Misplaced Pages

:Fringe theories/Noticeboard - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 08:00, 11 July 2020 (Archiving 8 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 72) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 08:00, 11 July 2020 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 8 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 72) (bot)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) "WP:FTN" redirects here. For nominations of featured topics, see Misplaced Pages:Featured topic candidates.
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
    ShortcutsBefore posting, make sure you understand this short summary of relevant policies and advice and particularly the guideline on treating fringe theories. Also, check the archives for similar discussions.

    We can help determine whether the topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately and impartially. Our purpose is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but to describe them properly. Never present fringe theories as fact.

    If you mention specific editors, you should notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so.
    Deploy {{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion.
    Please also notify any relevant Wikiprojects to encourage an increased visibility for the discussion.

    Search this noticeboard & archives

    Lowercase sigmabot III will archive sections older than 20 days


    Additional notes:

    To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    Article alerts


    Did you know

    Articles for deletion

    Categories for discussion

    Good article nominees

    Good article reassessments

    Requests for comments

    Peer reviews

    Requested moves

    Articles to be merged

    Archiving icon
    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.


    Bates method

    Past discussions on Bates method:

    I believe Misplaced Pages and Belteshazzar (talk · contribs) would be better off if Belteshazzar were banned from the topic. I wanted to some eyes on the article and other viewpoints on Belteshazzar's behavior before going to ArbEnf.

    Belteshazzar started a discussion here, Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_69#Bates_method_sources.

    @Jmc: has attempted to get Belteshazzar to discuss edits before making changes, to little or no effect.

    My recent attempts to work with Belteshazzar (User_talk:Belteshazzar#May_2020, User_talk:Belteshazzar#Edit-warring, and the current article talk page) have left me with the conclusion that Belteshazzar is unable to work cooperatively with others on this subject. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

    The current issue concerns listing well-known (enough to have their own biographical articles on Misplaced Pages) proponents of the Bates method in the Infobox's list of proponents. Seems pretty obvious that they should be listed there, unless it's someone like Daniel A. Poling, whose public support was perhaps fleeting. Belteshazzar (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
    E/C I saw IRWolfie on that trip down memory lane. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 20:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

    @JzG: previously commentd Belteshazzar, the primary issue is your tendentious editing at the Bates Method article. I am minded to topic-ban or partial block here. What do others think? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

    My biggest shortcoming involved the article's first sentence. "The Bates method is an ineffective alternative therapy aimed at improving eyesight" seemed not to quite reflect decent sources which indicate that such training does sometimes result in measurable improvement, albeit which is usually temporary and not due to any change in refraction. For example, by Elwin Marg, and from The College of Optometrists. I tried several different alternatives, first changing "ineffective" and then qualifying it somewhat. I now see that I went on too long with that, and the opening sentence is not likely to change.

    Other than that, I think my contributions to the article have been positive. I have fixed some disjointedness, and removed redundancy and excess verbiage. I think the section on "Possible reasons for claimed improvements" has now been trimmed too thin and neglects the biggest reasons for claimed improvements, but if consensus disagrees, that is that.

    The most recent issue concerns the proponents listed in the Infobox. If an author or practitioner has strongly supported the Bates method and is notable enough to have a biographical article in Misplaced Pages, that person would seem to belong on any list of proponents. I tried to discuss this, and got no clear explanation for the removal. My last edit was probably too quick, but at least provided an explanation in the edit summary after my previous lack of an edit summary was noted. Belteshazzar (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

    I believe the Infobox proponents list issue has been resolved. It turns out that many instances of that template don't include subsequent or even any proponents. Perhaps this could be prominently noted in the template somehow to save others the trouble. Belteshazzar (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    I don't think that Eliot source contradicts the idea that the Bates method is "ineffective". It attributes the alleged improvement to placebo effect and "blur adaptation".
    Improvements from placebo effect don't count as an effective treatment, and, as I understand it, "blur adaptation" is not actually a result of the Bates method, it's simply a thing that happens if you don't wear your glasses.
    (I guess you could argue that "don't wear your glasses" is part of the Bates method, but if that's the only part of the method that provides a benefit, it's a real stretch to say the Bates Method is an effective innovation.) ApLundell (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    And just so we're clear, The "benefit" we're talking about is this : Your vision will still be blurry, but you'll kinda get used to functioning with blurry vision.
    Stripped of its quackery, that's all that's left of the Bates Method.
    "Ineffective" is being kind. Changing that to "Ineffective, discredited, and dangerous" would be an improvement to the lead.
    ApLundell (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    While we're at it, the article William_Bates_(physician) is also rather kind, saying only that "efficacy of the method is questionable".
    ApLundell (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    I acknowledged that the first sentence of Bates method likely won't change and I went on too long with that. But since you made these points, let me point to the other source I mentioned, by Elwin Marg. Some people will attack the date, but if "flashes of clear vision" happened then, presumably they can still happen now. Marg indicated that these flashes did not simply happen randomly, and were in fact associated with Bates training. Discussion of such flashes has been removed from the "Possible reasons for claimed improvements" section, wrongly in my opinion. Belteshazzar (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    A seventy year old monograph relaying a handful of anecdotes and lamenting that they couldn't be properly studied is perhaps not a rock solid source.
    I mean, if the Bates Method had been definitively proven back in 1952, the age of the studies wouldn't be an issue. People knew eyeballs back then. But the conclusion of this monograph is simply that the method "can not be dismissed entirely". That'd be too weak to use as a source in a medical article if it was published last month, and the fact that it's the most flattering thing published about the Bates Method in the last seventy years is a lot more damning than you seem to understand. ApLundell (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    It was not merely anecdotes, as pages 11-15 indicate that subjects were actually observed while having such flashes. I was simply saying that this merits some mention in Bates method#Possible reasons for claimed improvements. It could also be argued that "ineffective" should be changed or qualified in part because of this, but that is clearly not going to happen. Belteshazzar (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    If "observing subjects" is all you do, that is called a case report, a type of anecdotal evidence. So, yes, "a handful of anecdotes" is right. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
    Nevertheless, this phenomenon pretty clearly is a big reason for claimed improvements. Belteshazzar (talk) 09:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
    There no way any of these transient side effects can be labelled "improvements". Alexbrn (talk) 10:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
    I said claimed improvements. There is a section of the article titled "Possible reasons for claimed improvements" which the aforementioned phenomenon is currently excluded from. Belteshazzar (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

    Edits by Belteshazzar

    @Jmc:, @Alexbrn:, @Hob Gadling:, @ApLundell:

    I am concerned about Belteshazzar's recent edits which I do not believe are good-faith based. This user originally joined Misplaced Pages to promote the Bates Method, he didn't get his way and now he has does a 360 degree turn and is doing the complete opposite. But I believe this is a form of WP:DISRUPT and WP:POINT.

    We all agree the Bates method is discredited but adding "which Huxley wrongly claimed improved his eyesight" is bizarre , . He is now also calling Corbett a "charlatan" which is not sourced . He is now doing that on multiple articles , . This is problematic editing which some may consider vandalism.

    This user is now adding Huxley's non-fiction book The Art of Seeing to Fiction lists . I do not believe these are good faith edits.

    If someone wants to take this to the correct avenue I would support a topic ban for this user. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

    I have reverted some of his edits. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
    This does indeed savour of their being WP:NOTHERE. Alexbrn (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
    Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. El_C 12:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
    El C, and I suggest this is the last chance saloon now. The combination of single-purpose account and disruptive editing is not a good one. Guy (help!) 12:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
    Guy,  Already done. I've already specified in the block notice and log that this is a "last chance block." El_C 12:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
    El C, top job, thanks. Guy (help!) 13:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
    I'm glad to see this block finally in place following remarkable forbearance shown by admins. The continual stream, not to say flood, of edits has been of a staggeringly bizarre character. -- Jmc (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

    This user originally joined Misplaced Pages to promote the Bates Method. I was never trying to promote the Bates method. I recently asked an optometrist for help, which I obviously wouldn't do if I were trying to promote it. Belteshazzar (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

    Tom Van Flandern

    Tom Van Flandern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    This article has unduly weighted text and poor sourcing. If someone with an interest in fringe physics from more than a decade ago would like to help clean it up, that would be appreciated.

    jps (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

    Note: I restored the new version () after it was undone () by user StarHOG (talk · contribs). Also pinging ජපස (talk · contribs) and PaleoNeonate (talk · contribs). User StarHOG immediately reverted my undo () - DVdm (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
    Kinda hard to have a discussion when someone just says that "each edit deserves discussion". Uh, what do you want to discuss? jps (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
    Me, nothing in particular. AFAIAC your trimming operation looked good, and was just fine. User StarHOG might want to discuss. - DVdm (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

    Relatedly, I removed some fringe physics claims from our biographical article of Xin-She_Yang: jps (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

    It continues! jps (talk) 23:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
    With comparisons to Newton, no less! jps (talk) 12:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

    It was published in Nature! No. It wasn't. There was an observation that was subsequently shown to be erroneous published in Nature. Van Flandern and Yang were not published in Nature. A little help, please? This looks to me like a potential WP:SOAP issue. jps (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

    David Wynn Miller or as he writes his name, "“Judge: David-Wynn: Miller"

    I'm not at all sure that these changes are right.

    Miller bases his ideas on his own language, eg "CORRECTION-CLAIMS of the FICTIONAL-ADVERB-VERB-USAGE with an OPERATIONAL-METHODS of the FICTIONAL-MODIFICATION-PARSE-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR.(8500-YEARS of the SYNTAX-GRAMMAR-MODIFICATIONS with every LANGUAGE)". I've found a book that discusses his language. He is no longer described as a tool and die maker although Politico describes him that way as does the Sydney Morning Herald.

    The article doesn't mention his "postal court" which is described in the American Bar Association journal.

    Too busy today I think to work on it myself, if no one else is interested I'll try over the weekend. Doug Weller talk 11:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

    Doug Weller, ooh, what fun! I think you might call down a flock of howler monkeys if you try to add too much reality to that article though. Guy (help!) 17:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
    How far do they have to travel?Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
    Slatersteven, don't know, but it takes a while because they refuse to travel internationally in case they are subject to admiralty law. Guy (help!) 13:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
    Ha. He writes like a reincarnation of Robert McElwaine, for those of you old enough to remember usenet. :) ~Anachronist (talk) 05:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

    Matt Ridley

    Matt Ridley (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

    Ridley says that increasing CO2 will do more good than harm. Is that fringe or not? --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

    Definitely fringe. XOR'easter (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
    Hob Gadling, I presume the question was rhetorical? Guy (help!) 13:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
    Since I asked it here, yes. But on Talk:Matt Ridley, someone told me, "You have presented nothing to show that's a fringe statement", so I wanted to show him it's just a quirky idea of mine. It seems to have worked, thanks to User:ජපස. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
    Jordan Peterson (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
    Tucker Carlson (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
    More of the same. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

    Terje Gerotti Simonsen

    BLP of a Norwegian parapsychologist philosopher and author of a book. Notable? Article created and curated by a single WP:SPA. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

    UNsure, as I have no idea about those sources, but I think an AFD might be a good idea.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

    Note the creator of the article has now admitted a COI.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

    I have AFD'd it, but given the massive COI wonder if CSD might be better.Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

    Given only two possible indy RS sources, they're not quite enough to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC. Unless other indy RS sources arise, I'd say it's WP:TOOSOON for this bio. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
    Please note that there are two books. And that there are independent reviews, and also listing in a reasearch bibliography in another field of his work. Bw --Orland (talk) 10:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

    Theory of Phoenician discovery of the Americas

    See Talk:Theory of Phoenician discovery of the Americas#Recent research updates. I wonder if they plan to use this Secrets of Ancient America Archaeoastronomy and the Legacy of the Phoenicians, Celts, and Other Forgotten Explorers. The publisher page on him says he has published in Ancient America, a racist journal of pseudohistory. It's also published by Bear and Company, a fringe publisher. The book expands " upon the work of well-known diffusionists such as Barry Fell and Gunnar Thompson". Very disappointing, just shows that not all publishers get an automatic pass. Doug Weller talk 14:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

    Nope, they've already edited and haven't use it. I'll bet the DNA stuff is from Donald Panther-Yates of DNAConsultants. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Donald Yates and this old discussion on this board. Doug Weller talk 14:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

    CO2 Coalition

    This page needs to be improved. The lead fails to clarify that they engage in climate change denial. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

    Daoist semi-precious books

    Jade Books in Heaven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I know nothing about the Jade Books in Heaven but when I see wording like "Numinous book of the Nine Heavens of Cavernous Moisture of the Treasure Kalpa" without sufficient (any) context it may as well be fringe. Having read the article, I am none the wiser on what this stuff means, or is supposed to mean. The section ""Heaven"-related books composed of other semi-precious stones" is dubious at best. Labelled with "insufficient context" since 2015. The short-description gives the best clue, but I don't know how accurate it is. GPinkerton (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

    Are two PhD dissertations really reliable sources here? You'd think whatever references the dissertations used would be better... JoelleJay (talk) 00:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

    The Ancient Greeks visited Hawaii?

    I've never run across this one before, but regulars here might be interested to keep an eye out for some fringe ideas that got added to Hawaii (island) with these edits (since reverted), and requested at Hawaii with this edit request (since declined). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

    Victor Davis Hanson's coronavirus misinformation

    There is a dispute on the Victor Davis Hanson page about how to characterize Hanson's theory that the coronavirus spread to the US in the fall of 2019. Should it be described as "he pushed an unsubstantiated theory" or "he suggested a hypothesis... The hypothesis was widely shared but shown to be incorrect via genetic analysis"? RS content about Hanson's theory:

    Hanson is not a scientist and has no medical expertise. The theory he proposed was baseless per all experts. In my view, the wording "he suggested a hypothesis... shown to be incorrect via genetic analysis" gives readers the misleading impression that he's a scientist, that he had well-founded reasons for his theory and that the scientific community subjected his hypothesis to a test and only then found it to be false. "Pushed an unsubstantiated theory" gets to the gist of it (there was no scientific basis for the theory) and does not misleadingly suggest to readers he was involved in a scientific exchange of ideas. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

    This isn't a question of FRINGE, and if this question is going to be raised anywhere it should have been raised at BLPN. No one is disputing that the theory/hypothesis was proven wrong and there appears to be no evidence that Hanson pushed after the scientific community weighed in. Thus the question is one of WEIGHT in the BLP article and IMPARTIAL tone. Both questions are better answered at BLPN vs here. Springee (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
    I'm not sure why this wouldn't be a question of WP:FRINGE, but wherever it's discussed, I'd say that both "theory" and "hypothesis" are unsuitable words here. Of the two suggestions, the former is preferable, but wording like "he pushed an unsubstantiated claim" would be better still. XOR'easter (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
    Two reasons. First, no one, including Hanson has said the science is wrong and this hypothesis is correct. In the article where he mentions the idea ] he doesn't take credit for it and hardly "pushes" it. The hypothesis was presented in the 23rd of 27 paragraphs in the article. Hanson makes it clear this is a "less-mentioned hypothesis" and goes on to say it couldn't be proven until genetic testing was completed. When that testing was completed it seems he accepted it (no sources say he has disputed findings or medical opinions against it) and that was that. We have no evidence he disputed the testing nor pushed the theory beyond mentioning it in a column. When researchers said the evidence doesn't support the theory we have nothing that suggests Hanson didn't accept that the theory was wrong. So we have a possible theory from early in the pandemic that was shown to be wrong and that was that. That other sources might have pushed it is not something of Hanson's doing. Basically the FRINGE part isn't something that is being debated. Conversely, if/how the material should be presented in a BLP is in question. Since those are BLP questions the appropriate place for this discussion is there not here. Comments like "pushed an unsubstantiated claim" are non-neutral and should not end up in a BLP. Springee (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
    Nonsense. An unsubstantiated claim is exactly what it was. Everybody who knows the tiniest bit of science and knows how to check stuff knew that from the beginning. That is almost the definition of fringe: ideas that can easily be seen to be wrong by experts or even knowledgeable laymen.
    And yes, this needs to be posted here, because if it is posted at BLPN only, a consensus will form that is not informed by knowledge about science and fringe science, which will have to be overturned later against the resistance of the users from the first consensus with the usual "we were here first" reasoning: "CONSENSUS is policy while FRINGE is a guideline". --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
    Nonsense. This is the noticeboard for fringe theories, not questions of BLP which is what this is. Hob Gadling, are you here due to an unrelated disagreement with me? Springee (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
    Believe it or not, sometimes a question is in one domain as well as another. This one is in both, as anyone familiar with fringe subjects can see.
    I am always here, as you could have seen for yourself if you had looked at threads other than this one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
    Leaving aside the name-calling and aspersions for a second to actually address the sources: "He suggested a hypothesis" can hardly be applied to the actual armchair speculation of: "Something is going on that we haven’t quite found out yet" Neither statement given in the OP, calling it a "theory" or a "hypothesis," can be sustained on either FRINGE or BLP grounds. It was other media personalities that really turned it into a meme. E.g., Rush Limbaugh's quote given in the San Francisco Chronicle of: "I think they’ve immunized themselves." The hallmarks of what defines hypotheses and theories as they are actually used and understood in science are absent from what Hanson actually said, based on the sources offered. I can understand the attempt to trace that meme back to its originator but what seems to have happened is a multiplying telephone game effect: A Stanford study was misinterpreted by Hanson which was further misinterpreted by Limbaugh and others which has been further misinterpreted as it spread through social media. That happens a lot, especially with coronavirus misinformation. Pinning this on Hanson via either "pushed a theory" or "suggested a hypothesis" seems WP:UNDUE, especially since the sources seem to substantiate neither. It is verging into WP:SYNTH territory. A formulation such as "Hanson speculated that herd immunity may be developing naturally but this idea was later proven incorrect" seems to follow the sources better. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
    "May have been developing naturally since the fall of 2019"? The first time I heard about Hanson was here. His idea has been silly from the start, and "later proven incorrect" is too weak. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
    I think Eggishorn is getting more to the root of it. If one reads the original source it's clear that this was presented as a theory including the method that could (and later would) be used to prove it false. It's not clear if Hanson came up with the theory himself or if perhaps a Stanford or other contact suggested the idea. Given that the idea was buried deep in the source article any claims of "pushing" are problematic. Eggishorn is correct that the story seems to have run away from its source and it would be totally improper to peg its extent on Hanson as if he were the one propagating it. Personally I think the whole thing is UNDUE in the Hanson article. As this is a BLP we need to avoid phrasing that suggests some sort of bad faith, reckless, or ignorant intent. Springee (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
    Hanson is not misinterpreting a study. He's just crafting his own theories to explain the findings of one  study, telling a news source that it would be "naïve" to think coronavirus did not appear in the fall in California. He's the source of the misinformation. As the cited WSJ piece makes clear, he sparked the theory. The analogy would be that a study showed that volcano activity increased in the last decade, leading a climate change denier to take that finding and argue that volcano activity is the primary contributor behind climate change. The climate change denier is not misinterpreting the study, he's just spouting off. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
    Where is your evidence for that claim? Such a claim about a BLP subject needs sourcing. Since the WSJ is behind a paywall please quote the relevant passages. Springee (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
    "It is a theory that seems to be spreading as quickly as the virus itself: The new coronavirus is infecting relatively few in California because the state suffered a silent outbreak as far back as the fall, well before official reports indicate it hit the U.S. As a result, the theory goes, many residents are now resistant to the disease. The hypothesis, sparked by an article written for the conservative National Review by a military historian affiliated with Stanford University, went viral in recent weeks." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
    But that doesn't answer the question. First, you didn't actually say which source provided that statement. Second, while we know Hanson talked about the theory in his NR article, where is the proof that he came up with the theory? The way he described it in paragraph 23 of his 27 paragraph article doesn't sound like he meant to suggest it was a work of his own invention. Its abiguous as to where the idea came from. If you are going to claim, "He's just crafting his own theories" then you would need to show that. I agree that it his article appears to be the seed that put the idea into the public light but that doesn't mean Hanson created the seed. These questions are why we need to be very careful and clear when dealing with a BLP subject. Springee (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
    You asked for a quote from the WSJ, and I gave you one. I have no interest in tracing down every single comment made by Hanson to prove that he did what a high-quality RS (the WSJ) said he did (sparked the theory). The Stanford study on prevalence of COVID in California that Eggishorn is referring to did not say anything about COVID popping up in California in the fall of 2019, so Hanson's claims do not stem from that study and are not a misinterpretation of that study. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
    The WSJ quote did not support your claim, "He's just crafting his own theories". The Stanford study could have been the source if, as Eggishorn suggested, Hanson misunderstood what some aspect of the study and drew a conclusion from it. I would note that this source ] doesn't say where Hanson got the idea but it delivers the details in a far less partisan and more BLP compliant way: "Hanson suggested that what doctors were calling an "early flu season" could have been an early spread of the disease. In the absence of testing, many Californians could have had COVID-19 misdiagnosed as "flu" and developed antibody resistance. If so, herd immunity in California might be a reason for the state's lower case numbers." While ultimately saying the theory is was proven wrong they don't suggest it was some totally bogus idea while saying that those who had access to blood test data could say it was wrong based on their evidence. As Eggishorn noted we need to separate where this went from the how big it was (and what was known to him or those he might have talked with) when Hanson suggested it. This returns to the question of DUE in Hanson's BLP article. Springee (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

    The question at issue for this board is whether Hanson is promoting a fringe theory. It's a marginal situation. Here is his defense against the Slate story: . If I am to be charitable in my interpretation of his writing, he is not adverse to claiming that his appreciation for the idea that there was community transmission of the virus in Fall of 2019 could possibly be misplaced. He more than once points out that he is not a scientist. On the other hand, he also takes the "someone has to stand up to these experts" approach that seems all too common in armchair arguments of this sort. Hanson is convinced that because there are political aspects to these questions that he is perfectly justified in arguing that the "science is still not settled" (at least as of April). This is a common conservative ploy in the US because science has become politicized. Hanson is not an anti-intellectual in the style of the creationists, but he is one in the style of global warming deniers. In fact, Hanson is in that camp as well: . For all that, I don't think it is fair to say that Hanson is pushing the theory/speculation/conceit/hypothesis/whatever-the-hell-you-want-to-call-it. What I think he is doing is arguing for entertaining certain extravagant and frankly debunked ideas that others would not entertain precisely because he is skeptical of scientific claims themselves. This is rather different than a pseudoscientist who makes up his or her own ideas and then argues that they are scientific. This is actually closer to a type of conspiracy theory. But how does Misplaced Pages talk about this? I think it mentions the press coverage (if it is deemed relevant) and perhaps links to relevant articles about the politicization of science and leave the deeper analyses to other venues. jps (talk) 01:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

    I think that again leads us down the path were this is a BLPN issue, not a fringe issue. It's not clear the ideas he discussed were debunked at the time of publication or if they were was that information disseminated to the point that he could have/should have known better. He didn't present it as a clear "this is the cause" type claim. It is clear he was saying this is a possibility but for it to be true the genetic testing would have to support it. "The stock price may go up if X, Y and Z happen". I don't think it's fair to suggest he is against science (COVID-19, climate change etc). Rather he is against what politicians do with it. That is often a conservative thing but not a fringe idea thing. In this particular case he was clear about what he was and was not claiming. That others overstated, mis-represented, ran with paragraph 23 should not be used suggest he is against the science or is promoting fringe ideas. There will certainly be people looking back on 2020 trying to decide for either political or honest intellectual reasons what did and didn't work; where we should have pulled harder on the brakes and where we shouldn't have. As a historian he has the credentials to note when people in the past put too much faith in the experts of the time and how that turned into a mistake for them so it's not surprising that he would apply that same thinking to current events. The original Hanson article edit read as if he was behind some sort of Alex Jones level of false information which is the big issue, not if the theory turned out to be wrong or if he pushed it when he shouldn't have. Again, that is why this should have been taken to BLP. Still, if editors are OK with leaving it out of the Hanson article (it was added to the COVID-19 Misinformation article) I think the issue is resolved. Springee (talk) 02:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
    Politicization of science means that criticism of science vs. criticism of what politicians do with science can become a distinction without a difference. It seems to me that this is going on here, especially as in his NR piece he explicitly argues that "arguments from authority are not persuasive" and that "Given the radically changing data, we simply do not know whether any of these hypotheses will stand — hence my original conclusion that California remained a mystery, but an enigma at least deserving consideration of lots of competing exegeses." This is a claim that explicitly attacks the standard story on the basis of a claim that data is "radically changing"! I do not see how this is not fringe. jps (talk) 03:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
    First, if this is Fringe he clearly didn't push it very hard as he backed away from the specific theory that was noted by others the moment the test he said would prove/disprove it disproved it. It was speculative but hardly fringe given the level of knowledge at the time. The concern regarding policy based on the science is not at all fringe. To use climate change as an example, there is a world of difference between saying the climate data is bad and mandates for EV cars to reduce climate change is bad policy. Given that shuttering the economy causes a lot of collateral damage it's not surprising nor fringe that some people would question the political choices that were made based on the back of the science known at the time. But that doesn't really matter since that isn't what is at issue in here. Hanson's broader views on the subject were not added to the BLP. The only material added to the article were two sentences suggesting he was a pusher of fringe or otherwise obviously bad science. The material had DUE and IMPARTIAL issues that, if need be, should be addressed at BLPN, not here. Again, I think the question is moot if there is agreement to simply leave it out. Springee (talk) 04:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

    I don't think it is unreasonable to consider the question of whether his particular choice in rhetoric was an instigating moment for an ongoing set of ideas about early transmission... a set of ideas which probably didn't deserve serious consideration even in April. The speculation for why he was out on a limb is something against which he obviously took umbrage. I think it is somewhat crucial to note that we're not talking about policy here unless you are claiming he is engaging in motivated reasoning similar to what the article in Slate argued. Instead, we are talking about entertaining "theories" (a word he uncomfortably misuses in the above piece) that argue about empirical reality. Either there was transmission in California in Fall 2019 or there wasn't, e.g. jps (talk) 04:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

    What I would suggest is include it in the list of ideas that turned out to be wrong but not include in Hanson's personal BLP. That it grew into something much bigger than his original emphasis of the concept is on others but appears notable in context of COVID-19 ideas that turned out to be false. It also reflects that it was one of several possibilities he presented to explain what was being observed in mid-late March and the relatively low emphasis he placed on the theory (paragraph 23 of 27). Springee (talk) 10:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
    "probably didn't deserve serious consideration even in April" is the fringe criterion. This is just one example of the usual behavior pattern of free-market think tanks: When scientific results demand that the market be regulated, in order to protect lives, the environment, the future of humanity or whatever, the think tank people will not use reality-based reasoning to find out by rational discussion what is the right solution to the problem. Instead, they always invent random fringe bullshit in order to throw doubt on the science and hope the population believes that and that the threat to the market goes away - fuck lives, fuck environment, fuck humanity, only money is important. That strategy does not work as well anymore as it did with cancer from tobacco last century, but they still try it, with climate change and with COVID.
    And it does not matter when the refutation appeared in the media and came to the attention of the general public. If experts saw from the beginning that it was nonsense, it is fringe and has always been fringe. Experts decide that question, not the media. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
    You seem to be making up "fringe criterion" based on what you don't like vs any objective measure. Also, it wasn't proposed in April. It was proposed in March. Since you are claiming a BLP was propogating a FRINGE theory what sources say he should have known it was a FRINGE idea, not just a possible idea that would be proven wrong when better data was available? Just as "Climate Change Denier" has been used as a scarlet letter around WP, so has "promoter of FRINGE". We need to be very careful to distingish ideas that were suggested as possible yet turned out to be false vs pushing ideas that were clearly wrong at the time. No one has shown it was widely known this theory was proven false by the genetic data in late March. Additionally Hanson said that the genetic data may prove the theory wrong. That others ran with it doesn't mean Hanson was pushing a Fringe theory. Again, remember this is a BLP issue. Springee (talk) 11:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
    He was still entertaining it in April as it indicates in the NR source I posted, but, even so, the simple fact that someone was on the fringe saying this or that is only relevant for the purposes of this board in order to ensure that Misplaced Pages doesn't go about misleading readers into thinking that such a position was mainstream. Part of why we have WP:FRINGEBLP is because when people make fringe claims, oddly, they can get overbloated with respect to their WP:PROMINENCE. There is a danger on Misplaced Pages that we spend too much time on fringe claims for one of two reasons: 1) undue promotion or 2) a desire for the resource to set the record straight. Thing is, sometimes a claim is so obscure it does not deserve mention or notice. I don't think we're in that situation here. I think we have a claim that has been noticed. Whether it is noticeable enough for a new section in a BLP... that's certainly another matter. We don't want undue focus on fringe but neither do we want to whitewash an article to make it seem that fringe claims never get made. See relevant discussion regarding Piers Robinson for other aspects of this. Getting the balance right, I think, requires considering this from multiple angles. jps (talk) 12:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
    Springee, no, because he's not a scientist. He has no legitimate part in the process of analysing COVID-19, its causes, spread or any other related topic. He's a former historian and a columnist for right wing publications. Guy (help!) 21:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
    Guy, I do not agree. First, why would you claim he is a former historian? When did he give that up? Second, since when did we set the "not a scientist" standard? Most MDs are not scientists. Also by that standard anyone who is not an epidemiologist is not allowed to talk about COVID-19 regardless of what claims they make. He is certainly allowed to talk about theories regarding the differences in infection rates. Furthermore, do we have any scientists saying his theory was fringe vs one that was possible but didn't turn out be true? I'm not sure that any of that matters since the bigger issues were DUE and IMPARTIAL. The degree to which the theory he was articulating (it is not clear he was the inventor of the idea vs it was shared with him) was or was not fringe at the time is less important so long as we use impartial tone when describing it. Springee (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
    Springee, "emeritus" implies retired. And I don't care overmuch whether you agree or not: this is a quesiton of medicine and science and is properly the remit of those professional communities, not unqualified political pundits. Guy (help!) 22:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Shannon Dorey

    Fringe author. Doug Weller talk 12:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

    Subhash Kak

    We could use some extra eyes on this article, Subhash Kak, specifically this new user and this WP:PA connected to it. Heiro 02:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

    Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar

    Not sure where else to bring this, but recently this article Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar was edited to include "archaeologist" as one of his many professions (along with Spiritual Guru, Indian philosopher, yogi, social revolutionary, author, poet, composer, linguist, archaeologist, historian and scientist.) The article itself has no discussion of archaeology or his status as practicing the profession other than that mention in the lede. And then they were added to List of archaeologists at some point with a dubious cite, I'm pretty sure this person does no qualify as an archaeologist by any meaningful definition of the word, and the cite failed WP:RS. Any thoughts? This seems like a religious teacher whose faithful followers are trying to add qualifications to. Heiro 05:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

    One of the citations for his list of "professions" includes the phone number and address of an Ashram...I just deleted it and some of the accompanying occupational claims. JoelleJay (talk) 05:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks. That's the same link that was used as a source at L of A, which I removed the entire entry from. I was hoping someone more knowledgeable about the person was about, so I didn't have to wade through that morass of a lede. Heiro 05:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
    And they have since restored most of it. If anyone else wants to check their "references" feel free, I don't have time right now to explain to them why ashrams and primary sources from his movements promotional website probably fail WP:RS. This has time suck edit war written all over it (User talk:Heironymous Rowe#Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar :"I want to add two more "archaeologist" and "historian". Reference no. 5 (in Bengali).").Heiro 05:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
    The article also claims that chakras are science... --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I hate the way people include every single thing that a person has ever done as the lead. "X is an entrepreneur, motivational speaker (source: once gave a motivational speech) and author(source: wrote an autobiography). We need WP:ALLOFTHETHINGS to clarify that only the main things should go in the lead. Guy (help!) 12:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

    My god, this is terrible. I started weeding, but there is a lot to do. Related:

    Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Law of social cycle.

    jps (talk) 11:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

    ජපස, reminds me of the Bejan cult and "constructal law". Guy (help!) 12:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

    Finally, the Ananda Marga seems to be the best in this walled garden. Maybe we should start there to get better sourcing. Whew! jps (talk) 12:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

    The Sarkarverse has been a very old issue here, going all the way back to archive 3. It has been pruned back over and over, subjected to AfDs, the lot. It is an endless time sink. Mangoe (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
    • There is currently this Talk discussion on the Sarkar page. Hopefully reading the linked policies will inform the (good-faith) new editor what kinds of sources we require, since they seem to struggle with identifying reliability. Hopefully they will change the problematic refs I pointed out, as they seemed receptive and amenable enough to our request for secondary sources. JoelleJay (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

    Putinism Ideology

    The user @Smeagol 17: undid my edit my edit in Putinism ideology section. He stated: "Did you read the obscurantism article? Also, тщ citation for the diagram." All the sources about obscurandism being a direct translation of the Russian word Template:Lang-ru had been provided both in the edit and chart sources. Tintin-tintine (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

    Yes, someone should look on your creation in this section. Also, do you think that мракобесие is an appopriate term for an encyclopedic article? Replacing it with obscurantism will not help. Smeagol 17 (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
    Well, obscurantism as a quote is absolutely appropriate in Misplaced Pages. Moreover, my quote about Judo was about "respect" in my statement, not about Ilyin's philosophy (NY Books quote). The word obscurantism is absolutely scientific as Putin is one of the few people who sincerely think Fascism is efficient. I mean, it's common knowledge the mass repression creates stress and stress harms the productivity of the population in general. And Mr. Putin is happy to write about "state-forming nation" and God in the Constitution (hi, beloved future sainthood by ROC), just to nullify his terms, and quotes Hitler's statement about using opportunities to divide Russia. That's a definition of obscurantism. His statements about "all the contemporary cultures" quoting Matvienko's statement about "three whales" (Matvienko was also educated according to Kabalevsky system) just displays his lack of interest in anything Soviet. I didn't add my IMHO point of view about Judo-lover Putin despising the Soviets as they're the losers, first and foremost. Putin's fascism is obscurantist logic in its clearest, and it goes like that:
    • if Revolution didn't occur,
    • then Hitler wouldn't kill so many Russians, and
    • USSR (with Putin as its team member) wouldn't lose the Cold War to America =>
      • Those wrong-praising God bastards, the Communists, are to blame for USSR's loss in a Cold War, because with God, Russia wouldn't lose
      • Tsarism should be resurrected, in its pre-1917 obscurantist form, and defended by any means.

    Putin was described as both Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini. My edits just about him following the ideological footsteps of Nicholas II, cleary and explicitly obscurantic. Russia is a high-context culture, unlike the majority of the English-speaking world. I, mean, even if I prove with mathematical clarity the fact Putin really is an obscurantist, and that's why he's Nazi admirer, using Pareto effect 80/20, for example, where the most productive members of society will decrease their productivity because of the new Constitution, it won't mean anything. Putin fakes/cosplays Nicholas II until he makes it (with the new Constitution, uniting all the three powers in his hands). There's nothing judgemental about it because, in the Russian context, obscurantist ideology is just a traditional value.

    As a matter of "good news" (I'm not referencing to the Gospel), he English-speaking world can finally relax, as Russia will never recover from the (comparative) shame of the official state Obscurantism in Constitution: Hitler's (and West's) dreams come true, and Russians have voted to be forever slaves (of God and Putin, as God's #1 servant soot to be sainted). Putin has inherited from the USSR a developed Kabalevsky philosophy, effective brain-inspiring classical music education in general schools, and additional 7-year education in music schools, all of that well-prepared and effective in creating competitive human beings with high morality and loyalty towards the state. As Richard Wagner said, "I believe in God, Mozart, and Beethoven". But now, Putin wanted to glorify himself as a saint, and with future students learning St. Putin during "Law of God" lessons. When you have something that's working and something that just sounds flattering (the word "PRAVoSLAVie" - "Orthodox") is really a path of someone who is sincere in his obscurantism, no matter what the prize. No offense. There's just no better word than "obscurantism" for that ideology. Maybe you can find another word, I don't mind. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. This, maybe too emotionally, forgive me, the answer is just my, non-humanitarian, point of view. The article is WP:NEUTRAL, as it has all the sources and quotes. For sure, some people can even argue if fascism is obscurantist, if tall poppy syndrome is obscurantist (if you kill all the gays and oppress minorities, the others won't receive their "power", like in Highlander), and so on. But Putin's sure about tall-poppy method of opponents destruction as it's just his Judo's Tao. He considers it pretty fair, both in politics and sport. There's his direct quote about naming the opponents "Bandar-logs". Moreover, he's forced judo (sport) system in music schools, increasing the (his) Russian Orthodox Church's competitor's stress, while the music teacher's salary is officially beyond the living wage, and they're not just the usual teachers - they studied additionally to general school for 7 years and at least 4 years at College of Music and, many of them, 5 years at Conservatory. Putin's official cultural genocide of classical music teachers, all in the interest of the Russian Orthodox Church only. There're 3,000+ children music schools, just to inform you. And newly created National Guard of Russia 300,000 people who earn 4-times more without professional education at all, just for being friends with Putin, loving the Russian chanson and the 1994 song "Horse", and all that anti-intellectualist stuff. Now only about 22% of Russians say love classical music, it's all about the higher prestige "blatnyak" (songs of ex-prisoners), "pops" (still on Olivia Newton-John level because, unfortunately, Russia doesn't have blacks, black music, and the best musicians are classical, but the state still thinks it's for the people) and "rap" (because the state treats its citizens since the 1990s like it's the white gentlemen finally agreeing to govern those simple folk, stupid Commies).

    Moreover, Putin has reverted Glinka's anthem to an obviously plagiarised "Pachelbel's Canon" harmonies, aka Aleksandrov's anthem. He didn't even understand it. Yes, the Soviet/Russian anthem is not Russian by origin, it's just a re-written German composer's Canon. Written for the wedding. With Aleksandrov using Stalin's lack of understanding of music history and music theory. It's "working", with goosebumps, because of that. Moreover, Putin has just said, "Nazism crashed the Soviet people". It's also very obscurantist phrase because of his own "state-forming nation" - German harmonies anthem, Rurik being Germanic king, Putin himself living in Germany for many years (and now forbidding foreign residency in Constitution and simultaneously nullifying his terms, as if it's about "the other humans"). In conclusion, the article indirectly states these points (as if it's from the pro-Putin point of view):

    1. Putin is not Hitler because Putin really craves to be sainted;
    2. Putin's Russia is not a real threat while Putin has power (see 1.)

    That alone makes Putin's statement about "‘We would go to heaven, they would simply die’" a lot less offensive. So, the edits should stay and increase the productivity of the English speakers, by reducing their stress from Russia. Of course, the functional literacy and choice-supportive bias are always the case, but I don't want the West to bomb Russia because Putin behaves (and now even speaks) exactly like Hitler. It's not that obvious to the Western readers as they really might think Putin is like a Satan Hitler but only more Oriental. Hitler was also pretty stupid because slave labor is less productive (because slaves are also humans and have a lot of stress which decreases productivity), and I'm sure, a lot of German intellectuals knew that in 1933. Putin is a secretly proud student of Hitler (he perceives it as learning from Hitler's and Stalin's mistakes, I assume), not the follower. Once again, my edit was fully sourced. I'm fully aware of Misplaced Pages rules and don't include my original research. Just to share with the Misplaced Pages community, I'm writing this "nonsense" here, to prove my relative sanity stating the Putin's religious obscurantism should be called 'obscurantism', not just authoritarianism. Sorry for wanting to add this detail to my edit a little bit too enthusiastically. Tintin-tintine (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

    The above nigh-incomprehensible wall of text does not demonstrate that the attempted edits comply with either Misplaced Pages policies & procedures or with the sources. It is just argumentation and personal POV assertions. Misplaced Pages is not the place to right great wrongs or advocate for positions or otherwise promote one's own viewpoint. Please also see the original research policy. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:03, 25
    This is all very intresting, but how about you first publish this in a rs journal? Then we can include it here. Otherwise, your synthesis can not be published here. In regards to your contribution to Yeltsinism also. Smeagol 17 (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC) June 2020 (UTC)
    It's based on multiple sources: the book "The New Nobility" (2010) reviewed by Radio Liberty, and the recent article by a well-known Russian journalist Ivan Davydov. Please, try to reconsider my edits. I live in Russia, and there's no chance for me to publish anything, apart from academia.com or smth like that. My writing English skills are very rusty now (5 years from IELTS Academic being Advanced), especially when in a rush. I apologize for making the desperate attempt to share something well-sourced and important in the English Misplaced Pages community. Enjoy yourself and I'll enjoy my death by the hands of either FSB or nuclear strike. No offense. Really no offense. I'm improving my German already. Again, no offense. Indeed, the cultural genocide of classical musicians in Russia is really not something the West should care about. It's too much to process, I guess. Sorry for making your POV look unsourced, according to even to the American source Levada Center with 22% of classical music lovers in Russia in 2019. Sorry for, probably, making your think I took it personally. Tintin-tintine (talk) 11:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
    You can publish in Russian. If your position will dessiminate to the reliable sources in a prominent manner (not necessarily English ones), Misplaced Pages will include it. But Misplaced Pages is not a platform to publish original research. Also, your position will reach the ears of those you want it to reach much more reliably even if you just mail it to newspapers or post it in comment sections then if you try to add it here. Smeagol 17 (talk) 11:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

    WP:RSN#An article written by creationists in what might be an RS

    Comments invited. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

    fixed, attempt to insert a fringe claim by using one unrelated reliable source in combination with unpublished paper. fiveby(zero) 21:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

    Mustang

    This has also been on the NPOV and RS noticeboards, so sorry if there's some redundacy by posting it here. There's been a large amount of discussion on the talk page of the Mustang article about whether a footnote should be included about the fringe theory that horses were present in America during the Holocene prior to the arrival of Columbus. It is well known that equines (including apparently the modern horse, which has recently been discussed at length on the talk page) were native to the americas until their extinction 10-12,000 years ago. According to the anecdotes of one user, these theories have repeatedly come up in Facebook discussions, and are covered on pro-Mustang websites like protectmustangs.org.

    Much of this revolves around The Aboriginal North American Horse a statement apparently given by ethnohistorian Dr. Claire Henderson (who I can find nothing about) of Laval Universirty in 1991 in response to a North Dakota bill. The statement appears to be legitimate as it recieved coverage at the time in this Chicago Tribune article. The statement primarly relies on oral accounts essentially saying "we've always had horses", see also this story in Yes! Magazine . Obviously there are also ties in with the claims that horses and chariots were present in America in the Book of Mormon, and the theory has recieved coverage on that basis from LDS affiliated sources, see . The dispute is over whether there has been enough coverage of the theory in reliable sources in order for it to pass WP:ONEWAY and be notable enough for inclusion, your input at the talk page discussion would be appreciated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

    And just a comment before anyone adds to the discussion: Everyone at the article talkpage AGREES that it's a fringe theory, no dispute there. The question is if we include it in the article in a small endnote or not. If we don't include the endnote, then we are discussing whether to note it in a talkpage FAQ so we don't constantly have to revisit the issue. There's not a lot of traffic at this article, but we do get the occasional driveby who tries to raise the issue. As for the discussions mentioned above, they are RS here and NPOV here. Montanabw 21:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
    Tiresome this is being shopped around everywhere. Basic question: what are the secondary, independent sources in play for this fringe theory? Alexbrn (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
    Indeed. I think Hemi pretty much listed what there is in his post above as far as third party discussion. Everything else is just out there on various discussion forums. This is basically a discussion of how to best deter drive-by drama in the future. Montanabw 22:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
    Then it looks like there is no substantial coverage of this fringe theory, and it should be omitted from the article. What goes in the Talk page FAQ doesn't really matter - knock yourselves out! Alexbrn (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

    Re: WP:ONEWAY: If you can find a reliable source about mustangs (not about ethnohistory, mind you) that mentions this fringe theory, then it's okay to mention it. If you cannot, then don't mention it. One the other hand, it's perfectly fine for articles on criticism of the book of mormon to link to the mustang article and have it basically say that, no, mustangs were not in North America prior to the Columbian Exchange. I think that's fairly straightfoward. jps (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

    Falun Gong (seriously)

    I'm echoing another post above in that this article badly needs more involvement from individuals familiar with dealing with fringe topics. It seems not a day goes by without an attempt to scrub the article of:

    • Where the new religious movement is based (a compound in Deerpark, New York)
    • Its political involvement (Falun Gong is the source of both The Epoch Times, Shen Yun, and a variety of other far-right, pro-Trump, and pseudoscience-spreading organizations
    • Its status as a new religious movement (it was founded in the early 1990s by Li Hongzhi).

    In all my years of editing on Misplaced Pages on topics of pseudoscience and fringe, I don't think I've seen a clearer or more aggressive example of a concerted and repeated effort to scrub an article. The article swarms with accounts who aggressively strip the article of any of this data, while emphasizing and parroting the group's preferred narratives. It's not good. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

    How is it that Scientology doesn't often appear here? Is there something that can be done to the Falun Gong article that the Scientology-related articles enjoy? GPinkerton (talk) 01:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
    That's a really good question. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
    See Church of Scientology editing on Misplaced Pages. It took attention from the news media and an arbcom case. - MrOllie (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
    Very interesting. There's clearly a deep and serious problem here that has been going on for a number of years, and there are parallels to that situation, but there appears to be a significant difference in that there are no shortage of reliable sources on this topic—they're just being removed again and again in scrubbing waves. Are there really no internal processes to consult to keep the article from constant scrubbing? :bloodofox: (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
    Well, it's now protected at indef ECP as of 3 days ago. That may help a bit, but not much. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
    Now on my watch list. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

    Larry Sanger

    It seems a few days don't go by that someone isn't pointing me to the latest thing our co-founder said. Some horrific conspiracy theory about "COVID-19 hysteria" or the "deep state" or anti-vax or climate change or RT of some ultra-nationalist troll... and he gets some quasi-mainstream attention for it because he's "Misplaced Pages co-founder". See for example this Fox News piece which picked up his recent blog post. The gist is that NPOV should mean false balance in political articles and framing positions that have overwhelming scientific consensus as "opinions" that should be "balanced" in order to be neutral.

    Just look through the twitter stream...

    Not sure if this is the best place to start this discussion, but is it time for the community to put out a statement disavowing Larry Sanger as a spokesperson for Misplaced Pages and/or anything Misplaced Pages stands for? — Rhododendrites \\ 04:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

    It's sad to see but it does at least mean the Larry Sanger card, often played by WP:PROFRINGE editors, is now very obviously not in the least bit persuasive. The "community" shouldn't be in the business of making public statements, but speaks through its article writing work: I trust the BLP for Sanger treats his views in a properly NPOV fashion? Alexbrn (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
    We send statements to the WMF fairly regularly these days, it seems. But maybe "statement" is the wrong way to frame it. The idea is to contextualize, for journalists or anyone else that would cite him regarding post-2002 Misplaced Pages, just how far apart he is from Misplaced Pages. The issue is that people look to him as Misplaced Pages (or at least as an authority about what the policies should be), being the co-founder, and thus it's news if the community has taken his vision and turned it into something full of bias and censorship (or whatever). It takes more work than most people are going to put in to actually understand Misplaced Pages's rules and why they work better than what Larry suggests should be the case. — Rhododendrites \\ 14:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
    Rhododendrites, you will never persuade the cofounderite cabal to sign up for this. Guy (help!) 12:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
    Yet another cabal nobody invited me to join... :( I don't even know what that one is. The Jimbo critics? I'm not proposing doing anything that would try to take credit away from anything Larry did while he was with Misplaced Pages (or even really getting into that). — Rhododendrites \\ 14:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
    Rhododendrites, those who obsessively monitor for any mention of Jimbo as founder and change it to co-founder. Guy (help!) 09:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    "We, the undersigned volunteer editors of Misplaced Pages, point the interested reader to the fact that Larry Sanger left Misplaced Pages in 2002, called it "broken beyond repair" in 2007, and founded an attempt at a competitor that became a haven for snake-oil salesmen before vanishing into the mists of time. Thank you for your attention and have a blessed day." XOR'easter (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
    There was a superb summary of Sanger's history here left as a comment on jimbotalk earlier this year. AS a[REDACTED] expert, I cannot find it now, but it's fresh perspective made me laugh out loud. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 18:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
    Although I'm aware of the notability I never considered that his statements have any authority on what Misplaced Pages or its content and policies should be. In the case where his opinions are echoed everywhere on Misplaced Pages, the many undue instances should probably remain constrained to the criticism of Misplaced Pages article... As for people mentioning his views as arguments in POV discussions, it can indeed also be dismissed, where the focus should be on relevant sources that matter for the particular topic/article instead. Not necessarily because it's Sanger, it's the same for Wales afterall... Similarly, when journalists mention Sanger's opinions, is the particular event relevant for the article? I suppose that it would be possible to release a community statement to the press reminding the media and the public of such facts about Misplaced Pages... Maybe it has been done before? —PaleoNeonate – 08:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
    I'd be happy to write a statement, but I'm not sure the community would sign on. "Dear journalists: Every day, we are grateful for your work. We depend upon your "first draft of history", and we could not succeed in our effort to write helpful reference material without your adherence to the high standards of your profession. From one cadre of wordsmiths hoping to serve the public good to another, we salute you. Meanwhile, Larry Sanger would hear a doctor saying "don't drink bleach" and reply "that's just your opinion, man". Good night, and good luck." XOR'easter (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
    "It is against our policy to indulge in speculation that Larry Sanger has been desperately grasping for relevance since the year of Super Troopers, Star Trek: Nemesis, and Blade II. However, if you make that comparison, we are allowed to report that he has, according to reliable sources, been trying to ice-skate uphill." XOR'easter (talk) 06:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    "We believe that Mr. Sanger's proposal to turn Misplaced Pages into a hybrid between Facebook, a YouTube comment section and the men's room in a gas station just off I-40 should be considered with all the respect it deserves." XOR'easter (talk) 07:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    Rhododendrites, that twitter feed actually made my head hurt. He's three tweets away from promoting QANON conspiracies. Glen 07:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    I just looked, because apparently life wasn't bad enough already, and I saw that on the 24th he declared that the current multifaceted disaster in America is exactly what you'd want If you ran the Deep State and Trump's men were closing in. That's not even three tweets away from QANON. XOR'easter (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    This just in: the men's room in the gas station just off I-40 demands an apology for being compared to Mr. Sanger. It should be noted that the gas station has never retweeted Dinesh D'Souza. (Source: Larry Sanger's Twitter feed, Jun 27.) More breaking news as it happens. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    "Something I haven't mentioned yet is Qanon. What's my take? I don't know. I'm not a spy or a decoder. If you can mine that information source for real evidence, more power to you. Telling *most* people to go straight to the 'Q drops' is pretty obviously a failing strategy." --Larry.

    I know that this insider baseball is juicy and all, but is there anything here we can use to improve articlespace? Until there is some third-party notice of increasingly unhinged Twitterpathy, I think our hands are tied. jps (talk) 12:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

    I looked, and found nothing. A few right-wing conspiracy sites have made approving comments. It seems that most legitimate publications don't care what he thinks. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

    War of 1812

    Hello, an editor at the above article steadfastly maintains that this war was “a draw” and dismisses reliable sources as not “quality” somehow because they are, for example, written eminent journalist Pierre Berton rather than by someone with a doctorate in history. Therefore, by his count, more “quality” sources support his view than the alternate view that the British won, and therefore this view is WP:FRINGE and should not be included.

    Note, this article concerns the US and Canada rather than the European theatre of the war, which has its own article. The article is currently badly written and poorly organized, and also extremely long, but the TL;DR is that each side invaded the other and was repulsed, and the war ended with very little change to the border.

    Nobody is suggesting that the article say in Misplaced Pages’s voice that Britain/Canada won, only that respected writers do exist who say this, because Canada is not currently a US colony. Some guidance would be welcome, since another editor has actually listed sources for him, and he does not seem inclined to re-read the definition of a reliable source as I have suggested. Elinruby (talk) 08:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

    The Canadian-victory viewpoint was widespread decades ago but is no longer found in Canadian scholarly articles & books or university textbooks. It may still be taught at the high school level in Canada, but I think it's now "fringe" in mainstream Canadian reliable sources in 21st century. Old notions become fringe when the RS drop them. A main flaw from Canadian perspective is it ignores the massive losses suffered by Canadian First Nations, who are now considered full partners in Canadian history. Rjensen (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
    Tecumseh’s Confederation did, yes, suffer heavy losses. However, I am pretty sure that this policy is not intended to be applied in this way. Elinruby (talk) 10:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
    As with a parallel complaint at WP:NPOV/Noticeboard (about the use of the word "Indian"), this is a topic that has been discussed widely and earnestly for a very long time on Talk:War of 1812. (See for example six years of debate at Talk:War of 1812/Who Won? ). As a non-expert, I prefer to revert to a result of status quo ante bellum, because insofar as tangible things such as land are concerned, that was the outcome. "Inconclusive" is another possible term, although that suggests what didn't occur — that the shooting war continued later (with or without a conclusion). But, although it might not match some current scholarly consensus (of which I very much doubt there is one), and might even be wrong, the idea that no side won (although the descendants of the earliest inhabitants clearly lost) was so long spread by serious writers and so widely believed (on both sides of the 49th parallel and, for that matter, on both sides of the Atlantic) that it cannot, even if wrong, count as a fringe theory equivalent to the Chloraquine Cure. —— Shakescene (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
    Rjensen I disagree with the assertion, that the "Canada won" viewpoint has disappeared, so it is now fringe theory. In my view, since the 200 year anniversary, there seems to be more focus on it as a victory for Canada, from the Canadian media at least. I haven't checked the dates, but I would hazard a guess there are probably more historians now that see it as a win for Canada, than say 10 years ago when it was largely a few people like Benn, Latimer, Pierre Berton and Donald Graves. Plus these guys went up in 2016 so clearly Canada still think they won! Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    The consensus view among modern historians is that the war was a draw, although the perspective that Canada won continues as a popular view in Ontario. The Canadian high school textbooks I have seen do not claim it was a Canadian victory. I would point out too that I have never maintained that the war was a draw, merely that that is what historians claim. TFD (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
    Well, the real problem is that the actual participants thought they had reached a draw, stalemate, white peace, etc. Further, both sides thought that continuing the war was not worth the cost. Both Wellington's letter on the matter and the Prime Minister's instructions to the British negotiators at Gent are given as prima facia evidence of Fethe same. Historian's repeatedly referenced both but we seem to be ignoring that issue. That isn't my opinion, it is not TFD's opinion, it is a hard fact in history.Tirronan (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

    I always recall Bill as saying "we're eight-one-and-one!" but that is mistaken, the quote is "we're ten-and-one!". Seems like the most appropriate source for this kind of argument. fiveby(zero) 19:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

    The Canadian-victory viewpoint is not in any way a fringe viewpoint, It's a viewpoint that is largely the view seen within Canada, while the opposing viewpoint, that is the war was a draw.... is the standard view within the US. Historians are divided along national lines on the topic. How can we adopt a PRO US viewpoint as the standard viewpoint, and disregard a PRO Canadian/British viewpoint as fringe theory? Also a number of eminent experts on the war support the view that the war was a victory for Canada.... Surely the viewpoint of eminent historians, must be seen as an alternative viewpoint, and not fringe theory??? These people aren't crackpots, they are recognised authoriites on History, and many, on the War of 1812 in particular. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
    Also in reply to TFD's comment, where he stated that there is a "Consensus by historians" that the war was a draw. That is TFDs personal belief, but it's not supported by any RS. There is a larger body of Historians who believe it was a draw (mostly American). There is a lesser number of historians who believe it was a win for Canada(nearly all Canadian and British). That's not a consensus for either, and it certainly doesn't make the view that Canada won the view "fringe theory" Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

    Am I the only one who is baffled by what @Fiveby: said? It appears to be a cultural reference but I don't know what it means. Elinruby (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

    A fringe theory, as defined in Misplaced Pages guidelines is "an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field." They range from reasoned theories presented in academic papers to wholly unreasonable views. If you don't like the name, get it changed. 68% of Americans believe that the U.S. government knows more about UFOs than it is telling us. That doesn't mean that we give equal validity to that view or - worse - claim that scientists are divided on the topic.
    Incidentally, I am still waiting for someone to name the elusive Canadian textbook that allegedly teaches Canada won the war.
    TFD (talk) 00:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    No, you are using that out of context. Misplaced Pages says "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field". In this sense, both the idea that the War was a draw, and the War was a victory for Canada/Britain are mainstream theories, each held by a body of respected Historians. The idea that the US won the war, and Britain and Canada lost, or that the Native Americans did well out of the war, THAT would be fringe theory, because it departs from the mainstream views, and is only supported by one or two historians (if any) Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    The position that either the UK or U.S. won the war departs significantly from the prevailing view that the outcome was a draw. It seems that your main objection is the term fringe, because it conflates alternative theoretical formulations (such as position that either the UK or U.S. won the war) with pseudoscience and questionable science. TFD (talk) 15:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    There are two (at least) *mainstream* views.... that (1) The war was a draw (2) That Canada and Britain won the war. The view that Canada and Britain IS A MAINSTREAM VIEW, followed by MAINSTREAM HISTORIANS, for which I have posted numerous references.It is the mainstream view of Canada. Just because there are less of them, doesn't mean its a non mainstream view, or fringe theory. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

    Can everyone stop saying "Canada won the war" (and similar)! There was no Canada at the time and saying there's a theory that "Canada" won is a strawman argument and is obviously anachronistic. It's also quite silly to imagine that either historians' side could win by simple majority; there are more American academics than there are Canadian and British ones but consensus in the field isn't determined by national block-voting. It would be helpful to look at what is taught in leading universities globally, or what academics from outside the then-British empire have to say. GPinkerton (talk) 00:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

    GPinkertonI think most people know that Canada wasn't a country, but in discussion, when the phrase is used a lot, "Canada won the war" is just shorthand for "British Empire, fighting in conjunction with the North American British colonies won the war"... which is the technically correct way of saying it, but takes a lot longer to type!Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    Nobody is saying that Canada won the war. That is just a straw man that The Four Deuces is amusing himself with. Whatever you do, don't ask him about the textbook or you will get a week or two of unrelated statistics in sneering cryptic posts, and still not be able to get him to give you a straight answer. I'm here to tell you. And yes, we all realize that Canada was not a country until 1867, but as Deathlibrarian has said, it is shorthand for the British Army plus the British Navy plus six kinds of Iroquois (who didn't lose any territory either, but nobody claims they won either), a baker's dozen other indigenous peoples, numerous militia, freaking Tehcumseh, the Kingdom of Spain and assorted militia in both Upper and Lower Canada.
    Forget the guy ranting about the consensus of historians. DeathLibrarian led him line by line through at least thirty sources and he started cherry-picking which ones were "quality" sources.
    As the OP, let me make it really really simple. What I want to know is this: In the history of a war that everyone claimed to have won, does WP:FRINGE apply to analyses for which reliable and respected sources exist, and is this policy even meant to be applied to something like who won the war of 1812? Elinruby (talk) 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    Pierre Berton wrote, "Canada won, or to put it more precisely did not lose, by successfully repulsing the the armies that tried to invade and conquer British North America. war was fought almost entirely in Upper Canada." (The Invasion of Canada: 1812-1813, p. 19 He wasn't writing about the war overall, but the part that involved Upper Canada. Note his book does not explore the British invasions of the U.S. or the Atlantic naval battles. Of course Canada was not a legal entity and had no power to declare war or conclude peace treaties. Ironically, in his careful wording, he doesn't unequivocally declare that Canada won. TFD (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    What is the article content issue here? I see an NPOV tag on the article which does not link to a specific section. There's some uninteresting discussion around a 'result' for the infobox and many expressions of a "Canada won" sentiment. There's a memory and historiography section in the article with good detail (but an expanded summary would be nice). What is the content issue? fiveby(zero) 15:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    The NPOV tag is there for multiple reasons. Certain sections repeat some very old tropes in the voice of[REDACTED] (can't trust an Indian, for example, or invading Upper Canada restored US honor). I have raised this issue at the NPOV noticeboard. That would be enough, but the even bigger issue though (and why I brought the article here) is that a minority of users is using WP:FRINGE to avoid following WP: BALANCE. Elinruby (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    Ok, there are two notice board discussions: WP:NPOVN#War of 1812, in which is very unclear as to what you are asking and where you say "there is currently no dispute" and "I repeat, there is no dispute here" despite adding the tag. Here what seems to be some "Canada won" argument (despite your assertions) based on a forty year old popular history text, which appears to be very engaging but not terribly relevant for a topic with such a large volume of academic sources. Along with that some of your comments have been very poorly considered and are focused on a particular editor rather than article content. And no one is even interfering or reverting your edits to the article! There seems to be no actual content at issue so there is no way to determine if the fringe guideline should apply. fiveby(zero) 17:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    There is a lot of content at issue. The issue over at NPOV is racism, and at the time I said there was no dispute I had not yet met TFD and believed I was the only editor in the article. This is usually the case with listed articles. In fact there are many editors who would LIKE to work on the article but were on the talk page trying to reason with TFD's contention that sources he does not like are fringe. Generally, no, we do not discuss editors, but that goes out the window in cases of WP:OWN. Did you read the comments over there? You should if you are going to consider it at all. A dozen reliable sources do not equate to creation theory, as TFD told me last night. I mention his name because he is the contentious editor saying these things, along with questioning my honesty and grasp of reality. So look. WP:BALANCE requires that the article present ALL views of a disputed fact, and the question becomes WEIGHT. You can't just say that Canadians believe weird stuff and clearly the war was good because we got some land and nobody won because the border didn't change. There are sources who say that Canada won. I think they are just as wrong as the sources who say the US beat the British, but they are out there and they are by gosh historians, on both sides. Elinruby (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    I flatly reject your contention that TFD is the issue here. I object to your trying to trivialize the issue by saying only one editor objects to your view. There is and always has been many editors working on this page. I've not seen any content rejected by him nor does he own the page. Most of the historians I've read have been pretty clear on the subject. And no I have not seen mainstream historians stating that Britain won, and I've never seen one that asserted that Canada wonTirronan (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    I assert again that the participants decided that the war was a draw when they accepted the status queue antebellum. I further object that you are trying by using this fringe theory as a trojan horse to change the outcome. If I walk outside the sky is blue no matter how many people try and tell me it is yellow. The entire argument is therefor false.Tirronan (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    @Tirronan:: You appear to believe that I am saying that TFD is pushing fringe theory. On the contrary, it is my contention that Canadian history is not a fringe theory of Canadian history. There is a whole lengthy section on the talk page about this ;) Elinruby (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    Elinruby is mistaken when he says the article stated "invading Upper Canada restored US honor" It was defeating the British invasions in 1814-1815 (New York, Baltimore, New Orleans) that did that. Historians agree that restoring US honor was a major cause & major result of the war for USA. Rjensen (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    I'd support Elinruby that TFD is an issue here. I have gone to a lot of trouble to post numerous references, and he starts pulling each reference to pieces, debating the meaning of each reference based on semantics, ad infinitum. Even where it's BLATENTLY clear, a historian is saying that Britain won, he will still try to debate that they didn't say that in some bizarre fashion. I've given up debating with him about it on three separate occasions. I've also spoken to him on his talk page about his behaviour. Even the fact that we are here, because he decided that the viewpoint that Canada won the war of 1812 is *Fringe Theory* is stupid and a waste of time. NO RS claims that the view that Canada won is fringe theory, and to label respected historians like Pierre Berton, Donald Graves, Andrew Lambert, Donald Hickey, G. M. Trevelyan, JCA Stagg and numerous others as fringe Theorists is insulting to them. I'm sure those historian in this list, who are still alive, would be very impressed that Misplaced Pages has decided that they are pushing fringe theory. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    Personal attacks will not affect the decisions of this board. There has been enough mud flung about over the history of this page to fill several bins. If you can't take the higher ground this isn't the place to be.Tirronan (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    Apparently it was just fine for him to call me a liar and deluded, though? We're here because he seems to have trouble being civil about this. Let's get back on topic. The following are from the first mobile screen of results from a google of "Canada won the war of 1812". These are all reliable sources, which is (or rather should be) the standard here. I did not go beyond the first screen.
    https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4042489
    Elinruby (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

    No I appear to say exactly what I said. All personal attacks should stop. This does not reflect well on any of us no matter how frustrated we get. Tirronan (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

    No one has argued that one cannot find opinions expressing the view that the war was not a draw. The issue is one of WP:WEIGHT, not RS: is that view held by a substantial number of historians or is it held by a tiny minority?
    Unfortunately a lot of sources provided are problematic. For example, the newspaper article about Eliot A. Cohen. Cohen is not a historian, but a political scientist and his book was published by a partisan publisher rather than the academic press.
    But Cohen does not claim that the UK won the war, and rejects the popular American view that the U.S. won. As an aside he said that Canada could be considered the true winner, which we all agree could be true. But that is not a challenge to the mainstream view of historians that the outcome of the war was a draw between the UK and U.S. Canada was not even a political entity, let alone a nation with the ability to declare war or sign peace treaties. It's similar to saying that Quebec was a winner in the American Revolutionary War because the U.S. tried and failed to conquer it. But the info-box says the outcome was an American victory.
    TFD (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    see, here we approach the heart of the matter, yet I don't agree that this is what you said. It is also the currently expressed opinion of the United States government that we don't need to worry our little heads about covid 19. And oh by the way Quebec did win the Seven Years' War because the United States tried and failed to invade it. Quebec is indomptible, in that in refuses to be eradicated. Did the Allies not win World War II? But one thing at a time. Did you even look at the sources above? Can you understand that what we have here is the American narrative (Star Spangled Banner) and the Canadian narrative (Laura Secord and Tecumseh), and they do not agree. Look at that CBC link, and what it says about the siege of Detroit. That happened. There is no more gold standard a source on Canada than Maclean's and the CBC. Now go look at what the article says and ask yourself if you see a freaking difference. This is an article about a defining moment in the Canadian identity (see above) and yeah, it gets a say about what happened. I can't believe grown men are arguing about this. The United States does not get to define the history of Canada, Canada has already done that and why in the hell would its opinion about its own history not be mainstream. Seriously. Listen to yourself. This article spends more time on shipyard building in Barbados than it does on the Iroquois, even, let alone Canada. Elinruby (talk) 04:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    OK, other than being vaguely insulting, you are arguing that this is a page on Candian history? Here is what gets me, I don't care what Canada thinks happened. For that matter, I really don't give a crap about what America thinks about it either. A history article should accurately report the events that happened as they happened and little else. I could find about all sorts of histories that report this as an American victory, it isn't but using your process that would be ok too. I am not interested in making anyone feel good about history. I am interested in not twisting the article with lies to the public. The CBC is not a history service. There is a ton of crap history written on both sides of the US/Canadian border and to some degree there still is. Just how would we evaluate it all? If you feel that strongly about it go write a feel good hive off article about how Canada won the war. This isn't a history of how Canada feels about the war, it is just about the War of 1812.Tirronan (talk) 04:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    Um, actually, this is not only not a page on Canadian history, it is not a page on history at all. Instead, it is a page for alerting people who know how to handle fringe subjects that there is a page where they could help.
    Imagine, ten years from now, someone looking for the reason why the page War of 1812 is the way it is, and the discussion above being the key event where it was decided, by judging that one side's insults were better than the other side's, or whatever. I think if would be more helpful for that person if the discussion above could be found in the archives of the article's Talk page, rather than the archives of this page. So maybe you should consider continuing over there?
    Just saying. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    So the the War of 1812 is off topic for the Fringe Theory noticeboard, is this what you are saying? Because this is essentially my point. If not, I am your fringe theory problem, please educate me Elinruby (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    My point is exactly what I said and nothing else. But since you draw false conclusions from what I said, instead of true ones, I will explain more.
    The first few entries may have belonged here, because they were about alerting people to a potential problem. See above: it is a page for alerting people who know how to handle fringe subjects that there is a page where they could help. At that point, the readers of the board got an impression of what it is about, and they could decide if they could help or not. Those who thought they could help put the page on their watchlist and maybe participated in discussions on the Talk page. Purpose of messageboard served!
    But no, this discussion goes on and on and on, and it will probably go on for weeks. So I thought, maybe I should hint at the actual purpose of the board, and maybe people will move the continuation of the discussion somewhere more appropriate.
    I should have expected that it would not be so easy. Now we will have week-long discussions on whether this discussion belongs here, with WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST and WP:IAR and WP:everythingelse as justifications that it does. Count me out, I will just view it as white noise and ignore it from now on. EOD for me, and sorry I said anything. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

    Elinruby, after I explained the problems with your first source instead of replying to my comments, you asked "Did you even look at the sources above?" Yes I did. But if your first source is problematic and you don't even defend it, I see no point in making a lengthy reply evaluating all of them. In my experience, that just leads to more flawed sources and a lot more words of discussion. TFD (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

    In my own silly way that was my point, how exact and how would we limit the "RS/Weight" of histories of the War of 1812? It seems to me to be an endless swamp. The idea that you can have a fringe theory when you have signed peace documents really strikes me as very strange territory indeed.Tirronan (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    The issue is how those documents are interpreted. Yes the USA fails to gain what it wanted, but so (in a way) did the British. Thus both we go with RS, and they are divided.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    @The Four Deuces: I am going to ignore that slur. I haven't answered because I spent yesterday travelling and I don't know what publisher you think is partisan or why. This is what Misplaced Pages suggests we do with contentious editors, ignore them. AGF, you seriously misunderstand fringe theory. This article is also about foreign relations, the history thereof, and can be approached though multiple disciplines. We are arguing about WP:BLUESKY here and I am done. You are not the artiber of what constitutes an acceptable source and there is no consensus for restricting that pool to peer-reviewed history journals, and while I would prefer to work with you not against you at the moment it is clear to me that we will all be here for years if we try to include you. So. Have fun. Elinruby (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    According to an article in Melville House Publishing, "n 1983, Free Press began an era of controversial and conservative books, including The Tempting of America by Robert Bork and Intercourse by Andrea Dworkin. Gilkes published Alan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind." Other titles included Illiberal Education by Dinesh D’Souza, The Real Anita Hill by David Brock, and the Bell Curve. Brock argues tha Hill was lying, while the authors of the Bell Curve conclude that blacks are less intelligent than whites.
    To reply to your comment, "I don't know what publisher you think is partisan or why:" I consider sources partisan when reliable sources say they are partisan. How would you classify this publisher?
    TFD (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    Kidd, Kenneth. "The War of 1812, from A to Z". Toronto Star. It's become axiomatic among historians that Canadians know they won the War of 1812, Americans somehow think they won, and the Indians — who'd continue to cede land to American expansion — definitely know they lost, despite fighting alongside British regulars and Canadian militia..--Moxy 🍁 20:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    I will just add, we have asked for RS that clearly states the opinion that the Canada won viewpoint, popularly shared in Canada, is fringe theory. Been asking for days, and no one can provide one. All we have is a few Pro US viewpoint editors, like TFD who are trying to diminish an opposing view by trying to classify it as fringe. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    Once again, what is the actual article content you would like to see added? There is a huge volume of argument on the talk page and three noticeboards, yet no one is making proposals for text in War of 1812#Long-term consequences, War of 1812#Memory and historiography or Results of the War of 1812. fiveby(zero) 13:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    Fiveby, I guess Deathlibrarian wants us to say Disputed military stalemate/British win rather than Military stalemate, but one of the many problems is that military stalemate is not really disputed as the proposed wording may imply; even those who say Britain/Canada won do not deny the countries fought to a military stalemate, but they claim that for example Britain won because the United States was going to annex Canada and it failed; then there are those who say the United States was not going to annex Canada and that it lost for other reasons, etc.
    Military stalemate seems to be the fact that is established in a wide majority of historical works; the minority of opinions (i.e. American or British victory) do not agree on the result (or even on how they won), but the majority that claim stalemate have a consistent consensus of stalemate by mutual exhaustion.
    Both the American won and British/Canada won viewponts are fringe because they are not broadly supported by scholarship in the field and depart significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in their particular field. It seems to be that Deathlibrarian's main objection is the term fringe because it conflates alternative theoretical formulations (such as position that either Britain or the United States won the war, which is something that departs significantly from the prevailing view that the outcome was a draw and/or military stalemate) with pseudoscience and questionable science.
    Despite me and other users explaining that it is used in this broad sense, Deathlibrarian insists that the Britain/Canada won viewpoint is mainstream, despite departing significantly from the prevailing view; and that we should an unwarranted equal weight to the majority (i.e. mainstream) and the minority (i.e. fringe) viewpoints.--Davide King (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

    Parler

    More eyes would be welcome on this article on a social media site popular with conspiracists and extremists. There have been some fairly persistent whitewashing attempts recently and some page watchers would be useful in keeping the article tied to reliable sources. Neutrality 03:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

    Loren Coleman

    WP:SPA and sock edit-warring to remove mention of pseudoscience and criticism from the article. Claiming "defamation". - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

    McKenzie method

    McKenzie method (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Science, or pseudoscience? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

    It's come up here before. I think it's slightly fringe through its links to Chiropractic, but is otherwise just a.n. other branded form of exercise therapy with fairly lukewarm evidential support. Whatever the case, the article has certainly seen some ... unusual levels of activity in recent weeks. Alexbrn (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

    In my opinion, these two pages...

    ...are somewhere in the range of alt-medicine, blatant advertising, and/or howto manuals. I am inclined to nuke most of what is there and leave much shorter and more encyclopedic claims. Comments? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

    I'd agree there's much undue "how-to" material for McKenzie method (haven't examined the other one!) Alexbrn (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    I just edited it. Please place it on your watchlist for a few days; the advocates are sure to object to an edit=t that could have an effect on their income. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

    Eben Alexander (author)

    A discussion about Eben Alexander (author) is at the BLP Noticeboards. I would like experts evaluating fringe sciences to review and contribute to the discussion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

    Beyond Transpersonal Psychology

    In looking at near-death studies for the above i ran across Sofia University (California), California Institute of Integral Studies (Integral Yoga) and their journals: Journal of Transpersonal Psychology and International Journal of Transpersonal Studies which inform us that transpersonal psychology and the transpersonal movement have been embraced by other fields to form transpersonal disciplines such as transpersonal anthropology, transpersonal sociology, transpersonal ecology and transpersonal psychiatry.


    Psychology and psychiatry are lost causes, but what's the approach for use of these "journals" in a sprawl into other fields? fiveby(zero) 14:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

    Yeah, this is all leftovers from Eslaen woo. It's pretty moribund these days. Compare to Integral theory (Ken Wilber). Weeding of this is always appreciated as is contextualization. jps (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

    Genetic Literacy Project

    This group defends the scientific consensus about GMOs. There's been complaining on the talk page, some of it on dubious grounds, that the article doesn't say enough about funding from Monsanto, and other matters. But, to be fair, the article does seem to have legitimate flaws (a lack of secondary sources especially), and maybe it is too favorable to the group. Anyway, editors experienced in treating GMO-related topics in a balanced way are needed to weigh in on Talk, decide what to do with the tag, and make any other edits you see fit. Crossroads 03:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

    I chimed in on the GMO stuff, which largely looks like there aren't any major issues with. The talk page has kind of devolved into a WP:FORUM on other things like race, anti-semitism, etc. that aren't really focusing on specific content right now. Tag was removed for that reason, but immediately edit-warred back in. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

    The issue that's been raised with the article Genetic Literacy Project is whether it lacks balance, and is essentially a promotional piece for an organization that, despite its motto of "science not ideology", leans sharply to the right -- for example, publishing the pseudoscience of the white supremacist and anti-semite Kevin MacDonald. The GLP has also been criticized for getting undisclosed funding from Monsanto, which is a conflict of interest issue. Please see the talk page for details. NightHeron (talk) 22:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

    Where the "undisclosed funding from Monsanto" is itself a WP:FRINGE claim. The article doesn't even claim that though, so no one should have claimed that was a focus. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, neither GMO nor allegation of undisclosed Monsanto connections are the focus. The focus of the talk-page discussion is the promotional nature and lack of balance in the article, as if its slogan "science not ideology" were a correct description of the organization. NightHeron (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    Okay, then where are the sources criticizing the organization on these grounds? If there are none, then there is nothing we can do about it. See WP:RGW. Crossroads 01:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    Here's a source: containing an article (in English translation) from Le Monde that criticizes the GLP for its role in attacking the WHO-affiliated International Agency for Research on Cancer for listing glyphosate as a carcinogen. The article calls the GLP a well-known propaganda website. NightHeron (talk) 01:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    NightHeron, IARC classifies everything as a carcinogen though. Guy (help!) 09:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

    That was a slog. Yeah, the French have been rather, y'know, French about their distaste for anything GMO/Monsanto related. But this article does not strike me as worthy of being award-winning. Almost no effort goes into looking into, y'know, the actual science of the claims. I think the author simply does not have the chops to do so and there is a culture of expertise deference that talks more about the process of debate than the substance. The last section is particularly telling. Insinuating that a riposte by more-or-less independent experts was being coached by the nefarious hands of Monsanto is... well... par for the course, I guess. So why did they win the prize? Well, they were going after Monsanto which subsequently was acquired by Bayer and perhaps that seemed profound? I don't know. What seems obvious to me, however, is that this article doesn't have much more than attempts at skullduggery and intrigue that seem to not go very far. jps (talk) 04:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

    For the record, NightHeron's source was also addressed further at the talk page discussion. Crossroads 06:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

    Has WP:FTN ever declared any criticism of Monsanto to be fringe? Or anything the IACR says to be fringe? Or anything the French believe about product safety to be fringe? Is it the role of this noticeboard to decide whether or not an investigative series of articles in Le Monde deserved the award it got?

    In response to my citing the Le Monde source here and at the talk-page, a substantive discussion of the issue started on the talk-page, so there's no need to continue this here. NightHeron (talk) 10:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

    • Note that it is settled that the scientific consensus is that GMOs are safe, and there is agreed text that should be used when this matter is aired in articles. The idea that GMOs are not safe is fringe. Alexbrn (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Criticism of Monsanto often veered (and continues to veer in spite of the company being absorbed into Bayer) into a kind of obsessiveness from which it was generally hard to find substantive argument beyond the standard ones we all know. As with any large conglomerate, there are obvious criticisms to be had... generally involving problems in corporate agriculture in general. But singling out Monsanto would be rather like singling out Chevron for criticism while ignoring Exxon-Mobil, Lukoil, Total, and Shell. It's just weird. WP:REDFLAG is something that we tend to take seriously. jps (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

    Théophile Obenga

    Recent edits about what appear to be fringe linguistics need attention. Doug Weller talk 15:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

    Ayurveda

    The Ayurveda article could probably use a look, as there seems to be a few proponents trying to remove "pseudoscience" from the lead sentence, despite being (as far as I can tell, based on the available evidence) an accurate label. --tronvillain (talk) 05:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

    I just find it quite hard to get past the fact that one of the (good) academics writing about Ayurveda and pseudoscience is named Johannes Quack. Alexbrn (talk) 07:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    For years the Ayurveda article suffered from a certain admin using discretionary sanctions to put his finger on the scale for quacks. That admin is now retired and defrocked. I encourage a full review of the article to ensure that it complies with FRINGE, NPOV, RSN, etc. 71.234.45.38 (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    There is a wider context too here, that the India govt. is apparently trying to push Ayurveda globally as a form of "soft power". The fact that a Google search shows Misplaced Pages high up saying "Ayurveda is a pseudoscientific system of medicine ..." won't help with that goal, so motivated editing at some point would not be unexpected. Alexbrn (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Yeah, let's keep this one properly labeled, at least until the would-be "Misplaced Pages Foundation", under influence from its affiliates, forces us to center indigenous ways of knowing. Crossroads 16:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Well there's certainly some serious push-back underway already, even without help from our beneficent overlords at the WMF ... Alexbrn (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Before we get all self-congratulatory here, I would argue that centering indigenous ways of knowing is a laudable goal and, interestingly, would likely help us with the Ayurveda article which is not based on such. Ayurveda claims today are so far removed from any centering on an indigenous practitioner that it is just plain misattribution to think that this is what it represents. Rather, within India at least, it is an enterprise propped up by nationalism on the one hand and a lack of access to modern medical care and education on the other. jps (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Why does that sound familiar? Alexbrn (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
        • C'mon, jps, even RationalWiki explains that "other ways of knowing" is code for pseudoscience. Do you really think that actual centering on an indigenous practitioner would not mean giving equal validity to superstition and science? I am all for fairly representing indigenous cultures in the encyclopedia, but one can favor doing that and at the same time see that we should not give woo a free pass as truth no matter what culture it comes from. How would one "center indigenous ways of knowing" without treating mythology and superstition as equal to "Western" science, and de-emphasizing the latter, and in all subjects? That may seem absurd, but there are political extremists on all sides out there, not to mention people with a financial stake in distorting our coverage (like Ayurvedic practitioners), and any attempt to bring in extreme cultural relativism in a Trojan horse claiming to just be about marginalized communities needs to be opposed. Crossroads 19:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
          • This is not relevant to this discussion, but I'll give you an example from my own field. There are Inuit elders who were filmed commenting that the position of sunrise in the summer had changed since they were a child. Some less-than-intelligent filmmakers surmised that this was evidence that the Earth's axis was shifting. Those less-than-intelligent filmmakers were obviously wrong, but the elders, it turns out, seem to have been right. We looked at temperature records from the Arctic to determine that the reported distortion in sunrise position matched just about what would be expected from the lower index of refraction due to the increasing temperature. The drastically warmer temperature resulted in a shift of a few degrees on the horizon -- and that is all it takes for the Sun to shift from hill A to hill B in its rising. This isn't about Trojan horses and cultural relativism. This is about respecting sincere investigation of what indigenous people are saying and have said after a long history of silencing those voices. jps (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

    And now another admin is poking his nose in. The page was a trainwreck while John involved himself in mucking it up, and now Ivan is trying to follow John's truly awful example and set things back again. What is ironic is that I was already discussing a return to normal discretionary sanctions for the page with an admin -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 20:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

    To be fair to what happened at that article, it was a challenge to get that language even in the article despite strong sourcing. It ran into many of the same issues I see here with attempts to middle the pseudoscience language. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    Faith healing is a different sort of pseudoscience in comparison to Ayurveda in that almost all Ayurveda boosters I have read claim that there is a scientific basis to their system. In comparison, many if not most contemporary champions of faith healing claim their abilities are magic and not explainable scientifically. In the past, there were more faith healers arguing that they were practicing science (Christian Science even!), but after being browbeaten for more than a century and a half, that kind of rhetoric has fallen by the wayside. jps (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

    Unreliable/Predatory Source Detector (UPSD)

    Fringe editors not already aware should be interested in the excellent Headbomb's useful tool, Unreliable/Predatory Source Detector (UPSD). When installed, it uses colours to give an at-a-glance indication of when dodgy sources are being used, drawing on the list at WP:CITEWATCH. Useful not only when reviewing articles, but during Talk page discussion. Highly recommended for editors working in the fringe topic space. Alexbrn (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

    This is great! JoelleJay (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

    Grover Furr again

    Grover Furr (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

    He is now "known for his works on the history of the Soviet Union". I don't want to revert again. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

    Oh right: the last IP called me a "lib" for my last revert. I had thought it means "non-Nazi". But it seems the word can also mean "non-Stalinist". You never stop learning. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

    Bicameralism (psychology)

    I don't know much about this, but it seems the usual fringe janitors have not been there a lot. The Bicameralism Talk page has pretty old complaints about being "written from a severely pro-Bicameralism bias", but that may not be a current problem. Maybe a bit of patrolling by psychologists is in order.

    On Talk:Julian Jaynes, User:PaleoNeonate recently said that the criticism section "is more about refuting criticism than presenting it..." --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

    Climategate-related content on Washington Examiner

    There's a content dispute at Washington Examiner over whether to include text that rebuts a "Climategate has exposed climate science to be a sham" op-ed, even if the rebuttal does not specifically respond to the Washington Examiner. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

    Tooth Fairy Science

    Talk:Ayurveda#Tooth Fairy Science --Guy Macon (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

    Orang Pendek

    Can someone take a closer look at Orang Pendek? I removed some obvious offenders—the usual cryptozoology stuff presented as science–but I don't have the time on hand to take a deep dive. I presume there's some kind of tradition here, and that it may stem from folklore in the region, but the challenge is cutting through the fringe theories and getting to it. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

    I'm also having a hard time finding a single WP:RS-compliant source on this. Much of the article was apparently material from a book by Benedict Allen, a travel writer. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
    This appears to fail GNG. Perhaps an AfD is in order? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
    The wikt:orangs are really awful, crypto people conflate different unrelated stories. Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_68#Orang_Pendek fiveby(zero) 12:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
    My favorite orang is orang minyak. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
    Hmm, yet to find any evidence that predates the 1958 movies. fiveby(zero) 19:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
    A burglar and maybe copycats inspire movies and sickos molesting girls now urban legend. I hate this noticeboard. fiveby(zero) 20:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
    And then there's Orang bunian. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

    Template:Pashtuns

    A non-regsitered, IP hopping user, with his own selected theories and confirmation bias wants to add a Turkic dyansty on the template for Pashtuns. CrashLandingNew (talk) 13:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

    Lou Dobbs – conspiracy theorist?

    There's a content dispute on the Lou Dobbs page about whether he can be called a "conspiracy theorist". The body of the lead extensively documents Dobbs's conspiracy theory peddling, which includes but is not limited to birtherism, George Soros conspiracy theories and Deep State conspiracy theories. Can a person who promotes conspiracy theories not be described as a conspiracy theorist in Wiki voice? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

    Not really if RS do not no. After all you are promoting them right here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, a lot of Fox personalities regularly promote a conspiracy theory or two in their shows. But we typically require multiple RS referring to someone as a "conspiracy theorist" to identify them that way in a BLP. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

    You can identify specific ideas as conspiracy theories, but to say someone is a "conspiracy theorist" requires reliable sources that identify the person for being notable as such. jps (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

    Rachel Maddow promulgated the "Russian Collusion" Conspiracy Theory. That doesn't make Rachel Maddow a "conspiracy theorist"! Sbelknap (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    Not sure what you're talking about. Do you mean this? - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    What I'm talking about is that Rachel Maddow devoted enormous airtime and energy to the Russian Collusion Conspiracy Theory. See this: https://theintercept.com/2017/04/12/msnbcs-rachel-maddow-sees-a-russia-connection-lurking-around-every-corner/ Sbelknap (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    So, Rachel Maddow made an error, repeated ad nauseam an obvious hoax, and damaged her credibility and that of her network. Despite this, it wouldn't be reasonable to call Rachel Maddow a "conspiracy theorist". Sbelknap (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    Oh, I thought you meant Russian Collusion Conspiracy Theory was a thing the encyclopedia should have an article on. So few sources have used that term, and none of them WP:RS. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    I would suggest "promoter of conspiracy theories" here. BD2412 T 19:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    I honestly can't see a difference in substance between the two phrasings, but if "promoter of conspiracy theories" would be more acceptable to people, I'd be fine with it. XOR'easter (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    To my eyes, conspiracy theorist implies that the person spends most of their time on the particular conspiracy. maybe invented it, and is notable because of it. Again to my eyes, promoter of conspiracy theories implies that they talk about a bunch of conspiracy theories, not just one, and maybe talk about other things. Like someone on Fox who spends part of their time pushing conspiracy theories but also spends time doing things like opposing free trade. This is all subjective, of course. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    In general, we don't label someone unless reliable sources apply that label or similarly describe the person in a manner that makes it a significant aspect of their notability. Only if we have 'neutral' reliable sources that refer to the subject as being 'well known for his propagation of conspiracy theories' or something similar (as they do, for example, with InfoWars) should we consider applying such a label to him in Misplaced Pages's voice. Otherwise we limit ourselves to describing noteworthy and verifiable instances, and/or appropriate quotes in the voices of the subject's critics, and let the reader reach their own conclusion. Agricolae (talk) 09:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    One extreme example is James H. Fetzer who has pushed a wide variety of CTs, and is generally known for this, although sympathizers typically want to emphasize his career as an academic. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    Fetzer is definitely a conspiracy theorist. Lou Dobbs is more of an anti-immigrant Trump supporter who dabbles in conspiracy theories when it reinforces his ideological predilections. There is, I would argue, a difference. jps (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, I would agree with you on this distinction between James Fetzer and Lou Dobbs. Also relevant to WP:BLP, "conspiracy theorist" carries a pejorative sense, implying mental illness. The term is often used to discredit those with a political point of view with which one disagrees. Given the ideological bias evident on wikipedia, those who are left-leaning are much less likely to be labeled a conspiracy theorist than those who are right-leaning. For example, Rachel Maddow promoted the Russia Collusion Hoax for months, yet her[REDACTED] article does not describe her as a conspiracy theorist. In my view, neither Rachel Maddow nor Lou Dobbs are conspiracy theorists, though each do report and discuss conspiracy theories. Sbelknap (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

    To be fair, Maddow's uncritical acceptance of certain ideas that there was active collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives may or may not be a conspiracy theory in the proper sense. As is pointed out, we don't have a strong identification that such claims rise to the level of conspiracy theories. On the other hand, certain things Dobbs has promoted such as birtherism are absolutely conspiracy theories... no question. I don't think the pair are comparable in the sense I would question any accusation of conspiracy theory affinity in Maddow's article while I think we haves some very strong sources indicating that Dobbs has such an affinity. jps (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

    Also, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories is an actual thing. Global warming conspiracy theory is an actual thing. Russia Collusion Hoax is not. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

    Certainly Dobbs spoke favorably about birtherism and yet no editor has yet managed to provide any RS that asserts that Lou Dobbs is a conspiracy theorist. Why do you suppose that is? Sbelknap (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    Here's one I found, with others Grove, Lloyd (2009-09-07). "Lou Dobbs: From Business Journalist To Conspiracy Theorist Wingnut: What Happened?". HuffPost. Retrieved 2020-07-07.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link); Grove, Lloyd (2009-08-06). "What Happened to the Real Lou?". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 2020-07-07.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link); and Tom, Embury-Dennis (2019-11-14). "Trump associate spouts stream of wild conspiracy theories on Fox channel after impeachment hearing". The Independent. Retrieved 2020-07-07.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) GPinkerton (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    I found four sources that were willing to use the exact term , and then I got bored and stopped looking. Of these, the Washington Examiner is yellow-flagged at WP:RSP, but if one is worried about its partisanship, there's Media Matters on the other side of the spectrum saying the same thing . XOR'easter (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    I particularly like "resident conspiracy-theorist-in-chief"! GPinkerton (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    I've added these in now. GPinkerton (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

    Jordan Peterson's health problems (sourced to his daughter, a "carnivore diet" salesperson)

    More eyes are needed on the Jordan Peterson regarding how we should treat content about JP's health problems. Currently, the text overwhelmingly cites his daughter, Mikhaila Peterson, about his health problems. She is a seller of unconventional food advice, and the text includes rather strange claims about JP's health problems (such as N-American doctors "refusing" to treat him for drug addiction and his health problems stemming from bad food intake). It feels very iffy for Misplaced Pages to basically be promoting her claims like this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

    Yeah... at the very least we cannot claim he required/was refused/received Russian and Serbian "detoxification" from benzos. We're bordering on Scientology argumentation here. Benzos are physically addicting, no doubt, but their "toxicity" is quite another matter. Sheesh. jps (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    Getting rid of toxic substances (like cyanide) in the body is only one of two standard meanings for the word "detoxification" (or "detox"). The other is weaning oneself off of a substance one is addicted to. See the article detoxification for more information. And to respond to the original claim: Mikhaila didn't say that North American doctors refused to treat his addiction, she said they refused to render him unconscious while he went "cold turkey", which is what she says the family wanted. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    I don't think Misplaced Pages is able to handle this. If there were some third-party WP:FRIND sources which we could point to which explained this game, that'd be one thing. But we certainly cannot just take Peterson's word about what is going on. "Detoxification" in the context of physical addiction is certainly a thing, but it is not at all clear that this is what they were doing. Not at all! jps (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    I don't know why this is being discussed on the "fringe theories" noticeboard, by the way. Obviously, they could be making false statements, but the claims that Mikhaila (and now Jordan as well) are making don't seem that outlandish. Peterson found both staying on Klonopin, and getting off of Klonopin, physically intolerable, so they decided that he should be rendered unconscious while his body underwent a rapid detox - but North American doctors refused to do it because the process was too high-risk, so they went to Russia instead. What's the fringe part? Korny O'Near (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

    The fact that the Petersons seem to make up their claims about health as they go along is the problem. This isn't the first time they've done this, nor do I think it likely to be the last. jps (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

    Yup, see here. Currently the article seems to be an echo-chamber for the fringe views surrounding this "detox". Independent sourcing must be used, not the in-universe primary views of the family. Alexbrn (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    Yes. I'd go so far as to say that there are WP:MEDRS issues with taking their statements at face value, which the section pretty much does, minor qualifications aside. XOR'easter (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    I read that Vice article. None of the medical experts quoted there cast any doubt on Mikhaila's basic narrative, which is that the Peterson family wanted him to be rendered unconscious while his body detoxed, and that only Russian doctors were willing to do it. Instead, they disagree with tangential issues - whether the Russian treatment was a good idea, whether the North American care he got nearly killed him, and whether he was psychologically or just physically addicted to Klonopin. (None of these specific claims are found in the Jordan Peterson article, by the way.) So I don't believe there are any reliable sources disputing Mikhaila's basic version of the events. Which doesn't mean it's true, but certainly there's no evidence that it's a fringe theory. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    Whether the "body detoxed" makes any sense at all is also at issue here. No, we don't take the word of people who travel the world looking for the treatments they desire to describe the motivation or even functional outcomes of a given treatment. That's simply not how it's done here. The basic version of events is that he went to Russia to have medical stuff done to him that he could not figure out how to get done in North America. But anything beyond that... is skirting dangerously into making claims without evidence. jps (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    Surely the point is that having to travel thousands of miles for medical treatment when treatment options are abundant on your home continent means that whatever and whysoever he travelled, the rationale was decidedly fringe, if we take the suggestion that not one hospital in North America (!) was able to offer the same care as that one in Russia. Given the daughter's fondness for fringe beliefs it's wiser to attribute comments to her prefaced with verbs like "claims" and "announced on YouTube" etc. Given the soapbox-parade that is these peoples' lives I think any discussion of their health and claims about it should be kept brief and non-comital. GPinkerton (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    I don't know what we're arguing about here. The basic narrative is (I guess I have to repeat it again) that that the Peterson family wanted Jordan Peterson to be rendered unconscious while his body detoxed, and that only Russian doctors were willing to do it. No reliable sources are disputing that, and some have stated it affirmatively - though of course, ultimately the source is Mikhaila and Jordan. All of the rest seems irrelevant, like whether or not this was a good idea. jps - your personal views on detoxification seem irrelevant here also; sorry. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    "the Peterson family says the Peterson family wanted Jordan Peterson to be rendered unconscious while his body detoxed, and says that only doctors in Russia were willing to do it." I'd like to see this claim attached to their (or really her) opinion explicitly. GPinkerton (talk) 22:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    What do you mean by that? What does it mean to attach a claim to an opinion? Korny O'Near (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    See example text above. GPinkerton (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

    I fully agree, and that's actually what the article looked like, more or less, before this thread was created. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

    How is that brief? GPinkerton (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    It's not that brief. This doesn't seem like the place, though, to discuss which facts should be included and which shouldn't - that would be the Jordan Peterson talk page. I think we've established that the basic story of Peterson's recovery, accurate or not, has been covered in reliable sources, has not been disputed anywhere notable, and is fine as long as it's attributed. The only "fringe" stuff I've seen here is a few Misplaced Pages editors' personal views on detoxification. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    And why are Misplaced Pages editors' opinions less valid than Mikhaila Peterson? The article should not reproduce her (pseudo-)medical opinions as fact, irrespective of the way journalists have handled it. We don't need to puff their medical hypotheses. GPinkerton (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    Valid or not, hers (the ones that have been quoted in the press) are notable, while theirs are not. But now I'm confused, because most of that "Health problems" section I linked to is not about Mikhaila's medical opinions at all. And the few medical opinions of hers included are attributed to her. So what's the actual problem? Korny O'Near (talk) 23:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    If they were really notable, they should be discussed under her article, but I doubt it. GPinkerton (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

    The only "fringe" stuff I've seen here is a few Misplaced Pages editors' personal views on detoxification. This should be good: what, exactly, is "fringe" and "personal" about these views, or is just a bit of kneejerk mirroring rhetoric? --Calton | Talk 00:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

    Well, one editor said that you can't detoxify from benzodiazepines, since benzodiazepines are not toxic, although they then seemed to backtrack from that. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

    Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe

    I strongly doubt that notability has been established here, for starters. XOR'easter (talk) 20:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

    OK, that became obsolete quickly. After this revert, see the discussion. XOR'easter (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    There is now an RfC open at that page. XOR'easter (talk) 06:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
    Talk:Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe#Request for comment: on the notability of the CTMU in 2020 with sources published after 2006 and "unredirect" of this page to Christopher Langan --Guy Macon (talk) 06:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

    Cosmos and History

    Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cosmos and History jps (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

    Mormon Transhumanist Association

    Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mormon Transhumanist Association jps (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

    Polynesian contact theory no longer fringe

    I know that this has been discussed before on this noticeboard, so I thought I would post this here. There's been a new genetic study in Nature which pretty clearly shows that some eastern polynesian populations have genetic admixture from a northern South American population. I have added this to the Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories article, as a primary study, do my edits constitute WP:DUE weight? Kind regards, Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

    There's also pretty strong evidence (genetic and linguistic) that potatoes made their way to Oceania before the Crusades. Still, even if I suspect that it's probably going to be mentioned in our grandchildren's history books, we really need a tertiary source to establish that it's mainstream (even if a minority position). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
    I agree, I didn't include the claim by the authors that the South American population colonised polynesia, which I thought was undue without further confirming archaeological evidence. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
    Buuut that does kinda go into an WP:OR reading of the text, which is why we generally avoid primary sources like isolated studies. This is why we need a tertiary source to show that there are a significant number of historians shrugging out a "maybe." Ian.thomson (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
    The study says that the other scenario (that polynesians contacted people in South America) can't be ruled out either, so I think I am justified in omitting it. Articles on the study in Science and National Geographic quote researchers uninvolved in the study who says it was more likely that the contact took place in South America, but they don't dispute the results of the genetic study. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

    It's important to remember that Nature likes to make a splash and many Nature papers are later shown to be incorrect. That said, the genetic and linguistic evidence for connections between South America to Polynesia has been known (and even discussed in Misplaced Pages) for quite some time. jps (talk) 22:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

    Indeed, prestige of journals correlates with an increased number of retractions. I agree that the polynesian contact theory has become significantly less fringe over the past decade, I just remembered the chicken study, which I forgot was 6 years ago now. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
    Is this really "trans-oceanic"? It sounds more like ordinary infra-oceanic contact to me. It's decidedly not intercontinental. Also the phrase "analysing predominantly present-day individuals" blows the canoe of certainty quite out of the water. Where are the comparisons between remains from a thousand years ago? The article mentions three skeletal samples from pre-European contact times, (i.e. pre 18th century) but these and two other skeletal samples were examined in an 2017 paper that supported a pre-European American ancestry. Also the proper article's address (rather than the summary) is here. The History of Easter Island's science articles could use updating though. GPinkerton (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
    I think that your statement that it being based on present day individuals misunderstands how admixture works, as generations pass the chromosomes of DNA get progressively fragmented and re-arranged during Meiosis, which means that you can estimate when the admixture occured by the size of the fragments, the background Native American DNA is that was found is significantly fragmented, and clearly distinct from the more recent european contact, which are in more complete blocks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
    Here's another (this time open access) study in Cell which demonstrates this also based on living people, which found that Papuans have admixture from several different Denisovan populations at different times during the last 50,000 years Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
    No, I understand how it works, but the New Guinea example here is comparing living people with ancient remains. The Polynesian study is comparing living people with living people against references of other living people in Europe, Africa, and the Americas. GPinkerton (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Once again, while I still think this is (at worst) a solid "eh, why not," we need a tertiary source, not isolated studies. We need another encyclopedia, or a textbook, or at least a solid book from a university press or specialist press like Brill that includes at least one line describing the general idea of Polynesian-American exchanges as plausible. Once we have that, we could just move or copy the "Claims of Polynesian contact" section to its own article. I'm supposed to be writing progress reports on students and can't really go hunting for that right now. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    An Ip editor has added the authors interpretation that I omitted, diff adding:

    The authors propose two likely explanations, the first that Polynesians from the Marquesas reached northern South America, interbreeding with the ancestors of today's Zimu people, then returned to the Marquesas from whence they disseminated to Rapa Nui, the second that northern South Americans reached the Marquesas and interbred at that locus, then dispersed to Rapa Nui.

    Do people think that this addition is due weight? Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    Removing the authors' own interpretation was rather gross original research on your part (and again, I'm pretty much in agreeance on you with the subject matter, I'm just pointing out WP procedural issues here). I'd remove "likely" but that's what the authors wrote so it needs to be included if that source is going to be cited at all. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    I agree in retrospect that omitting the authors interpretation was a mistake, I just wanted to be cautious regarding the claims of a primary source. The proposal that a native american group managed to make it to the marquesas is dismissed by several uninvolved authors in articles covering the study, so I wanted to make sure that the claim was given due weight. I have included the objections to the hypothesis by other scholars in the section, so I think due weight is now satisfied. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

    Johann Lahodny

    Lahodny is (we are told) "... one of the world's leading experts in ozone therapy because of his personal contribution to increasing its therapeutic effectiveness through a bold innovative technique—that he developed and perfected on his own".

    So, there are issues with this article pertinent to this noticeboard. I have also raised this (with some more background) at WT:MED#Johann Lahodny – please comment there not here to keep discussion together. Alexbrn (talk) 06:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard Add topic