Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:27, 14 January 2023

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 ...

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

• 23 Dec 2024 – Transgender health care misinformation (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist (t · c); start discussion
• 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); start 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) is requested to be moved to Health effects of seed oils by 73.40.102.35 (t · c); 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.

Does anyone else think Out-of-place artifacts is a mess?

Starting with the section headings which I think are confusing and inappropriate. Doug Weller talk 19:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Paul H. (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't mind the list so much, but the commentary feels weird to me. By definition, OOPs are entirely separate artifacts each with their own story, their own circumstances, and their own credibility. But the intro makes it sound as though they're a class of things you can either believe in, or be skeptical of. Like ghosts. ApLundell (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Do we really need an article about Ooparts? Aside from Forteana, does anyone actually use this goofy term? jps (talk) 12:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

And see also Category:Out-of-place artifacts. Doug Weller talk 13:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I have to confess, I am with jps here. Being the old weirdo I am, I am of course familiar with many of these claims, but a casual check has not revealed much in the way of coverage outside of the hallowed halls of weird shitology. I of course mean this as to OOParts as a class of phenomena--many would obviously be notable enough for their own article. As ever, happy to defer to collective wisdom. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Popular culture does. Manhwa, bands and so on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd say we don't need the article. All the artefacts mentioned have their own articles and adding short entries accompanied by abbreviated, subjective comments is not of any value that I can see. Deb (talk) 09:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Jerry Sabloff in his Oxford Bibliographies for "Pseudoarcheology" describes the concept and lists:

• Sabloff, Jeremy A. (1982). Archaeology : myth and reality : readings from Scientific American.
• Williams, Stephen (1991). Fantastic Archaeology.
• Feder, Kenneth L. (2001). Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries.

There should be some concept similar to WP:PARITY that these are the WP:BESTSOURCES and even though the do not use the term 'out-of-place artifact' are in scope and it isn't WP:OR to use them. Or maybe that is just an argument for merge to Pseudoarcheology. fiveby(zero) 15:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Are there RS that agree on which OOP belongs in which category? (Erroneously dated, questionable interpretations, etc.) If not, it’s a big, fat WP:OR indulgence. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie I'm nor sure I even understand the first three categories, "Unusual artifacts", "Questionable interpretations" and "Alternative interpretations". Doug Weller talk 15:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Looking back over its history, there were well-meaning attempts to apply common-sense categorizations that grouped debunked examples, documented hoaxes, etc. together. But somewhere along the line it got out of hand, and became an article where any editor could reinterpret, undo or expand what belonged in what heading, and even revise the headings themselves. Unless there are non-circular RS that document the existing OOP categorization, I'd support WP:BLOWITUP and strip it down to a generalized description and discussion per RS. Let the individual OOP articles cover how expert RSs have interpreted and categorized each example. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Could the list be renamed and follow William R. Corliss' "Archeological Anomalies" series which might be slightly more respectable? I can't find online copies or any reviews tho. The best parity source gives him some space and at least does not warn us off. The only other sources that use "out-of-place object" are a sentence in Slate and a footnote, both a little disparaging of the term.fiveby(zero) 11:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Not sure about “anomalies. And should any of the natural objects misinterpreted as artifacts be in the list. Or a clearly in its appropriate place sarcophagus be on the list just because a fringe writer was clueless. Doug Weller talk 11:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Not sure about "anomalies" either. I'm just flailing around trying to take a best sources approach. fiveby(zero) 12:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:TNT seems the better idea. "Slightly more respectable" is still not very respectable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Redirect to Pseudoarchaeology#Examples? Doesn't TNT mean you are going to recreate the article? Oops, i misread your earlier comment. I don't think there is a real basis to have a generalized description and discussion per RS, i tried to find soemthing in Sabloff, Williams, and Feder, but from them this is just examples of pseudoarchaeology. If you don't accept Corliss as a source probably redirect? fiveby(zero) 12:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think anybody is saying OOPArts as a topic isn’t notable. What most (me included) are saying is that the categories are obvious WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, with a little WP:GEVAL thrown in -- a result of years of article neglect and accumulated cruft. For example, “alternative explanations”? How is this defined? How does an artifact qualify for definition as an "alternative" explanation, and who says it does? By WP:BLOWITUP I mean to suggest a rewrite to remove all the categorization and extensively detailed examples. The article can be pared down to some number of paragraphs that describe the concept, who believes in it, what experts say, etc. Such a rewrite could be easily assembled and cited to a mixture of WP:FRIND media , , , and WP:PARITY skeptical sources , . - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Note that it says "an artifact of historical, archaeological, or paleontological interest" but artifacts are of human construction, not paleontological. Doug Weller talk 15:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully, everyone, why is this entire section being discussed and replied to here and not at the talk page of the article in question? Have seen this many times at this noticeboard and it limits participation of editors to those who know of the discussion and not those who edit the page. Maybe a copy/paste of this section to the talk page? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I've put a link there, that should be enough to bring people here. I disagree strongly with your comment that it seems fine. Doug Weller talk 15:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The link is kind of lost within a larger discussion started by LuckyLouie (who didn't mention that this large discussion was occuring elsewhere). I'd suggest this entire section be copy/pasted on the article's talk page, and that further discussions of this magnitude always occur or be moved to the article's talk page and then a link be placed here (instead of there). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Somethings discussed here are relevant to one article's talkpage, but not everything. For example, I think the category is just as if not more problematic. No objection to referring people back and forth, but I appreciate that the discussion is happening here in a way that is a bit broader than just a discussion about one article. jps (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Good point about the category. I wonder how many of these articles actually say, with a source. The subject is an oopart. Doug Weller talk 09:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, somewhere it was once decided that "notable" was the way to collect and organize the "sum of all human knowledge". I think bibliographies, literature surveys, introductory texts, reference works, reviews, etc. are a better way to do that in many cases. fiveby(zero) 16:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

CfD OOPARTS

How's that for a weird assemblage of letters.

Well, here you go: Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 December 22. jps (talk) 06:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

• Not a whole lotta activity on this one. Input? Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_December_30#Category:Out-of-place_artifacts jps (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The miracle in Joshua 10:12–13 as a solar eclipse in 1207 BC

A pair of physicists, Colin Humphreys and Graeme Waddington, have put forward an argument that the event described in the Book of Joshua, 10:12–13, in which the sun and moon miraculously stand still in the sky, should be interpreted as an annular solar eclipse in 1207 BC and that the Israelite attack on Gibeon that is described in that passage can be fixed in time on that basis. Furthermore, they argue that Merneptah's campaign in Canaan, which produced the first contemporary reference to "Israel" in the Merneptah Stele, must postdate this event and that it can be used to work out the exact dates of Merneptah's reign. Their argument was published in Astronomy & Geophysics a few years back: "Solar eclipse of 1207 BC helps to date pharaohs". Astronomy & Geophysics. 58 (5): 5.39 – 5.42. 1 October 2017. doi:10.1093/astrogeo/atx178. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)

This claim has been inserted at Merneptah, where I have removed it twice (the second time after a discussion at WT:WikiProject Ancient Egypt#Dating the reign of Merenptah based on a miracle in the Book of Joshua). It's also present at solar eclipse and at Gibeon (ancient city).

At least one other paper has made the same argument, a 2020 paper in Vetus Testamentum. But it's my understanding that most biblical scholars are skeptical that there's much historical basis to the events in Joshua, and the historicity of many related biblical events, including the Exodus, is very much open to question. Are these claims significant enough to be worth mentioning in our articles? A. Parrot (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I certainly don't think so. The paper is couched in hypothetical terms, neither of the authors has any apparent biblical or linguistic bona fides, and I don't see any pick up in the scholarly literature (though I am happy to be proven wrong on any front). Moreover, we have to believe that the authors believed an eclipse was a completely unprecedented and unrepeated event (I find that dubious), and it completely seems to me to stretch the narrative to silly places: it's pretty evident to me that Joshua orders the sun to stay in the sky so that the Israelites could merrily kill the Amorites with plenty of daylight. An eclipse would hardly help with the Amorite-slaying optics. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 04:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Joshua was a skilled commander of night fighting. However, it doesn't get that dark in an annular eclipse, or even in a total eclipse, for night fighting to become important. The side that would win a battle during an eclipse would probably be the side that was less distracted and frightened by the eclipse. It happens to be a reasonable date for Joshua, if one accepts the historicity of the Book of Joshua, which is in question. The Book of Judges, on the other hand, is an account of a period of maybe two centuries of anarchy, which is well attested as the Late Bronze Age collapse. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

My own opinion is that the problem with dating events in the Book of Joshua is that the real question is not when they happened but whether they happened. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Robert, I mean this with all due respect, but saying that the Bronze Age Collapse establishes the historicity of Judges is a bit like saying that evidence for the Victorian Era means we should accept Sherlock Holmes as fact. That doesn't mean, of course, that Judges is fiction, or anything of the sort. Just that it cannot be validated that way. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Dumuzid - I didn't mean that anything specific in the Book of Judges is historical. The overall tone of the Book of Judges is consistent with the historical period. So history isn't inconsistent with Judges. That's all I meant. I don't mean that any of the events described in Judges happened. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

• In the Vetus Testamentum paper, some Israeli researchers reached the same conclusion as Humphreys and Waddington independently. The idea is discussed seriously in Frank Close, Eclipses: What Everyone Needs to Know. Note too that the passage in Joshua in question is a piece of a poem cited to the lost Book of Jashar. This does not strike me as a fringe theory. Srnec (talk) 06:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The paper is poorly attested to. It was first published five years ago and has garnered a mere four citations since then, only three peer-reviewed, and all three in the second-tier RAS journal Astronomy & Geophysics. I say remove it until third-party peer-reviewed sources make more complete mention of its relevance. jps (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we should use Humphreys at all, anywhere. The review of his book dating the last supper by Telford in his Misplaced Pages article was pretty damming. And in this case if we have other sources with clear expertise we should use them. I see Close's book was published by the OUP. Humphries is used a lot. Doug Weller talk 14:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, let me just express my qualms about all this seeming to come from physical science types. Happy of course to go with consensus, but one would really want some input from experts with a more linguistic/cultural bent. Happy Friday, all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

That's my feeling, too. There's no doubt that the eclipse took place, but that's all that the physical scientists are qualified to support. The real question is whether it's probable that the Book of Joshua reflects a memory of that event. Two of the three authors of the 2020 paper, Daniel Vainstub and Uzi Avner, have qualifications in biblical history and archaeology, but I don't think that alone is enough to qualify this as a significant minority position in those fields. Unless we find evidence that other authorities in biblical history support the hypothesis, I say we leave it out. A. Parrot (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Ooh, thank you. I missed that paper in the welter. Vetus Testamentum is pretty good, by my lights, and that is indeed what I'd like to see. That moves it a lot closer to a significant minority view for me, but I still think I would say leave it out, for the time being. I will note my personal grumbles again that none of this seems to really reckon with the text as we have it--but that's just one curmudgeon's opinion. Happy Friday, all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

This reminds me of the many astronomers who've come up with (incompatible) astronomical explanations for the Star of Bethlehem, when the whole virgin-birth story was a later addition and almost certainly fictional. We need something better than "something happened to the Sun within several centuries of the likely date" to connect the two. — kwami (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Do we know exactly what longitudes the annular eclipse was observable at, anyway? Actual reports of ancient eclipses of the Sun are useful in reporting that the eclipse was seen at a particular longitude, because they synchronize the exact amount of decrease in the rate of the Earth's rotation due to tidal friction. So is there a calculation that there was an annular eclipse visible somewhere, or is it attested by comparison with other ancient observations? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

As is typical in ancient eclipse observations, the authors created their own novel code for determining eclipse visibility. There is no other record of this particular eclipse according to their paper. jps (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The three Stephenson et al. papers 200420082016 lead me to believe they are way out on a limb extrapolating back 500 years. fiveby(zero) 22:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

NASA's map of this eclipse is consistent with the cited paper. Srnec (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, pre-1950's: ΔT calculated from empirical fits to historical records derived by Morrison and Stephenson (2004) which states: In out experience, extreme caution needs to be exercised when investigating allusion to eclipses and other celestial phenomena at more remote epochs. That is, prior to 700 B.C. They admit as much in the paper it may be considered unwise to extrapolate these back prior to 1000 BC and then cite Stephenson (2008) a little deceptively in my opinion. fiveby(zero) 23:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

All highly speculative, but fringe? This is not about whether we (any of us) is convinced by the arguments or considers the conclusion sound, but about whether it is "fringe". Let's remember that the actual fact the paper in question is based around and which it was being used to cite is a proposed dating of a pharaoh's reign that differs by ~2 years from the conventional one in our article. I do not think this departs significantly from the prevailing views. Nor do I think it was made to appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. It was one sentence at Merneptah that began "Alternatively, ..." The information in the lead and the infobox was untouched. This isn't the New Chronology being imposed. Srnec (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

It's still pretty fringe as, for example, most of the relevant scholars of this particular text have not paid attention to this claim. jps (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the section at Gibeon (ancient city) dedicated to this hypothesis, and I've adjusted the language about the hypothesis at solar eclipse. A. Parrot (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The IP editor has re-added the claim to Merneptah: "Alternatively, astronomical calculation of a potentially reported annular eclipse (Joshua 10:10-14) that precedes Merneptah's Canaanite campaign against the Israelites places the beginning of his reign in 1209 or 1210 BC."

@37.5.241.49: Please discuss the issue here, where it will attract more attention than on the Merneptah talk page. @Srnec, Fiveby, Robert McClenon, Dumuzid, Doug Weller, Kwamikagami, and ජපස: Sorry if I'm being annoying, but I would appreciate your input once again. A. Parrot (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@A. Parrot you can't ping IP addresses. Doug Weller talk 09:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Rats. The editor is refusing to discuss here, so input may be needed at Talk:Merneptah#Dating the reign of Merenptah based on a miracle in the Book of Joshua. A. Parrot (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@A. Parrot: I think a single sentence added to the 'Chronology' section of Merneptah violates neither FRINGE nor UNDUE, for the reasons I gave above. Of course, that article is not the place for any extended discussion of Joshua. Note, too, that Humphreys and Waddington are not proposing an original reading of Joshua, but only identifying a different eclipse than that proposed by Sawyer (doi:10.1179/peq.1972.104.2.139). The eclipse reading is not a consensus reading, but there is no consensus reading. To quote Dozeman, Joshua 1–12, who cites Sawyer but rejects his reading: "A range of interpretations of the independent poem is possible." So long as the sentence at Merneptah makes clear that this is based only on one possible meaning of Joshua, I don't see a problem. I agree with the removal from Gibeon (ancient city), by the way, but I would leave it in at solar eclipse, as you have. —Srnec (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

It is still mentioned at solar eclipse. Don't think it belongs there. (Please do not add me to your ping list. I live here.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Panspermia paper

Just a reliability check: Is this an appropriate source to use to discuss panspermia, or is it another crank source? Since I remember that the panspermia hypothesis has some undue promotion here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a pretty level-headed review. Astrobiology has improved as a journal, I have to say. jps (talk) 12:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Astrobiology as a field has become more mainstream with the increased discovery of exoplanets and plans to use space telescopes to detect life. I'd imagine that this leads to fields hitherto dominated by cranks getting more participation by mainstream scientists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Fringe connoisseurs, here is your gift:

• Stoned ape theory (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Bon courage (talk) 06:10, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Cyberbiosecurity

User:Travsap has been pushing fringe theory such as "DNA sequences have been mined, databased and networked to enable the wireless computer-assisted design of plant and animal evolution" and "Biosynethic software developed by virally-introduced gene edits and the wireless devices pulsing light to interface with them are manipulating natural thought and behavior for the sake of warfare, intelligence and national security." in Cyberbiosecurity. Neither are in the supposed source. Also there is a paragraph shilling for a NFT for some reason. -Mys_721tx (talk) 20:49, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

User does not take Misplaced Pages rules in a very reasonable way. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I blocked the user (they were already globally locked) and reset the article to where it was on December 11th. The article still does need some work, though I'm not sure it falls under fringe theories generally. Legoktm (talk) 07:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The Dec 11th version (Special:PermaLink/1129818340) does not fall under fringe theory. The added content however, is not backed by the source. Mys_721tx (talk) 10:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Mariko Aoki phenomenon

Slightly left field, but I wondered if this is worthy of the attention of editors here. - Roxy the dog 16:43, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Personally, bookstores make me want to fart. Maybe I have a variant syndrome. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Onions. - Roxy the dog 00:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Paleolithic Cave Art in Għar Dalam Cave, Malta

There is a paragraph about Paleolithic cave art in the Għar Dalam Cave article, whose sole reference is a popular tourist guide article, "Ghar Dalam Cave." The tourist guide lacks any reference to a reliable, or any other, source and I cannot find any reliable sources for the existence of this Paleolithic cave art. However, I did find reference to this Paleolithic art in fringe article, “Cover Up: Very Early Human Presence in Malta Has Been Intentionally Hidden" on the blacklisted “Ancient Origin” web site. If nobody either can suggest a reliable source or objects, I will remove this paragraph because it lacks a reliable source documenting the Paleolithic art and its removal. Also, it looks like the tourist guide repeats fringe material as fact. Paul H. (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I can't find anything about "Għar Dalam" and Anati. Searching on "Għar Dalam" and art, I found only this:

The biostratigraphy of Malta can be reconstructed, thanks to the relatively well-preserved stratigraphy of Għar Dalam. ... Apart from the buried archaelogical remains, there are also— for the greater part recently destroyed— rock paintings and bruising on the cave walls

Not sufficient to support the details in the article. Schazjmd (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Miracle of Lanciano

• Miracle of Lanciano (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Scientific tests! Real blood! --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

The user Mr. bobby (talk · contribs) recently removed a large chunk of the article, which, as explained in detail by an anonymous user at the talk page, is based on Christian fundamentalist publications and non-peer-reviewed studies. Similar concerns date as far back as 2010. This is related to Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Behavior_of_an_editor_in_a_catholic-fundamentalist_article_Miracle_of_Lanciano, where a user has repeatedly restored the deleted content.

I have filed my own ANI immediately above, which concerns a user ranting at WP:ORN and Talk:Western world about the history of the Western world, and which involves historical revisionism. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Noah’s Ark and someone we use as a source

This is from July but I just saw it. Klenck seems to be a respected archaeologist at first and we use him several times as a source. Also see . Doug Weller talk 19:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Also found and Doug Weller talk 20:00, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Judging from the first text you posted, this is not exactly groundbreaking material. Klenck is expanding on the claims of the Noah's Ark Ministries International that they discovered the Ark back in 2004. We already mention in our article: "Joel Klenck, formerly associated with NAMI, has continued to promote NAMI's claims as recently as December 2020." Dimadick (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@Dimadick the problem is that’s he’s used as a source in the first three articles here.. Should he be given the above? Doug Weller talk 16:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Looks like he is the author of only one other source that is for articles referencing Poloa Defensive Fortifications. Seems innocuous. The identity of authors may be of concern, but I think this is a case of fringe in one area does not necessarily imply fringe in another. jps (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Stanislav Grof

• Stanislav Grof (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

This article came to my attention via reference gnoming. I know very little about the subject area, but the latter part of the article gives the appearance of being promotion of a body of fringe theories, supported by "in-universe" references none of which pass the "independent" leg of WP:RS. I am unenthusiastic about this sort of clean-up, but perhaps somebody who frequents this board would like to take a look at the article? Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 10:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Wow, in-universe is right! Journeyers in holotropic states of consciousness can also experience meaningful family, ancestral, racial, or collective memories. These experiences from the "historical unconscious" are in basic agreement with C. G. Jung's observations. Another category that Jung did not study or document are past-life experiences. The authenticity of these can sometimes be independently verified. This article needs a serious haircut. Generalrelative (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Saturated fat and Red meat

• Saturated fat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Red meat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Past FTN reports: 2011, 2017 (no discussion), 2021, 2021 (no discussion)

Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease controversy was moved to Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease which was redirected to Saturated fat#Cardiovascular disease. Since then, Saturated fat has been a main target of FRINGE theory advocates. --Hipal (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Looks like Red meat is a target as well. --Hipal (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Hallwang Clinic is up for AfD ...

...here for anybody who is interested. - Roxy the dog 20:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Astrology

is getting more recognition in the sense of religion ?Jonote22 (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2022 (UTC) ... how is this to be understood

You're not quoting the article, and it's unclear to me what you mean. If you're not asking about WP-content, Misplaced Pages:Reference desk may be of help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

OP CU blocked. Doug Weller talk 12:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Plasma cosmology described as a Non-standard cosmology

This may be a correct use of the term, I simply don't know. I see we have Non-standard cosmology#Plasma cosmology. I'm not clear how this differs from fringe. Doug Weller talk 10:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

We have had some discussion about this topic in the past. While everyone can agree that the cosmologies that were inspired by Alfven are not standard, there is a range of opinions as to how seriously they should or should not be taken. This has been something we've happened upon as the best description per the sourcing we've got. jps (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

History of the Shroud of Turin

• History of the Shroud of Turin (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

The section "Prior to the 14th century" should be severely cut down, since the Shroud was created in the 14the century. Every "history" before that is fringe. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

And I see we have Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin. two other articles besides the main one covering the history, three on investigations, etc. Do we even need VP8 Image Analyzer? Why is House of Savoy]] included in the template - it doesn't mention the shroud. Doug Weller talk 12:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Another one: Relics associated with Jesus#Shroud of Turin is full of WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Pre-Columbian transoceanic contact theories#Claims of Incan travel to Oceania and Topa Inca Yupanqui

Both of these discuss Yupanqui's alleged travels, neither has any sources that suggest this didn't happen. Doug Weller talk 12:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

On the contrary, both indicate contrary points of view saying there are doubts that the voyage ever happened. Your are allowed to add additional information which adds additional context if you think it is lacking. I don't see where anyone has tried to stop you from doing so. --Jayron32 15:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jayron32 What source that isn't the proponent of the alleged travel have I missed? Doug Weller talk 15:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

On the first article "Critics of del Busto have pointed out that Yupanqui's expedition—assuming it ever took place—could have reached the Galapagos Islands or some other part of the Americas instead of Oceania." On the second article "Many historians are skeptical that the voyage ever took place." If you find this insufficient, you don't need to seek the permission of this noticeboard to fix it. Has anyone disputed your additions to these articles? Where is the text you have added strengthening the case that the voyages likely did not occur? I'm not claiming the articles are in a sufficient state, quite the contrary, they are not, but you also have not indicated any dispute we are supposed to adjudicate or discuss here. You're quite allowed to all by yourself make articles better in any way you see fit, and if no one objects, just keep on going. If someone is objecting, we can use this noticeboard to discuss that. But what dispute are you trying to ask editors to solve for you? --Jayron32 16:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jayron32 ""Critics of del Busto have pointed out that Yupanqui's expedition—assuming it ever took place—could have reached the Galapagos Islands or some other part of the Americas instead of Oceania" is sourced to del Busto. There's no source for the historians are skeptical. Never mind, if you're going to lecture me as though I'm a child or ignorant of how Misplaced Pages works, There's no point. But I didn't suggest there was a dispute, just came here to see if anyone had any knowledge or interest enough to find sources that aren't the person pushing the idea. Or had any other useful ideas. Doug Weller talk 16:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I've been unable to find reviews of Doig or Del Busto and unsure how seriously to take Lisardo Pérez Lugones Argumentaban la posibilidad real de que Túpac Yupanqui Inca hubiera llegado a la Polinesia (a symposium paper.) But what is the intention of the section? There is a great deal to say about this voyage legend: Pedro Sarmiento de Gamboa, Álvaro de Mendaña de Neira, Clements Markham, Thor Heyerdahl, etc. which predates this latest theory. Would this be important for the reader or outside the scope? Lothrop looks to be the first to "suggest this didn't happen" and i imagine other references would be available in Tupac Yupanqui. Descubridor de Oceanía. Maybe providing more background and history would be a good approach when there is not much available on the latest theory? fiveby(zero) 16:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like a good start. Interesting that there's so little. Doug Weller talk 10:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

References

1. Kauffmann Doig F. (2000). "Tupac Yupanqui rumbo a Oceanía". Revista de Instituto de Estudios Histórico-Marítimos del Perú. 19: 103–118.
2. Del Busto, J. A. (2006). Tupac Yupanqui. Descubridor de Oceanía.
3. Pérez Lugones, Lisardo (2016). "La hipótesis transpacíic". El mar: una forma de vida en América.
4. Ballesteros, Andrea (2021). "Ideas about Trans-Pacific Origins and Voyages in Early Spanish Chronicles from the Americas". Journal of Iberian and Latin American Research. 27.
5. Lothrop, S. K. (1932). "Aboriginal Navigation off the West Coast of South America". The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. 62: 229–256.

Help finding a Chrome addon or a script that points to comments on peer reviewed articles

I know this isn't a fringe issue but it seems the most likely place to ask (unless someone can help with a better one). I had this until I changed computers. That makes it most likely to be Chrome. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

PubPeer is handy. Bon courage (talk) 14:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Bon courage thanks, that’s it! Doug Weller talk 20:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Comet Research Group and the June Cosmic Summit to be run by CRG's director

See

Here's a list of the CRG members and directors. Doug Weller talk 17:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

In November, we had a discussion about possibly deleting the Comet Research Group article. Merging was the consensus decision. But trying to do that today, I found that it doesn't really seem to work. Also, I rediscovered the PSMag source on CRG which is kinda exactly what I was looking for as a source. . Maybe we should revisit the consensus and no longer effectthe merge. jps (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Niscience

New editor adding promotional material (SPA,3rd edit, first was to talk page). Doug Weller talk 16:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Potential sock or new account of Sattviclight (which you previously warned)? Bakkster Man (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Could be the same person, but not a sock as the older editor wasn’t blocked and there is no overlap. Doug Weller talk 21:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Pyramid power

See this version and the second section in the lead which suggests it's real(reverted of course). If you want to read the article it's at or a Google scholar search shows the pdf on some sort of religious website, but that's copyvio. I don't know enough to see if the inclusion is warranted, but it seems unlikely. Doug Weller talk 12:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Finding that the pyramid can scatter and focus eletromagnetic waves is not pertinent to the idea of Pyramid power unless and until a properly conducted study shows that such scattering and focusing has any effect on living things. I suspect that a similar study of any building or of many natural features would show scattering and focusing of electromagnetic waves. Donald Albury 15:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure they've even 'found' that. They've fed data through an algorithm, and got a result. Which may or may not reflect the real world, and may or may not tell us anything of consequence even if it does. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Just have to say that "Pyramid Power" reminds me of those distant days when I felt nonsensical woo was mostly harmless. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) Dumuzid (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

And is it just a pre-print, or was this peer reviewed somewhere? Bakkster Man (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I find the concept plausible. All electromagnetic waves interact with all substances. The magnitude of the scattering or focusing depends on the wavelength of the radiation and the makeup and structure of the substance the waves are traversing. Air scatters light, and a lens can focus light, but the electromagnetic waves that can penetrate a pyramid will be subject to much smaller scattering and focusing than light in air or glass. So, proper instruments may be able to measure the scattering and focusing of, say, radio waves passing through the Great Pyramid of Giza, but the effect is likely to be very small, and of no measureable effect on living things. So, I agree, this has no consequences for people (other than scientists interested in studying such things or trying to detect unknown chambers in the pyramid), and nothing to do with any concept of "pyramid power". Donald Albury 15:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC) Edited 15:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Now here I am, contemplating the concept of a 'pyramid of air' and if it might correct my myopia. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Only if that pyramid of air had a different index of refraction than the air surrounding it. Donald Albury 20:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Trancey, dancey. Space news and self-help. Sounds from this planet and others. Eye of Horus, eye of the storm of the Great Red Spot. Psych, kraut, new age and electronic beats beamed direct from Orion's Belt to Giza to the Hudson Valley. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

But, but, but... it's peer reviewed!! -Roxy the dog 20:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe this is the same paper we discussed briefly before.

ApLundell (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Flood myth#Comets

Basically all fringe, but a reader might not be clear about that. Doug Weller talk 15:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

UFO pages

Some additional eyes would be welcome at List of reported UFO sightings, UFO sightings in the United States, and the associated Talk pages. At issue is whether material sourced to confirmed fringe advocates, including Jacques Vallée, Ann Druffel, and Martin Shough, passes WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:FRINGE. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to revisit the WP:LISTCRIT. Sourcing to the news, in particular, seems to be poorly attested-to. jps (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The problem is we are getting list entries for “incidents” not covered by WP:FRIND sources — like this cited to Ann Druffel, and this cited to Martin Shough — both UFOlogists whose work is claimed to be "scientific" because it has been uploaded to semanticscholar.org or researchgate.net. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The steadfast promotion of non-FRIND material continues (here, here, here). JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I have warnd Yann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in two ways to stop with this WP:ADVOCACY. jps (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

There you show your true face. You accuse me of spreading fringe theories, but you claim that this is not a real CIA report? Wow! THAT IS a conspiracy theory!

Then I repeat what I wrote on Talk:List of reported UFO sightings. I don't think UFOs are extraterrestrial. I have never said that, and I don't understand how you come to this conclusion. Most of UFO reports are not even about real objects. Yet they are interesting phenomena. Among thousands of reports, about several hundreds are yet unexplained.

I don't think any government hides anything about UFOs. But Ruppelt's book shows very well how the US government (and may be several others), through mismanagement and lack of coordination, could give the impression of hiding something. This is more a lesson on communication and governance than anything else.

Then you accuse me of not being competent enough to edit that article. That's quite arrogant. I have read a lot of books and various documents, and not only from supporters of the ET hypothesis. Can you say the same? Nobody is required to prove a qualification to write something here anyway. And BTW I have been here longer than you, and I know these policies very well, but your interpretation of RS is quite nonsense IMO.

You accuse me of Misplaced Pages:Advocacy, which read Advocacy is the use of Misplaced Pages to promote personal beliefs or agendas. Again you are wrong. I don't try to promote any personal belief or agenda. I just try to improve some articles on UFOs. Yann (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

You reverted all the sourced text I added, but there is a case (Allagash Abductions) there referenced by about.com, which is in WP blacklist. There are many more referenced by unreliable sources ( skepticalinquirer.org, ozarkssentinel.com, virtuallystrange.net, cohenufo.org, etc. ). Why not removing them? Yann (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

And how come ufoevidence.org is a reliable source, but the ones I provided are not? They are at least of the same quality, or probably better. Yann (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning twofour awful sources that needed to be removed. I have removed them. As for the rest of your rant, I think you may be suffering from the misapprehension that having been active on this site for 20 years must somehow make you an expert in all areas of this site. You clearly do not have experience with matters relating to WP:FRINGE. jps (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

In UFO sightings in the United States, most cases don't even have a reference... Double standard anyone? Yann (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

No, just too many people not following Misplaced Pages policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Even ignoring the poor sourcing and dubious use made of such sources, the entire structure of the List of reported UFO sightings seems problematic to me. The conflation of alleged 'fiery disks' from 1440 BC with 'close encounters and abductions' and recent unexplained sightings by civil and military aircrew as 'UFO sightings' appears to me to be synthesis, promoting fringe claims that there is some sort of single explanation for disparate accounts over millennia. It is a list of 'stuff ufologists like to present as evidence for something or other', compiled apparently by Misplaced Pages contributors who wish to do the same. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I quite agree with you here. I would start the list only after WW2, and separate obvious hoaxes, clear misinterpretations, etc. from unexplained sightings. Yann (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

A list consisting only of 'unexplained sightings' would still be problematic, since it implies a common explanation. And you seem to be advocating subjective inclusion criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

No, "unexplained sightings" doesn't mean they have a common explanation. They are just unexplained. And no, I don't advocate a subjective inclusion criteria. Yann (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Confusion between the facts and the interpretation

There is a big confusion here. Sure, claiming that UFOs are from outer space is a fringe theory. But puting the whole subject into FRINGE, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Even the US Air Force acknowledges that some sightings are unexplained. Yann (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Lots of things go unexplained. Expecting an explanation for everything is wishful thinking... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

And "unexplained" according to who? There are plenty of mundane explanations published in reliable sources for notable UFO sightings, yet popular media and UFO enthusiasts prefer the "unexplained" tag because it generates debate and interest. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Many things remained unexplained because there simply a lack reliable observations available to base an interpretation. That something is unexplained cannot be used as evidence of any interpretation. Paul H. (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The conflation of alleged 'fiery disks' from 1440 BC with 'close encounters and abductions' and recent unexplained sightings by civil and military aircrew as 'UFO sightings' appears to me to be synthesis, promoting fringe claims that there is some sort of single explanation for disparate accounts over millennia. It is a list of 'stuff ufologists like to present as evidence for something or other', compiled apparently by Misplaced Pages contributors who wish to do the same. Agreed. The reason that it is set up like this, however, is that this sort of "synthesis" is one that is seen in some reliable sources. The last time I fought this battle, I was content to include any incident that was mentioned in sources about UFOs that were even vaguely reliable. Skepticial debunkings often mention these "historical" UFO claims in the context of arguing that these compendiums are what make up the entire fringe oeuvre. Whether and how we decide what the best standards for inclusion and sourcing that can be used to do this are is the question I would like to see resolved. When I last tried to do this, I couldn't really get enough people interested to form a consensus, so I just did removal haphazardly based mostly on whether or not I could find a source. Now it may be a good idea to be a bit more discerning in which sources we would use to allow for inclusion. Happy to see this ball rolling. jps (talk) 13:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Gary Wilson (author)

This is about . Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

If not for his internet fame, I doubt this person would be notable. I question whether he is properly identified as an "(author)" in the title. I would think he is more of an "(anti-pornography advocate)" jps (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Sahaja Yoga, again

• Sahaja Yoga (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• Previous discussions:

Returned to this article recently after unwatching it for a while, and the fringe had regrown (whitewashing of cult allegations, poorly-sourced medical claims, etc.). There also appears to have been a recent uptick in interest from new(ish) accounts. Could use more eyes. Bon courage (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The article is definitely in dire need of scrutiny by practitioners of non-promotional encyclopedic writing. –Austronesier (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't as bad as some articles I've read. I did it a once-over. jps (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

For reference, this is the version being pushed. Bon courage (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

It might be worth asking Chiswick Chap, he's written most of the Misplaced Pages articles on yoga from a scholarly perspective. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

He does real yoga, which this is a long way from. - Roxy the dog 19:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Trindade Island UFO hoax

Trindade Island UFO hoax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Are there better sources for this article? jps (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The picture on that page is probably a copyright violation. Yann (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm by no means a lawyer, but looking at Commons explainer on Brazilian copyright I think it's actually ok. Under the pre-1998 copyright law 'documentary' photographs, those meant to document events or situations, are public domain. The photo seems documentary, the reason it was taken was not artistic expression but to document the event. But if someone can speak authoritatively I'll defer. --(loopback) ping/whereis 04:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Does that clause count if the event is a hoax and the photographs were faked? In that case are they still 'documentary' photos or are they artistic expression?Nigel Ish (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes as works of fiction are also copyrighted. Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I have AFD'd it, as right now it is wholly unsuitable, and a quick search brought up no better sources. Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution