Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:02, 12 July 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.

Salvatore Pais

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COVID-19 misinformation

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

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

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

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

Talk:Spanish Empire#Area

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello Loki,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second American Civil War

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Single top for interdimensional hypothesis/being

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

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

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

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

Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.#RFC_on_use_of_terms_in_first_sentence

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

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

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

Joe Donnell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pressure point

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

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

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

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

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

Call for more eyes on Multiplicity (psychology)

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

Olavo de Carvalho

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

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

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

Physics Essays

I am not sure what the next step for Physics Essays is. It is an uncritical article on an obviously fringe journal. I asked on reference desk for reviews this journal's quality. However, nobody has succeeded. And since the AfD for the article was closed as "keep", I am at loss as to what I am supposed to do now. What is the protocol for dealing with a fringe article without any significant coverage? Ca 15:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

It's obviously a crackpot journal, so no physicist will waste their time writing a review about it. The difficulty is how to convey this to lay people, they won't be familiar with the bibliographic databases either, in order to understand that being included only by ESCI is a red flag. Tercer (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Some physicist out there ought to be willing to write down what everybody knows about Physics Essays and a few others. As long as they made no specific claims about individual living people, even a blog post or a page on a faculty website would be admissible. XOR'easter (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I would be very happy if a physicist other than me were to do that. Tercer (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Why is this an article? There are no sources about this low-impact journal. jps (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

The consensus of the AfD was that WP:NJOURNALS was applicable and satisfied. It has always been low impact, but the fact that the people who calculate impacts did so for it means that it's worth recording. XOR'easter (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I've complained about that indexing standard before, but have made little headway. I see literally no usable sources for this journal except for its inclusion in arbitrary lists. The closest I could find was a fringe physicist's blog where he complaining about another fringe physicist using the journal as evidence of publication. It's such bottom of the barrel scraping here that I am at a loss. This may be the example that shows why WP:NJOURNALS is corrupt. Anyone want to start a WP:VP on the subject? How about User:Headbomb or User:Randykitty? jps (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:NJOURNALS asks that journals be catalogued in selective indices, the same indices that the whole academic profession uses to guide its business (for good or ill). Disparaging those amounts to rejecting the standards of the subject we're supposed to be documenting and substituting our own. (Do I personally want to burn down the academic publishing industry? Kinda, yeah. But that's a different hobby. Misplaced Pages isn't the place to throw Molotov cocktails.) The sources are present, reliable, and independent; stepping outside of the RS to find more will end up scraping the bottom of the barrel, whatever the topic. XOR'easter (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Plus, if you want to find coverage of Physics Essay in books, it certainly exists. Nothing I can access sadly. "Electronics World + Wireless World Volume 96, Issues 1647-1658" is a maybe, but it's from the 1990s when the journal made more sense. There's also some criticism of Harold Puthoff around. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

This is not about disparaging indices, it's about whether there exist reliable sources we can use to write a sensible article. As Physics Essays illustrates, just because the journal was included in a selective index doesn't imply that such sources exist. Which makes WP:NJOURNALS fatally flawed. Tercer (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the current article isn't "sensible". Sure, it doesn't have a giant disclaimer that the journal is bunk (a disclaimer which the people who like fringe physics will either ignore or take as a badge of honor). That's suboptimal, but not disastrous. So, I'm not seeing the fatal flaw. There's a downside, maybe, that applies in rare edge cases — journals respectable enough to have been selectively indexed at some point but which are now evidently schlock while also not having that schlockiness documented outside of the occasional forum post. How common are those journals? Every guideline has edge cases, hard cases make bad law, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 23:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

The current article claims it is peer-reviewed. The current article says it is publishing science. The current article heavily implies it is part of academic physics. None of this is true. Seems like it is doing a disservice to the reader to say as much, but apparently we are allowed (and perhaps even required if I read into the revert of my excising of these "facts" correctly) to say these things because this journal itself says it about them? In what WP:FRINGE world does this make sense? jps (talk) 02:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I've argued at some length that the claim about it being peer-reviewed should be removed. XOR'easter (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

For that I thank you. But look at the pushback! "Where is your source that argues otherwise?" The point is, we lack sources to such an extent that it makes it nearly impossible to write a factual article on the subject. Even a factual stub! jps (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

We don't write articles to help crackpots. Who we should have in mind are people who don't already know about Physics Essays and read Physics Essays to find out. And we are not helping them right now.

I don't think this is an edge case. The existence of reliable sources is the very foundation of Misplaced Pages. A guideline implying we should write an article without them is rather destructive.

Think of a less contentious case: a journal that is indexed by Scopus and has an impact factor but is neither fringe nor influential, just irrelevant and uninteresting. I'm sure there are plenty of these. Why should we have articles about them? And, crucially, based on what could we write those articles? Tercer (talk) 06:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we have articles about them? The information to write them is available—citation indices are good for that much—and they could benefit the encyclopedia, e.g., by being linked from whatever sources we use that happen to be published there. (Even a dull journal can publish the occasional thing worth citing in one of our millions of articles.) The article Physics Essays isn't a page written without reliable sources; it's a page written without access to all the reliable sources that we wished existed. XOR'easter (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Because Misplaced Pages is not a database. If there's no information about a journal other than what is on the citation index there is no point in writing an article. I think WP:NASTRO does the analogous job very well: it explicitly excludes astronomical objects that are only one entry in a large database. The corresponding article would be an eternal stub consisting of little more than the name, position, and magnitude. Tercer (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

There is another downside for editors who are trying to source a page or evaluate a claim of notability and do not realize Physics Essays is not an RS! I always check wikipedia when I come across unfamiliar journals as sources, and while we here know to be suspicious of indexing in ESCI or Copernicus, for most editors if WP says it's a peer-reviewed academic journal without noting any issues they're going to assume it's legit. JoelleJay (talk) 04:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

the same indices that the whole academic profession uses to guide its business (for good or ill). Disparaging those amounts to rejecting the standards of the subject we're supposed to be documenting and substituting our own. I disagree with this take as well. I think Misplaced Pages is at its best when it is extremely conservative in its standards for standalone articles. I want to see multiple sources written about a journal in serious, comprehensive fashions before writing an article on it. I don't want to just check to see something is on a list regardless if that is what tenure committees lazily do. jps (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Before anybody starts an extended discussion about NJournals, it's probably worth while to have a look at the histories of that page and its talk page. Basically, each time there was an attempt to either invalidate NJournals or to elevate it to an accepted guideline (currently it's just a guideline), there are basically three groups of editors: 1/ Those who want to do away with it and require journal articles to adhere to GNG or be deleted; 2/ Those who argue that academic journals are what WP is based upon and that therefore all journals should be regarded automatically notable; and 3/ Those that support NJournals as it stands. Personally, I think that both 1 and 2 have undesirable effects and that the current praxis is a workable compromise. Personally, again, I'd tighten things a bit (getting rid of criteria 2 and 3), but that runs into the same "no consensus" situation. --Randykitty (talk) 21:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  It should have been deleted because it lacks sufficient coverage in secondary sources. I've seen lots of non-notable articles survive AfD, so this is not unusual. There should be a deletion team that finds and deletes these articles.

  WP:NJOURNALS btw is just an essay expressing the opinions of whomever contributed to it. Since some editors take it seriously, you might consider changing it. While you cannot improperly canvass, if you use notice boards to get wider input it should have a positive effect.

  The article says nothing beyond what one would find if they went to the journal's webpage. In that sense, it's not doing any harm. And being fringe (I am unfamiliar with the journal) is not a reason for deletion. TFD (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  A "deletion team" that goes around deleting articles that explicitly survived AfD would be a massive overruling of community decision-making. XOR'easter (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  This is the problem with notability policies that end up thumbing their noses in the face of other established Misplaced Pages rules. To be fair, NJOURNALS isn't the only one that does this, but it seems pretty egregious that it is allowing an article to be written that claims without so much as a wink and nod that Physics Essays is a peer-reviewed scientific journal about physics. jps (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  See WP:VNT. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  C'mon. WP:TRUTHMATTERS. jps (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  I envisioned something like Misplaced Pages:New pages patrol which goes around deleting or AfDing articles that do not meet policy. However, it does not include older articles.

  While you may describe a vote of 8 editors community decision making, these types of votes usually have little input beyond the people who created and contribute to the article. Then there are editors who routinely vote keep regardless of the merits. And they don't even have to persuade uninvolved editors the article should exist, just get "no consensus." Having more uninvolved editors weighing in would better reflect community consensus. TFD (talk) 13:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Should I send this to WP:Deletion review? There is now evidence that it is impossible to write a WP:NPOV-complying article on this journal. Ca 13:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The point of DRV is to reevaluate whether an AfD was closed properly, not to relitigate the arguments made there. It's for deciding whether the closer misread the consensus. Nothing indicates that an NPOV article is impossible about this journal. The only problem is that no physicist has bothered to write down the obvious yet. NPOV means fairly reflecting what the reliable sources say. The article does that. If further reliable sources existed, they would probably have more to say, and our article would have to be expanded to reflect that. XOR'easter (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

NPOV is more about representing viewpoints published by reliable sources fairly. None of the listed sources provide any views about the journal, just general statistics. I interpreted it as violating NPOV because there is no views to represent, so we can not representing fairly all the significant views. Ca 14:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Here's the issue, then. If no one has bothered to mention the obvious issue, then that means that the topic is likely not notable per WP:NFRINGE. That's, like, the whole point of our WP:FRINGE guideline. And now that's being superceded by WP:LOCALCONSENSUS about academic journals which is being run like a petty fiefdom without accountability. jps (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect. Until and when you have reliable sources that establish this journal is a fringe journal, NFRINGE does not apply. --Randykitty (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

That has never been how this has worked for anything but fringe journals. Every other topic covered by WP:FRINGE does not demand a source explaining that the thing is fringe because fringe ideas are often ignored. When they are ignored, we consider the idea to be so obscure as to be non-notable. That's the way we have done this for more than 10 years. jps (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Nothing indicates that an NPOV article is impossible about this journal. I disagree. I think the fact that we cannot even get the statement "peer-reviewed" removed from the article means that we are running into impossibilities here. jps (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages editors having a barney is a sign that the day ends in -y, not that an article is impossible to write. XOR'easter (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

In this particular case there are no sources about whether the journal is peer-reviewed other than the journal itself. I think it's a clear case of impossibility, as opposed to a mere disagreement. Tercer (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I mean, I see their point. They've deemed the journal worthy of a standalone article. WP:ABOUTSELF seems to cover the scenario where no other reliable source contradicts the claims of the journal. What's the alternative argument? That we can accept the indexing as a reliable source but nothing else? Then we end up with the stubbiest of stubs (which, to be fair, I tried, but I think I agree with User:Headbomb that WP:ABOUTSELF applies and I'm not sure that unduly self-serving is what is actually going one when the physics cranks who run that outlet are claiming "peer review" in their description of the activities of the place -- it's just misleading since it is obviously only going to go out to other crank or crank-sympathetic reviewers since literally no one else would ever agree to review for Physics Essays). jps (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I would be willing to argue that the claim of being peer-reviewed is unduly self-serving. And as I said somewhere in this mess of a discussion, I think it is WP:UNDUE for the MOS:LEDE given the state of the article. By the letter of wiki-law, the lede should be talking about how the journal was delisted from Scopus! XOR'easter (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, but until we have a source like "Delisting Review" that talks about delisting, I hesitate to say we can say anything about that given WP:OR. I wonder if WP:COMMONSENSE can be applied in this instance. I would argue "probably not" since it is directly relevant to a disputed claim (that the journal is garbage). jps (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

ESCI requires that journal are peer-reviewed. Physics Essays is indexed in ESCI. That's one RS that considers ESCI to be peer-reviewed.

Peer reviewed is an activity that happens. It does not necessarily imply quality or meaningfulness. A kindergartner asking their classmate for feedback on drawing is peer-review. So do cranks asking other cranks.

The usual wording when the quality of the peer review is under question is something like "describes itself as a peer-reviewed journal, although the quality of the process has been questioned ".

Find these sources, and we can include them in the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

You know and I know that peer review does not necessarily imply quality or meaningfulness. However, we ought to consider the perspective of readers who don't necessarily know that; including that bare descriptor in the article can send a misleading impression to an audience less acquainted with the possibility that cranks can "review" other cranks, that too many referees just skim for typos, etc. We don't need more sources just to drop the "peer-reviewed" descriptor from the text. While one could infer from ESCI that some kind of review process at least nominally happens, that doesn't obligate us to use the words. XOR'easter (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

On WP:FRINGE itself, we describe a situation that is relevant here: Journal of Frontier Science... uses blog comments as its supposed peer review. In my reading, we might accept such a thing as peer review even though for most of Misplaced Pages's existence the WP:FRINGE guideline has asked us not to do that. I suppose you are hanging your hat on ESCI indexing, then, but... hmm... that kind of hoopjumping seems a bit WP:SYNTHetic to me. jps (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

No, by your own standards you need a source explicitly claiming that Physics Essays is peer-reviewed. Tercer (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

And we have it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Only by syllogism.

A whole lot is riding on (1) being assumed to be correct. And, moreover, such arguments have tended in the past to be frowned upon per WP:SYNTH. YMMV.

jps (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

(1) A reliable source says all the journals included in a list are peer reviewed.

(2) A journal is on the reliable source's list of peer-reviewed journals

(1)+(2) that journal is peer reviewed.

Every claim back by any sources have the same supposed weakness you just 'unearthed'. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

We have specific reason to doubt Clarivate and Taylor & Francis's claims that all the journals conduct legitimate peer review and it is documented in our article Emerging Sources Citation Index. I am less than enthused that you have not acknowledged this yet. jps (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

NJOURNALS is an essay and carries zero weight in AfDs. So the fact that the keep !votes did not cite any policy or guideline should have been taken into consideration. JoelleJay (talk) 04:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I had forgotten about this wrinkle. It may be time to revisit a question of AfD or marking the essay as {{historical}}. We need to break the juggernaut that is the NJOURNALS LOCALCONSENSUS. jps (talk) 11:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Articles should always be based on reliable, independent, secondary sources. Topics that are not subject to an official SNG default to the GNG, which requires SIGCOV in multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources. If a topic is only sourced to primary or non-independent sources, like databases or its own website, it should not have a standalone page. If a topic under GNG does not have SIGCOV, it should not have a standalone page. The journal is clearly FRINGE, so that means the higher standards of FRINGE also apply. All of the issues above regarding how the wiki page only regurgitates what the journal says about itself are a great example of how it is not possible to write an NPOV article from primary and non-independent sources. JoelleJay (talk) 04:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're misreading WP:ABOUTSELF. All five criteria need to apply for a claim to be acceptable. And we have a hard fail at criterion 4, namely there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. Tercer (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say there is reasonable doubt there. XOR'easter (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I think that this clause is meant to apply mostly to impersonations on Twitter and the like. Or the odd case where someone appears on the talkpage of the Misplaced Pages article arguing that some factoid or another is wrong. jps (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, there is no doubt the Physics Essays website is authentic. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

How about criterian 1? the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. (emphasis mine). Saying that a journal that claims to debunk Einstein every week is "peer-reviewed" without any additional clarification is an exceptional claim. When layperson(like me) first hears the word "peer-review", there is an expectation that the peer-review is meaningful unless stated otherwise. Let's take account of the readers. Also, this discussion just proves the usefulness of notability. We have so little coverage to work with that original research and NPOV violations are inevitable. Ca 00:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the tag on the article is a good compromise so far. Other than that I don't see a solution for how to edit this article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The next step

I believe a structured approach would aid in determining consensus. So far, I see these three possible options presented in this discussion. Feel free to add more options as needed. Ca 09:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1 - Remove the term "peer-review" as a descriptor
• Option 2 - Consider the website of Physics Essays to be unreliable and remove all information sourced solely to that source
• Option 3 - Delete the article
• Option 4 - maintain current status

• Oppose first three, support option 4, for the reasons explained ad nauseam above and at the article's talk page. Option 3 is, frankly, absolutely ridiculous given the resounding "keep" at the recent AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 10:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Status quo as detailed on the talk page and above indeed. If you have reliable sources that dispute/question the peer-review claim, then we can revisit this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Pinging participants - @Tercer @XOR'easter @jps @Steve Quinn @JoelleJay @The Four Deuces Ca 10:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 (but also okay with Option 1 and Option 3 and definitely not okay with the fourth one). I also think we need to look at redoing the AfD/marking {{historical}} for WP:NJOURNALS which has clearly become a place where WP:WikiLawyering reigns supreme. This is an essay masquerading as WP:PAG and I am appalled that it is being used to WP:POVPUSH for WP:FRINGE claims (even if this is just due to officious adherence to a set of policies essentially invented out of whole cloth without community input rather than something like WP:ADVOCACY -- but note that editors can end up acting as a WP:PROFRINGE advocate even if they aren't intending to do so). jps (talk) 11:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  WP:NJOURNALS is a terrible essay, as it advises people to write articles without having reliable sources to based them on. It's a mystery why anybody takes it seriously or confuses it with an actual policy. I support deleting it. Tercer (talk) 12:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  According to the results of the last AfD (which I initiated seven years ago(!)), the appropriate move would be to gain consensus for marking the essay {{historical}}. I think it is a good idea to have a WP:RfC that did this. jps (talk) 12:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Reading through the deletion discussion, it turns out that WP:NJOURNALS was intended to be a guideline, which is why it is written as one. In the ensuing discussion it failed to gather support. Hence it should be tagged as {{failed}}. Definitely not as {{essay}}, as it was never intended as one, and not as {{historical}} either, as it that would imply it was at some point supported. Tercer (talk) 12:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Well, WP:PAGs are descriptive rather than prescriptive. Because there has been a concerted group of people acting as though there was consensus for these rules to operate, in point of fact that was how Misplaced Pages worked for a time. Marking the essay as "historical" is a way to tell people to move on from this while preserving the history where many discussions referred to this part of Misplaced Pages in their arguments. The time to have marked it as "failed" would have been when it failed to gain a consensus. Misplaced Pages, remember, works on a "fake it till you make it principle" in a lot of areas. Or, in this case, "fake it until people notice and start sounding alarm bells". jps (talk) 12:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support first three. Optimally we would delete the article, since we don't have reliable sources with which to write a decent article, but that seems unlikely given that it just survived an AfD. Barring that, we should remove all information that can't be reliable sourced, which means almost the entire article. At an absolute minimum, we need to remove the claim that it is peer-reviewed, because this is not true even according to Physics Essays itself!. In any case, the status quo is clearly untenable given the shitstorm going on. Tercer (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Physics Essays says this

  Articles submitted for publication will be reviewed by scientific peers. Realizing the interchangeable roles of authors and reviewers, the positive aspect of the reviewing process will be retained by providing the authors with the reviewers’ comments. Each author should judge which parts of the reviewers’ suggestions are appropriate to improve the quality of his or her paper. The editor, who is responsible for the Journal, will allow a large degree of freedom to the authors in this process.

  This there is zero evidence that this is not the case (and plenty that it is e.g. ). If it's a journal for crackpots (which it is), the peers are other crackpots, and give crackpot feedback. Or the peers give relevant feedback, but the editor allows the authors to ignore that feedback under the "a large degree of freedom" aura. That doesn't mean there is no peer review. It means it's questionable or meaningless peer review. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  When we claim in Wikivoice that a journal is peer-reviewed, the reader should assume that the journal is in fact peer-reviewed in the usual sense. Not that it's technically peer-reviewed, but actually has questionable or meaningless peer-review. Misplaced Pages is not a conman. Tercer (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  If it's a journal for crackpots (which it is), the peers are other crackpots, and give crackpot feedback. I am amazed that you are arguing this. Surely the peers relevant for peer-review of a subject are the experts in the subject, not the crackpots. The relevant epistemic community is never the community of crackpots. That this nuance is lost on indices is a shame, but we are under no obligation to repeat this mistake in our work here. jps (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1 at minimum. WP:BURDEN comes into play here. The claim that this journal is peer reviewed has been challenged, and the standard to include information in an article (when challenged or likely to be challenged) is that it must be directly supported by a reliable source. It is not good enough to argue the negative (ie saying “but there are no sources saying it isn’t peer reviewed”)… we must prove the positive (by citing a source that directly says it IS peer reviewed). Blueboar (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 I'll accept option 1 and 2 as solutions, but my strongest support is on deletion. The AfD focused on whether WP:NJOURNAL is applicable or not. It is indeed applicable and passes the criterion listed. However, me and many other editors have attempted to find sources to no avail. The current coverage of the topic can easily exist in a directory of journals. This lack of sources leads to an wp:NPOV and WP:FRINGE violating article with no room for improvement. Besides, an essay cannot overpower an guideline unless in an exceptional circumstance, which I am not seeing here. And the notion that SNGs somehow trump GNG is completely untrue. NJournal even says it so: It is possible for a journal to qualify for a stand-alone article according to this standard and yet not actually be an appropriate topic for coverage in Misplaced Pages because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. The new source added alleviates my concerns and provides reader with valuable context. I do still support option 2 though. Headbomb's argument is rendered null now since a reliable source discrediting Physics Essays has been found. I would not be opposed to a AfD renomination though. Others might have different ideas. Ca 12:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3, second and third choice option 2 and 1. There is no policy-based reason for option 4. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 Delete. It probably survived AfD because the discussion attracted little attention except from editors who either sympathized with the aims of the journal or just routinely vote to keep if there are any reliable sources at all. This discussion shows that if it was brought to the attention of a wider audience, it likely would have failed AfD. If a second AfD is attempted, it should be publicized through advertising it on relevant project pages. Bear in mind that any efforts to bring the AfD to wider attention must follow WP:CANVASS. TFD (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3>Option 2>Option 1. This should have been deleted in the first place because there were no guideline-based !votes to retain it and no secondary independent coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 and Option 2. I agree "peer reviewed" should be removed based on the several discussions involved about how to deal with this article and per WP:BURDEN. Also, relying on the website for accurate information is not possible at this point based on our discussions and the articles it publishes. The website description of the journal about itself is obviously a sham, and Misplaced Pages should not support this. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 and option 2 for reasons I have argued on, by now, multiple pages. Option 3 would require overturning an AfD out-of-process. XOR'easter (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• XOR'easter, we have not a single source that questions this journal's peer-review procedure or its status as a fringe journal. Options 1 and 2 are based solely on the opinion of WP editors. Hence, options 1 and 2 boil down to original research. Our article mentions what could be sourced: it was dropped by Clarivate and Scopus and its current impact factor is 0.6. I can't image an author looking at our article and then deciding to submit his work there. It would be even better if we could find some RS criticizing its contents/review procedures, but as it is it's pretty clear that this is not a prestigious venue for one's hard work. But as long as we lack such RS, we should not remove "peer-reviewed". --Randykitty (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• Randykitty, you have WP policy backwards… We can not state that it IS peer reviewed without a reliable independent source to support that statement. Ok, sure, I suppose the same is true the other way… we also can not state that it isn’t peer reviewed without reliable sources - but what that means is that we must remain silent on the question, and not discuss peer review AT ALL. Blueboar (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• It's not original research to deem a source unreliable, or to decide that a particular compound word is (a) the wrong adjective for what ought to be communicated and (b) not worth including in the lede. XOR'easter (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  The only acceptable wording if there's a concern, but no sources expressing that concern, is 'the journal describes itself as peer-reviewed' Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• {{WP:OR]]says things like The prohibition against original research means that all material added to articles must be verifiable. It does not say anywhere that you are not allowed to remove material. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• If a WP editor looks at what a journal publishes and then decides "this is crap" and based on that decides that peer-review at this journal must be non-existent or bad, then I call that original research. --Randykitty (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  But if we don't have a reliable source for such a contentious claim, it shouldn't be in the article. Editors make personal judgments all the time on whether a particular source is reliable, and it seems like no one here is arguing this journal is reliable, so we can't treat the journal's own claim that it is peer-reviewed as a reliable source for that fact. JoelleJay (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  Also, I found this: However, «Physics Essays» is not a reputed scientific journal but rather a free forum where extravagant views on physics (in particular, those involving parapsychology) are welcome; as for «mainstream» physicists, they do not seem to take Radin’s claim seriously. "Free forum" sure suggests a lack of peer review. JoelleJay (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  Wonderful source! The published version is here, in issue #4, not issue #3 as the preprint claims. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  I call that original research It does not matter what you call it. It only matters what the policies and guidelines call it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  I tend to agree that WP:ONUS, among other things, gives a lot of preference for removing contentious claims from articlespace. To argue that a removal done of the basis of something like a due-diligence check of whether the aspects of editorial reliability are found at a particular source is "original research" is basically asking us to act like poorly programmed robots that rely on rules made up ahead of time rather than enacting common sense in the service of making an excellent reference work. We're not talking about penning an essay about the intricacies of attestations about peer review. We're talking about removing a label that has been questioned in good faith. jps (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Options 1 and 2. No need to overturn the AfD, but we should treat it as what it is. Actually, with respect to Option 2, I don't have a problem with citing it for attributions of opinion, just not for statements of fact. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

RfC drafting proposal

I have started a discussion about possibly marking NJOURNALS as historical. Please join it if you are interested. jps (talk) 13:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Piri Reis map

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis of UFOs by Joel Achenbach

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recovered-memory therapy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Red meat

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

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

Root Cause (film)

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

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

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

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

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

Ancient astronauts

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

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

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

Attunement

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

Specified complexity AFD

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

Peter Zeihan

A self-styled "geopolitical strategist" whose opinions are being used a lot to describe contemporary Alberta separatism. He is setting off my fringe guy warning bells. His credentials raise the question of where his expertise in Canadian politics comes from based on a bachelor's degree in poli-sci and a diploma in Asian studies. I haven't found much 'about' him but what I've found is critical of his predictions demonstrate a tendency to make grand statements outside his areas of supposed expertise (such as regarding genetic sciences) and frankly the better the venue the worse it gets Kirkus says of one of his books "The book has entertainment value, but some of the material should be taken with many grains of salt." "His generalizations can seem oversimplified" says Publisher's weekly . Everything I'm seeing about this guy suggests that his expertise should be taken with several grains of salt. (On a personal note, since he is advocating for the annexation of Canada's oil patch I rather hope his opinions are not mainstream within the United States as I'd prefer not to be "liberated" anytime soon.) Anyway before I go about de-Zeihanifying the Alberta separatism article I thought I'd check here and see whether there was a dissenting view of this broad political fortune teller. Simonm223 (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Annexation may be closer than you think. :) On catching a flight in Calgary for Atlanta last week, we were processed through security by U.S. TSA and Border Patrol personnel, and were treated as a domestic flight on arrival in Atlanta. Donald Albury 14:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Canada has allowed that for Canada-US flights for several decades, and not just from Alberta. Does not indicate an imminent danger of annexation. :) NightHeron (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I travel for business regularly and, yeah, Canada does allow American TSA agents to process Canadian travelers at airports. This is a matter of treaty and not an annexation threat. Any comment on the reliability of Zeihan for Canadian politics? Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Highest IQ in history

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

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

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

LGBT chemicals conspiracy theory

• LGBT chemicals conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recently created article of relevance to this board. Raises BLP issues as well but I'll just list it here for now. There's been some dispute over tagging and BLP concerns. The sourcing seems weak or poor at times e.g. whole long and contentious paragraphs lack inline citations. Nil Einne (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Is this part of the famous Alex Jones rant, "they're making the frogs gay"? jps (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

RFK Jr is reheating it in his campaign. That may have sparked new interest. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I think that is indeed why the article was created. The creator has been involved in the RFK Jr article, and added stuff about RFK, but this was removed by another contributor. (These are part of the BLP issues I touched upon.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I removed what appears to be unsourced material from the article. Read my rationale here . I also posted about this on the talk page . Another editor made an interesting comment on talk about collapsing the article to about two paragraphs . I agree. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Zionism, race and genetics

• Zionism, race and genetics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Greetings. A recently created article has been marked for potential issues regarding neutrality and factual accuracy. We require additional attention from individuals who are courageous enough to engage in a potentially challenging environment. 88.12.182.175 (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

"a potentially challenging environment" What do you call a nuclear meltdown? A potential health hazard? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Zionism, race and genetics. jps (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The AfD is unhelpful as it will slow down / delay the ongoing constructive discussion between editors on the talk page. There are a significant number of high quality and recent academic sources on this subject. As the IP says, it is a challenging (i.e. potentially emotional) topic, so care is needed. On Misplaced Pages we do not shy away from well-sourced topics just because they are potentially contentious. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

You are living in a fantasy of your own invention. This has nothing to do with contentiousness. This has to do with making shit up. Point to one place other than that Misplaced Pages page where "Zionism, race, and genetics" is considered a coherent, single topic. So far, you've just done a lot of WP:SYNTH. jps (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The page has been up 3 days. On being challenged about your familiarity with the sources, you assured the page you had read them. On a rough calculation that means you read 2,500 pages in less than three days. Well done. It's taken me several years to get a handle on that vast literature.Nishidani (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

That is a very strange strawman. The article is a massive WP:SYNTH violation, both broadly and on individual sources. Throughout the article there are ideas attributed to sources that aren’t actually there, or the article cherrypicks from them to synthesize a new narrative. If there is any article that gives off the impression that it was built by searching for keywords in Google Scholar and slopping quotes together, it’s this one. Drsmoo (talk) 00:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I seem to have stumbled on a corner of Misplaced Pages that is inhabiting some bizarre parallel universe where Misplaced Pages is acting as a college class rather than an encyclopedia. The idea is not to summarize 2500 pages of academic work in a term paper. The idea is to write articles that conform to basic standards of our WP:ENC. When I say I looked through the sources, that's exactly what I did: LOOKED THROUGH THEM. Close reading is what you would do to verify citations and facts in the article. Looking for big themes is what you do to confirm whether or not there is a coherent subject being discussed in a big way. Are there subfields of critical theory, for example, called "Zionism, race and genetics"? Instead, I found lots of dense analysis that could be used to fine effect as sources of various articles... but crucially nothing that seemed to indicate there was a coherent subject of the sort we would expect in an encyclopedia. Term paper topic? Why not? Entry found between Zionism, Christian and Zionism (disambiguation) in our index? Doesn't look like WP:ENC to me! jps (talk) 02:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

yeah, sure. . . There is no evidence you have read the sources, closely or otherwise.Nishidani (talk) 07:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

yeah, sure. . . by the way - WP:AGF is a behavioral guideline and WP:NPA is policy. You should have at least learned that with 92,000 edits. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

It's okay. I'm sure working in WP:ARBPIA for more than a decade will cause some to get a bit salty about outsiders coming in and using website procedures and jargon instead of, y'know, reading the books on the syllabus or whatever. jps (talk) 12:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I may be salty but I don't play to the peanut gallery. Nishidani (talk) 12:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I respect that! jps (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I have not read the article, nor have I read the arguments for and against deletion (and I'm not masochistic enough to do so). But I know which side of ARBPIA this article favors purely because of which editors are !voting in which direction. If the way an editor !votes correlates so strongly with one side that you can predict their !vote regardless of the specific issues or policies being discussed, then that editor is almost certainly a civil POV pusher and should not be editing in the ARBPIA area. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to the opinion that WP:GEVAL (not to mention WP:FRINGE) implies that simply because one side benefits and one side does not from a particular action at this website, that does not necessarily mean that we have a problem. Where things go south, I think, is when you end up with stuff that goes beyond our website's normal procedures for sifting through what is okay to show the internet and what is not. jps (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: Yesterday I "broke" my retirement to vote in that AFD specifically to rebut the conclusion you are making here today, because I knew editors would view it the way you viewed it. I'd recommend looking at the sources at the AFD -- just read the first sentence of the abstract of this paper, for one example -- because editors are misrepresenting sources. Anyone who says Zionism, race, and genetics, is not the subject of scholarly study is lying. There really is no other way to look at it. Levivich (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Is there a difference between ++ and + and + and + and ? Because I definitely see a difference. I assume that it is only the last example that we are considering for this article, and I do not see this as the subject of the sources (or even part of the sources) provided. If you think I'm incorrect in that, I think that makes me a fool rather than a liar. jps (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I guess the question, and the reason I'm fence-sitting on the issue to a certain extent is this question: Is does the literature that addresses the question of Zionism and race also address questions of genetics or just of heredity? Because genetics isn't exactly the same as heredity. That being said I'm sensitive that's a pretty fine hair to slice in an article in one of the most fraught areas of Misplaced Pages. I suppose the question then becomes whether this whole debate could be handily solved by just deleting the word "genetics" from the article title and retaining anything else sourced to RSes. Simonm223 (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

It's a bit all over the map. The fact of the matter is that race and genetics is, according to the article creator, one of the idealized parent articles of this one (and perhaps that explains the bizarre lack of the Oxford comma). But that subject, we all know too well here at this board, is itself completely fraught not from the perspective of the WP:MAINSTREAM, of course, but because the race realists, that seem to be far louder than their size should allow, are very annoying about a lot of this stuff. These numbskulls (that is, the race realists -- not anyone in these discussions currently of which I'm aware) sometimes use Jewish genetics (as referenced by fiveby helpfully below) to try to say certain politically motivated claims and it is absolutely true that there have been feedback loops in some cases -- instances of this documented in a number of the sources in the article in question. But, my god, is that + then? I think it is. But then maybe I'm splitting hairs. The question I keep coming back to is: why is this telescoping take trying to serve as a standalone article meanwhile, Zionism as racism is a redlink and people are arguing without irony that this is a separate topic from that? jps (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

"Zionism as racism" would be a very loaded title. It also would not cover racist Anti-Zionism. Maybe something like "Zionism and racism" would be an option? I think one of the problems with the current title is that it sounds like there is some kind of connection between Zionism and race and genetics. But as far as I understand it the article is about the use of race theory and population genetics in arguments about Zionism. As to the issue of using "race and genetics" I'm assuming that it is an attempt at bringing together different attempts at employing science to argue for racist Zionism or racist Anti-Zionism. Where racists tried to use race theory in the past they now try to use population genetics as a sanitized version of race theory. Please correct me if I misunderstood what the article is about. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I see this acting on a kind of hierarchy of style at least. Use of genetics to support Zionism, Racial identity arguments in Zionism, etc., etc. I can think of lots of ways to include some sources and bits of content. But I read the article as is and I see something that tries to tie everything together and ends up looking completely unweidly. jps (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Or "Zionist racialism", but it also should clarify what far-right group embraces it... Another possibility is merging in a main article, if it's not notable enough to merit its own. —PaleoNeonate – 21:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not concerned with which side is "right" in this particular instance. I'm concerned with the editors whose !votes always just happen to be favorable to one side or the other, no matter what the policy issue is. Like I said, it's gotten the point where I can find an ARBPIA debate, look only at the usernames to see who supports and who opposes, and then I know which side the proposal favors. This happens in a lot of topic areas, but I've seen it in ARBPIA more than anywhere else, and I don't even edit in this area. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Noah Tamarkin's "Jewish Genetics" (wplibrary) from Oxford Bibliographies might be helpful here. fiveby(zero) 19:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I already have that bibliography and am using it, slowly. There's so much on this topic that some further drafting will be submerged by the extensive reading required, beyond what we already have.Nishidani (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Noticed the overlap when i started comparing the references. What's everyone's take on Genetic studies on Jews#History and Hypotheses, Jewish_ethnic_divisions#Genetic_studies, The_Invention_of_the_Jewish_People#Genetic_evidence, etc.? As an ill-informed reader i'm looking for the "for dummies" or charitably "general audience" version for summary context. Side-by-side Zionism, race and genetics and Genetic studies on Jews don't look complementary, but competing maybe? fiveby(zero) 22:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

There are legitimate critiques to be had for using genetics to establish group relations in ways that map to social/cultural connections. Classic examples include the problems with "DNA essentialism" arguments that a number of USians use to claim Native American descent (famously Elizabeth Warren got mucked up in that). Those are critiques that do not take issue with the empirical results -- just the interpretations. But the problem there is, then, that there is nothing else to be done when asking questions about who belongs where? It's all group dynamics and identity at that point. Which means you either accept the correlates as evidence or you argue that correlates mean nothing. I don't see a third way. jps (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

As far as I understand it Zionism, race and genetics is about using genetic studies on Jews (and before that race theory) to argue for or against Zionism. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Misc antivax

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

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

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

RS noticeboard

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

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

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

Macrofamilies, linguistics, systematic issue on Misplaced Pages

Hello from the Linguistics Wikiproject. It was recommended in a larger discussion that I bring this up here, but there appears to be a fairly systematic issue with some more fringe elements of linguistics being presented as either fact, or in a more positive light than current scholarship would justify. That said, this is a weird one as it gets into the weeds of linguistics a bit, and I'm concerned that any attempt to be bold on my part will look reckless. I'm going to provide background information, but feel free to jump down to a tl;dr below:

Background

Historical linguistics is concerned with, in part, the genetic relationship between languages. Not all languages are related, and some families do converge at a proto-langugage. All languages which descend from that proto-language are considered related and a member of that family. English, German, Hindi, and Farsi are all Indo-European. Japanese is Japonic, Uyghur and Turkish are Turkic, etc.

Historically, there have been attempts to link these families to each other. In the early half of the 20th century this was a bit of a wild west, but a few theories did eventually become popular which later, as more evidence from more out-of-reach languages emerged, resulted in those theories falling out of favour. This is the case for Altaic, which was a major theory and now there is fairly uniform consensus that it has not been demonstrated to be real, and many of the old lines of evidence have fallen apart. It does still have some support among a small contingent of academics, but it is absolutely not the mainstream. Likewise, most of the old grand proposals to link families together have fallen apart, particularly attempts to link most human languages. (Just as a footnote, some of them do end up working out, to be fair). While Altaic has enjoyed some tiny sliver of continued support, theories like Boreal, Nostratic, Proto-Human, and many others are so far outside the linguistic mainstream that modern scholarship doesn't even discuss them.

Which leads to the main problem.

It's pretty clear that there's been a years-long effort by people who are still into these theories to present them as real and still under serious academic consideration. This has resulted in a mess of articles presenting what are the field's equivalent of quantum woo as real possibilities. This doesn't appear to be some organized effort, and I don't think it's a conspiracy or anything, but I do feel like these articles have been skating by without linguists weighing in quite as much by virtue of them not really being taken seriously by the linguistics community. At it's most egregious, every single macrofamily proposed in this template is rejected by mainstream scholarship, and of those only Altaic is really a topic of serious discussion at all. I've run into issues when trying to clean up some of these articles, where I'm asked for proof that Nostratic is a fringe theory, for example.

tl;dr

A fringe corner of linguistics has spent years creating very reasonable looking articles on Misplaced Pages which misrepresent the current understanding of the field. I'd really like some help cleaning up these articles, getting them away from being, at best, 50/50 between scholarly consensus and the minority perspective and get them back in line with reality to be much more useful as encyclopedic entries. There's also an issue in that many of these articles are only very tentatively linked to the rest of wikipedia, so it's often hard to even find these articles. I honestly don't even know how possible it is for non-linguists to work on this particular project, particularly in cases like Altaic where there are still some serious respectable scholars who accept it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrenmck (talk • contribs) 05:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Since you already tried Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Linguistics last month, I guess we have a bit of a hole in the linguistic anti-fringe user space... --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

You've come to the right place. Problem is, the scale of what you are talking about is not something we are equipped to handle at this board unless we are familiar with the subject at hand (which I manifestly am not). Where we can help you is with any pushback you get of the sort you describe, where I'm asked for proof that Nostratic is a fringe theory. If you find much gatekeeping going on and restoration of poor sourcing, etc., do come to this board and start a section. But you absolutely have license to go through and start cleaning house. My advice having done something similar with cosmology-related fringe work more than a decade ago (but, really, we're never done) is to try to figure out which ideas meet WP:NFRINGE (specifically on the basis of WP:FRIND) and which ones need to be removed completely from the encyclopedia due to epistemic closure. A small community of people talking to themselves without any WP:MAINSTREAM notice is a recipe for violating WP:WEIGHT. This game isn't always easy to figure out, but it is a good way to thread the needle. If you find there are certain accounts which are acting problematically, you can mention them here, but please tell them that you are doing so. I am heartened that you appear to be assuming good faith about the contributors not being part of an organized effort. If this is the case, it is possible or even likely that they will take the opportunity to learn and help curate better content. Good luck! jps (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not that no-one has replied in WT:LING, it was just less than two :) See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Linguistics#Uralo-Siberian_languages,_proposed_macrofamily_article? and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Linguistics#Requesting_help_with_cleaning_up_some_articles_and_AfD_concerns, where I expressed major concerns with certain aspects of the OP's endeavor, including the idea that Nostratic and Altaic are the only notable macro-family proposals, and all the rest should be dumped into a single article covering all the rest. Frankly, here I can see the pendulum swing to the opposite fringe. Quoting myself from the discussion:

Attempts to be overly bold will appear as reckless also to people familiar with historical linguistics. We should by all means avoid the kind of zealotism familiar from blogs, forums etc. that are indeed largely crowded by people unfamiliar with historical linguistics.

(For those who don't what my last remarks refers to: there's e.g. the Altaic hypothesis, which is a proposal with stable minority support, stable explicit minority rejection, and mainstream disinterest. Both the support and reject camp have sunk to the low of bashing their heads in public web forums with lots of trolling behavior, not excluding otherwise remarkable scholars like Alexander Vovin. Both camps have developed a faithful amateur fanbase, and debates among these fanbases are notoriously abysmally low.)

That said, trimming, pruning, purging, tagging, also merging, PROD-ing and AfD-ing where necessary, sure yes. There is too much in-universe detail in many of these articles that might give the wrong impression about the acceptance of these proposals. But I don't support anything that goes in the direction of a priori rejection as if historical linguistics already has reached the saturation point of established and establishable knowledge beyond which only crackpots dare to go. This is not representative of how historical linguists look at these things.

The OP has understood my concerns, so I am bit surprised how this noticeboard comes into play. For the record, WP has a number of competent mainstream historical linguists (or linguists with an interest in historical linguistics) who at one point have engaged in the question of long-range comparativism. If it is just for wider input regarding this project, let's ping them: @TaivoLinguist, Kwamikagami, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Kanguole, Uanfala, Florian Blaschke, Calthinus, and Sagotreespirit: (please ping others, if they come to your mind). Many of us have been just too lazy to tackle the obviously exisiting issues (@Taivo and I regularly look at Altaic languages, but rarely have the energy to do much beyond a deep sigh). –Austronesier (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello again! A lot of this comes up as the result of a current RfC on Starostin's role in Wikipeida, where I'm trying to address just how systematic this appears to be. You raised some very good points, and it's one reason I'm trying to not procede alone, rather I'd like to build consensus and get some other linguists on board with edits. I encourage you to look at what I've done to the Altaic article recently, it's not my attempt to paint theories which don't have wide support as inherently fringe, rather I would like to make sure that there's less WP:UNDUE issues. Actually I see the Altaic one in particular as the most challenge because of its serious supporters. Likewise Nostratic has a lot of historical interest which will make an encyclopedic rewrite a bit of an undertaking. However, I'm unconvinced that, say Indo-Hittite needs to exist outside as a mention in Hittite. But I really hope it's obvious I'm trying to build consensus here.

"where I expressed major concerns with certain aspects of the OP's endeavor, including the idea that Nostratic and Altaic are the only notable macro-family proposals"

I'd just like to make sure that it's clear I acknowledged you had a point here. I don't think I'm fully qualified to evaluate all the macrofamily proposals, but I do think that most of what is on here probably is better suited by a reworking of the Macrofamily article. You can see what I mean in User:Warrenmck/sandbox, but also I wouldn't intend on moving forward with a bunch of merge requests without outside support and consensus, so please don't worry that I'm just plowing ahead with aggressive edits solo. Indeed, the reason I'm posting in the wikiproject, here, and in an RfC is because I think this is a big, important task which needs multiple people working on the quality and making sure that one person's based perspective (here, me) isn't coming through too strongly in the other direction in response to the issues that are here.

"Many of us have been just too lazy to tackle the obviously exisiting issues"

I'm not surprised! The reason I wanted to bring it up here is this does appear to have created an issue where attempt to clean one article around hindered by the mess of articles which appear to treat these topics with substantially undue weight. A good example of this was my attempt to AfD Allan R. Bomhard, which was initially met with accusations of me trying to "suppress the voice of an academic with a perspective outside the mainstream" which was completely missing the fact that we're talking about a mostly self-published non-academic. But his work had been elevated heavily on Misplaced Pages, which made making his status in linguistics clear look like I was basically soapboxing. Between that sort of thing and the references to low simmering edit wars going on for a decade on articles like the Altaic one, I think this needs to be a concerted effort to rapidly bring Misplaced Pages up to standard, because anything less is going to lead to two parallel realities existing in how the information is presented.

Warrenmck (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

But you absolutely have license to go through and start cleaning house.

As @Austronesier has helpfully pointed out, my perspectives are biased as well. I don't think this is a project suitable for a single person's overview of linguistics. My background is historical linguistics, but, for example, I have zero basis to evaluate the relationship of indigenous languages in South America. Personally, my domain knowledge is mostly restricted to Polynesian, Semitic, and Indo-European languages. I definitely think that any effort to bring this up to an encyclopedic standard needs a small group working on it, at the minimum.

Warrenmck (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm with jps on this. I am not qualified to help with the clean-up and don't have the time or interest to learn enough about the issue to change that. But I applaud your willingness to take on the problem and if you run into fringe push-back am willing to help. Looks like you already found one person who can help more substantially. But for concrete issues you can always post here. Of course ideally the issues should then be presented in a way where people don't need a PhD in historical linguistics to weigh the arguments. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course ideally the issues should then be presented in a way where people don't need a PhD in historical linguistics to weigh the arguments

Unfortunately, I think that this may be the case here. Well, not a PhD, but at least a formal background. The only similar situations I can think of are where there's been a weighing in on content in edit wars involving fringe perspectives by arbcom such as Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion. Since the edit war that exists in these articles is both temporally spread out and, frankly, appears to be in good faith all around, this isn't exactly the sort of situation arbcom is set up for. I tagged policies in my RfC because I genuinely think we've found a situation where Misplaced Pages's policies perhaps are insufficient.

Warrenmck (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course you can dumb down things only so much. What I have in mind is mainly presenting sources by people who are obviously experts, ideally published by a notable scientific publisher who say unequivocally that the majority of scholars rejects a certain view. For example I don't have to understand a theory in theoretical physics to know it is rubbish when everyone from Bohr and Einstein to Hawking and beyond say it is rubbish. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, and here's where historical linguistics gets a bit screwy. Take Allan R. Bomhard, who is essentially self-publishing his continued work on Nostratic, which is undeniably a fringe theory in 2023. That didn't prevent him from eventually getting two seriously heavyweight printings, because in historical linguistics this kind of work can actually be valuable (it can make a case for a macrofamily with new evidence, it can highlight real relationships which were previously missed, such as the Sprachbund nature of Altaic, etc.). Of course, a deep dive through the academic response to that book will make its status a bit more clear, but the problem is that linguists end up essentially going "just trust me bro" on which sources to trust. That book is a particular pain with the way Misplaced Pages's source standards are set up, since it's not like Nostratic is taken seriously enough to have warranted a particularly serious rebuttal. But see the three failed AfDs to see how this situation is deeply confusing to people outside the field.

Warrenmck (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Timothy Ballard and Sound of Freedom (film)

• Timothy Ballard (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• Sound of Freedom (film) (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I learned about this just now, but it seems to be appropriate to mention here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I am familiar with neither. Are there any issues right now, or is this more a "people may want to put this on their watchlist" FYI? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution