Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:36, 22 December 2021

Proposed deletions

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

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.

Race and intelligence again at Talk:The Bell Curve

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jakten på Odin

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

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

Christ myth categories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mehmet Oz

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

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

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

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

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

The British Edda

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

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

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

Abraham

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

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

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

Isaiah 7:14

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edict of Milan

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

Ip edits could use a check

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

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

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

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

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

Special:Contributions/2600:8800:3136:BD00:0:0:0:0/64 may also be related, —PaleoNeonate – 07:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Leo Galland- Propose for deletion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The AfD has been relisted. XOR'easter (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Graphene hydroxide?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lawrence Pazder

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crazy Sexy Cancer

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

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

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

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

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

Hmm so many issues with this article... As with many propaganda films, the plot voluntarily leads into straw-men and dead-ends, to finally result in miracles (and who would recommend multiple organ replacement for a single non-metastasing tumor? It's obviously medicine scaremongering). Then there's stuff like "Carr also adopts a new, healthier way of life", when "detox" can actually be harmful including enemas... It's a case that should be rewritten from the point of view of independent sources with their analysis, rather than blindly following the story. If those are lacking, it's a case for AfD (merging would be another possibility). I'll try to look again at it next week... —PaleoNeonate – 07:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• I think it can be okay, but probably needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis. At the Oasis of Hope Hospital, for example, the Townsend Letter is used to detail some of the quack therapies that have been offered. Alexbrn (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• It seems that like for WP:ABOUTSELF common sense can be used. If the result is promotion or how-to, or if it's to support rants against people (not WP:BLPRS), it should be avoided... It's also still possible to WP:ATTRIBUTE despite these precautions. Then again, when only those sources can be found with the material, it's often an indication of WP:UNDUE. —PaleoNeonate – 06:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Herman Cain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JFK-UFO conspiracy theories

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

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

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

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

<remaining three pictures deleted too as they do not make any sense now>

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

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

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

The article JFK-UFO conspiracy theories has been nominated for deletion. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Postmodernism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A lot of people in the anglophone world learn about the hermeneutic circle through Heidegger but he really wasn't the originator of the idea. The concept was developed by Wilhelm Dilthey (based on earlier ideas of Friedrich Schleiermacher) and later meaningfully expanded by Hans-Georg Gadamer. In my personal view, Heidegger didn't make any meaningful contributions to philosophy at all, but that view is controversial. Generalrelative (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

You're certainly ahead of me, and I was aware there were antecedents, but for someone whose German was never much above "barely functional," Heidegger in translation was the most accessible portal I had! Still, happy to defer. Dumuzid (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Everybody becomes a "fringe figure" when they wander outside their area of expertise and leave fringe garbage there: Kary Mullis, Linus Pauling, Fred Hoyle, Ivar Giaever are cases in point. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

when it is misconstrued as anti-science Well, thing is: if you would ask a cat if it is anti-mouse, it would say, no, to the contrary, I love them! Mice are great, especially the taste and the noises they make when you bite into them. The mice will say yes, of course.

I have to get this off my chest, so, here goes, even if I am preaching to the choir.

Philosophers of science and sociologists of science do not understand science. By which I mean, when anorganic chemists read a paper about biochemistry, they will often be stumped and unable to tell whether the reasoning is sound. Nobody can tell me that a philosopher or sociologist will fare any better, unless they have changed fields from biochemistry. The same applies to other fields. If one could understand any scientific field just by studying sociology or philosophy, universities would only need sociology or philosophy degree programs, and all the rest could be scrapped. After you get your sociology degree, you can decide if you want to be an architect, an astronomer, or a brain surgeon.

So, when trying to find out what science is, how it works, and why one theory has beaten another in the battlefield of ideas, they will often be unable to judge the science itself. There are three solutions to that: learn, ignore or fantasize.

• They can try to understand the meaning by asking a specialist to explain it. Good idea!
• They can ignore the actual science altogether and instead concentrate on the things they do understand: which scientist has which social circumstances, ideological leanings, and role models; who has power over who; who lives in which society with which ideological landscape. Of course those things do play a role too, but without judging the validity of the science itself, this is like the story of the drunk who loses his key at night in one place and searches for it in another place, because that other place is well-lit. This is the way the Strong programme chose. Every competent scientist can see that Bloor's symmetry axiom the same types of explanations are used for successful and unsuccessful knowledge claims alike is a really, really bad rookie mistake: fixing the result before starting the research. "You found that good science is more successful than bad science? Wrong result, try again until the explanations for success and failure are the same!" Did no sociologist ever notice this? If someone did: why is this thing not widely used as a prime example how not to do it? Maybe they all think there is no such thing as a rookie mistake because of the results of the Strong Programme: there is not good or bad science.
• Or they can re-interpret the language of the scientific writings. This strategy leads to Leviathan and the Air Pump, and it is like Athanasius Kircher reading hieroglyphs: his translations are pure fantasy.

If pomos want to be taken seriously by scientists, they need to make it very clear that they are beyond solution 2 and 3 now. This implies distancing themselves from those, not just calling them strawmen. They were really used. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Hail, fellow brute quantitative empirical reductionist! There are some limitations on the sociological self awareness of people doing the daily grind, that some sort of sustained distancing from the community and study of its true history (among other preconditions) is necessary to overcome, but yes: an outsider without the internal understanding can never reach full enlightenment and will constantly miss the point. Basically creating a pseudohistory to replace the Whig or victors' history. Sesquivalent (talk) 08:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

I agree with the restoration. Regarding postmodern philosophy in general, while there may be some good stuff there, frankly sometimes fringe anti-science is coming from inside the house academia. I am always inclined to give vastly more weight on various subjects to the scientists who study it with experimentation, quantification, and falsifiability than to a few academics who see everything as social constructs and say we need to add other ways of knowing, etc. Crossroads 05:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The question here appears to me to be whether those few academics who see everything as social constructs should be taken to represent "postmodernism". I would argue that the majority of the people whose job it is to know what postmodernism is reject that understanding of the term, though I suppose we could quibble about whose job it is to know this. If the question were instead whether philosophers (postmodern or otherwise) are more reliable on scientific matters than actual scientists, the answer would obviously be "no". So we're certainly in agreement about that. Generalrelative (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The issue here, and this is an issue quite evident in this thread, is that almost none of the critics who go after postmodernism are actually particularly versant in the discipline, its aims or even which books are well regarded within philosophy as a discipline. As an example: the philosophy of science in The Postmodern Condition is garbage. But do you know who was one of the principal exponents of that opinion? The author of that book. And even among people who read and like Lyotard it's widely recognized as just about the least valuable thing he ever wrote, whereas his work in Libidinal Economy - which was principally within his wheelhouse of the intersection of economics, psychoanalysis and semiotics has some value both as a literary work and as an academic text. Being somewhat less controversial, Foucault's work on epistemology is broadly misunderstood by science-fans who have only encountered Foucault via his critics (notably Hicks) and frankly Stephen Hicks is broadly derided for his failure to engage with, let alone understand, Foucault's epistemological work. This has led to the laughable assertion among Foucault's critics that he believed science to be entirely socially contingent and devoid of truth-value rather than his actual argument that the material circumstances that allow for the formation of a system of truth-finding are socially contingent and that systems of truth-finding tend to be logically complete and consistent within the bounds of the material circumstances they arise within. Frankly if the rational skeptic movement were closer to Hume in their skepticism they might be able to effectively engage with postmodernism as a mode of discourse since it is fundamentally a skeptical mode. Instead it tends to get caught up in the oh-so-anglosphere assumption not that absolute truth exists but that it can be attained by people. Simonm223 (talk) 12:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

And as for Derrida, I think this was brought up somewhere in one of my conversations on postmodernism somewhere by another wkipedian, but Derrida was done dirty by his critics Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

lmost none of the critics who go after postmodernism are actually particularly versant in the discipline, its aims or even which books are well regarded within philosophy as a discipline. Depressingly true. And it's not made better by the fact that it's far easier to gin up controversy and win an audience by attacking strawmen of "cultural Marxist deconstructionist relativists" than it is to sift through the actual history of ideas. XOR'easter (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. I've raised Lyotard, Derrida and Foucault as my three exemplars in this conversation because I've read all three and they're either well known or historically significant to the term but across those three authors there's several hundred significant works in the forms of books, major essays and transcribed lectures. Foucault's work in particular but also Derrida's also depend on a lot of reading in philosophy, history, political economy and (in Derrida's case) theology in order to have an entrypoint into their arguments. Dismissing the whole field because Lyotard wrote a book with some bad philosophy of science is frustrating to say the least. I mean before getting into "postmodern" philosophy of science I'd suggest it might be good that people at least be familiar with Difference and Repetition and The Fold: Leibniz and the Baroque - in addition to Birth of the Clinic. I say this not to lionize Foucault and Deleuze but rather to draw a circle around the point that an understanding of these sorts of text is necessary just to actually know what these people were saying at all. The criticism coming out of the American and British rational skeptic movement largely misses these or grudgingly says "yeah well Deleuze was really more of an analytic philosopher rather than a postmodernist." But that just becomes No True Scotsman. Simonm223 (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that there are some critiques of postmodernism coming from certain empiricists which fall flat, just as vice-versa (though it seems to me that these days there is far less of the latter than the former). For me, the historical legacy of the Sokal affair has been its inspiration for the grievance studies affair which has made me re-evaluate what I think went on when Sokal wrote his paper. Trolling isn't an effective critique and the fall-out from the breaching experiment approach has been more a recognition that scholarship needs to be conducted honestly. Taking advantage of the editorial largess of a different discipline is unethical practice, and criticizing an idea without engaging with it seriously is academic malpractice. jps (talk) 14:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll just add a couple points to this conversation: the so-called laughable assertion that Foucault believed science to be entirely socially contingent and devoid of truth-value is something that I've seen being taught and professed not by critics of Foucault, but by people who consider themselves scholars of his work. So, even if it wasn't something in which he believed, it seems to be something that can be derived from an honest reading of his work. And claiming that the folks from the grievance studies failed to "engage with the disciplines" where they published their papers is a laughable assertion. Now that is something I have to assume comes from someone who doesn't know what they did, and only read what their critics wrote of it. VdSV9•♫ 15:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I read what they did. It's a shoddy scholarship and did not even prove what they claimed it proved. Small wonder Lindsay thought it legitimate to change his politics on this basis. When you're an intellectual lightweight, it's pretty common to think you're the smartest one in the room. jps (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Interesting source for Mormon archaeology

"Archaeology, Mormonism, and the Claims of History" The author, Charles Nuckolls, is a professor at BYU now I believe, but was also at Emory.. Seems an rs. Doug Weller talk 17:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Irreversible Damage#Undue Weight

Irreversible Damage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The book this article is about is part of the Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy. Editors at the talk page are discussing whether or not it's appropriate to describe ROGD as 'fringe', and if not, what descriptor to use. Firefangledfeathers 13:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

"Fringe" has an internal Misplaced Pages use as a technical term of art, as in the title of this noticeboard, but to the general public it has enough pejorative connotations to make it generally inappropriate to use in article space in almost all circumstances. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

This is one of those instances where reliable sources on the topic actually use the term, however. Newimpartial (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Not a single academic source doing so has been presented, and multiple sources from WPATH pointedly not describing it that way have been presented. Crossroads 04:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

For context the sentence is The book endorses the contentious concept of rapid onset gender dysphoria where the disagreement is between using contentious and fringe as a descriptor of the concept. The major source used to support fringe is this, with this being the position statement from WPATH. Aircorn (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Not even that source claimed to support it uses the term, as can be seen from the full-text download on the author's website here. Crossroads 04:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Also for context, the only clinical study into the theory carried out to date found no support within a clinical population for a new etiologic phenomenon of “ROGD” during adolescence and mong adolescents under age 16 seen in specialized gender clinics, associations between more recent gender knowledge and factors hypothesized to be involved in ROGD were either not statistically significant, or were in the opposite direction to what would be hypothesized. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Polyvagal theory

Polyvagal theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article used to take a fairly skeptical tone (see historical version). After recent rewrites, the article takes a much more credulous tone. I don't really have the background in neuroscience to understand it all myself - it could do with a review from someone with more expertise. MrOllie (talk) 14:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

The lead at least no longer reflects anything about the criticism section that still exists (social neuroscience and the limited acceptance)... —PaleoNeonate – 22:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

This article just needs to be TNTed and rewritten from a neutral, WP:DUE perspective. I've added some relevant cleanup tags. JoelleJay (talk) 03:46, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Are there any historical versions of this article that it is worth reverting to? Pinging @1000Faces: who originally created the article a decade ago. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Lidar being used to find the ancient Mormon city of Zarahemla

See this article. The narrative section of our article is a mess and even includes names of notable people. Looking at this I also found Book of Helaman - hardly NPOV.

I posted this at RSN by mistake yesterday and there are a few comments there about the “ancient city “ article with one editor saying they may take it to AfD. Doug Weller talk 19:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh let them have their Camelot and Atlantis..... Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Since the article specifies "this project is not endorsed or supported by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the largest practitioners of the Mormon faith" my impression is that it's UNDUE including per NOTNEWS, unless there's an article about the subgroup... As for the book article, it lacks any mention that it's a late forgery. Perhaps it should be merged/redirected in the main book article? There are only two sources there. —PaleoNeonate – 20:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC about rapid-onset gender dysphoria

Comments would be welcome at Talk:Irreversible Damage#RfC: Should rapid-onset gender dysphoria be described as "fringe"?. Crossroads 07:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Alchemy#RFC: Should Alchemy be included in Category:Pseudoscience

People here may want to opine there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lists of religious converts

Nominated Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lists of religious converts and other similar lists for deletion. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 04:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Panspermia

Here's a status report on the article Panspermia. There continue to be occasional attempts to add WP:PROFRINGE content to the article, although the ones since the last FTN thread (Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_81#Panspermia) have usually been reverted.

1. The lead section of this article is much cleaner than the last time this was brought to FTN. Good job!
2. The History section seems to be heavily WP:PROFRINGE. I already removed a paragraph that was irrelevant to the hypothesis.
3. The Proposed mechanisms section seems to discuss a large cross section of various hypotheses, some of which may be given undue weight; it should cover only the most notable ones and any relevant mainstream commentary. Also, some of the remaining content is potentially off-topic, such as the sentence in the leading paragraph about cleanroom procedures to minimize interplanetary contamination. The Pseudo-panspermia subsection, like the History section, is largely an indiscriminate collection of studies that support the hypothesis.
4. It seems that most, but not all, of the Extraterrestrial life section is likely off-topic; I've already removed some of the most obviously irrelevant material. It gives undue (and probably misplaced) pro-fringe coverage of the hypothesis that certain pathogens are of extraterrestrial origin.
5. I'm not 100% sure about the relevance of the content of the Extremophiles section; it primarily covers observations about extremophiles and experiments about whether microorginisms can survive in space.
6. I whittled down the See also section to only the most relevant articles, such as Interplanetary contamination.
7. The contents of the Further reading and External links sections are probably pro-fringe, like the bulk of pop-science coverage of this hypothesis. I didn't look into any of the external links, but one of the books is by a top proponent of panspermia. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The sentence that jumps out to me is and others able to resume life after being dormant for 100 million years - whether these things are actually this old is subject to debate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for working on this! I'd given up on that article as beyond repair. XOR'easter (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I've made some further cuts. XOR'easter (talk) 04:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Astrology

Due to the Astronomy delsort getting clogged with recent astrology-related AfD's, I have chosen to create a new Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Astrology specifically for this topic area and WP:WikiProject Astrology. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Ehhhh. The Astronomy delsort only has a handful of entries at any one time anyway, and the Astrology AfD glut didn't reach anywhere near the size that Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women is normally at. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Spagyric / herbal alchemy

There is a discussion on Talk:Paracelsianism on the question of whether the modern application of spagyric (AKA herbal alchemy, or plant alchemy) is pseudoscientific. Help with sourcing would also be greatly appreciated. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

September 23, 2017 star sign prophecy

I have nominated this for deletion as non-notable. Besides that there seems to be too much in-universe detail even if people decide it was noticed enough in the major media. Your attention is requested. Mangoe (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

ID2020

• ID2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An NGO conspiracy theorists invent conspiracy theories about, according to the lede. But the article itself is silent about that aspect. Anybody know anything? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks like there was a section about this which Deepfrieddough removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Given that there was no edit summary or talk page entry explaining why Dfd though the section needed removal and that it created a stray floating cite not tied to any text, I reverted the removal pending discussion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your revert/restore, especially considering that it played a role in notability. The article only exists since 2020, although the project seems to at least go back to 2016... —PaleoNeonate – 11:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Ivermectin again

Recently appeared is an article (already getting ~3,000 views/day) about:

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

A popular Youtuber who has increasingly been posting about Ivermectin. Push-back has largely been from qualified scientist Youtubers (e.g.) but there is a NZ fact check I have included in the article. Could probably use eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 11:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Drug Recognition Expert

The page Drug Recognition Expert lends credence to the notion that law enforcement officers are able to detect drug impairment through observation alone. The page makes it seem as if this is a thoroughly scientific way of determining drug impairment and the page includes no criticism or skepticism of this form of drug detection. I'm not an expert on this at all, but this seems highly sketchy and I can see that some people are describing DRE methodology as akin to a coin flip. I'm curious if any subject matter experts on this board could take a look? I also wonder to what extent this page should be covered by the MEDRS guideline? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS would apply to WP:BMI, and so probably not that relevant unless there are assertions that drug X causes observational effect Y. The Seiders source (already cited in the article) makes it clear there is legal debate about how "scientific" DRE evidence is. Our article should reflect that; a plain assertion that such assessments are "scientific" probably would be WP:FRINGE (as well as fairly meaningless). Alexbrn (talk) 14:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

yep tragically medrs doesn't apply here. But normal RS still does. And if you look in the external links section, you'll see a few links to reviews that easily dismiss this. And you're right, it's incredibly fringe. Even with training, humans still have an enormous margin of error on figuring out if someone is lying - we certainly can't reliably tell if someone is intoxicated and what they're intoxicated with. Huge Quadro Tracker vibes on this claim. --Xurizuri (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

China COVID-19 cover-up allegations

I notice

• China COVID-19 cover-up allegations (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

(newly renamed from "China COVID-19 cover-up") is nominated for deletion. May be of interest to fringe fanciers as it bears on the virus origin question. Alexbrn (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but third time at AfD this year? Bakkster Man (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I've kind of lost track; this content seems to be forked into multiple articles. Alexbrn (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Life review

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

Seems to have recently (today) changed status from unproven to proven. What gives?

Raymond Moody? That can't be good. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Feng shui

• Feng shui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_59#Feng_shui

Edit-warring to remove "pseudoscientific" from the lede, and now "geomancy" as well. --Hipal (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Body language

Body language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While looking up some claims from proponents of the use of body language for lie detection and other types of questionable inferences, I found that this article has many credulous-sounding claims referenced to questionable sources. Has anyone here looked at this and related articles? Am I off the mark in thinking this is pushing pseudoscience?

Oculesics, for instance, seems quite the Fringe-fest. The "List of emotions", by the middle of the page, apparently mainly sourced from a "changingminds.org", is very questionable.

I'll try to work on these when I get some time, but thought I'd ask the kind folks here in the meantime. Cheers! VdSV9•♫ 20:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, anything relating to body language that is used to "uncover" things will lack genuine evidence. Also, for the most part, the culturally dependent nature of body language means that any claims that are apparently global are unlikely to be true. We're not even entirely sure about exactly how many fundamental/universal human emotions there are, or how many different emotions there are. You're going to need review papers on those articles to get anything trustworthy. The oculesics article is atrocious, by the way. --Xurizuri (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

My thoughts, exactly! Thank you. VdSV9•♫ 18:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Aminoff Entropy Definition of Human Happiness and Suffering

I wasn't exactly sure how to tag this.

• Aminoff Entropy Definition of Human Happiness and Suffering (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

XOR'easter (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

And now it's been G11/G12'ed. Carry on. XOR'easter (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Global warming skeptic, climate change skeptic

Do we use that euphemism, even when talking about prominent deniers?

• Nick Minchin
• Vincent Gray - the edits were really to the disambiguation page. But Vincent R. Gray needs attention too. -- Hob Gadling (talk) 17:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• Pattern Recognition in Physics
• Uunartoq Qeqertaq
• Craig D. Idso
• Anthony Lupo
• Easterbrook
• Frederick Seitz

All have recently been changed to "denialist" by an IP, then today reverted to "skeptic" by User:Peter Gulutzan. Not sure how to handle this. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The IPv6 might have done more damage than that, I can't tell. If these people (most of whom are alive) have not expressed a fringe view then it's inappropriate to bring them up on this page, but suggesting changes with reliable sourcing on the articles in question, and seeking consensus, without canvassing, is appropriate for the cases that have not been discussed already. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

In general, "skeptic" in such cases is used as a propaganda tactic and does not describe any real skepticism. Follow the best references, and be very careful of using "skeptic". --Hipal (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not usually how the term skeptic is used. That term refers to pro-science people responding to pseudoscience. But, in this case, you have anti-science people pushing false claims about settled science. So denialist is the accurate term here, not skeptic. Silverseren 22:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

If these people have not expressed a fringe view That is counterfactual. They did express fringe views, obviously. If you still believe that climate change denial is not fringe, then maybe you should not edit articles about that topic until you learn more about it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The National Center for Science Education has a good take on this. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I would air on the side of whatever secondary sources call them. In most of these cases, the answer is "denialist" or "doubter" or "contrarian." "skeptic" is what many of these people would prefer to be called, but that does not necessarily make it the correct moniker. — Shibbolethink 01:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

A post on a noticeboard is not WP:CANVASSing, —PaleoNeonate – 16:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The terms are often interchangeable (as well as easily weaponized to easily dismiss an argument), but not necessarily so: the Encyclopedia of Global Warming edited by Steven I. Dutch describes Craig D. Idso thusly: "he argues that atmospheric carbon dioxide does affect air temperature and that it may be good for plant growth." When possible, loaded phrases and labels should be replaced with more nuanced descriptions, and probably not shoe-horned into first place in the first sentence: the same encyclopedia introduces Idso and his father as geographer and physicist, respectively, not "climate change skeptic/denier" right off the bat. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

A difference is that WP should tell when it's erroneous, —PaleoNeonate – 23:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

"Skeptic" is itself a loaded term, in that it brings its own connotations: carefully considering the evidence, arriving at thoughtful conclusions, etc. These are often the wrong connotations, as Shibbolethink pointed out above. XOR'easter (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Mātauranga Māori

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

The prejudice against mātauranga as science derives from historical attitudes and concepts of Enlightenment science and that it is concerned about the history of science rather than the current scientific method.

There seems to be a kerfuffle in New Zealand, with the Royal Society there claiming that Mātauranga Māori is a "way of knowing" on par with science, and scientists being admonished for disagreeing. Jerry Coyne has been writing about it on for a while, comparing it with the conflict between creationism and science in the US. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Seems very similar to the "Indigenous ways of knowing" article that was deleted earlier this year, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Indigenous Ways of Knowing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The quoted sentence should perhaps be rephrased as an attributed opinion. As for the broader concerns, well, American young-Earth creationists never used Biblical literalism to navigate the Pacific. XOR'easter (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually the statement is true - European science does tend to unfairly discredit the knowledge of any other cultural group, without any regard for whether there's truth behind it. You've also not included the citation in your quote - it's not entirely clear from the way the paragraph is structured, but the citation at the end of that paragraph also supports the sentence you quoted. As XOR'easter said, it's no mean feat to navigate the Pacific (or, as another example, wipe out the moa). I can't comment on the modern rigour of testing in mātauranga, but I'll note that the Royal Society is hardly a fringe source, and that Jerry Coyne's blog, or the opinions of a small group of assorted scientists, aren't exactly RS. Don't be so fast to discredit other sources of knowledge - unless the goal is to begin believing a book (or a journal) knows everything. In summary, find some reliable sources and don't guess. This is a complex topic. --Xurizuri (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

What is "European science"? Homeopathy, maybe? That would be one European equivalent of, say, Traditional Chinese Medicine. Science is not continent-specific, and that any discrediting is "unfair" is just your opinion.

The logic "someone who knows how to build and use a ship and how to kill animals must be right about everything else too" does not really hold water either. "Other ways of knowing" are like "alternative facts", and please refrain from all those strawmen. Nobody said Coyne's website was RS. Coyne links to other sources though. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, science is not continent-specific. No, practical survival skills don't imply empirical correctness about all things. The point is that a body of cultural inheritance that includes actually empirically successful knowledge isn't analogous to American creationism in a straightforward way. (As Carl Sagan said in The Demon-Haunted World, Certain kinds of folk knowledge are valid and priceless. Others are at best metaphors and codifiers. Ethnomedicine, yes; astrophysics, no.) There are ways that "indigenous knowledge" could fit into a science class taught with a historical perspective, just like introductory college physics explains Ptolemaic epicycles. In turn, it is very easy to portray neutral-to-helpful efforts to do that kind of thing and make science more culturally engaging as nefarious attempts to devalue science. At a distance, through the haze of culture-warring, it can be hard to tell the former from the latter. This is particularly true when the efforts to do the former are described in public-relations pablum, in which the Royal Society Te Apārangi indulges as much as any Society. Coyne, who is willing to cite the Daily Mail on this, seems a poor starting point for a genuinely messy topic. XOR'easter (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Might be worth checking out the articles on the authors of this letter, most of which were seemingly created by one editor as coatracks for criticizing them: Kendall Clements, Garth Cooper, Michael Corballis, Doug Elliffe, Robert Nola, Elizabeth Rata, John Werry. JoelleJay (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Thaddeus Golas and related pages

• Thaddeus Golas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• The Lazy Man's Guide to Enlightenment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Love and Pain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• The Cosmic Airdrome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These need checking for wiki-notability. XOR'easter (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

He seems to have been a relatively little-known writer who wrote a somewhat influential book in the self-help, New Age, and psychedelic circles of the 70s. He seems to get quoted frequently in inspirational/self help literature and aphorism compilations, and his most well-known work inspired at least one canine feel-good book. I found a brief obituary that lays out his basic biographical info. He is not to be confused with Thaddeus A. "Ted" Golas, a San Francisco firefighter and occasional actor who once dated Danielle Steele and had a bit part in Star Trek IV, as well as possibly the painkiller commercial mentioned below. I've found some limited coverage, excerpted below, and if more newspaper/magazine coverage can be found then a short single article incorporating his works might be feasible, but I think three articles is unwarranted. Or perhaps he was too underground to leave a lasting legacy. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• When Thaddeus Golas self-published his little book The Lazy Man's Guide to Enlightenment in 1972 it became an almost instant success. By 1976, when I dished out two dollars for my first copy, published by the Seed Center in Palo Alto, California, it was already into its sixth printing, with 175,000 copies in print. By the early 1980s Golas had achieved enough cult celebrity status that I saw him on an American television commercial making a testimonial on behalf of a popular cross-the-counter painkiller. He died in 1997, at the age of 73, after reportedly having supported himself almost entirely from the earnings of The Lazy Man's Guide...
• It is an intriguing premise that opens the Lazy Man's Guide to Enlightenment — a premise that, if true, could save people a lot of time spent sitting on the hard floor over at the Cambridge Zen Center. And for this reason, the book has done extremely well. Author Thaddeus Golas first published this slim (80 pages) treatise in 1972, after he "plunged into psychedelic chaos in San Francisco for several years." Eleven years later it is in its 10th printing, and is at present being published by Bantam Books...

Yes, there might be enough for one (trimmed) page, but 3–4 seems too many. I've gone ahead and redirected the books to the author's page, and cleaned up the latter somewhat. XOR'easter (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

References

1. "Obituaries: Thaddeus S. Golas". Sarasota Herald Tribune. 19 April 1997. p. 6B – via NewsBank.
2. Bane, Vickie L. (1999). The Lives of Danielle Steel. St. Martin's Paperbacks. p. 196. ISBN 978-0-312-95575-5.
3. Hoyt, Nicole (1994). Danielle Steel: The Glamour, the Myth, the Woman. Pinnacle Books. p. 206. ISBN 978-0-7860-0032-6.
4. Hefner, Robert (11 December 2005). "The easy road to enlightenment". The Canberra Times – via NewsBank.
5. Denison, D.C. (January 11, 1983). "Where there's no will". The Boston Phoenix. Vol. 12, no. 2.

Ivermectin in Australia

• Thomas Borody (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Another day, another ivermectin article. This one, about an Australian doctor, has seen some ... committed editing from a WP:SPA and this may need to go to WP:COIN. In the meantime, more eyes (and more sources!) would help. Alexbrn (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Neuro-linguistic programming

• Neuro-linguistic programming (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Is science now, cause of studies, according to someone on the Talk page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Belarusians are really Lithuanians?

• Belarusians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Litvinism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Cukrakalnis is spreading information that "The western Belarusian area was inhabited by Lithuanians. The western Belarusians are certainly largely Russian-speaking Lithuanians." quoting the book of Austrian-German anthropologist de , member of Nazi party and SS. In a discussion with me, he admitted to never having the book in his hands. More about Hesch theory is written here. I don't think Misplaced Pages should be spreading such, clearly racist, theories. Marcelus (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Even disregarding the specifics of Hesch's dubious merits as a source, and the questionable assumptions implicit in the claim, Misplaced Pages cannot possibly cite a book written in 1933 for such statements. Anthropology has thankfully long moved on from such essentialising 'origin theories' when discussing ethnicity, and Misplaced Pages needs to do the same. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Most of the research in the book published under Michael Hesch's name was done by Rudolf Pöch, who died in 1921. Applying the label "Nazi" to what was essentially his research is just ascribing ahistorical attributes. Even ascribing the word "Nazi" to a book that was published in 1933 outside Nazi Germany and based on research from World War I, is dubious. The source's statements could be phrased in a more nuanced way - some Belarusians have Lithuanian ancestry. That's all that sentence is saying. What's so radical and fringe about that?

That Belarusians are Slavicized Balts is stated by some Belarusians themselves. If it was a fringe theory with no basis in reality, then why do multiple different individuals from radically different backgrounds come to the same conclusion? Various Belarusians, Austro-Hungarians, and Lithuanians all stating the same and agreeing to some sort of grand conspiracy? The insanity is that WP:RS are being removed because some persons value their opinion more than research by accredited academics. If Michael Hesch was the sole individual stating this thing, then it would maybe be warranted to doubt this as a single, outdated individual's POV. The thing is, that multiple various sources from absolutely different backgrounds (and time periods) are converging on the same point - Belarusian, Lithuanian and Austro-Hungarian sources. Ergo, the inclusion of that statement, because of these precise circumstances, where its findings are affirmed, is warranted.

As for 'origin theories', I must point out, that there is nothing wrong in pointing out that e.g. most citizens of USA are descended from colonists and immigrants from Europe, or that Afrikaners are descendants mainly from Dutch people. So too, there is no reason to avoid explaining the origins and how certain groups appeared or began or are descended from.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Century old research is nowhere near a good enough source for the sweeping claims you are making. As to That Belarusians are Slavicized Balts is stated by some Belarusians themselves that is some WP:WEASELy nonsense and a bogus argument. "Some" British people claim that they are descendants of the twelve tribes of Israel, see British Israelism, doesn't mean that it's true in the slightest. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Just like Hemiauchenia said, just because you googled two articles in which two pretty random Belarusians are saying that they think that Belarusians are really just Lithuanians doesn't mean you can include it in the Misplaced Pages article. These aren't valid sources and that's not how encyclopedia is supposed to be created. Marcelus (talk) 20:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, Sorry for the WP:WEASELy statement, the two Belarusians referenced in the article are the Belarusian political activist and journalist Alieś Kirkievič  and Belarusian researcher with a PhD Aliaksiej Dziermant . They respectively state it here and .--Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Moreover, these two individuals are not just some "random Belarusians" off the street, they are well-educated individuals. What they said and how they said it fulfils the criteria for a source.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The question is not Have some people suggested this but rather Is this the consensus view or a significant minority view in contemporary scholarship, otherwise it is undue per WP:PROFRINGE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, thank you for the concise question. The answer is that this is a significant minority view in contemporary scholarship, because two scholarly individuals, that is Aliaksiej Dziermant , a PhD researcher specializing in the subject of the ethnogenesis of Belarusians, and Lithuanian professor Zigmas Zinkevičius, both state the view (which is being questioned as being WP:FRINGE).--Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

You have not fundamentally answered the question. You have yet to demonstrate that this is a significant viewpoint in contemporary scholarship rather than the viewpoint of a handful of scholars. It is important that Misplaced Pages does not lend undue weight to views of very small minorities. This would require quoting contemporary books describing the theory and the prevailing scholarly views on the topic, rather than just pulling more researchers out of a hat who support it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, in the book "A History of Belarus A Non-Literary Essay that Explains the Ethnogenesis of the Belarusians" by Lubov Bazan from 2014 (can't give pages, because copyrighted material), it is written:

"Thus, indigenous Baltic tribes became a substrate in the formation of the Belarusian ethnic group. As a result of the Slavicisation of the Baltic population and its merging with the Slavic population a portion of the Slavic people split off into a separate group of Dregovichs and Krivichs, and through their historical and cultural development this led to the emergence of the Belarusian language and the Belarusian people." Next paragraph "This theory on the ethnogenesis of Belarusians appeared in historical academic circles in the 1960s, and was based on extensive material accumulated from archaeological and linguistic research. It was called the Baltic Theory, but was entirely suppressed by the official Soviet scientific authorities."

Basically, the view that Belarusians descend from Balts is a significant view in scholarship. I hope this hits the nail on the head, metaphorically speaking.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you realize that your "sources" are just opinion pieces? An§ interview and an essay? Why don't you just use some actual English literature on this topic? There are many books about Belarusian history in English. Marcelus (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Marcelus, opinion pieces by accredited academics still count as good and valid sources. To limit oneself to just the literature in English about a certain topic is a grave mistake if one wishes to delve deep into a topic about a foreign country.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Cukrakalnis you aren't delving deep, it's a very short article. This is an English Misplaced Pages you should be looking first of all for English literature, especially in such basic subject. Opinion pieces are opinion pieces, nothing more, and they aren't valid sources. Especially since Dziermant changed his opinion vastly since then. I doubt he has PhD or conducted any serious studies on Belarusian ethnogenesis. In 2010 he was neo-pagan member of neofascist party, today he is main mouthpiece of Moscow in Belarus and supporter of "Eurasian" projects. He isn't an authority on this topic. Marcelus (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

"Austro-Hungarian sources"???? By definition, any Austro-Hungarian sources are a century or more out of date, and from an era when essentialism and bizarre racially-oriented theories were thought scientific, at least by bigots and extremists. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Orange Mike, the main point was that the international provenance of sources necessarily precludes the possibility of a nationalist conspiracy against another group. I fully understand that using a century-old source by itself is incorrect, but it is being used in conjunction with other sources, including very modern ones from the 21st century. Considering that all of these sources align, despite their age difference, reassures that these findings are indeed correct (despite the context you mention, which is indeed problematic, but then again, not everything from back then is wrong and some things from back then are still correct and valid). So, it's unreasonable to remove the source.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution