Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:03, 10 April 2017

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 12 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

AAH again

I know the section for this is still open above, but I'd like to re-highlight Aquatic ape hypothesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Currently the editors of the article include jps (talk) going against User:MjolnirPants (who is a self-admitted advocate, albeit relatively well-behaved), as well as three pro-fringe POV-warriors, one of which just expressed willingness to edit war over the article. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

"Relatively" meaning "MjolnirPants thinks this hypothesis has gotten a bad rap, but still wants to see it documented like every other fringe theory and has been working as hard at that as any other anti-fringe editor at that page for the past week". But I appreciate the aspersions.

Seriously though, more skeptical eyes on the article are always welcome. The article got re-written into a pro-AAH fluff piece over the course of several months, and while the most uncivil proponent has been sanctioned out of participation there, there are still editors who resist any attempt to bring it into line. Currently, there's a loose consensus that primary sources are okay in the section outlining the theory, but me and jps are of the opinion that the section is entirely too long and detailed. There's another loose consensus that the article is still a little too promotional, as well. There's an ongoing debate about what sorts of images are appropriate that I really think could use some outside opinions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

It's funny to see 74.70.146.1 (whoever this unnamed user is) labelling a relatively neutral editor as "advocate"...

I think it's fair to treat the AAH article as a combination of two intermingled entities, one being the original Aquatic Ape by Hardy/Morgan which is still largely rejected and ignored by scientists, another being the recent reformulated the Waterside model(s), which have been slowly entering mainstream scientific discussions for some years. The issue is such paradoxical that while a large part of the article is rightfully dedicated to explain how fringe the topic is, there exists a whole "efforts" section showing the recent developments and the hard evidence obtained.

I'd say that the "anti-fringe" or more neutral editors usually focus on the rejection, and the so called "pro-fringe" are more willing to show the scientific aspects. Due the abovementioned dual nature (AAH being marginally pseudoscience and legit science at the same time) we must pay extra care when assessing the article as too promotional or too conservative.

As an example, many of the critics in Langdon 1997 have now become invalid or been refuted by later publications like Bender et al., this antiqued review is still prominently cited in the article. Or as a few editors pointed out, some portion of the article may be too relying on primary sources. The balance of due weight should be adjusted from both sides. Chakazul (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I unwatched the article when it went from "utterly shit" to "somewhat shit". Like many fringe articles on topics with an entrenched fanbase I suspect that's the best Misplaced Pages will ever achieve. In my view all the primaries should go. On other fringe topics (e.g. stuff around Rudolf Steiner) ISTR arbcom ruled no primary source should be used for statements about the "fringe theory" and expert secondaries should be used instead. This is general good practice anyway, and I think should be applied to AAH - but too many editors are in love with making Misplaced Pages a secondary source I think. Alexbrn (talk) 08:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

It is indeed peculiar that the proponents want to cite chapter and verse from articles that are of oblique importance to describing "AAH". Meanwhile we have an article which meanders about in its description and never makes any substantive claims. This is how the scientifically-minded supporters of AAH would have it (and I've seen this kind of fringe promotional behavior before). The idea is that if you are vague and never directly make any claims about what should be discovered you can putter your hypothesis along until forever without the need to worry about falsification. The people claiming that anthropology will somehow incorporate the legitimate aspects (what those aspects are specifically can never be identified) into the mainstream have yet to explain how these are at all related to AAH as an idea. The "pseudoscientific" AAH is at least possible to follow. The "scientific" version is whatever you want it to be, apparently. Perfectly impossible to write a WP article on that. jps (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Chakazul:As an example, many of the critics in Langdon 1997 have now become invalid or been refuted by later publications like Bender et al., this antiqued review is still prominently cited in the article. As far as I know, Langdon published the only comprehensive review of the theory. Regardless of the merits, or lack thereof, of his critiques, his review is a prominent feature of the subject and deserves significant weight.
• @9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS:Meanwhile we have an article which meanders about in its description and never makes any substantive claims. I think focusing on cleaning up the Efforts made to test hypotheses section will correct that. As things sit, that section doesn't even address the heading, but instead documents attempts by the handful of proponents of this hypothesis to argue for it. I'm of the opinion that the entire section needs to go, though if we trim it down and point out some of the evidence that's been cited in the RSes as not supporting the AAH, that might make the section workable. I've already trimmed down the section describing the hypothesis, so that it is just a list of specific claims. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not clear to me which "legitimate aspects" are being referred to here. The hypothesis is fundamentally flawed, because you would have to explain why those hominid characteristics that supposedly evolved in response to an aquatic environment persisted after the hominids left the aquatic environment. And if you could do that, you'd be demonstrating that they would have evolved anyway -- so why postulate an aquatic interlude in the first place? Mainstream anthropology is never going to "incorporate" any "legitimate aspects" -- there are none to incorporate. DoctorJoeE /_{talk to me!} 20:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I can't speak for others, but the only "legitimate aspects" I am aware of is the fact that a small number of anthropologists have posited hypotheses functionally similar (or even identical) to arguments used by Morgan and Hardy (the two primary originators of the hypothesis). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed it, but I don't see any examples of that in the article. I'm aware that a few academic anthropologists have written about the possible effects of water on human evolution, if that's what you mean -- but they are always very careful to distance themselves from any association with the AAT. AAT is one of those theories that sounds kind of plausible, until you take Anthropology 101 and realize that it makes no sense. (As I'm sure you know, Hardy was a marine biologist, and Morgan has no formal scientific training at all.) DoctorJoeE /_{talk to me!} 02:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The "legitimate aspects" I spoke of is a loose collection of scientific works, mostly outside anthropology. They may have no relation to AAH in the beginning, for example there's some 20 years worth of acadmic literature on human's need of DHA, iodine etc, published in major journals in nutritional science without a single mention of Hardy or Morgan. After the researchers found their body of works scientifically sound and well received, or happened to notice a similarity between their results and something in AAH, they may choose to acknowledge Hardy/Morgan's thesis as an equivalent or a foundation of their work, and explicitly do so in published RS. These criteria -- solid research + explicit reference -- are mandatory in considerations here. In contrast, some may say the Coastal Migration Theory supports AAH, but since no one ever claimed a linkage, it should not be included.

These legitimate aspects include (counting as many as I know): modern diving physiology and behavior (Schagatay et al.), bipedalism (Niemitz), aquatic nutrition (Cunnane, Crowford et al.), aquatic resources exploitation (Steward, Joordens, Erlandson, etc), water birth (Odent), and a few phenomena like vernix caseosa and auditory exostosis.

I notice that virtually no criticism of AAH mentioned these aspects. Whether they chose to ignore them for some reason or tacitly admitted that they are genuine and solid (thus nothing to criticize) I couldn't know. But a consequence is that they are largely unknown to the general public and the anthropological circle, despite their importance in testing or even supporting the AAH. I think it's fair to give them due weight in the AAH article, especially after Attenborough's extensive review last year. Chakazul (talk) 04:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of argument I'm referring to above. The nutrition argument is a really strange one because the obvious question is what aspects in particular are AAH-related? I don't think any of the WP:MAINSTREAM nutrition articles are making claims about specific evolutionary pressure coming from aquatic pasts, but I have seen some WP:FRINGE nutrition articles make that claim (in a "evolutionary fetishization" fashion that is much maligned in academia -- compare evolutionary psychology). The references you include are to a lot of AAH proponents, but the works are so vague and poorly cited as to not really serve the purpose being claimed. Some of the claims (e.g. those associated with water birth) are themselves fringe, so we're really running down blind alleys chasing ideas outside the academic mainstream here). To claim that these ideas are not fringe seems to be the game, but in spite of the publications (some of which are in poorly vetted journals, I might add), there is no real WP:FRIND evaluative work to point to other than dismissal. The best we can do is find criticisms of the entire field using the point that AAH is no worse than the "standard explanations". But this doesn't inoculate AAH from the criticisms that are leveled against it, even though it is unfair that similar criticisms haven't been leveled against other equally problematic arguments. jps (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

If you think the nutrition argument is fringe, you may wish to refer to special issues in Journal of Human Evolution and Quaternary International dedicated to this topic. I hope you're not accusing them as fringe journals promoting "evolutionary fetishization". As said above, the idea of freshwater/marine diet as a driving force is based on a long tradition of solid research published in peer-reviewed journals. We know the mainstream is land-based meat eating, yet aquatic diet is a major topic in human evolution and archaeology, not marginalized small talk.

Indeed the water birth argument is the weakest among the "legitimate aspects", so it's aptly excluded from the article. The practice of water birth is itself controversial within medical science, nonetheless the recent large scale reviews showed that it is at least safe and beneficial to mothers and encouraged more investigations in this phenomenon.

These aspects, as legitimate as they may be, will not have much coverage in general topic articles per WP:ONEWAY, but I argue they are rightly represented in the current AAH article wrt their notability and relevance. Chakazul (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, I think you are finding favor with speculation that is obviously evolution fetishization. That humans require certain nutrients that are abundant in seafood does not mean that humans evolved as sea-dependent beings. In fact, it's obvious that causation could be exactly backwards! If you want these topics represented in AAH (and right now, we're staring down the barrel of a gun that is about to gut a lot of this per WP:OR, you're going to need to find a good analysis that connects these ideas to AAH. I'm not finding much in the way of that in either the text itself, the sources you are identifying, or much more. In short, it looks like the pseudoscience is more notable than this accommodationist stance. jps (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@DoctorJoeE: I had removed some references to the exact phenomenon you described not too long after making that comment, because the article presented them as "testing" the AAH, and all they did was review evidence and propose hypotheses. But yes, your description of what other anthropologists have done is highly accurate. The notion that humans spent hundreds of thousands of years (the minimum time necessary for the pressures of natural selection to make an impact) living almost exclusively on the coasts and spending much of their time in the water is very much at odds with the available evidence. Not to mention the fact that in the hundreds of thousands of years since, we haven't lost any of those traits as you previously pointed out. (Note that I consider myself a "pro-AAH type with strong skeptical principles" because I think those anthropologists who have proposed similar hypotheses with smaller scopes might be on to something, not because I believe the AAH is whole Truth.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough -- it's also probably worth noting the total absence (at least to date) of any sort of supporting physical evidence in the fossil record. And as an aside, I can't think of a single case where an entire body of scientific research has been shown to be fundamentally wrong by people who lack expertise in that field. Not that it couldn't happen, of course -- but to my knowledge it never has.DoctorJoeE /_{talk to me!} 19:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I think I've explained ad nauseam that there're now ample archaeological and genetic evidence of almost exclusive coastal subsistence in human past, not in the Miocene that Hardy/Morgan have guessed (they're wrong in the timeline!), but in the Pleistocene-Holocene South African and Indo-Pacific coastlines, which is compatible with the Waterside model about coastal diet. Why still repeating "the total absence of evidence" is beyond my grasp... Chakazul (talk) 04:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The existence of a human settlements that ate seafood along the coast is hardly evidence of "almost exclusive coastal subsistence". It's unclear to me how you can make that claim with a straight face. jps (talk) 11:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

It's more than just existence of coastal settlements, but

Everyone alive today is descended from a group of people from a single region who survived this catastrophe. The southern coast of Africa would have been one of the few spots where humans could survive during this climate crisis because it harbors an abundance of shellfish and edible plants. -- Curtis Marean

Also, one version of the coastal migration theory is that

mitochondrial DNA variation in isolated "relict" populations in southeast Asia supports the view that there was only a single dispersal from Africa, most likely via a southern coastal route, through India and onward into southeast Asia and Australasia. -- Vincent Macaulay et al.

That's how some scientists (not necessary pro-AAH) proposed an "almost exclusive coastal subsistence" in early Homo sapiens. Chakazul (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

That's pretty far-afield from the AAH claims of persistent adaptationist proposals (which, if I understand AAH correctly, is the meat of the point). If people evacuate through the coast, that does not mean that they developed at the coast. And the fact that this particular migration theory is only one possibility reminds me of the "coherent catastrophism" claims of certain neo-Velikovskians who proposed that comets colliding with Earth at the KT extinction event were somehow confirmations of their ideas. jps (talk) 13:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

But this is nothing like the obvious pseudoscience of Velikovsky. I'm no biologist (neither are you, jps) but this is also a topic in the history and the sociology of science. Clearly there are versions of this hypothesis that are not within the scientific mainstream, and we need to make that clear, which the article already does, to my reading. But there is also a less visible and more recent strand, in perfectly mainstream biology, that does not necessarily address the issue directly, and certainly does not vindicate all the claims made by the original proponents, but is rather more sympathetic. There has to be room for speculation in research into the origins of humans. One thing that distinguishes this hypothesis from most of the pseudoscience we have to deal with is that it doesn't have to be an either/or. Hominids obviously had to be near some water sometimes - how near how much water for how long can be a matter for empirical research. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

That's kinda my point, Itsmejudith. Check out the Clube and Napier stuff for the phenomenon I'm describing vis-a-vis Velikovsky (you won't find a Misplaced Pages article on coherent catastrophism for the same reason you won't find an article on rehabilitated AAH). The story is that you have a rejected hypothesis for decades. Some people who are vaguely supportive of it find common-cause with others who come at certain ideas from other angles. Rinse. Repeat. The issue really is that the pseudoscience is hard to sift out. This isn't all the AAH-proponents' fault. There is a lot of just-so stories that float around as Daniel Dennett points out. AAH is really no better nor worse than them, but it is unmistakeable that there are "evidence" claims that are just bogus. Sadly, those claims tend to get a lot of the WP:FRIND coverage. jps (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Whether the recent coastal settlements & migration theories could become "evidence" for AAH remains to be seen. Adherents tend to be optimistic and critics tend to be skeptic, but the truth is simply, we don't know. A paleo human living near the coastline could be avoiding water altogether or dipping in the sea whole day. One thing for sure is, if we judge the usefulness and probability of an evolutionary scenario by the current mainstream models of paleo-environments -- e.g. mosaic habitat (including water elements) for early hominins, coastal habitat for early Homo sapiens -- parts of the AAH have been upgraded from 0% worthiness to becoming vibrant research topics. From the standpoint of WP, this article is more like recording science in progress than describing a dead archaic theory. Chakazul (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

We never really know anything as per WP:CRYSTAL. What is important to do is to only connect ideas to AAH which have been specifically described as connected by WP:FRIND-sources. There is still some work to be done in that regard in our article. jps (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it would help to refer more often to the distinctions that ArbCom made between different kinds of fringe. This could be "questionable science". I agree that sometimes people who are out-and-out proponents of a fringe theory take heart from scientists who have a completely different approach, and then they can use that to defend their position on Misplaced Pages, and yes, that's annoying. There can also be a problem when scientists are frightened away from a whole area, so much so that the fringe stuff doesn't even get debunked. Anyway, I find the article in its present state quite informative. It doesn't make me any more or less sympathetic to AAH. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a particular fan of the arbcomm demarcation as I think it presents a false dichotomy (or really trichotomy). It is possible to have mixtures of all these ideas. There are people who believe in AAH-like ideas doing fine scientific studies. Most of what makes the studies fine is that they are not agenda-driven. The problem that the article currently has is contained in the final section where a lot of the research is being described without much referent to the topic. Still a lot of work to be done there. jps (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I could really use some help here. The work has now started to clear out the "research" section, and I'm finding a lot of issues. In particular, AAH proponents have published a variety of papers which have clear relevance to AAH, but are not always made explicit in connection. These include papers on nutrition, locomotion, and diving. Even when the claims are made explicit in connection, the problem is that there isn't a lot of analysis being done. It feels quite similar to cold fusion papers. Misplaced Pages right now is basically serving as a ] for AAH by making the implicit claim that independent research is confirming AAH left and right. It doesn't help matters much that I am basically the only person editing the page who seems to be concerned about the over-reliance on primary sources like this. Help? jps (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not a proponent of the aquatic ape hypothesis, though I have been labelled as such, I have no vested interest in it nor have I ever published anything related to it (I am a research Biologist). I do not think that it is entirely plausible, and most of the features of human biology that it claims are of an aquatic origin can be explained, at least theoretically, by non-aquatic influences. However, the theory is important. Recent decades have shown great advances in knowledge of how and where humans evolved, but this cannot be said about the question of why humans evolved. At present there is no single accepted scenario of what environmental influences shaped human evolution, though it is generally accepted that humans are the product of a mosaic of evolutionary pressures, changing over time. The aquatic ape hypothesis is therefore one of a few holistic hypotheses that still has active research related to it, hence its importance. I do not approve of the present treatment of it in the Misplaced Pages article. I make no claims of knowing the motivations of some of the editors involved, but no doubt they are working from what they think are the best of motives. However, the strictures, based on a misapplication of Misplaced Pages policies, enforced by some editors on what can and cannot be included in the article has produced an article that is unfit for purpose. The primary responsibility of Misplaced Pages editors should be providing information in an easily accessible form, and this information needs to be verifiable by reference to relevant sources. Secondary to this responsibility should be to an attempt to present a “balanced assessment” of the sources; however, at present this seems to be the primary criterion for inclusion and the provision of information secondary or non-existent. The zeal of some editors to exclude any information that has not been commented on by opponents of the hypothesis has had a deleterious effect on the article. The article is titled “Aquatic ape hypothesis” but the subject of the article receives essentially one quotation and a single paragraph of description. This cannot amount to an adequate treatment of the core element of the subject. There are other things wrong with the article, but I will confine myself to this at present. Urselius (talk) 10:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

A description of Misplaced Pages at odds with the WP:PAGs ("The primary responsibility of Misplaced Pages editors should be providing information in an easily accessible form" - no, we summarize accepted knowledge which is rather more challenging than relaying "information"). Start at WP:5P and then read WP:NPOV. Sorry, we follow those, not editors clueless ideas about what Misplaced Pages should be. Alexbrn (talk) 10:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

A rather unhelpful and demonstrably erroneous response. Misplaced Pages has countless articles on mythical creatures, flawed concepts, discredited scientific theories and redundant philosophies, in short rejected knowledge that plays a very marginal no or part in contemporary culture or thought. What Misplaced Pages does is describe these subjects, with reference to whatever sources are relevant to them. It is not the place of Misplaced Pages editors to censor knowledge, if information is relevant to a subject it should be included, provided a reasonable balance is retained if comparing conflicting ideas or theories. Do you have any thoughts on the fact that the core subject of a fairly long article garners a mere paragraph within its text? For comparison the theory proposed by Lamarck in the Lamarckism article, concerning a largely discredited theory, has seven paragraphs. I should point out that the reason that this coverage is so curtailed is "that it gives too much prominence to the hypothesis", and consequently readers might believe it, but the hypothesis is the subject of the article! Urselius (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken about how difficult it is to summarize the core subject. I would invite you to go to the talkpage and provide some sample content that you think would help the reader understand the hypothesis better than what is currently presented. I would argue that Lamarckism is far more notable an idea both in terms of history and in terms of the way science developed than AAH is and it only makes sense that there would be better sources and easier exposition to write about that subject. To compare with AAH, you're going to need something that is similarly marginalized and similarly recent. I think plasma cosmology is somewhat apt. jps (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Medical Hypotheses as a source

• Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis#Medical Hypotheses

I want to draw the attention of those of you who may be able to help but may also have grown tired of all this to a recent struggle over the use of a paper published in Medical Hypotheses. This is indicative of the kind of push being had at that article. The issue here is that poor-quality sources are being preferred when they are pro-AAH but meanwhile the skeptical critiques are typically removed from the page, sometimes in direct defiance of WP:PARITY. We have people arguing on the talkpage that David Attenborough's radio show is somehow a more serious source than, for example, a blogpost written by professor of biology.

I understand that people don't like getting down in the weeds, as it were, but it is important that we do so here so that we can get to an article that can achieve some modicum of stability without being a weird paen like it was before I started working on this.

jps (talk) 11:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I abandoned that page when people began the Attenborough line of argumentation. I agree completely with this assessment of the situation, any alleged support no matter how tangential or how poorly regarded the source is added, and the standard responses to the AAA as well as the standard account of human evolution is systematically marginalized with the effect of giving the reader a misleading view of the actual regree of acceptance of this hypothesis in the scientific community.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I would encourage you to come back. Right now Attenborough is used only as a point of reference for proponent quotes rather than pretending as an academic source, and I am hopeful that we can have it remain that way. In fact, the article is much improved, I think. jps (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Persistent crank in Guernsey (185.3.100.0/24)

I would normally just report this over on the AIV board, but under their rules I think it would be denied. (It's not "pure" vandalism, and it's impossible to properly warn this person because they change IPs all the time). Maybe someone more experienced than I in admin requests can suggest a way to request an appropriate IP range block to get this person's attention.

In cleaning up some vandalism on my watchlist, I noticed today there is an IP range from an ISP on the island of Guernsey (off the coast of France in the English Channel) that is quite persistently adding fringe material to numerous different articles.

From writing style and interests it's clearly the same person, though there are other edits from the same range that may well be from different users. This person is very interested in psychokinesis (PK), Potassium-40 (and it's use in PK & other stuff), warp drives and various physics fringe theories, time travel, superconductors and occasionally UFOs. They usually post long paragraphs of material that is completely unreferenced, and therefore quickly reverted.

Here are examples of recent diffs of recent fringe-relevant edits from different IPs in this range, I believe all of these have been reverted already (not all by me):

Based on writing style the same person often posts obscure trivia to electronics technology articles, again totally unsourced except for occasional mentions of someone named "A De Guerin". Here are a couple of those diffs:

Anyway, just wanted to give everyone a heads up if you are reverting stuff from an IP in the range 185.3.100.0 to 185.3.100.255, it might be this same person.

If someone knows the correct way to suggest a light temporary range block to get this person's attention, please chime in. I know how to report at WP:AIV but my experience is the admins there are looking for cut-and-dried cases of teenagers with spray paint type vandalism, and this doesn't really fit the mold. --Krelnik (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look and see if it's appropriate to block it. A /24 is a delightfully small range. Bishonen | talk 22:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC).

Oh cool, thanks. Just an update... I found a different lone IP 80.73.216.108 (also in Guernsey) and a user Conundrum1947 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). They definitely share writing style, choice of topics and the attributions to "de Guerin" with the above IP range. Interestingly, the user created a hoax article about a joint US/UK government spy base in Aristarchus (crater) that was speedy deleted for being a hoax in September 2016. The user hasn't been active since near as I can tell. I've done some reverting of some of the blatantly unsourced additions to tech articles. --Krelnik (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that's a busy /24 range — see contributions for February and March here. I should think it's all one person, but some of it may be ordinary technical edits, of a kind I'm not good with. (Like, computers.) Do you see anything of such a nature in the range contributions, Krelnik? I see you tried to talk to the latest IP here, which is good. They haven't been back since, though, in any incarnation. If you check out the range contributions from X's tools, do you think you have warned any of them sharply? I wish the list contained links to their talkpages — then I could easily see for myself which of them have been spoken to — but unfortunately it doesn't. I hesitate to block the range if none of the IPs have received a sharp warning — an actual block warning, as opposed to your nice template to 185.3.100.55 (which was good for a first warning, but still). 185.3.100.35 has received several warnings, but they're all very kind and sweet. Of course I'm aware of the difficulties that all the evanescent talkpages create.

Oh dear... I was just going to post the above, but I see you have more info. I recognize the name De-Guerin, that 80.73.216.108 used, from the /24 range. Uh, have you been able to read the deleted hoax article, Aristarchus Base, since you know what it was about? Anyway, neither 80.73.216.108 nor Conundrum1947 have edited for many months, so we'd probably better concentrate on the /24 range. I'm going to bed right now (timezone thing), but I'll check back tomorrow. Bishonen | talk 23:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC).

No, I didn't see the whole deleted article, but I found one place where he wikilinked to it and the lede sentence of it is still in Google if you google the name of the article: "Luna Base is a formerly secret joint GCHQ/NSA unmanned facility maintained on the Moon, located in the crater Aristarchus. It consists of various surveillance ..." --Krelnik (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I see. Yes, a hoax indeed, but I presume a good-faith effort by the user, who refers to this article as their source. I think that profile — both the good faith, and the crank content — strengthens your idea that it's the same person as the /24 range. So, have you had a chance to take a look at the range contributions, and evaluate whether there are some "normal" technical edits, and whether you have warned any of them more strongly? Of course I'm not asking you look at all the edits the range contributions tool shows! But my thinking is you may be able to run your eye down the list and get ideas about both my questions, as the list shows the article names. Then, if you believe the "normal" content added is minimal, I can block the range for a week or two, with information for the user in my block log note. They'll see that, so since they don't have a permanent talkpage, it may be the best place, and I can refer them there to their latest talkpage. (Like "Please discuss at User talk:185.3.100.55, even if you now use a different IP.") Do you think that might work? Once we get them to a talkpage, they can perhaps be persuaded to create an account, or to start using Conundrum1947 again. I should hold off blocking till there's a more recent edit, though. Bishonen | talk 10:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC).

Yes, I looked through a bunch of the range edits. For the last month from your link to the Range Contribs tool (cool tool). Definitely seems like 95% the same person, I only saw one or two edits (Mary Seacole, History of Guernsey) that seemed out of character. All the tech edits are either fringe nonsense, or highly specific trivia that doesn't belong in a general encyclopedia article. When they use a source it's a terrible one, but generally they post unsourced stuff. I'll throw a few more warnings at the most recent IPs to see if I can get their attention. Thanks! --Krelnik (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

ETA: OK there are now warnings at 185.3.100.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 185.3.100.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 185.3.100.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 185.3.100.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 185.3.100.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Those are all from this month, not all warnings from me either. I'll keep an eye out for additional activity. I asked them to come to my talk page - they've gone to Materialscientist's talk page multiple times in the past, so they do understand how to do that. --Krelnik (talk) 13:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, they do, and they understand they're meant to reply to comments on their own page too, since they did on User talk:185.3.100.35. Which already makes them more savvy than many new users. Thanks very much for checking out the contribs. Your information about them convinces me I ought to block the range for a while, but I'll hold off till they edit in a fringey way again. The tool? Yes, where would we be without X!'s tools. The Article blamer (see the line of tools up top) is wonderful too. Bishonen | talk 16:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC).

Two new edits this morning from two different IPs - one fringey but safely on a talk page the other technical - not objectionable but kind of trivial . I'll try to get their attention on that talk page. --Krelnik (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE: In the last 8 days there have been 5 article edits and 2 talk page edits by 6 distinct IPs in this range. Other than this edit which was just plain mistaken, the rest are technical trivia or fringe. All 5 of the article edits have been reverted as incorrect, unsourced nonsense or WP:OR. I've left numerous talk page messages trying to engage the user to no avail. --Krelnik (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE: @Bishonen: Reappeared on March 21 on 185.3.100.46 to make unsourced OR edits to Retrocausality and Eugene Podkletnov that I and @Jim1138: reverted. Also these two FRINGEy user page comments: and . Even admits their IP is rotating. Definitely follows the same pattern, I don't think there's an edit from that range that hasn't been reverted by someone in many weeks. --Krelnik (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi again, Krelnik. I see the user is trying for a Nobel prize.. I've blocked the range 185.3.100.0/24 for three weeks, with a note in the block log and a longer note on User talk:185.3.100.46, which I hope they will see and respond to. I mentioned your name. :-) Could you please talk to them if they do respond? I mean, of course, as you have the time and energy. Bishonen | talk 21:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC).

Just noticed the IP posted a reply to the block on User_talk:185.3.100.45 on March 28. I've now replied to them there. --Krelnik (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

And just as we suspected, blocking his IP range has forced them to go back to using the suspected related account Conundrum1947, confirm that is the same person. Here's the latest exchange on 185.3.100.45's talk page. --Krelnik (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Global Consciousness Project

• Global Consciousness Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My ability to even is critically depleted by this article. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Says he "developed the project as an extrapolation". Wow, I'll say. DoctorJoeE /_{talk to me!} 23:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The methodology section itself seems like it either needs to be cleaned up or removed. Its utter trash. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network

• Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A while ago I removed a huge nu,mber of self-sourced statements - basically a blow by blow of AVN's vexatious litigation and bogus claims, sourced in each case to AVN's own press release making the bpgus claim. user:Bilby restored them i a series of edits. I did not see that, so on my next run of pruning "references" to AVN.org.au, I removed it again, with a slight feeling of deja-vu. Turns out that feeling was right, as th ehistory shows. Bilby promptly restored it all again.

Bilby is also the editor who has worked hard to water down critical content about anti-vaccinaitonist Judith Wilyman, and her supervisor and fellow crank Brian Martin.

Now, I spend far too much time watching the pro-disease lobby to be dispassionate about this, so I would like others to look into these edits and see if there is a problem. Guy (Help!) 23:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

As I explained on my talk page, you appear to have blindly removed all references to material published by the AVN from the article on the AVN. That would be fine where those sources were being used inappropriately. The problem was that those sources were in almost all cases being used correctly, and I carefully went through the removed sources to only return those that were and where there was not a viable alternative. In situations where we are referencing beliefs held by the AVN - not factual statements about vaccination, but statements along the lines of "The AVN has claimed ..." - the beliefs can be best sourced to the material where they made that claim, as per WP:PRIMARY. In addition, you removed sources used for direct quotes by individuals. As a result, you left the article in a state where there were unsourced statements about beliefs held by the AVN, and, more importantly, left direct quotes from living people without references.

I have absolutely no objection with banning the use of the AVN for any factual statement about vaccination. But where we are trying to source a claim made by the AVN, as a claim rather than a factual statement, the AVN remains a viable choice, and more importantly, if we are to include direct quotes, we must include a reference to the source of that quote. - Bilby (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

And as I explained, a source must be reliable. A primary source that is reliable may be used, with some caution, for uncontroversial facts, but controversial facts require reliable independent secondary sources. You are reintroducing unreliable, non-independent, primary sources in support of claims which are demonstrably bogus. There is nothing correct about that. You also left in a bunch of other unreliable sources. Rachael Dunlop is a known authority, but her blog fails RS for this. Peter Bowditch's blog also fails. I completely agree with every word either of those two has ever said about the AVN, but their blogs are still not reliable.

$MADPERSON made $MADCLAIM, source $MADPERSON's blog making $MADCLAIM, is not acceptable. We need reliable independent secondary sources to establish the significance of $MADCLAIM, and to put it into context, because the claim is mad. That is how Misplaced Pages has always worked. We can use primary sources, even self-published ones, for the name of Rupert Sheldrake's dog, but we require reliable independent secondary sources to discuss his claim that his dog is psychic. Is that not obvious to you?

WP:PRIMARY refers to reliable sources. WP:PRIMARY plus WP:SPS plus WP:FRINGE = WP:FUCKNO. Guy (Help!) 00:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

A primary source is perfectly reliable for a statement about that source's beliefs. If the AVN publishes their mission statement, then we can safely assume that it is, indeed, their mission statement and reference it as such. The Dorey publishes a newsletter in which she makes a claim, we can safely assume that the newsletter is a reliable source for the fact that she made the claim. What we can't do is assume that the claim she is making is accurate and present it as such.

If the article said "vaccinations are unsafe" and that was sourced to the AVN, I'd be completely supportive of removing the reference and the statement. But if the article states "Doery has claimed that vaccinations are unsafe", then her own publication is a viable reference for her belief. Furthermore, if we write "Dorey stated that 'vaccinations are unsafe'", we need the reference to where she made the statement in order to source the direct quote. You removed the last two cases, not the first. - Bilby (talk) 00:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Here is the diff of the clean up: diff.

It is really hard to see why anybody would be supporting the retention of content like:

• "The seminar went ahead and was attended by about 200 people.", sourced to Dorey, Meryl (5 June 2010). "Perth Seminar a great success". No Compulsory Vaccination AVN. Retrieved 5 June 2010.

There is some stuff the cleanup left unsourced that needs to be fixed. Jytdog (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

You need to be cautious here - JzG removed two sets of references. That reference you are pointing to was one he just removed, and not one taht I would put back, and not part of the dispute. How about these examples instead:

The group's mission statement says it "is dedicated to the idea that health can be achieved and maintained without the use of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines" and claims that it seeks to enable people to make informed health choices.

That was referenced to the AVN's mission statement. JzG removed the reference, but left the claim in place.

Dorey has written that "passing through a measles infection is sometimes required, for whatever reason, to strengthen some part of a person's vital force"

Sourced to a publication by Dorey. He removed the reference, but left the direct quote.

She believed that the proposed human health smart card is a prelude and the "next and most logical step is the use of microchips which will contain information will be injected into us and read and updated from a distance"

Again, originally sourced to Dorey, removed the reference but left the direct quote.

AVN continued to collect adverse reaction reports and claimed to have more than 800 documented cases of severe reactions as of March 2006, equating to an average of six reports every month.

Originally sourced to where they made the claim. Reference removed, claim left in place.

That's the problem. Not that there isn't bad sourcing, but that if you want to use a direct quote, or make a claim about an organisations beliefs, you have to provide a reference. That's the sort of change I have issue with, not the sort you are pointing to, which is perfectly fine. - Bilby (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I am fairly surprised that you would support content about a group's mission being in WP, sourced to their website. WP:Avoid mission statements. As I noted, the edits left some things unsourced and that needs to be fixed. For sure. In my view posting up stuff from primary sources and then shooting it down with other sources it not what we should do, ever. If things the group said/did have not been discussed in secondary sources along with reactions, they are probably UNDUE. Jytdog (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

If someone wants to remove the statement about the mission statement, go ahead. But if it is to remain, it needs to be sourced. If they want to remove direct quotes, and think that is best, that is also fine. But if the quotes are to remain, you must leave the references. That is what I have an issue with.

I put back only the references that were being used to source direct quotes and claims by the organisation about the organisation, having first checked each one for accuracy and to see if there was an alternative reference being used. - Bilby (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Am reviewing now, please be patient. Jytdog (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

OK done. diff. I had to restore one SPS - the apology to the AMA. Jytdog (talk) 04:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll have a look through and see if there is anything missing, but thank you for your work and I'm sure there won't be any missing refs. As I said, I have absolutely no trouble with using alternative secondary sources or removing content. My issue is removing valid sources leaving direct quotes and similar unsourced, which should not occur. If we are to say that the AVN or an individual has made a claim - especially a controversial one - we need to source that claim or pull it, not delete the reference and leave the claim in place. - Bilby (talk) 04:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Your logical fallacy is: begging the question. They were not valid sources. Jytdog made that clear, so did I. Guy (Help!) 06:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm worried that either you don't seem to understand a basic principle for the use of primary sources, or I'm explaining things very, very, badly. Let's try again.

The AVN's publications are in no way reliable for anything to do with vaccination. As far as I am concerned, only a loon would regard the AVN as a reliable source on issues on the topic. I am pretty sure we are in agreement here. However, the AVN's publications may be a reliable source on the views of the AVN, assuming that there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the publications.

So when we add a direct quote from Dorey, such as "passing through a measles infection is sometimes required, for whatever reason, to strengthen some part of a person's vital force" a publication written and controlled by her, into which she typed those words, is a reliable source for that quote. Only the quote - not any claim that what she said was correct - but it is viable as a reference that she said it. In this case, she put those words into her newsletter, and thus her newsletter (written and edited by her) is going to be reliable for this single use, unless you wish to argue that she did not have control over what went into her newsletter. Similarly, the AVN added their mission statement to their own website, so if we want to quote their mission statement, their website is a reliable source for that quote.

Furthermore, if we are going to say that a person said something controversial (which Dorey certainly has done) we need to provide a source for that quote. We can't just remove the reference, as that way people can't verify that our version of the quote is accurate.

I have no problem with removing unreliable sources, and I have no problem with removing self-serving content from articles. But I do have a problem with leaving controversial claims unsourced when we have viable sources for those claims. I'm ok if you remove the claim and the source, or if you leave the claim with the reference. I'm not ok if you remove the source and leave the controversial claim. - Bilby (talk) 07:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bilby. On that particular one about "passing through a measles infection is sometimes required..." that was not involved in the diff that I worked over (the 3rd time Guy went through), nor in the one prior to that which I didn't look at closely as it appears that you reverted it, but it was involved in the first one that you also reverted. So Guy didn't touch that one after the first time.

But yes, quotes need to be supported for sure. As I noted above, this article appears to have written mostly by anti-Vax folks, who kept setting up over-the-top quotes (or other things) from primary sources and then knocking them down with other sources. I don't think that is good editing and I tried to fix that. Guy came in with a different angle, and his edit did need clean up afterwards. It did. But simply restoring the primary sources is suboptimal as all that did was leave that bad structure (set it up sourced to a primary source, knock it down with other sources) in place -- in the edits I did, I tried to source everything from secondary sources to ensure that mentioning whatever X thing AVN did or said, was even DUE..... Jytdog (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I continue to have no problem with removing guff from the article. But if you are going to leave direct quotes in place, and use material taken directly from a website, you cannot then remove the references but leave the material in place. I returned the references (only where this was an issue), and then was happy to look at the validity of the material. The problem was that he wanted to remove the references because he didn't like the source, but then left the material there. It was a referencing problem, not a fringe topics issue.

Otherwise, this seems to be handled, and I'm happy to see the material removed with the refs, so it isn't a problem any more. I am concerned that this may occur again, but I guess we'll tackle it if it does. - Bilby (talk) 23:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

through some hegelian thesis/antithesis/synthesis with everybody aiming higher but maybe differently, we end up at a good place together. yes. Jytdog (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

To me it seems like the issue is that by using a group's own writing on themselves as a source in their article (compare WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:ABOUTSELF, which deem this OK under certain circumstances), we end up giving undue weight to their opinions on themselves. This happens even if it's a direct quotation or attributed statement, which while "dampening" the undue weight issue does not completely remove it. I think we've had a similar problem with certain fringe BLP articles beforehand. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Right. And Bilby is judging these self-published sources by the standards we would apply to a reputable corporation, whereas there are court findings of fact that AVN is not only deceptive but also obdurate in its refusal to mitigate any deception. That is a big red flag, so we fall back to standard Misplaced Pages practice for disputed content which is to defer to reliable independent secondary sources. AVN is not reliable, and of course not independent or secondary. We have abundant secondary sourcing for this, there is no need to self-source their claims. Guy (Help!) 10:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Guy, you are missing the point. But let's move on, as the article is fixed. - Bilby (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah now Guy you are more clueful than this. You were correct to remove them; Bilby was correct to object to that leaving direct quotes unsourced, and i fixed that. I love your cleanup. People have to clean up after you sometimes, and that is OK too. Jytdog (talk) 10:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• I see a solution which has been proposed, accepted and implemented. Yet argument continues. It's time to let it go and move on to the next TEOTWAWKI. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Reno R. Rolle

• Reno R. Rolle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Reno R. Rolle (AfD discussion)

A "superfood" salesman and "direct response marketer" (i.e. spammer). Text I just removed:

In 2007, Reno and Lynn Rollé co-founded BōKU International, an award-winning,<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.naturalnews.com/024479_superfoods_Boku_Superfood.html|title=Boku Superfood Launches Enhanced Superfood Formula; Earns Editor's Choice Recommendation|last=Adams|first=Mike|date=2008-10-13|website=NaturalNews|publisher=|language=en-US|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> organic nutrition company that produces superfood products and powder blends. Reno Rollé also serves as BōKU’s spokesperson, appearing regularly on ].

Also included under Awards, an "award" from Natural News, PR-sourced nominations (with no independent source and no indication of being placed, let alone winning) for a business award.

The first AfD was procedurally kept as the nominator ended up banninated, but I do not think this spammer is notable. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Jeffrey Long

I believe this article should be deleted, no reliable sources. The creator also has a history of pushing fringe beliefs in regard to NDES. 82.132.223.79 (talk) 10:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Also see his edits at near death experience. 82.132.223.79 (talk) 10:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• Sources are very far from demonstrating notability, being either to self (Long's own site nderf.org), or of the type "the man/the book exists" (Amazon, German Random House, etc), or an utterly unreliable-looking site called skeptiko.com. I've PRODded the article. Why do I have a feeling it won't stick? Bishonen | talk 22:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC).

  Right, the cited sources don't; but see news search. Sure, it's fringe, but the guy seems notable for it. Dicklyon (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• Dicklyon, since you have removed the prod with the edit summary "many reputable news orgs talk about this guy and his fringe research", I was hoping you intended to add some references to these reputable news organisations. Bishonen | talk 10:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC).

• For the record: skeptiko.com is a podcast website run by a guy who pushes the typical, store-bought woo arguments about skeptics all being part of a vast conspiracy to silence The Truth™. The guy has another website called skepticalaboutskeptics.org which explicitly labels all skeptics as being "... intolerant of those who transgress the boundaries of scientific orthodoxy." and as "...self-appointed gatekeepers of the dominant paradigm proudly call themselves skeptics, but reveal themselves as fundamentalists who dismiss any evidence that challenges their belief system." The creator's name is Alex Tsakiris and, as is typical for these types, he has numerous other podcasts, books, websites, etc. etc.... They're all unreliable. He's completely unqualified and has never gotten a nod from anyone who didn't maintain a private collection of unique headgear. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Long. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Billy Meier

Billy Meier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The bio article on widely-debunked UFO fraud Billy Meier could use a bit of help. The lead has been repaired, but body is full of pro-UFO argumentation sourced to fringe authors. Lately, a devoted proponent is hell bent on inserting pro-fringe-view opinions sourced to "experts" like Wendelle Stevens. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The editor is probably going to be persistent. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

At some point when time permits I'll probably do a major rewrite per WP:BRD to clean up the larger mess. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

That would be great -- it's on my list as well, but real life has been demanding of late. If you get to it first, and need some help, I have a modest accumulation of source material.

And yes, we do need more eyes on this article -- I was about to renew my plea (see above) for more watchers. The IP (actually two IPs that geolocate to exactly the same area near Toronto) will be at 3RR if they add the material back one more time. I'm going to leave a caution on one of their talk pages -- not that IPs ever seem to look at talk pages... DoctorJoeE /_{talk to me!} 20:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Posting your source material in a section of the Talk page would be a good idea. I believe academic sources have paid some attention to the religious aspects of his UFO beliefs, but I haven't looked into it closely. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll post what I have immediately at hand now, and add more when I can -- the real world is very demanding of my time at the moment. DoctorJoeE /_{talk to me!} 17:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Ruth Montgomery

This biography has been a target of psychic believers and Montgomery fans, there is massive undue weight to fringe viewpoints, especially the intro. Most of the article is unsourced and criticisms were removed from the article over time. Can anyone be bold and step it and nuke some of it? As it stands it is in a bad way and very pro fringe. 82.132.215.104 (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The article certainly needs some work (don't they all?), and I agree it's under-sourced -- and there's some puffery to deal with (not sure how "groundbreaking" her journalism career was beyond the gender factor), but I don't see a lot of WP:UNDUE going on; the overall tone seems fairly neutral, with a few significant exceptions. Most of the fringe aspects speak for themselves. The real world (a new grandbaby) is stealing much of my WP time at the moment, but I'll add the article to my list and have a go in due time, unless someone gets to it first. DoctorJoeE /_{talk to me!} 17:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:British Israelism

Complaint on the talk page that this article is negative. Doug Weller talk 04:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm alone here with a British Israelite who doesn't understand how we work and has a lot more time than I do to write screeds on the talk page. Doug Weller talk 06:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Doug Weller, I'll join the discussion this weekend.Luther Blissetts (talk) 08:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@LutherBlissetts: Thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Roger D. Craig

Roger D. Craig (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Minor character in the Who's Who of JFK conspiracy lore. There is insufficient material in reliable secondary sources, so what remains is a primary source, an e-mail posted on a forum (from the notorious unreliable Spartacus website, I might add), and a dead link that used to link to a collection of works by a conspiracy theorist (i.e. Penn Jones, Jr.). This appears to be a form of a coat rack onto which one can hang links to various conspiracy books, websites, and You Tube videos. Thoughts? Keep, Delete, or Redirect to something like Trial of Clay Shaw? - Location (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems like the sort of thing that should be deleted at AfD. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I redirected it into the trial. Mangoe (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

...and apparently we're going to have to go down AFD Lane instead... Mangoe (talk) 04:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Rfc notice in Talk:David Ferrie

David Ferrie (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

If interested, see Talk:David Ferrie#RfC about the inclusion of allegations made by William Gaudet. -Location (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Suzanne Olsson again

A new single purpose account, User:Brainydad, removing criticism, using article to argue her fringe views, etc. Doug Weller talk 12:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Why are you attacking the contributor instead of the contributions? Brainydad clearly corrected false statements in the article, such as the staement this was first an "Ahmaddi" claim. The article was greatly improved and you reverted it back to innuendos and half-truths. You should leave it alone if this is the best you can do as an "editor". You are too biased.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution