take a long walk off a short pier? -Roxy the dog. wooF 13:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Classy and mature. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Hob and Roxy, please be civil even if you don't agree with people, this is just unnecessarily rude for no reason whatsover. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I second this. Being uncivil does not help the encyclopedia in any way, shape, or form. Civility and understanding do. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 02:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

We'll get there eventually. After all, Rome wasn't built in a day!!! -Roxy the dog. wooF 10:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

That's true. People here at least care and make an effort. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Gimbutas fringe material being added, sourced to Tank Magazine

By User:Timeismotion . Doug Weller talk 19:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

They are also adding Joseph Campbell as if he is the premier authority, which isn't a good sign either. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Timeismotion's edit history seems to revolve largely around promoting Tao Lin. I suspect that the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard might be a more appropriate place to discuss this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this boils down to promotional refspamming. –Austronesier (talk) 09:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

And I've taken Tank (magazine) to RSN. Doug Weller talk 10:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't be necessary. Fashion magazines are never going to be RS for statements about mythology or religion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, while Tank magazine is not a good source, they aren't really being used to prop anything fringe, mostly just undue content. Marija Gimbutas's ideas that of a homogenous matriarchal "Old Europe" are pretty fringe and need to be put in context. The entire first section in the Old Europe (archaeology) is a disaster and has barely any citations. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, though it's worth noting that Gimbutas is still held in high regard by the archeology profession despite the problems with her methodology and the fact that much of what she proposed about "Old Europe" remains dubious. Case in point, this memorial lecture at the Oriental Institute streaming live on Dec. 1st: . Even stogy old Colin Renfrew, whose Anatolian hypothesis of Indo-European origins was eventually supplanted by her Kurgan hypothesis, has very flattering things to say about her work: . I was frankly surprised to see that degree of affection in his remarks. Generalrelative (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: I just looked at Ruth Tringham's article. It's not very good, mainly written by one person in 2007 with quite a bit of OR and of course out of date. She and Margaret Conkey have criticised Gimbutas quite a bit. This 2016 interview with them is an example. I think they also appreciate her work (as that of an earlier generation) while being critical. It will be interesting to hear her lecture. Doug Weller talk 10:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thanks for that video, and for pointing out that the Ruth Tringham article needs work. I couldn't agree more with everything they had to say, especially the way they articulate how Gimbutas represents for them the principle that one generation's solutions constitute the next generation's problems, and how that relates to the project of creating a feminist approach to archaeology. Also looking forward to that lecture. Generalrelative (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Gerard Rennick

• Gerard Rennick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is this OK? The source does not explicitly say "misinformation", but those things clearly are misnformation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The source seems to say that he "posted about" ivermectin, and "questioned why Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration had not yet recommended use of ivermectin", not that he himself recommended its use. I'm not sure that constitutes misinformating, since we are both ourselves "posting about ivermectin" right now.jp×g 10:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

But that also means that the article misrepresents the source now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's definitely not optimal. I'll take a crack at it. jp×g 20:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Is "quantum artificial intelligence" a real thing?

I've come across an article called Quantum artificial intelligence. Aside from some bizarre SPA edits (which other people have reverted) and weird copy-pastes of other articles into this article (which I've reverted), I find myself rather puzzled at the idea being proposed here. The sources are not very great and they seem to mostly just say the same thing as the article: adding "quantum" to "artificial intelligence" make computer work gooder go faster, ergo "quantum artificial intelligence" is a thing. This source is a simple explanation of what quantum computing is, followed by a vague handwave of "I guess we could use this for artificial intelligence". This abstract alone (perhaps fortunately, I lack journal access) makes me want to bang my intelligence against the quantum. Having previously worked with neural networks, I am aware that people really love to throw spaghetti at the wall with the phrase "artificial intelligence". It seems to me like having a separate article for "quantum artificial intelligence" is somewhat akin to forking off drag racing into a new article titled "really fucking fast drag racing" whose only content is "it's hypothesized that, if cars could go 4,000 miles per hour, and you drag raced them against each other, they would go really fucking fast". I am, however, not able to evaluate whether this article is making meaningful claims about "quantum"; pinging @XOR'easter: to see if there is anything smart going on here. jp×g 09:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Quantum algorithms for machine learning and statistics, at least as a topic in theoretical quantum computing (i.e., as mathematics) is a real thing and is normal academic science, though obviously new and not well developed. Quantum probability exists, quantum statistics (as in a noncommutative form of classical theory of statistical inference, not "statistics" as the word is used in quantum physics) barely exists in the sense that there is a small number of papers, so I would be surprised if there has been a serious attempt to quantize the ideas of something more complicated like AI or machine learning rather than studying the complexity of classical AI/ML problems on a quantum computer. Sesquivalent (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I should add, though, that outside (and sometimes within) the primary literature, quantum computing suffers from a lot of hype, so when you combine that with AI hype it can go supernova. Probably not a lot of usable secondary sources. Sesquivalent (talk) 11:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I have a colleague at my department who is working on this. She is a mainstream physicist, not a fringe scientist.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm in CS and although quantum computing may be promising, so far it's mostly so for secure key distribution; qbits also permit fast computation but there always remains the bottleneck of configuration and sampling (so theoretically we don't need post-quantum cryptography yet, but it may eventually be required for secure communications and is in the works; for instance all cryptography based on the factoring problem like RSA could suddenly become obsolete). It's not a fringe field in itself, but it has been used as an argument for all kinds of fringe claims. AI has its own problems and similarities. I don't doubt that as quantum computers become more useful it can also be useful to accelerate AI. That said, the brain itself, as far as we know does not require quantum effects for neurology to function the way it does and create the mind. This means that any quantum computing accelerated AI would still not be magic. —PaleoNeonate – 12:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I expect the promise lies in the ability to better optimize problems that are difficult for digital computing, which are likely to be the most beneficial problems for AI. The traveling salesman and wedding banquet seating arrangements being two of the standard examples, with the benefit of finding 'good enough' solutions that might not be 100% optimized being a major advantage. So I doubt the concept itself is fringe, but it might very well lack the secondary coverage indicating its maturity as a notable field (at least, yet). Definitely needs some stronger sources if we keep the article, this one was at least published, and might replace the ArXiV citation. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that was formally published, just posted at SSRN. But overall, yes: it's a serious topic , though not yet what I'd call a mature one. XOR'easter (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Thats the general idea but not all the way to NP complete problems. Factoring yes. And things that are classically strange like searching a list in sqrt(N) time. Sesquivalent (talk) 07:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

QuAIL at Ames. fiveby(zero) 13:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Should probably be redirected to Quantum neural network MrOllie (talk) 23:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The Arxiv reference in the article looks shaky. The author thinks chess would be easy to play on a quantum computer but (optimal) chess is typical of PSPACE which is beyond the class of problems supposed to be qualitatively expedited by quantum computation. There is already a developed article on quantum machine learning and the more AI specific problems like search and planning are, like chess playing, not necessarily in the class expected to benefit severely from quantum computing. Maybe merge. Sesquivalent (talk) 07:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The arXiv article has been published; I assume the link to arXiv is given only because it is free to view.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The article presents quantum AI (beyond only machine learning) as a subject that is new but exists. Of the three references, the arxiv paper makes sketchy claims and the other two discuss quantum machine learning as real but quantum AI as an interesting hope for the future. In this respect it looks to me like merging to the quantum ML article could make sense until the additional AI layer actually comes into existence. Sesquivalent (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and redirected it to quantum machine learning. That page is tagged as needing work, but we're probably better off trying to fix up one page than two. XOR'easter (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Health benefits of vegan diets

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

Some disagreement about whether the knowledge from a recent review article can be included. More eyes from fringe-savvy editors welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Based on what I am seeing in the "Positions of dietetic and government associations" section there is inaccurate material. Whilst it is true that some dietetic associations do support a vegan diet for all stages of life (all ages), others have not offered a professional opinion on this or do not support for all ages. Health organizations do list benefits of a vegan or vegetarian diet but they also list nutrients of concern. But such associations and organizations also support plant-based diets and the Mediterranean diet but this is ignored by those with an exclusive vegan agenda. The section is using failed citations because most of the sourcing is on vegetarian diets, not vegan. A familiar banned user was saying I am anti-vegan on the talk-page , its funny because a different banned user shows up every few months and calls me a paid vegan activist.

I am not anti-vegan. I have been involved with vegan/vegetarianism for over 12 years now, I am just honest 1. To admit there is a lot of quackery involved with it. 2. Be critical and not accept biased or unsupported claims without good evidence. For example, the ADA paper that mentioned vegan diets was very biased and not all dietetic or health organizations support vegan diets for all stages of life but of course some do, I am not denying that some do, maybe this will change in the future when more research is done but for now evidence is not clear for all stages of life and this must be admitted. From what I can see all the health organizations now support plant-based diets but this is not the same as a strict vegan diet. There is a lot of misrepresentation on this topic. My personal opinion is that a vegan diet is not suitable for babies or pets. There is lack of research in this area, in 10-20 years things might be different. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories

Several users (and IPs) have, in the recent few weeks, been adding more in-universe and fringe-y websites to this article, along with more fringe content which puts it even farther from WP:NPOV. It's often just adding the sources themselves to acceptable already-sourced content. I think the risk is that this may legitimize these sources in an undeserved fashion, granting them legitimacy. We must be very weary of this, given the impact wikipedia has on site-reliability scores.

Some examples:

Questionable FRINGE sources added include: history-matters.org, which has this gem on its front page: "In the wake of the end of the Cold War and the passage of the 1992 JFK Assassination Records Collection Act, the U.S. Government has declassified an enormous number of formerly-secret documents. Among the most stunning are those pertaining to the 1963 assassination of President Kennedy and its subsequent investigations. The new records contain stark indications of conspiracy, and a great wealth of material concerning the hows and whys of the ensuing coverup."

and the conspicuously named Assassination Archives and Research Center which is itself a part of history-matters: "The JFK Assassination Archive disk and other AARC electronic document products are developed by History Matters. Visit our website: www.history-matters.com for more information and to order."

Any and all help provided is much appreciated. And criticism is, as always, welcome. Thanks — Shibbolethink 05:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Exact same user responsible for Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_82#John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories, I'd just take them to ANI, or try and get the article permanently semi-protected. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I think if he keeps reverting I will take it to RFPP, then ANI if that doesn't work — Shibbolethink 01:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Fruitarianism

Repeated removal of "fad diet" from the lead and the fad diet category removed. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I mean, there should be a better term than "fad diet". There is no solid definition and fad implies it has a limited time, and that's something we can't conjecture about. I suppose we can say it's been "labeled as a fad diet". Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Depends what the sources say. If something's a fad diet according to RS, Misplaced Pages should say so up-front, to be neutral. Alexbrn (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

But what if it's called just a "diet" in the majority of RS? If that were the case, it doesn't seem neutral to cherry pick the lesser of the RS. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

If you're interpreting just the word "diet" as meaning "NOT A FAD DIET" that's original research. Misplaced Pages content proceeds according to WP:V and is some RS bothers to provide additional information, than can be valuable. We can't guess what silence means: this is a similar argument to "most sources mentioning our planet don't say it's round, therefore Misplaced Pages cannot be sure". Alexbrn (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm interpreting "diet" to mean diet, and "fad diet" to mean a label applied upon hindsight. Hence why there really is no (or very little) RS describing that way. There might be one day, though. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

What's important is if there are sources which consider the question (fad or not). If they decide the diet is a fad diet than that's knowledge, which Misplaced Pages likes to relay. And since it's knowledge about fringeiness Misplaced Pages likes to relay it prominently. Alexbrn (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

It is listed as a fad diet, see Ashraf, Hea-Ran L. Diets, Fad. In Andrew F. Smith. (2013). The Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America, Volume 1. Oxford University Press. p. 264. this is a good source so I added it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Well there you go then: sorted. Isn't this one of the most stupid and dangerous fad diets (esp. if forced on children)? Alexbrn (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah its one of the most dangerous fad diets and people including children have died on it. Most of its historical advocates gave up on it, it is not sustainable at all. Even its modern advocates have admitted to taking 30-40 supplements a day and have to take pea protein isolate for protein intake which is not even fruitarian. In the fruitarian literature they often claim one can live 110-120 years on a fruit only diet but nobody has ever done this, not even come close. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal

• The Wall Street Journal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Should the article say in the lead which fringe ideas the WSJ has supported? Should the article say how wonderfully reliable the WSJ is, completely ignoring its spreading of that misinformation? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:APPNOTE. This is not a neutral request. Also why ping this noticeboard vs NPOVN which is the nature of the question. Springee (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

It's a fringe question if the WSJ has promulgated a significant amount fringe material (has it?) in which case this needs to be clear. Fringe is part of NPOV; the best part. Alexbrn (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

And it's been raised at NPOVN too. XOR'easter (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I posted that notification after commenting above. Springee (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Mass killings under communist regimes

Editors are invited to comment at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination) and review accompanying recent edits at Mass killings under communist regimes. Levivich 03:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:APPNOTE. This is not an appropriate request for this board. Volunteer Marek 06:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I also considered posting to this board when a mass notification was sent to wikiprojects, mostly eastern European states, because amongst the reasons for deletion that are being contended is the description of the title / scope as a 'fringe view'. Posting to any notice board, just one in this instance, is unlikely to run afoul of the sentiments supporting 'appropriate notification / canvassing' guidelines. ~ cygnis insignis 13:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I partially agree. I don't think the simple app of notifying any project-wide noticeboard can ever by itself be considered canvassing. At worst it might be mostly off-topic but that doesn't make it canvassing IMO, instead the problem is it may clutter up the noticeboard and annoying regular editors. However posting to a notice board can definitely run afoul of the canvassing guidelines if the notification is not neutral. Fortunately that wasn't a problem here, but we just had this problem at BLPN, and ironically the last time I remember complaining about this was also at BLPN. Posting to wikiprojects is IMO much more iffy, it can definitely seem like canvassing depending on the precise selection of wikiprojects. But even then, the good thing is that can be resolved by notifying those wikiprojects which weren't notified. This is one of the problems with non-neutral notifications. There's no real fix. Once it's done the damage is there especially if no one notices for hours or days. Even trying to fix the notification can just attract undesirable debate or attention defeating the purpose of trying to fix it. Nil Einne (talk) 09:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I should clarify excessive spamming of even neutral notifications to Wikiprojects is sometimes canvassing that is not resolvable by ensuring equitable notifications. For example, if someone spams 50 different Wikiprojects then even if they were biased in the selection and there is justification to notify a small number of highly relevant wikiprojects they missed, it doesn't resolve the issue. However I don't think this really applies with wiki wide noticeboards since there aren't that many and by nature they should have editors with a wide cross-section of views. I mean even if someone posts something to 10 different boards, I'd say in nearly all case this is wrong and they shouldn't do that again but it's still more of a case of irrelevant stuff cluttering up the boards and annoying the community than over any harm to the discussion. (Except perhaps with a minor risk some editors might be annoyed enough with the spam that they won't participate when they otherwise would have.) Nil Einne (talk) 04:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

John Gibbs (government official)

• John Gibbs (government official) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A former Trump administration official who made "numerous ... tweets supportive of fringe concepts or people." Gibbs' claims, per the sources, included the false claim that a Hillary Clinton advisor engaged in Satanic rituals and other "inflammatory and conspiratorial tweets." There has nevertheless been a concerted effort to try to water down the description to "controversial" and to otherwise soft-peddle what the sources say. More eyes needed here. Neutrality 15:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Is he notable because of these comments, were the comments themselves generally notable, or is it a case of a WP:COATRACK on a minor article? Might be a different answer for each comment. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a biographical article, and these comments (and the reaction to them) were a major episode in his life. He was nominated to a high-level government position, and the nomination failed because of these past comments. . Neutrality 15:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

James Reston

• James Reston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

One for the medical types: Is the section James Reston#Acupuncture accurate and appropriately written? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Jakten på Odin

• Jakten på Odin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not sure about recent deletions. . I found both James Reston and this via Special:Contributions/Atlantisandlemuria. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Christ myth categories

See edits at Category:Christ myth theory and Category:Christ myth theory proponents by the same fringe editor. Doug Weller talk 17:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Two LDS articles I haven't seen before full of fringe

Joseph Smith Hypocephalus - a number of unreliable sources, including something at blogger.com and several citations to lightplanet. The first source, Rhodes, says on I think the first page "In this spirit, I have attempted to relate the current Egyptological understanding of Facsimile 2 with the revealed truths of the restored gospel." It's even in the category "Egyptian papyri containing images".

Then there's Phrenology and the Latter Day Saint movement.

List of references to seer stones in the Latter Day Saint movement history is weird but maybe ok. Doug Weller talk 17:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The Phrenology one is about a fringe topic, Phrenology. It's okay to have articles about phrenology, Bigfoot, crop circles, etc. On first glance it seems to be largely structured and based on credible modern scholarly sources, with older/primary sources used as supplementary references. The 'gallery of phrenology readings' however should probably be removed and relegated to Commons per WP:GALLERY. I don't see the article as promoting phrenology or fringe views, but fringeophobic editors may disagree. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Pointing out problems with articles is helpful. Pointing out non-problems, not so much. So, your first two sentences, waste of space.

Poisoning the well, are we? "Agree with me, or else you are suffering from a malady I just invented!" --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

If you have constructive comments or opinions, please state them here or raise issues on respective Talk pages. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

As usual it's technical: cleanup the article avoiding unreliable sources including primary that are not evaluated by secondary sources if controversial and material that is mostly a result of synthesis (WP:SYNTH, i.e. various sources there are about the history of the main topic and unrelated to the fringe claims of that group), verify if a valid spinoff (WP:SPINOFF or WP:NPOVVIEW), or perhaps if material considered undue at the main articles and created elsewhere (WP:DUE, WP:POVFORK, WP:MNA); alternatively, is it's only a stray article, that could perhaps be converted to a proper spinoff, or merged (if anything remains)... —PaleoNeonate – 09:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Mehmet Oz

• Mehmet Oz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_54#Mentions_of_pseudoscience_in_Mehmet_Oz
• Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive326#Mehmet_Oz
• Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive181#Mehmet_Oz
• Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive62#Mehmet_Oz

New interest in the article because of his running for Pennsylvania’s open U.S. Senate seat. Lots of pressure to remove or minimize the fringe nature of his claims. --Hipal (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Too much like US politics for me to want to touch it, but surely given the circumstances this is where ECP can help mitigate what is likely to be a drama-fest. Alexbrn (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I've added the appropriate DS to the talk page. Doug Weller talk 17:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

And semi-protection, which has to come before ECP. This isn't the first time it's been protected. Doug Weller talk 14:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

The British Edda

AtlantisLemuria also led me to this - the lead is still the lead written by Paul Bedson:"The British Edda is a 1930 English, Sumerian and Egyptian linguistics and mythology book written by Laurence Waddell about the adventures of El, Wodan and Loki forming an "Eden Triad" in the Garden of Eden." @Silver seren: you've done a lot of work on this. Doug Weller talk 17:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

That was basically the one line that existed at all in the article before I got there during the AfD and then I added everything else. I just didn't change that one (feel free to if there's something wrong with it because of Bedson). It's definitely pseudo-history nonsense, but a notable one that influenced a lot of people and is still referred to even in the past 10-20 years, decades after its publication. Silverseren 17:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I should probably also note that I have no idea what the heck the thing is about. I did my best to parse the gibberish to write that content section from the reliable sources, but that did not make me any more informed. It's like bad fan fiction from someone who didn't even know any of the histories involved. Silverseren 17:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Abraham

This is about Talk:Abraham#Infobox character and . Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

They blame me because the s*** has hit the fan, but in reality I'm only drawing a logical conclusion, I have only put the finishing touch to what Abraham#Historicity claims for a long time.

A RfC is taking place at Talk:Abraham#RfC on infobox type. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Isaiah 7:14

This is about almah does not mean "virgin" at . Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll chime in, but you won't like what I have to say (a warning). Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: AFAIK, almah means virgin is academically fringe. Correct me if I am wrong. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I would generally agree with that! The issue is that the Septuagint, an important pre-Christian source (I am assuming you're familiar, but for others), unequivocally uses the Greek "parthenos" to translate "almah." So it's a bit more nuanced than yay or nay -- at least to the Jews of Alexandria, in the first few centuries B.C., almah did indeed mean something like "virgin." I'm digging through my old scholarly sources now to see if there's something I can cite, but I am old and my sources are older. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: Parthenos gets a lot of discussion in the article. This is not about the Greek word parthenos, it is about the Hebrew word almah. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Understood, but what I am saying is that a major pre-Christian version authored by Jews equates the two words. Thus, for me, something like "virgin in some translations" is probably warranted. Dumuzid (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: Except almah means and almah got translated as are two different issues. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Granted, but "means" is hardly a static concept, especially when dealing with a text with many layers and thousands of years of history. I don't think almah means "virgin," as there is another perfectly good word for that, and the other uses don't really make sense (parading with David, e.g.). But the authors of the Septuagint seemed to think it meant something close to that. While it's not quite hapax legomenon, we can't say with any definitive authority what 'almah' means. So while I don't think "virgin" is a good translation, I can't rule it out, and it definitely was the understood meaning for a group of pre-Christian Jews. As such, I would vote for epistemic humility: maybe. That's just me. Dumuzid (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

If DarrellWinkler wants to state almah got translated as virgin: okay, no objection, it is true and accurate. If he wants to state almah means virgin: that's fringe. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, we can't say "it means virgin." We definitely don't know that for sure (and again, I doubt it). Dumuzid (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: I see your point, but then for 99% of "facts" about ancient history, we would write something like Caesar probably crossed the Rubicon. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, apologies, as you dug up an old hobby-horse of mine; but you're right. I guess I'd simply say a definitive statement either way is unwarranted. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: Yup, as Bart Ehrman and Francesca Stavrakopoulou state time after time, ancient history is about what probably happened. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I dont know if this qualifies as a "fringe" source or not, but hes a published Greek linguistics professor: In the final analysis the word "alma", in ancient biblical Hebrew signified an "adolescent girl who had never known a man" - Christophe Rico Professor of General Linguistics; Semantics, Greek Linguistics; Greek koinè; Greek New Testament; Theory of translation and pedagogy of ancient languages, Dean of Polis Institute DarrellWinkler (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you have access to the full source? I can't seem to find it. I would want to see the context, especially as the author (an expert in Ancient Greek) seems to be relying on others. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Co-auhtor: Peter J. Gentry, who is a Christian fundamentalist.

@Dumuzid: just type "adolescent girl who had never known a man" (including quote marks) at the Google Books search box. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, it worked that time (before I was getting "preview unavailable"). Even he hedges it a bit, saying that sometimes "youth" was emphasized, sometimes "virginity". Given the weight of uncertainty and scholarly tsuris over this, I still don't think we can say "almah means virgin." I would go with something like the proposed "has been translated as virgin" or the like. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I believe the hedge you are referring to is his description of the evolution of the words usage, how after the second century Hebrew scholars emphasized "youth" and de-emphasized "virgin" in theological debates with early Christians. I think "has been translated as virgin" would be adequate to encompass all significant POV's. Oh, and thank you for taking the time to chime in. DarrellWinkler (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Gentry is the translator, not a co-author .. at any rate, what does it matter if he is a fundamentalist? If we are to reject the work of fundamentalists, would we have to reject the work of Jews and secularists? DarrellWinkler (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

It means that if Gentry admits that the Bible has the slightest error, he gets fired ASAP. He wouldn't be neither the first, nor the last to get fired for that. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: You can view the conclusion section of the book, but much of the other content is not available for preview. DarrellWinkler (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Rico says himself he is fringe: Despite the consensus about the general meaning of the word `alma (page 6 on Google Books). tgeorgescu (talk) 02:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

There is a great deal more to that snippet than what you presented. DarrellWinkler (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The paragraph just above makes clear what the scholarly consensus is. Rico tells himself he acts against WP:RS/AC. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:RS/AC states that "A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view" .... So you are arguing Rico is a reliable all be it fringe source? DarrellWinkler (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Yup, Rico is WP:RS for the claim that he acts against the academic consensus. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be more than fair to include Rico as the minority position and attribute it as such. DarrellWinkler (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

He is not a sizeable minority, he is outright fringe. The Mother of the Infant King, Isaiah 7:14: alma and parthenos in the World of the Bible: a Linguistic Perspective is a WP:RS for the claim that The Mother of the Infant King, Isaiah 7:14: alma and parthenos in the World of the Bible: a Linguistic Perspective is WP:FRINGE. Case closed. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

He certainly represents a sizeable minority including "fundamentalists". Since this is a sizeable minority, it must be presented in the article. DarrellWinkler (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Yup, I agree: only Bible thumpers would agree with him. By our book Bible thumpers are fringe. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

You really need to lay off the insults. DarrellWinkler (talk) 03:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Fundamentalists are not mainstream Bible scholars. Fundamentalists are WP:FRINGE, whether you like it or not. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

You are representing Fundamentalists as biblical literalists, while there is overlap they are not the same thing. DarrellWinkler (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Whatever you say and whatever I say, fundamentalists will remain fringe as Bible scholars. The only exception I know of is Daniel B. Wallace. Why? Because he never touches in his mainstream academic works issues of biblical infallibility. Ehrman declared it a safe field at https://ehrmanblog.org/why-textual-criticism-is-safe-for-conservative-christians/

Even if I wished that sources written by fundamentalists were generally considered WP:RS, my wish is not enough to change the ways of Misplaced Pages. So, it is not just my person which find fault with such sources, but the whole Misplaced Pages Community, as manifest in policies and guidelines. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Point for the transliteration nerds: I find it slightly odd that Rico is fastidious about using the apostrophe to represent the glottal stop of the ayin in עַלְמָה but is apparently completely content to ignore the he. Different strokes, I suppose! Dumuzid (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The Hebrew Bible definitely doesn't use the word parthenos - it's in Hebrew. Almah definitely didn't mean virgin (it meant a young woman who had yet to give birth - the ancient Jews were concerned with the contribution a 12 year old female would make to the family and took her virginal status for granted). The LXX does use the word parthenos, and it does mean virgin, as the Greeks felt this was important. And Matthew, Yahweh bless him, made up his own translation. Achar Sva (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The Greeks didnt write (and translate) the LXX, the Jews did. DarrellWinkler (talk) 04:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Edict of Milan

This is about , and about the claim of Constantine making Christianity the state religion. Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Ip edits could use a check

An editor using at least 63.142.197.206 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 63.142.197.212 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has a worrying pattern of of pushing fringe theories about psychiatry and other subjects, eg repeatedly claiming that The War of the Worlds radio boardcast a psychological experiment when. Much of their edits have been cleaned up and articles repaired but their other edits could use a check from someone with more experience with this sort of thing.2001:8003:34A3:800:B4B7:902C:5333:4053 (talk) 07:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

It was a psychological experiment, just not a voluntary/aware one. It was an unintended experiment. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Nope that's not the definition of an experiment. That's open-and-shut a case study. And regardless, the claim being peddled appears to be that it was an intentional experiment. I'll have a skim through their edits. --Xurizuri (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Alright it appears that their specific deal is about psych and history, particularly psychological warfare. They made a lot of edits to the unconventional warfare article that I don't really have the expertise to handle. There's a bunch of other assorted history edits that I don't have enough knowledge of. By the way, you'll never guess what side they fall on regarding Water fluoridation in the United States. --Xurizuri (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

It looks like they're editing from at least this range of IPs: Special:Contributions/63.142.197.0/24 --Xurizuri (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Leo Galland- Propose for deletion

I came upon the article of fringe individual Leo Galland, which was quite sparse and hadn't been edited for nearly a year. I then made edits to remove a reference to a defunct and non-notable Huffington Post column (such content was well-known as fringe) and being a "Castle Connolly top doctor" (which is also not notable and considered a scam by some).

Since there were no sources remaining in the article, I proposed it for deletion. The article creator User:Binksternet reverted the article back to an even worse state and removed my deletion proposal. I'm unsure of what to do here because this is the first deletion I've proposed for a person. Thank you. ScienceFlyer (talk) 08:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm surprised that someone with Binksternet's experience would even attempt to defend the article in the state it was in, given its utterly crap sourcing. If Galland merits an article, it will need entirely new sources, providing actual evidence of notability from independent sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

All I was looking for was for ScienceFlyer to take the article to AfD rather than prod. Other sources exist showing that the guy is part of the media conversation. Is he notable? Let's let the community decide. Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree the fate of this article should be determined by AFD and due-diligence search for sourcing, rather than evisceration and PRODing. I have added some reliable sources and removed the PROD of Leo Galland. Other coverage may exist offline or behind paywalls (not everything is Googleable!). Good faith efforts to find sources are appreciated. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Binksternet and Animalparty: Thanks for your comments. I'm confused because it seemed like I was following the instructions at WP:BLPPROD, which only has a single passing mention of AFD, in a parenthetical. If the procedure is use AFD, then the instructions entitled "Proposed deletion of biographies of living people" need to be edited to clarify the appropriate process. As for the sources currently on the article, many are dubious. For example, one article from Salon/Undark is by one of Galland's patients. Another article is from Cosmopolitan and the title claims "How Lyme disease messes with your mind" even though the consensus of experts is "No studies suggest a convincing causal association between Lyme disease and any specific psychiatric conditions." ScienceFlyer (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Now at AfD, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Leo Galland. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@ScienceFlyer: WP:BLPPROD#Before nomination states: 1: Make sure the article contains no sources in any form which support any statements made about the person. 2: Consider finding reliable sources yourself (See also WP:BEFORE). 3: Consider using another deletion process if you do not believe the article meets notability guidelines, or What Misplaced Pages is Not... I'm sure your intentions were good, but It doesn't appear any of those steps were followed. Removing sources in any form that are already present and then Proposing deletion comes across as a bit disingenuous and underhanded. There are now several reliable sources in the article, including The New York Times Magazine, New York Daily News, and Newsweek. Whether this (and other sources yet to be added) amounts to WP:NOTABILITY is what the AFD will determine. Do not judge sources by their headlines alone, per WP:HEADLINES. And remember, Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Graphene hydroxide?

Firstly, apologies if this is not the correct venue for such a discussion - if it should be continued somewhere else, please let me know.

Apparently the latest conspiracy theory is that the COVID vaccine contains "Graphene Hydroxide", a deadly substance which will doubtless convert everyone it doesn't kill into minions of Beelzebub, or something. Graphene hydroxide doesn't exist, neither does carbon hydroxide, but there is a theoretical substance Orthocarbonic acid with the chemical formula C(OH)₄ which might meet that description. Would creating a redirect from Carbon hydroxide to Orthocarbonic acid be a good idea to stave off any potential inquiries? Tevildo (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but note that dihydroxymethylidene also exists as a free radical :C(OH)₂. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Orthocarbonic acid is the only (inorganic) carbon compound mentioned at Hydroxide - perhaps a redirect hatnote ("For the :C(OH)₂ free radical, see dihydroxymethlidine") would be appropriate. Although, the sort of person who is going to give credence to the theory is unlikely to know that graphene is an allotrope of carbon, so the point may be moot. Tevildo (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Then I'll do it anyway. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added the hatnote. Tevildo (talk) 07:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Lawrence Pazder

• Lawrence Pazder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Author of Michelle Remembers. I don't know what to make of today's edits by User:Autismondrugs. Looks a bit like threading into the highway on training wheels. May merit watching. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Me neither, but I reverted their second wave of edits for disrupting the lead (again), including by breaking the infobox. The first edit summary after being revered by ClueBot NG (talk · contribs) doesn't look good... –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The "Among us VR edition" addition to the infobox makes me suspect that this is a troll. Also the username is a potential violation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

User has been indeffed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

And the edits were a copyvio. Wouldn't have guessed that, given how little sense they made. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Crazy Sexy Cancer

Kris Carr is an alkaline diet advocate / raw vegan and alternative medicine activist who claims her raw vegan diet cured her own cancer and many others. I will fix up her biography but Crazy Sexy Cancer is in a very bad way that seems to be promoting fringe views about cancer and has no neutral or critical coverage. I think most of the article needs to be deleted and re-written. Any thoughts about what to do with this one? Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

On a further look, Kris Carr's article is also in a very bad way. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

That does it! I'm writing a book with a catchy title. "Dog's Diet Cancer Cure". Should I wait for a cure or just publish and be dammned? -Roxy the dog. wooF 22:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I would say nearly everything after Plot Summary can be excised or condensed into the summary, as most of the subsequent content is plot summary, background info on Carr, or borderline WP:OR analysis of themes. It may not even warrant stand-alone article: while it appears to have premiered at the South by Southwest Film Festival, it appears to be a TV film aired on TLC and the Oprah Winfrey Network. If substantial coverage is found lacking after honest attempts to find them, then a redirect to Kris Carr is in order. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I was amazed to see that it scores 0.0% on the Copyvio Detector because, oh boy, does it read like something that wouldn't! In fact, I am wondering whether the detector is broken. Anyway, a lot of it is unreferenced guff and, if kept at all, it should be pared back to a stub or maybe slightly more than a stub based on what reliable sources actually say about it. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Can fringe journals be used to support non-fringe content?

General questions: Can "in-universe" or "fringe" periodicals like Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, Homeopathy or the Townsend Letter be used to verify non-biomedical facts such as biographical information of prominent practitioners, or the history of a branch of alternative medicine? And similarly, if a subject has extensive coverage in alternative medicine literature, but rather less in "mainstream" literature, could it be appropriate to draw from alternative medicine literature as significant minority views, observing WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE of course. Or is it assumed that alternative medicine literature is inherently unreliable and fringe POV-pushing in any use? --Animalparty! (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I think this would be something that would have to be discussed on a case by case basis. Do you have any specific examples in mind? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Think it'd be fine. If the point is that such-and-such person died on such-and-such date. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• I think it can be okay, but probably needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis. At the Oasis of Hope Hospital, for example, the Townsend Letter is used to detail some of the quack therapies that have been offered. Alexbrn (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Herman Cain

• Herman Cain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Does the Herman Cain Award "celebrate" the deaths of antivaxxers and antimaskers from COVID-19? One source says it does. Does that mean Misplaced Pages should use the word? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not convinced the "Herman Cain Award" should even be in his bio at all, doesn't seem to pass WP:10YT. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:ONEWAY surely applies. Irrelevant to the biography, relevant to some other corner of the 'pedia. jps (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd think it might go the other way, the 'award' being named for him being the notable part on the bio, but not necessarily generally notable. Not sure the use of "celebrate" in wikivoice is fringe per-se, but I would agree it's going to be better to attribute it as a critique. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Nobody said the use of word was fringe. The dead people including Cain were fringe proponents, which is why this is relevant here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not fringe, but it is also pop-culture-cruft-y. It's a part of reddit culture and there are probably enough cites to shunt it off to some article that discusses it and the Darwin awards, for example. jps (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree this is not something that should be in the article at all. It violates BLP as it would be very contentious to associate him with forum posters who are gloating. It's also questionable if it has weight for inclusion in the article at all given the large public profile of Cain vs the limited sources that discuss this. Springee (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Not a BLP violation (specifically the 'L' part doesn't apply, which is sort of the whole point of the award), but I agree that putting this in his bio is out of WP:PROPORTION with its relative insignificance. The analog is the so-called Darwin Awards, which have become an internet meme but nonetheless not something mentioned on Charles Darwin's page, nor should it be. Agricolae (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

BLP applies to recently deceased as well. I tend to think it would apply in this case. But your point stands regardless. I think we both agree that WP:PROPORTION (like many I say WEIGHT when I should say WP:PROPORTION) is suspect even if BLP didn't apply. The fact that BLP could apply is yet another reason to remove. Springee (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it per consensus here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

While I support the removal, its probably best to establish consensus on the Talk page of the article in question, if for no other reason than easier record keeping and reducing uncertainty in future arguments. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

JFK-UFO conspiracy theories

Is JFK-UFO conspiracy theories really a thing? The article has several problematic features involving WP:OR, WP:IRI, and WP:FRIND, but more importantly it isn't clear the topic merits a stand-alone enWiki page. Comments? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Jeez. No, 'conspiracy theorists will write bollocks about anything to sell books' doesn't merit an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Are they really a thing in the world? I am sad to report they truly are. My quick read of this article, however, is that is is a giant batch of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and while it includes not terrible general comments about both the history of the UFO phenomenon and JFK conspiracy theories, I am not seeing a lot that says it should be an article. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I see one or two sources in the article re JFK/UFOs that could justify a sentence or two in UFO conspiracy theories. All the rest is WP:OR padding in an attempt to make the topic appear notable enough for a stand alone article. - - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

JFK-UFO conspiracy theoriesPresident KennedyPurported UFOElvis (right)

The two pictures "President Kennedy" and "Purported UFO", just drily thrown on top of each other, are quite funny. All that is missing is three more pictures.

And the text is the same: Explain Kennedy assassination in one paragraph, explain UFO in another one - two subjects for the price of one article! And then "Wacko 1 made this connection between those two subjects. Wacko 2 made that one. Wacko 3 made this one." Pretty hilarious, but more parody than Misplaced Pages material. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Any day I see Bat Boy referenced is a good day in my book. Thanks for that! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Postmodernism

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

"Skeptical Inquirer is not a reliable source for philosophy or critical theory" no, but is is a reliable source for ideas that are full of bull. Are those deletions justified? Anybody more familiar with this subject? --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Homayun Sidky is an academic and wandering a bit out of his field here--which is anthropology--but he also does a lot with the theory of anthropology which necessarily borders on more general discussions of the theory of science. See this, for instance:. It's not a paper in a philosophy journal, but I would probably !vote to keep it in. Dumuzid (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The edit in question looks good to me, and I agree with the rationale. Postmodernism is only "full of bull" when it is misconstrued as anti-science. (As a side note, I had the privilege of discussing this very question with Bruno Latour several years ago, as well as with Hugh Mellor who was one of the more prominently anti-pomo philosophers of the past several decades.) For anyone who'd like an accessible intro to the topic, I'd suggest this essay in Philosophy Now. Generalrelative (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, this whole article seems like it was written by Stephen Hicks as it currently stands. There's a lot of work to be done on it - but one of the first orders of business is to clear out bad faith "criticisms" from people who clearly haven't done the reading. Simonm223 (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Also I find it very amusing that there's people who think Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida constitute fringe figures. Simonm223 (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Everyone has blind spots. For all his bluster against Derrida, for instance, Hugh Mellor was a sweet and brilliant man who taught me a lot. It seems to me that most mainstream philosophers of the current generation are largely over the cleavage between analytic and continental traditions that dominated much of 20th-century discourse. Generalrelative (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

For better or worse, I guess. But, man, do I find continental philosophers insufferable. Sometimes we have "interdisciplinary colloquia" where they try to talk about what physicists don't know about time and I die a little on the inside. And if someone tells me to read Heidegger one more time...! jps (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

That does sound insufferable, but I don't think someone like Karen Barad would put you through that. Which is why I'd suggest it's probably best not to put all continental philosophers in that basket. Generalrelative (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Just putting in a good word for reading Heidegger. The hermeneutic circle was a real mind bender for me, in the best possible way. Other things are more problematic, however....cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Skeptical Inquirer is certainly a valid source for criticism on specific types of reasoning, as that’s part of their core purpose. In this case I’d be inclined to support restoring the text in question. I’ve done so under BRD, though I’m not sure about the blockquote portion (which doesn't really address reasoning) and would be fine with leaving it out. The description of Latour is more relevant, in my opinion, and is probably an important topic that should be sourced from elsewhere as well. Latour's original work is here, and the subject has even been picked up by the press .

Also, a previous FTN discussion about this article is at this link. The other participants from that discussion, excluding those who have already commented here, are Crossroads and XOR'easter. Sunrise (talk) 03:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution