Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by David Gerard (talk | contribs) at 07:38, 10 December 2019 (→Requesting restoration: Draft:Melania Trump replacement theory). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

DISC assessment

DISC assessment seems to be based on a number of questionable and irrelevant sources. I suspect that this page has been amped up because one of the companies used as a source is actually a vendor of a software product based on this obsolete theory in psychology. --Salimfadhley (talk)

Philosophy of conspiracy theories

• Philosophy of conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Appears to be a WP:POVFORK of Conspiracy theory that gives primary weight to opinions that express the idea that conspiracy theories shouldn't be denigrated because, philosphically speaking, it's possible some are not unwarranted. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I find it ... interesting ... that a brand new editor would be able to create a properly formatted article after 5 days and ten edits. The rest of his posting history ( Knuteson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ) is also ... interesting. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

What exactly are you implying? Knuteson (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I am implying that, while I don't know for sure, the WP:DUCK test says that you are not a new user who started 22 days ago and has made 38 edits. Please note that there is no rule that says that you can't create a new identity: see WP:FRESHSTART. That being said, you are editing in areas where a lot of people get blocked for behaving badly, and if you are one of them you are not allowed to edit under another identity. See WP:BLOCKEVASION. You are also not allowed to keep editing under the old identity and pretend that the posts are from different users. See WP:SOCK --Guy Macon (talk) 01:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I will take what Guy said a step further: So far, you have edited in only one topic area, and within that topic area your edits appear to be pushing an agenda (we have a term for this: a “single purpose account”). I am not saying that you are intentionally doing so, but it is how your editing pattern can appear to others. If this isn’t the reputation you want, I would suggest that you step away from editing articles related to conspiracy theory for a while. I am sure you have other interests. Work on articles in those other topic areas. Blueboar (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

New users writing a new article with properly formatted reference tags and citation templates in their first 15 edits are extremely rare, too. Most of them "happen to" appear in topics where bans are common. --mfb (talk) 14:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Great. Now that we have something explicit, I can address it directly. I am not an experienced Misplaced Pages editor. Other than toying with it about twice years ago, without a registered name, I really am very new to this. As for the single purpose, I don't want to edit pages that I don't know much about, and which I don't have an interest in. It did seem to me that the philosophical literature on conspiracy theories was being left out, and since I've already done the reading, I decided it would be good to add a page on that topic, and also to help fix some problems with the conspiracy theory page, which I'm able to recognize given the reading that I've done. I've made every effort to follow the rules and play nicely with others, despite opposition that often appears to me to be relatively uniformed. Knuteson (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Lets assume a little bit of good faith here everybody. If you have compelling evidence then take it to WP:SPI. Concerns have been raised, and this should be a satisfactory response. New editors are not forbidden from having a clue, and they're not forbidden from having an area of interest. They've not done anything thus far that I can tell but remain civil and constructive. Feel free to prove me wrong, but do it at SPI, and not here. GMG 21:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I noticed Philosophy of conspiracy theories while skimming AfD, and it looked fundamentally OK. It basically reported what some philosophers had said about the general topic of conspiracy theories. As best as I could tell, it was not trying to push a POV or advance one philosopher's view as the correct one. (And the formatting looked pretty typical for a new user who has maybe looked under the hood of a few pages, has the academic background to want to use footnotes, and maybe hasn't quite been around long enough to absorb all of our house conventions. There's nothing remarkable or malicious about any of that.) XOR'easter (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

A little history to help clarify the context of my original posting here on FTN. Regulars will confirm that over several years, there have been periodic and ongoing attempts to either subtly or overtly alter the text of the conspiracy theory article so that it becomes, by default, more favorable to belief in a conspiracy theory. This can take the form of arguing that not all conspiracy theories are unwarranted…or that the phrase itself is a pejorative label that has been applied unfairly…or that dictionary definitions are fairer because they don’t make judgments about the legitimacy of conspiracy theories. After reading the recently created Philosophy of conspiracy theories, I recognized the familiar pattern: lots of rebuttals to the established definition of conspiracy theories, but this time selectively extracted from various philosophers published in high quality sources. When I saw the article’s author has an WP:SPA-like focus on the topic, feels skeptical sources are biased , and expresses kinship with an editor who recently attempted, against consensus, to change the definition of conspiracy theory to something more conducive to belief in them , naturally, I was (and remain) suspicious. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Philosophers are naturally going to argue that the lay or folk definitions of "conspiracy theory" are inadequate (and then disagree with each other how to define the concept more precisely; that's their job). Regarding this edit, they replaced a citation to a magazine's website with one to an academic book, removing a claim that conspiracy theory has always been a derogatory label. The book chapter argues that early uses of the term were neutral, and the pejorative connotations arose later. This seems entirely appropriate to include. Would I be so zealous as to erase the existing citation? No, but I can see why a novice editor might (and I can appreciate why an editor with an academic background might view that replacement as an obvious improvement). XOR'easter (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

That's fine, but my objection was to the edit summary given: "the Skeptical Inquirer is a biased source". - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The Skeptical Inquirer is a biased source which uses cherry-picked examples. I’ve replaced it with a much better source, which has a much more nuanced conclusion based on a much sounder methodology. That sounds like a reasonable complaint to me, even though I would regard CSICOP publications reliable sources by default and would have taken a different course of action. XOR'easter (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I was surprised that my edit was reverted—actually removing the better reference. By replacing the Skeptical Inquirer (SI) sentence and citation, I was actually protecting SI from potential embarrassment. The alternative is to leave the sentence with the SI citation, and then add a sentence with a much better citation that contradicts SI’s conclusion (which I may now do). Those aware (given the new reference) of the better-established finding who then look up the SI article will see it for what it is: an exercise in cherry picking. (Although I don’t deny that it may be reasonable sometimes to cite SI, the idea that it does not have an axe to grind on this issue astonishes me.) Knuteson (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The closing admin made some pretty outlandish accusations about this noticeboard: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Philosophy of conspiracy theories. I suggest a WP:DRV be filed as the discussion was cut off for what seems to me to be arbitrary reasons. jps (talk) 10:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I User_talk:Barkeep49#Your_AfD_closing asked the admin to reconsider. If there isn't a decent explanation for this supervoting, I would recommend DRV. jps (talk) 10:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

ජපස, I'll be responding to you directly on my talk page soon (came here to check a fact as part of my response) but I made no accusations about this noticeboard. I suggested that the original posting here, while perfectly fine for this board, ran afoul of nWP:CANVASS in the context of an AfD in that it failed to be neutral. Just to emphasize I don't think postings to this noticeboard need to be neutral, only notices that will impact something like AfD. However, that's a behavioral policy and as such shouldn't affect the closing of the AfD in this instance which I noted it didn't. Given that this posting was brought up in the course of the AfD discussion I did also think it important to address that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Seems to me that people here just don't like what qualified academia has to say on the matter.80.111.44.144 (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I have some concerns about this article though I haven't had a chance to wade through the sources. I did however find this reference which claims that "...many scholars have taken a relatively charitable attitude toward conspiracy theorists and conspiracy theorising in recent years." (I assume that "scholars" is specifically referring to philosophers.) I haven't read enough on this topic to decide if the article is biased or if the philosophers are contrarian, compared to what I've seen published in psychology and sociology. Below is an extended quote for those who can't get through the paywall. --mikeu 23:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Redefinition

In the above discussion, LuckyLouie said something important that I would like to focus on:

"Regulars will confirm that over several years, there have been periodic and ongoing attempts to either subtly or overtly alter the text of the conspiracy theory article so that it becomes, by default, more favorable to belief in a conspiracy theory. This can take the form of arguing that not all conspiracy theories are unwarranted…or that the phrase itself is a pejorative label that has been applied unfairly…or that dictionary definitions are fairer because they don’t make judgments about the legitimacy of conspiracy theories. After reading the recently created Philosophy of conspiracy theories, I recognized the familiar pattern: lots of rebuttals to the established definition of conspiracy theories, but this time selectively extracted from various philosophers published in high quality sources. When I saw the article’s author has an WP:SPA-like focus on the topic, feels skeptical sources are biased, and expresses kinship with an editor who recently attempted, against consensus, to change the definition of conspiracy theory to something more conducive to belief in them, naturally, I was (and remain) suspicious."

I think LuckyLouie hit the nail on the head.

Let's look at the definition on our Conspiracy theory page:

"A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable. The term has a pejorative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence. Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it, are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth, and the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than proof."

Notice how different the above is from what we see at Philosophy of conspiracy theories#Definitions of conspiracy theory? Did you notice that the difference is pretty much exactly as LuckyLouie described?

I am also seeing a pattern here. First, a conspiracy theorist redefines the phrase "Conspiracy Theory" in a way that goes against what 99% of English speakers means when they use the phrase. The usual redefinition is "any theory about a conspiracy, no matter how strong or weak the evidence is." Then the conspiracy theorist acts as if they are completely unaware of the standard definition. Finally they put together an argument based upon their redefinition, and having knocked down the straw man that they created, declare victory.

It hinders communication when you don't use the ordinatry definition for common phrases. Yes, you can use non-standard fleemishes and the reader can still gloork the meaning from the context, but there ix a limit; If too many ot the vleeps are changed, it becomes harder and qixer to fllf what the wethcz is blorping, and evenually izs is bkb longer possible to ghilred frok at wifx. Dnighth? Ngfipht yk ur! Uvq the hhvd or hnnngh. Blorgk? Blorgk! Blorgkity-blorgk!!!! --Guy Macon (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about the Blorgkity-blorgk stuff, Guy, but IMO it would be uncanny that all the academic sources being cited in Philosophy of conspiracy theories have objections to the denigration of conspiracy theories as their major theme. I don't have the time or access to the sources cited, but someone should. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I have access (but not much more time today than I have already put in). I would not say that objecting to "the denigration of conspiracy theories" is a major theme. They're much more like, well, what you would expect if you put a bunch of philosophers into a room and asked them to define "conspiracy theory" — somebody will have a counterexample to every proposal that anyone else makes. Maybe an actual "reptoids did 9/11, Google Shokin Affidavit!!"" conspiracy theorist would point to that stuff to try and create a smokescreen, but that's not itself an indictment of philosophy, any more than creationists quote-mining arguments about the details of how some species evolved is actually an indictment of evolution. XOR'easter (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Draftify (page move request)

Please see: Talk:Philosophy of conspiracy theories#Requested move 24 November 2019. --mikeu 12:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Articles on scientists from the list

This user, User:Eohsloohcs seems to intend adding List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming to the "See also" paragraphs of all the scientists in the list. I see no encyclopedic purpose to that. What do others think? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the list should be deleted. Can't seem to convince the rest of the community to do so, however. jps (talk) 17:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

At the very least it should be called "List of scientists who have disagreed with the scientific consensus on global warming" since much of the sourcing is over ten years old! Lumping all these people into this dunce club is probably a WP:BLP violation. Alexbrn (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

The whole article should be deleted. I'd agree with an earlier statement by Ronz that the list is OR, and agree with above that the sourcing is old-who knows what these people think now. (Some aren't thinking at all anymore, I guess) Plus some sources are only borderline compliant for science/ research contributing to a highly simplistic article. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I would support deleting the list given the numerous problems with it. Bulk adding see also adds little value and might give undue weight to some bios. --mikeu 20:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• comment I couldn't find any past AfDs on this, so I went ahead and opened a deletion discussion for the page. Nblund 21:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Go to article's Talk page and click on the 'Article milestones' pulldown near the top - there have been a number of AfDs over the years, but not one since 2013. The page name has since changed, hiding the previous examples, the most recent being Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (6th nomination). Agricolae (talk) 22:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I feel like a lot of this list is suffering from holywood-inspired idea that "science" is a single field and that all scientists are equally qualified to opine on any "science" topic. ApLundell (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

What, you don't think inventing the polymerase chain reaction makes you a noteworthy expert on global climate? It also ignores the fact that scientists sometimes quibble just to demonstrate their credentials as independent thinkers, but this doesn't mean they reject the 'big picture'. It is a false construct of Misplaced Pages that having expressed a critique of a specific 2001 report somehow makes that first list of scientists among those who 'disagree with the scientific consensus' for all time thereafter. Agricolae (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Might I ask that you discuss at the deletion discussion rather than reinforcing your clique mentality here. Dmcq (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I dunno. Could you assume good faith rather than cast aspersions? Or do you only respond to requests in kind? jps (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussing things in a separate area and going along to a discussion as a group is simply wrong. And it is doubly wrong when people there are not told about it. What is here is a social bubble of editors of like mind reinforcing each others ideas and forming a clique that resists outsiders as in your call to have me topic banned. I fully agree with the fringe theory guidelines, but this noticeboard very often as in this instance does not publicise when it takes an interest in a subject and that has I believe lead to groupthink. How much discussion was there on the talk page with interested editors before the AfD? Did editors from here go to the AfD with an open mind? Dmcq (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

This shows it's possible to get into quite a pickle with such a heady mix of bad faith assumptions and "feelings". But even if your assessment was right (it isn't) it wouldn't matter since AfD is not a vote – at the end, a savvy admin will weight the balance of policy-based reasoning to determine consensus. Defenders of the article would do better to see if they can contribute some of that, rather than attacking other conscientious editors! Alexbrn (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I am attacking this noticeboard and in particular its guideline at the top. Editors here have resisted putting a notice onto article talk pages when they start discussing the article. If you feel some identity with this noticeboard then you are already slipping into groupthink. Dmcq (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh well. I tried. Alexbrn (talk) 16:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you could also try the injunction at the top of this page "The purpose of this board is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but rather to ensure that neutrality and accuracy are maintained." Dmcq (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has some great articles on fringe theories, and many of them have been improved thanks to work on this very noticeboard. The list article currently at AfD is not, however, a great article and it has no prospect of becoming one. Alexbrn (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• In retrospect, I should have added a mention that I had left an announcement on this noticeboard at the AFD. However, the announcement has since been added to the AfD page, and so that seems like a moot point. This is a widely watched general policy noticeboard, not some obscure project for people with a certain POV. I suspect most of participants here are fully supportive of covering fringe theories on Misplaced Pages. Nblund 16:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I wish this noticeboard worked like most of the other noticeboards on Misplaced Pages. Having a lot of editors here doesn't mean there is much overlap betweeen an article's editors and this noticeboard. The other noticeboards don't have this sort of thing happening on them. And as to Alexbrn's idea of how mervelous editors from here are at improving articles - yes I'm happy for instance with how Aquatic ape hypothesis is now but the rabid deletions and legalistic policy following to break down opposition in its history produced many awful versions some of which hardly mentioned the topic at all. You can see the battles even now being fought on the talk page but at least it has quietened down and a reader will get something reasonable to read on the topic as is the function of an encyclopaedia. Dmcq (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

"rabid deletions". Alexbrn (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Can I point you yet again at the top of this noticeboard when thinking about the discussion in the section section below on Information Flow Theory. No mention there on the talk page of the discussion here. The prod says 'Promotion of an idea that has had no discernable influence within the scientific community' as if that was a valid reason for deletion. Nor is it being a fringe theory a reason for deletion. Nor is some editor on FTN saying it is complete bullshit a valid reason to delete. And the idea has been around long enough - it is basically the same as that of the aware anthill in Gödel, Escher, Bach for instance. Dmcq (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Anybody may PROD an article. What makes this "rabid"? Are you a rabid proponent of anything by your own standards? Alexbrn (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

That the reason for deletion is that it is fringe which the top of this noticeboard says is not a reason to delete and the prod seems to b just because someone thinks it is bullshit. Nothing about notability or citations, deleting fringe is considered as more important. Dmcq (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The reason for deletion is exactly what the "reason=" parameter in the {{prod}} tag said: Promotion of an idea that has had no discernable influence within the scientific community. In other words, because it is not notable, as demonstrated by the lack of citations. XOR'easter (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Policy noticeboards like this one are probably a better reflection of site wide consensus than individual articles on fringe topics. That's the point. If there's a discrepancy, that probably reflects a problem with the articles, not this board.Nblund 17:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem is this noticeboard doesn't put notices onto talk pages. Other noticeboards get lots of people from the articles being discussed. This page is a social bubble. Dmcq (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality requires us to omit fringe information that cannot be contextualized within mainstream respectable scholarship, so if indeed it is true the subject has made no impact that would be reasonable grounds for deletion. You are free to contest the proposed deletion.

Noticeboards generally only require notification when an individual editor is named, so this noticeboard is typical in that respect. In point of fact, it's quite common to share on an article's Talk page if that article is being discussed here. Alexbrn (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

How much discussion was there on the talk page with interested editors before the AfD?. WP:RTFA. Amirite? There's nothing to stop you from putting up snarky notices onto talk pages for us, darling User:Dmcq. We love you greatly! jps (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:NPOVN requires one to discuss on an article talk page first and WP:BLPN requires a notice on the talk page. Most disputes relate to the actions of specific editors rather than articles and that's why they ask for the relevant editor to be notified. The only other noticeboard I know of which might refer to an article rather than a particular editor is the original research noticeboard which I admit does not have a written requirement but as far as I can see they do actually discuss such problems on article talk pages first and then say they are going to WP:NORN if they aren't able to resolve the problem. I don't know why things are so different there. Why did the discussion below avoid mentioning an editor when that is an obvious thing for a prod? You think putting a notice on a talk page to inform interested editors woud be 'snarky' thing to do? Why are editors here so reluctant to notify editors on the talk page of an article they are discussing? Dmcq (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:NPOVN does not "require" prior discussion (though it does recommend it). Like WP:RS/N, WT:MED or other WikiProject talk pages (this page is part of WP:SKEP) this noticeboard does not require prior discussion (though it can be good practice) and only requires notification if an editor is named. There is nothing unusual in the MO of this noticeboard and there has been no irregularity in how List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming was discussed here. If you want to change things, you are of course free to make proposals. Alexbrn (talk) 06:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm really confused here. In general editors watch-list articles and notice boards as I do here with this notice board. That way I can take part or not dependent on my interest. Generally, no one is notified. Sometimes if a discussion moves from an article talk page too a NB then a notice may be left on that article talk page notifying all editors that a discussion has moved. In my experience, in very few instances would anyone actually alert individual editors. AfD is a discussion but not specifically a vote. When discussion is closed discussion points and arguments will be weighed by the closer to determine consensus. Consensus is not determined by a vote count. There are real issues with the kind of list we are discussing in my opinion. I'm sure editors here will tell you that I, at least, am not a member of some inner circle. Quite the contrary. I can understand your frustration but this is the way Misplaced Pages works. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Quite, Olive. The AfD will stand or fall on its merits and no amount of tiresome prior discussion would have changed that. Alexbrn (talk) 06:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree in general with what you say, but I think you're a bit idealistic about how AfD works! I am not asking for individual editors to be informed when a discussion is about an article. As you say if an editor is interested in an article they will have it on their watchlist. And it is general good practice to leave a notification on an article talk page if a discussion moves to a noticeboard. What I am complaining about is editors raising concerns about articles here without leaving a note on the article talk page. It is not reasonable to expect all editors on Misplaced Pages to be watching this page in case their favorite pages are discussed here. As Alexbrn above points out this could happen at other noticeboards, fortunately that does not happen much. I perceive a real problem with this noticeboard that isn't shared by other ones in that by not encouraging interested editors to contribute it seems to have become an echo chamber encouraging groupthink. If they just followed the WP:FRINGE guidelines that would be fine but it doesn't by a long shot. Look at what it says about deletion (nothing) or removal (some but not what this noticeboard seems to think). And think about what it says about a walled garden and its applicability here. Dmcq (talk) 13:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

It would be quicker if you'd just said you don't agree with the way Misplaced Pages works. You don't trust AfD, you don't trust editors to behave in good faith, and you are in favour of obviously bad articles. Alexbrn (talk) 13:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE doesn't use the word deletion, but it does have a lengthy discussion about notability. XOR'easter (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)::::And a good description it has too, as I said above about Information Flow Theory if they thought it failed notability criteria they should have specified that in the prod, fringe is not a good reason for deletion. Dmcq (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

So my describing this noticeboard as dysfunctional is an attack on Misplaced Pages? As to AfD go and tell off the one from here who said "The last AfD closed as "no consensus" six years ago. It's time we revisit this question. We are not bound to the mistakes of the past either." AfD is a place where a disagreement is resolved. Nobody is saying the result is always perfect. As to editors I expect them to be human beings and act like human beings, and that seems to be exactly what happens here. It is the environment here I'm complaining about and I believe should be fixed. Dmcq (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

(Indenting here, cuz why not, but not really replying to anyone specifically). Ya know, it might be good to have a "Fringe topics" WP:DELSORT list. Things that wind up at AFD would ideally get sorted there, and there would generally be the automatic notice placed. It would also cut down noise of the "so and so at AFD" sort of posts here. I'm not sure what all would have to get updated, but it would seem like at least a step in the right direction. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Um, just reading WP:DELSORT and it looks like meatpuppets are a problem there and it might have even less visibility than this noticeboard. As you might guess I really dislike meatpuppets and the canvassing that go with them. But at least they don't have a separate discussion area. Overall I'd prefer this noticeboard was just fixed. Anyway fringe should never be a primary reason for deletion. Dmcq (talk) 15:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Deacon Vorbis, I've occasionally wondered why there isn't a "Fringe topics" or "Fringe theories" deletion-sorting list. The visibility and activity of such lists tends to vary, in my experience, which makes sense ("Actors and filmmakers" has more going on than "Mathematics", which in turn is more active that "Philosophy"). But they generally help bring in knowledgeable opinions, and in addition, they make it easier to find old AfDs. XOR'easter (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Thinking on it again I've no objections. That would be for articles that are fringe rather than the reason being they are fringe and there is no separate discussion area (except here of course). Dmcq (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I recommend that participants here add WP:WikiProject Skepticism/Article alerts to their watchlist. This gives a daily overview of what's going on in fringe space (assuming articles have been tagged as being of interest to WP:SKEP). Alexbrn (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

FWIW: I watch this page along with a number of articles on topics that are covered here. I sometimes agree with a post claiming that a page like the list in question is problematic, I sometimes disagree, and sometimes I express an opinion one way but then change my mind after reading a well reasoned point. It is understandable to me that someone that doesn't participate here regularly might see participants' activity as "piling on" but in my experiene there is more diversity of opinion here than some of the criticism above implies. I took the time to review this list and I honestly would have commented in the same critical manner had I not seen a post here. My participation in this forum is motivated by a desire to improve (and if necessary recommend removal of) material that veers outside of policy. I stand by my early comments on this list and I find the recent "keep" comments unpersuasive in changing my mind. --mikeu 16:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough that's your opinion, but it doesn't explain or justify editors being so reluctant to put a notice on an article talk pages when the article is being discussed here. Dmcq (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

In fact I just checked every single discussion on this noticeboard and not a single one has a notice, and moreover even for users mentioned by name I could find no notice on their talk page but at least a User template will give them a notice. I hope that doesn't mean use of that template will be stopped! Dmcq (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Have you done that same research on other noticeboards for the sake of comparison?

I just randomly spot-checked a few articles being discussed by WP:NORN, WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN, and WP:RSPAM and didn't see any notices being placed on article talk pages.

It seems like you're chastising us for not following a rule that doesn't exist.

To propose a new rule or policy, you should try WP:VILLAGEPUMP ApLundell (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

This noticeboard says you should notify users. As to articles I just checked the first on WP:NORN working backwards from the end and yes the last entry didn't - but it directly called for discussion to be done on the article talk page. The one before that did actually have a reference to the discussion started on the noticeboard. Then looking at WP:RSN I looked at the last entry which had a discussion and yes you were right on that - it was an RfC about a publication that had an entry for it in Misplaced Pages and I'd have thought it reasonable to put a notice about that on the relevant ublications talk page. They did however widly publicise the RfC. The one before that was on the use of RottenTomatoes audience scores, the Rotten Tomatoes page wasn't notified but the talk page in dispute about Dave Chappelle: Sticks & Stones was notrified. Then on WP:NPOVN the last entry was a bit nutty but no real discussion. The one before just notified the users in dispute with them rather than the talk page. Before that there was a dispute on a users page and that was moved to the article talk page. The next discussion rather than a cal to discuss at a talk page was Climate Change Redux and the first response was "Why didn't you ask this question on the article talk page before coming here?" and the answer was "Because this isn't about the article, it's about terminology across Misplaced Pages" and then it all degenerated into talk about forum shopping. I'm surprised so many are not about specific articles. The next one back about a specific article Jack Posobiec had a straightforward visible notification on the talk page. I don't think WP:RSPAM is really relevant here - it is about large numbers of pages having spam put on them and it doesn't matter if the thing being spammed is good bad or indifferent. Dmcq (talk) 10:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

This noticeboard asks that "specific editors" be notified if they are "mentioned". There is no guidance to publicise discussions here otherwise. You are getting your knickers in a twist over a rule that does not exist. If you want to change that, here is not the place. Alexbrn (talk) 11:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you prefer that editors of a page under discussion not know? If so why? If not then wouldn't a note on the talk page do the job perfectly well? Dmcq (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Depends. Sometimes it's wise to leave a note. Sometimes it's an obvious case so no note is necessary. Sometimes a note might needlessly escalate the WP:DRAMA. Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. Alexbrn (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I see no justification in WP:DRAMA for having private discussions about the content of an article. Dmcq (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

If you're saying that a noticeboard discussion constitutes "private conversation" then that is too stupid a contention for this to be worth continuing. Alexbrn (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Even at ANI there is no requirement to post a notification when you talk about the content of a page. Instead it says:

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Dmcq, I haven't given it much thought, but right off of the top of my head I have no objection to a new rule saying that we should post a notification on the talk page of the article being discussed, but it would be a new rule, so you need to get consensus for it by posting an RfC. Until you do that, please stop haranguing editors for not following a rule that doesn't exist.

BTW, we have a way of discussing things in private. It is called "e-mail". --Guy Macon (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon (talk · contribs) please see Misplaced Pages:External discussion: "As a note of caution, using external forums to make decisions about Misplaced Pages content is frowned upon (see the guidance Consensus-building pitfalls and errors). Dmcq (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Here's a fun bit of history. The non-existent rule that DMCQ is chastising people for not following, was actually proposed by him in 2012, and solidly opposed.

Now, years later, he's acting like he won that debate and getting angry at us for not also pretending he won that debate.

Unbelievable. ApLundell (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Might I quote from an editor here who went to the AfD referred to in this discussion and said "The last AfD on this article was in 2013. Things have moved on since then", and "It's more about a smarter, more conscientious community than any particular article. As an example I offer myself: a rather more conscientious and WP:PAG-savvy editor than I was in 2013". If my arithmetic is right 2012 is even further back and the crowd here might be even more savvy than back then. As to 'private' might I point out that avoiding drama by going here to avoid editors at an article page is what that describes. As to quoting WP:ANI that is principally about disputes between editors, not articles. And the head of this noticeboard talks about promoting dialogue with avocates of pseudoscience by putting a template on their page - which lists policies but doesn't mention this noticeboard which is where if anywhere they should post their questions.

As to just doing an RfC the most likely result would be that it would be rejected unless the specific problems that editors see here are teased out first. And there are all sorts of contradictions in what people say as is clear above. Dmcq (talk) 11:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

If you want to propose adding such a notice to this page and believe this argument, why not start such a Request for Comment on the talkpage of this noticeboard, then? Maybe you can convince enough people that this is a good idea? jps (talk) 14:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you think it is a good idea? Dmcq (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

If you insist on continuing this crusade, Misplaced Pages talk:Fringe theories/Noticeboard is the appropriate venue for 'meta' discussions about the noticeboard and its rules. Oh, And the head of this noticeboard talks. . . . What? did I miss a meeting of the cabal where there was an election? There is no 'head of this noticeboard'. It is a forum, not an organization. Agricolae (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said 'top' or 'header' rather than 'head' for the part of this noticeboard saying "To aid in promoting constructive dialogue with advocates of a fringe theory, {{talk fringe|fringe theory name}} may be added to the top of the corresponding talk page.' Or perhaps the fact that it is contained in the template at Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Header Or maybe that I used the word 'talk'? Anyway I hope that is enough for you to find the relevant bit.

Back to the question - do you think it would be a good idea to put a notice on an articles talk page when a discussion about the article starts here like the one that should be put onto a user's page when a discussion concerns them? Or do you think some advocate of fringe theory might come here if that was done and it is better to avoid drama? Dmcq (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I can't see a problem that needs fixing. Proposing such a regime for just this noticeboard would look like a WP:POINTy stunt, I think. Alexbrn (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

So you are not worried about drama but think it would be pointy in some way to actually warn interested editors by putting a note on the talk page of an article? Well in that case why not have the discussion on the article talk page and just put a note here that you tthink there is a problem there? Would that be okay by you or what problem have you with doing that? Or do you think having a discussion here helps avoid drama? Dmcq (talk) 22:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Controversial edits should be discussed on the article's Talk page - that is its raison d'etre, and is typical practice. It it counterproductive to try to divert that discussion anywhere else. Agricolae (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Bingo! But actually a discussion on a noticeboard can often help by getting more people with specialized knowledge of a policy or guidelines application. I want this noticeboard to stop acting like it was set up to delete spam, that is not like what the other content noticeboards do and it is not in line with what WP:FRINGE says. As to the people who think it would be good to make Misplaced Pages a haven of pure truth; that will simply turn off any fringe theorists and conspiracy theorists, remove information for the interested leaving just the fringe sites, and overall be completely counter-productive. Currently it has a quite good reputation as a source of unbiased information. I want this noticeboard to work well like the other noticeboards. Dmcq (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it's been made painfully clear that you're the only one participating in this discussion that thinks this noticeboard doesn't work well.

Also, you're the only participant that believes this noticeboard is especially delete-happy. Typically intervention that starts at this message board involves fixing articles so that they make clear what is fringe and what isn't.

And especially it's been made clear that nobody participating in this discussion is interested in your proposed solution. (Which you initially pretended was an established rule and are now trying to gain a consensus to create as a new rule.)

Continuing to go around in circles like this is wasting everybody's time. If you really think everybody here is being unreasonable, then your next step should be to escalate to either Village Pump or ANI. ApLundell (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I already explained I wanted to see exactly why informing editors at an article was so extremely infrequent that I could not find a single case of it on the current page. Informing people is very common on other content noticeboards. Perhaps there is a good reason and you can enlighten me? Do you think its function is improved by avoiding involving any possible advocates of fringe? Dmcq (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Nobody is obligated to answer your leading questions. ApLundell (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Try framing the question about involving editors from an article in discussions here in a way you don't consider leading. Dmcq (talk) 09:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, if you were asking that all noticeboards have some direction that notification should be placed on the talkpage of articles that they were talking about, that would at least alleviate the concerns of singling out particular noticeboards over others. It wouldn't alleviate instruction creep concerns, however, so perhaps you could show exactly why not having this notification on various noticeboards (not just this one) has caused problems. Demonstrating those clearly would cause me to support such a proposal. Absent that, I do admit to not seeing a problem except for, perhaps, a disdain for certain active community groups. And it's okay to be disdainful of active community groups, but in that case it might help to explain why you think these suggestions might offer some chance for "reform" (which I have yet to see explained clearly). jps (talk) 11:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. That is a good idea, I can't see people from the other noticeboards objecting much as they tend to do it anyway. Yes it is instruction creep, I'm sad about that but I wouldn't be so concerned if I didn't consider it quite important. Dmcq (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I would recommend starting out with a Request for Comment on WP:VP or something to that effect. If you outline your proposal and make it clear that it is for all content noticeboards and the community agrees that this is a good and legitimate requisite for all the noticeboards, then that settles it. And it removes it from the particular conflict here which will make it less contentious. jps (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Where is User:Tumbleman when he could actually be useful occupying his time in this thread, then we could get on with something useful. That's fifteen useful minutes wasted trying to figure out that this is just time wasting. Close this discussion with a "Nothing to see here" note please. -Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 14:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I've started a discussin at WP:VPR#Discussions about articles on Noticeboards should leave a note on the relevant talk page about what I think is needed and made it non-specific for noticeboards in general. 13:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Craig Loehle

Craig Loehle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Craig Loehle

Please comment.

jps (talk) 10:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:ARSE

The project that is the subject of this post is WP:ARS has been brought to the Village Pump for discussion by a regular here. I had no idea it existed until I saw this. Its purpose seems to be to WP:CANVASS wiki eds to AfD discussions, and prodded articles to deprod, or ivote "Keep". I think people here might be interested. -Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 12:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

"Squadron" indeed. Hadn't paid much attention to this before, but seeing how it works I now understand the complaints here that FT/N is some kind of "groupthink" mobbing exercise. It's classic projection. Alexbrn (talk) 12:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• That's not what it is, but hopefully people will look at the information before jumping to a conclusion. Also look at the actual edit history that shows cases where not one person shows up to help the regular member that tagged something for Rescue, that people only show up to comment if they can find sources, and those who make these ridiculous accusations are usually just upset someone dared disagree with them in an AFD. Dream Focus 16:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
• Speaking of CANVASSING, this is hardly a neutral notification. GMG 16:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Good news then. The "Squadron" had a discussion on their talk page and seem to have come to the conclusion that those rules don't have to be followed. ApLundell (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Is that how this works? I was unaware. GMG 20:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I think turnabout is not a good approach here. Nblund 21:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with GMG here: @Roxy the dog: this isn't a neutral notice and should probably be reformatted. Nblund 21:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
• Thanks for the notification of what may be a relevant discussion. There are deep philosophical differences between certain editors here and editors over there, but ultimately this isn't really about Fringe Theory issues in the encyclopedia. Now get back to work, ya goons! jps (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
• That's not what it is
• No, historically, it's EXACTLY what it's been. Some random reminders of past discussions of ARS as a canvassing vehicle:

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive301#Article_Rescue_Squadron/Template:Rescue_demands,_and_Fosnez
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_(4th_nomination) (2009)
• Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_13#Template:Rescue (2012)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Article Rescue Squadron (2012)

• Not an exhaustive list, just what I found in a quick search. --Calton | Talk 02:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

This is drifting away from being relevant to this noticeboard.

There is an ongoing discussion on Village Pump about the 'Rescue Squadron" where this might be more useful. ApLundell (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• This is pretty clearly just a retaliatory proposal aimed at goading jps into a rage, which seems not to have worked. I wouldn't worry about it; most people can see through the ruse. Reyk _YO! 10:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

List of homeopathic preparations

• List of homeopathic preparations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I suppose I should not have been surprised that most of the entries in this list had garbage sources (e.g. homeoint.org). Also no surprise that once the garbage is removed, the majority of the article has no sources at all. I guess the question is whether we should even have a list of things that homeopaths use: essentially there's nothing they don't use (including excrementum tauri, shipwreck and the light of Venus) but perhaps it could be pared down to the ones notably covered by reliable sources? Marsh's owl, for example? Would we also include the real and fake diseases they claim to cure with them? Or is the whole thing just too fringe to be salvageable? Guy (help!) 15:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Probably a select list, where RS covers a preparation. Ososillium e.g. Alexbrn (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I am going to suggest a different approach... first, the article needs to establish that homeopathic preparations are notable AS A GROUP.

An introductory section should be created that talks about such preparations in general terms. Discuss why “homeopathic preparations“ are noteworthy and what people say about them (good and bad). Of course, This introductory section needs to be cited to reliable secondary sources.

THEN, having established that the broader topic of “homeopathic preparations” is notable, the details in the list itself can be supported by the sources written by homeopathic practitioners ... as PRIMARY sources... simply to establish that they do indeed use these preparations. Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Repeat after me - "Homeopathic preparations are notable cos ther's nothin' innem" -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 18:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Alexbrn, how sad is it that I immediately understood that as oscillococcinum, the canonical quack remedy? Guy (help!) 00:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I nicked this from David Gorski who called it "o-so-silly-o-coccinum".. I'd forgot we have a Oscillococcinum article. Alexbrn (talk) 06:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Alexbrn, if oscillo did not exist we'd have to invent it. A "flu medicine" that contains none of the liver of a duck that isn't infected with the nonexistent bacterium that doesn't cause flu. Fractal wrongness. Guy (help!) 00:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I took a stab at salvaging it, with comments and questions at talk. There's not much left and the remaining entries rely on an NHM database which is no longer online. --mikeu 20:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Mu301, thanks Guy (help!) 00:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced it meets LISTN. I'm waiting on a couple of references to arrive. In other news: I learned that diluted anthrax is not recommended as a homeopathic "remedy" to prevent contracting anthrax or treat it, but topical use on the skin is supported. I'm now having an existential crisis about a thought experiment asking if I would drink such a potion... --mikeu 00:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Fringe theory of the month: Greta Thunberg is a time traveler

Greta Thunberg has a 19th-century doppelganger, so naturally people think she's a time traveler

Look at . She even braids her hair the same. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense, everyone knows she's an alias of Jacqueline Jossa. ‑ Iridescent 00:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to read Religious perspectives on Greta Thunberg. Probably won't come before Conspiracy theories about Greta Thunberg, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not sure these borderline FORUM posts on FTN, not directly related to building an encyclopedia actually help lend credibility to the project. GMG 15:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Been saying that for years.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Wanted to observe that there is no obligation for editors to contribute to this Noticeboard. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't really have anything to do with whether posts like this have anything to do with building an encyclopedia. GMG 15:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Excactly, no one has to post here, so why not keep what you post relevant?Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think readers who thinks WP has credibility are much bothered. People will on occasion share a joke on a factoryfloor. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I like chips in brown gravy. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Well that's fringe-something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• GreenMeansGo, I actually do think they serve a purpose. They create a degree of good-humoured engagement that centres on the noticeboard and keeps it "sticky". As long as the content is plausibly related to content, e.g. can be read as a "heads up" to some new craziness out there and a prompt to check articles on your watchlist for emergence, I think there's not only no harm but a positive benefit.

  A board that has a relentless grinding focus on in-progress disputes is going to become a bitter and potentially toxic place.

  Just as long as it's not excessive, I really don't see any problem. Guy (help!) 00:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon, you can't argue with the pictures, mate. They got us bang to rights on this one. Guy (help!) 00:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

From Welcome to the fringe theories noticeboard at the top of this page:

"This page is for discussing possible fringe theories. Post here to seek advice on whether a particular topic is fringe or mainstream, or whether undue weight is being given to fringe theories."

"Discussions related to fringe theories may also be posted here, with an emphasis on material that can be useful for creating new articles or improving existing articles that relate to fringe theories."

95% of my contributions have an emphasis on material that can be useful for creating new articles or improving existing articles. If you want to outlaw the occasional lighthearted post about silly fringe theories, post an RfC and see if the community want to change the rules. Until you get consensus, your complaints are more disruptive than what you are complaining about. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

There no RfC needed to make NOTFORUM into a policy; it has been policy for a long time. GMG 17:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

What part of

This page is for discussing possible fringe theories. Discussions related to fringe theories may also be posted here

are you having trouble understanding?

NOTFORUM talks about user talk pages, article talk pages, and articles. It says nothing about noticeboards, which are allowed to set their own rules within reasonable limits. Feel free to report me at WP:ANI if you believe that you can make a case for me violating a policy or guideline. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I have no desire to report you to ANI. We've worked on and off together over quite a few years. I respect your contributions, I only wish you would keep them on-topic. GMG 01:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate that, but I am not willing to stop posting an occasional "Fringe Theory of The Month" bit of fun. Some here have stated that they appreciate a bit of lighthearted humor every once in a while. The last one I posted was in September and the one before that was in May. Responding to your desire to stay on topic, I promise to keep them few and far between. Perhaps you and Slatersteven could just ignore them as long as they only happen occasionally? BTW, here is my all time favorite: --Guy Macon (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Is there some reason to think GMG was only talking about FToTM? I would assume they are referring to all posts that don't seem to really relate to concerns over an article or a particular article. I see a post right above about #New flat earth site which seems to be in a very similar vein and I'm fairly sure I've seen quite a few of these posts by someone, I think often you, fairly regularly (see also my comment below). Nil Einne (talk) 05:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• Meh... There is always the argument that these posts are intended as a precautionary warning (alerting editors to be on the lookout, in case the theories end up being mentioned in articles) as opposed to a reactionary complaint (alerting editors to the fact that they have already been mentioned). If one takes this attitude, then I would say they are appropriate. If they give us a chuckle in the process, I’m not disturbed. Just saying. Blueboar (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• Guy Macon and I sometimes fight, but we sometimes get along. In the cases of these occasional posts, I have found that they have occasionally helped me to improve content in articlespace. If that had never happened, I might have sympathy with the off-topic naysayers. But since it has, I think it's WP:HARMLESS to let this continue. Go complain somewhere else. jps (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• FWIW, I occasionally check out this noticeboard. One of the thing that discourages me from doing so, is that I don't particularly like what I see here. By no means do I suggest me not checking it out is a loss, but I do wonder if others may feel the same and so this sort of stuff is actually harming the noticeboard.

  Of all the noticeboards I sometimes check out, this seems to be the only one that welcomes so many IMO offtopic posts. I personally consider any post which doesn't directly relate to suggestions of improving (including protecting) an article to be off-topic. By which I mean, if you open a discussion, because you genuinely feel there is some risk that nonsense has been, or will be added to an article, then fine. Likewise if you feel that we need to add something to some article. If you just found something which you feel is funny and want to share it then yes it is offtopic in my opinion. I find it particularly funny since the RD, not a noticeboard, also gets a lot of criticism for this sort of thing but it seems to be well tolerated here.

  I'm all for criticising and mocking pseudoscience and other such nonsense in the appropriate place. But wikipedia is almost never the place for personal mocking, and criticism should mostly only arise when it directly related to an article. I'm not suggesting people never be allowed to do so, IMO it's fine when it arises organically in a discussion one something on-topic. Likewise I'm all for allowing people reasonable leeway in personal discussions i.e. on their own talk pages. And I don't know what sort of stuff goes on in Wikiprojects, maybe it's quite common there. Since such projects have far more of a community building aspect than noticeboards do, IMO it's far more tolerable there again within limits. (If what I've seen in the article rescue squad is any indication, maybe they go way overboard in ignoring wikipedia norms.) But this isn't supposed to be a wikiproject, in fact people from here have just pointed out, correctly, in WPP that it isn't. So none of these leeway considerations arise.

  I'm particularly concerned with the way many of these discussions are troubling from a WP:BLP standpoint. While they don't generally mention the person involved, often they do seem to focus on the rambling "theories" of one person. Again there are plenty of places where mocking such people is fine, just that wikipedia isn't generally one of them. Rationalwiki is one place where it is welcome, which I sometimes (admittedly not much recently) check out precisely for that reason.

  Besides that, and one of the other key reasons for my earlier point about not checking this board. While this is not so much of a problem now, one time when I visited it looked like maybe 1/5 of the posts here were this sort of offtopic stuff with some discussion. I don't know the frequency of such posts, I can't imagine it's really that high so to some extent it was also likely a bad time for the board. Anyway there were a bunch of ontopic posts most of which seem to have been ignored. Again not really much of a problem at the moment.

  And "seem" because the lack of replies doesn't mean that nothing happened. It's easily possible that editors here edited the article or left comments on the talk page or whatever without mentioning it here which is mostly a good thing. (I did check out 2 or 3 and I think maybe 1 had something happened, but wasn't intending to analyse.) I check out WP:BLP/N a lot recently after a long time where my involvement mostly ceased and one of the changes from when I was last active which I'm now also very guilty of is there's way too much discussion on the noticeboard meaning split and confusing discussions. In other words, I recognise and agree that the primary purpose of the noticeboard should be to alert editors to something and there is often no need for much discussion in the board itself unless it affects multiple articles and it's felt it's a decent place to centralise it. If this noticeboard is still mostly doing that, it's a good thing.

  So to some extent, this is separate from the off-topic concerns, in fact I recall some somewhat recent discussion where this arose i.e. the lack of any follow up on the board (don't recall which board) left an editor thinking it was useless. One thing separate from the offtopic concerns, which would help would be a brief comment here, either when the issue seems to be resolved or if you're working on it. Doesn't have to be everyone, but if at least one editor comments then you don't get the impression that posting here is probably useless.

  But IMO the offtopic posts do come into play. I'm not suggesting that these offtopic posts are distracting editors here from actually working on the issues. But when you visit a board and a resonable percentage of it seems to me just people making fun about some pseudoscience, i.e. something that has nothing really to do with improving wikipedia and many of the posts which do have to do with improving wikipedia seem to have been ignored, it's easy to come to the conclusion that the board has completely lost sight of it's purpose and it's not something you want to use or check out.

  IMO this also feeds into the perception that this board, it's participants, and the topic area gets special treatment since as I said, this doesn't really arise in any other noticeboard that I've noticed. I'm not so much concerned about those who are extremely into pseudoscience since they're a lost cause but those who are more neutral or even somewhat opposed to pseudoscience who see this board and go WTF?

  Note that I'm opposed to banning posts like these since that will do more harm than good. Both because bans create a lot of confusion in enforcement and also because I'm not so much concerned if this was really only happening once in a blue moon. I am only suggesting that editors consider whether they should change how they operate. And I accept that some editors have directly improved articles as a result of these off-topic posts. IMO, if editors really want to continue this stuff at the current frequency, it would be better if this happens somewhere other than this notice board, perhaps some wikiproject. In case it's not clear, I've had these feeling for a few months now, I've never bothered to mention them since I doubted there would actually be any useful result but since the issue came up I guess I might as well.

  Nil Einne (talk) 06:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with Nil.

At best posts like these are just imagining potential bad wikipedia edits, which I don't think is very productive considering the myriad possibilities for poor edits. At worst, they're mocking people for sport, which is not what this noticeboard is supposed to be for. ApLundell (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I also find this quite disturbing as it looks like internal socialization and happy talk by an in-group united against an out-group. Just replace pseudoscience with Hindu religion or philosophy or social science or economics or communism or any other subject with lots of weird and strange beliefs. Dmcq (talk) 13:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Quebec Coalition for Homeopathy

Could someone more familiar with the topic please review the sources in Quebec Coalition for Homeopathy. Thanks, — Insertcleverphrasehere _{(click me!)} 01:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere:, I'm not sure what the concern is. From what I can tell, a prominent Canadian politician has allowed himself to become a shill for quackery and is being called out on it. The sources in the article, both English and French, are definitely or probably WP:RS and are factually reporting on this development. I don't see any indication either in the sources or the article that there's any kind of excusing of homeopathy, just the opposite in many cases, in fact. Is that what you're are looking for? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Eggishorn, Yes thanks very much. I was limited on time when I came across it in the new pages feed and didn't have the time to look into the sources thoroughly. It seemed very much like it could go one of two ways, and at least for me, would require a bit of sleuthing to sort out. So thanks for helping look into it. — Insertcleverphrasehere _{(click me!)} 07:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere:, no problem. Glad to help. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

A Heilpraktiker

... is a state endorsed quack in Germany. We have an article (a stub) that was recently replaced by a translation of the german wiki article. I have twice now reverted to the stub, because I feel that the stub is better than the translation, which is far far away from our P&G. Could somebody take a look and tell me if I'm being over critical? Thanks. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 18:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

On one hand, there's some decent information in the translation, but on the other hand, the way that info was written was a bit too fringe.

I guess the answer to your question is "yes", but you have good reason to be. 2604:6000:FFC0:54:5D97:40B6:3599:6C13 (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• For reference, the translated article can be found at this diff. jps (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  I would hesitate to call that version a translation. The German article is far better than the English stub, and more neutral too. It would be a lot of work, and I don't want to take it on at the moment, but a proper translation would be a significant improvement. Vexations (talk) 03:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Buck Nelson

Buck Nelson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I started to clean up this article on mobile but quickly moved to a desktop after seeing how much nonsense there is. But frankly looking at the sources I'm not sure if there's any point. Should we just send it to AfD? Nil Einne (talk) 11:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd say so. There doesn't seem to be enough to build an article upon. XOR'easter (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I have a soft spot for this story as it is such a good example of how the ufology community operates. Unfortunately, there are only three citations to the book! . It may not be that important. Can we perhaps discuss it on George Adamski's page? jps (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

These older stories are fun because in hindsight they make it very clear how much ufology is based on the science fiction of the time. They seem so quaint nowadays.

I wish there was an article that marginal ufology stories like this could be merged to. "List of Contactee Stories" or something like that. Sadly, I think That'd be bordering on creating a list just for the sake of saving 'interesting' content. ApLundell (talk) 03:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't do before, before posting here wondering if anyone had info making it unnecessary. Now that I've had a quick look I did find , I guess Springfield News-Leader is some local paper although I expect if that's our standard we would have way more than our list at Contactee#List of contactees. Still considering this fellow organised his own annual "conventions"/meetings for a time, and allegedly had mile long lines to his home (not an RS), and his name seems to come up in RS and non RS sceptical sources it sounds like he is one of the more significant claimed contactees. I somewhat agree simply covering these base stories is mostly harmless even though I don't think we should unless they've also been covered in decent RS, probably one of the reason these articles seem to have survived. Still a risk if we just leave them is they are probably also magnets for nonsense with the caveat I expect that those where this happens most are also those cases where there's a stronger case to keep. E.g. Dana Howard (contactee) doesn't look that much better but seem to have avoided such additions. (It also survived an AFD.) But I'm now leaning to holding off on an AFD personally with just paring it down and tagging, with no prejudice to anyone who wants to AFD. Nil Einne (talk) 04:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Society for American Archaeology papers discussing pseudoarchaeology including Graham Hancock

The long way:

Then go to The SAA Archaeological Record Table of Contents, click on "Digital Edition" in "Number 5, November Digital Edition."

They make in quite complicated. Or you can download it from:!

He's discussed in:

Y Not a Pacific Migration? Misunderstandings of Genetics inService to Pseudoscience by Jennifer A. Raff

The Cerutti Mastodon, Professional Skepticism, and the Public Carl Feagans

Whitewashing American Prehistory Jason Colavito

The Mysterious Origins of Fringe 21 John W. Hoopes

America Before as a Paranormal Charter 26 Jeb J. Card

“I Don’t Believe, I Know”: The Faith of Modern Pseudoarchaeology David S. Anderson

Doug Weller talk 14:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

2 UFO related sites to add to your watchlists if you don't have them already

Paul Hellyer (he was Canada's Defense Minister - scary) and To the Stars (company). Doug Weller talk 09:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence

More eyes welcomed on recent edits to Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence, per Talk:Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence - David Gerard (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe that Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence is classified as a fringe theory. Is your desire to get it classified as a fringe theory? If so I recommend starting a section on the talk page for it about that. If there is a more appropriate course of action, please let me know where I can read about it! Micah Zoltu (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

What it advocates literally is, by any reasonable definition. It makes speculative medical claims that established scientists and doctors consider dubious, these claims are put forward by a founder without expertise in the area, it publishes a pseudojournal ... I think you really, really need to read up on WP:FRINGE and the burden of proof, and the arbitration case about pseudoscience - David Gerard (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• After some research, I learned that not all pages that are fringe are tagged as fringe, and the process for classifying something as fringe is (more or less) just an editor asserting it as fringe. Originally, I thought articles had to be explicitly included in a "list" of fringe sources to be classified as fringe. In this case, I agree with the assertion that it qualifies as fringe, and it looks like you have since added it to the list and marked the talk page, which is very helpful for new users like myself! Micah Zoltu (talk) 09:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

It's either delusion or fraud, but certainly fringe. Guy (help!) 01:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE issue at Gradeshnitsa tablets - claim that they are similar to Egyptian script and the earliest evidence of written language

please take a look at the edit summaries. It's a new editor and I've reverted twice and am off to bed soon. Doug Weller talk 21:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

ALthough he's now been reverted by 3 editors, it now reads:

" Steven Fischer has written that "the current opinion is that these earliest Balkan symbols appear to comprise a decorative or emblematic inventory with no immediate relation to articulate speech." That is, they are neither logographs (whole-word signs depicting one object to be spoken aloud) nor phonographs (signs holding a purely phonetic or sound value)."

However, that the opinion is by no means shared by the scientific community as a whole. A much more thorough study of the tablets by Marco Merlini, Director of the Institute of Archaeomythology (Sebastopol, USA) and General Director of the Prehistory Knowledge Project (Roma, Italy) has stated that the tablets are clear evidence of written language in hieroglyphic script form not dissimilar from the later Egyptian script dating back to 3400-3200 BC. . This would, in fact, make the tablets the earliest evidence of written language in the world predating the Sumerian cuneiform script, considered the earliest form of writing."

I still believe that this view is that of such a small minority as to fail WP:UNDUE. As written it clearly fails NPOV even without that. Doug Weller talk 16:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Have you tried the old trick of swapping the two views around (editing the article so it says: Merlini says X, but Fischer says Y)... this often is a good test to see if someone is pushing a fringe view beyond what is DUE. Blueboar (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

References

1. Fischer, Steven Roger (2003). History of Writing. Reaktion Books. p. 24. ISBN 9781861891679. Retrieved 28 February 2015.
2. Merlini, Marco (2006). ACTA TERRAE SEPTEMCASTRENSIS V ISSN 1583-1817 - The Gradešnica Script Revisited. SIBIU. p. 25. Retrieved 28 November 2019.

Paramilitary related deletion discussion

Pro-paramilitary advocacy I think could well fall under WP:FRINGE, especially when the groups are considered to be terrorist organisations... but there is a degree of controversy as some people view these groups as freedom fighters and not terrorists. Thus this deletion discussion might be of interest to people here: wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Queerly_Bohemian/Userboxes/FreedomFighters.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Colette of Corbie

Should legendary miracles be described as facts in that article? My deletion was reverted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we have a decent way of handling this issue in lives of the saints articles. A lot of them suffer from this "plain account" issue. Wording like "...during her life, Saint Jane Doe received the stigmata, levitated in divine ecstasy, and exorcised several demons from cursed children. After her death, five dozen miraculous cures were reported to have happened through her intercession..." abounds, and many editors see this is neutral although I think it's not. We don't need to hit readers over the head with attribution, "claim" language, and skeptical rejoinders, but neither should we be breathlessly and uncritically reproducing hagiographical material in Misplaced Pages's voice. jps (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I see that one of the editors of that page has been here recently on another topic. I am a bit swamped at the moment but I encourage someone to take a look at all of that user's contributions. Edits like this are especially concerning. Do we need an ANI case here? Like I said, I don't have the time at the moment. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Somatic psychology

Somatic psychology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is this a thing?

jps (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

See also: Body psychotherapy. jps (talk) 01:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

"Reflections on Elsa Gindler and her influence on Wilhelm Reich and body psychotherapy" Seriously? THAT Wilhelm Reich? Surely this has to be fringe. Guy (help!) 13:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

BEMER therapy

• BEMER therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Previously discussed at this noticeboard:

Some recent activity here could use more eyes. (Add: digging around, it seems that BEMER Group distributes these products through a MLM scheme but, as so often, its hard to find sources confirming the MLM status. Anybody know more?) Alexbrn (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/BEMER therapy. jps (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

"The Indian Medical Association regards Siddha medicine as quackery".

I hear the pitter-patter of webbed feet. See Talk:Siddha medicine. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Fascinating, India has a dedicated ministry of quackery (excluding the yoga part). --mfb (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh, yoga can be quackery too! jps (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

World Health Organization

It appears that the World Health Organization has been hijacked by Quacks, but our article appears to be silent on the matter. See:

• Why Chinese medicine is heading for clinics around the world: For the first time, the World Health Organization will recognize traditional medicine in its influential global medical compendium.
• World Health Organization Endorses Quackery
• The World Health Organization: Integrating quackery into the ICD-11

I am good at editing engineering articles, but I really suck at editing anything having to do with health or medicine. Who here is willing to step up to the plate and add an appropriate section to the WHO page (not to be confused with The Who page...) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it is probably best to add this to the "controversies" section. jps (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Cryptozoologists and fiction, and poor sourcing, at cryptozoology

Hey, folks, recently over at cryptozoology a user has been promoting a rather nuclear notion of cryptozoology as some kind of literary genre by cobbling together various sources that mention cryptozoology, but nowhere explicitly even discuss cryptozoologists in fiction. Here's the edit they're edit-warring to estate: .

While we could use a "cryptozoology in fiction" section about how cryptozoologists are portrayed in, say, novels with a source that explicitly discusses this topic, the user appears to be attempting to hijack the article to represent her or his own theories by way of classic WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. None of the sources the user has provided seem to discuss cryptozoology in fiction at all, Talk:Cryptozoology#Cryptids_in_fiction as I discuss extensively here. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Cryptid Gambo (carcass) at AfD

I thought I remembered there having been an RfC or something about stand-alone articles for cryptids, but maybe I imagined it. Editors familiar with WP:NFRINGE may be interested in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gambo (carcass). – Levivich 03:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Vaccine hesitancy or ... vaccine skepticism?

At Talk:Vaccine hesitancy#Title there is a discussion about the title of the article, and on questions of neutrality, that fringe-savvy editors may be interested in. Alexbrn (talk) 07:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Requesting restoration: Draft:Melania Trump replacement theory

Existence of the conspiracy theory that Melania Trump has left or been disposed of and replaced with a double clearly not a "blatant hoax" as it is well reported in reliable sources. For example: South China Morning Post, "‘Fake Melania’ conspiracy theory about body double is ‘deranged’, says Donald Trump"; Esquire, "The 'Fake Melania' Conspiracy Theory is Back"; several others were in the draft. Reality of theory itself is irrelevant to whether theory exists.

@RHaworth and Govvy: Hyperbolick (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• More sources: Evening Standard, "Has Melania Trump been replaced by a robot? Internet awash with wild rumours FLOTUS has 'body double'"; CNN, "White House: Melania body double a non-story"; Fox News, "Does Melania Trump have a body double?". Hyperbolick (talk) 14:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Hyperbolick: I hardly consider this news worthy let alone wikipedia worthy, there is a lot of tabloid garbage out there, maybe you should work on something more constructive to the wikipedia project? Govvy (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Hardly newsworthy? Go tell all those news outlets they were mistaken in reporting then, have them retract their reports. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The OP considers the Mirror a reliable source. This is concerning. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 14:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The CNN says a non-story in its title, that must tell you something straight off, most sources you have used are tabloid! And I consider The Mirror a rather unreliable source. Govvy (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

No I do not. Removed. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The draft is clearly not a hoax. Whether it's notable or not is another issue, but that's what MFD is for, not CSD. Guettarda (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

For the benefit of non-admins, the opening line of the deleted draft:

Melania Trump replacement theory is a conspiracy theory that First Lady of the United States Melania Trump was replaced by a body double, and that the "real" Melania is either dead or gone from public life.

It doesn't purport to be something it's not. Guettarda (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• I saw "possibilities: clone, robot, reptilian" and decided it was patent nonsense. But I have restored it. Govvy, please allow it to be reviewed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay... I really thought it was a silly article which feeds in to false news reporting and this culture of untruths, I just don't think this type of stuff should be on wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 15:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Can’t control whether the media reports as newsworthy what others call nonsense. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

yeah. Sadly, this may be slightly noteworthy as a conspiracy theory. Not sure I'd put the draft live right now, but it's obviously working from a reality-based viewpoint - David Gerard (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

David Gerard, Looking at it, I would say it is not notable bollocks. Guy (help!) 00:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

So not notable it's been covered by CNN, Esquire, SCMP, Fox, The Guardian. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

It's pretty borderline I think, but there's nothing wrong with doing a draft at this stage. Worst case, it'll be worth a rescue to RationalWiki ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 07:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• The purpose of Misplaced Pages is not to record every occurrence in human history. A lot of nonsense is covered by the media, because their purpose is to draw attention for advertisers. That doesn't make everything they publish notable (or even interesting, IMO). Tom Reedy (talk) 05:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution