Jump to content

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Fringe theories

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Trusci (talk | contribs) at 11:41, 10 November 2022 (→Telegony (theory)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:FTN" redirects here. For nominations of featured topics, see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates.
    Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
    Shortcuts
    Before 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


    Proposed deletions

    • 07 Jan 2025 – British Society of Dowsers (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by CoconutOctopus (t · c): Non-notable organisation. No independent sources exist on the article, merely a link to a (broken) website of the organisation and a link to companies house. A BEFORE search brings up passing mentions in opinion pieces about dowsing, and a few self-p ... and endorsed by Bearian (t · c) on 12 Jan 2025

    Categories for discussion

    Good article nominees

    Requests for comments

    Requested moves

    Articles to be merged


    Expect problems with Graham Hancock fans when his Netflix series launches

    Starts November 11. Doug Weller talk 15:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I used to enjoy his appearances with Art Bell, because he seemed at that time (a quarter century ago or so) to be a "safe" sort of fringe nonsense. Suffice it to say, that is no longer my opinion. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles worth watching include Graham Hancock, Orion correlation theory, The Sign and the Seal, Fingerprints of the Gods, Keeper of Genesis, Magicians of the Gods, and Robert Bauval. Any others? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A bit more removed, but I have also added Robert M. Schoch to my watchlist. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also see this search[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?search=%22Graham+Hancock%22&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1&ns1=1&ns2=1&ns3=1&ns4=1&ns5=1&ns14=1&ns15=1&ns100=1&ns101=1] Also will be worth searching for "Hancock, Graham". He shows up at really unlikely places. See Food and Agriculture Organization which I haven't touched yet. Doug Weller talk 10:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably the series is going to feature at least some of Hancock's old favourites: Atlantis, Göbekli Tepe, Karahan Tepe, Baalbek, Tiwanaku, the Pyramids of Giza, the Great Sphinx and the Sphinx water erosion hypothesis, the Cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis, and the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. – Joe (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that it will include another of Hancock's old favourites, the Missoula floods. A recent paper argues that the Missoula Floods might have been 80 percent smaller than are currently estimated. Go see:
    Dzombak, R. (2022), Western U.S. “megafloods” might not have been so mega, Eos, 103, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022EO220069. Published on 3 February 2022.
    Lehnigk, K.E. and Larsen, I.J., 2022. Pleistocene Megaflood Discharge in Grand Coulee, Channeled Scabland, USA. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, 127(1), no. e2021JF006135. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JF006135
    David, S.R., Larsen, I.J. and Lamb, M.P., 2022. Narrower Paleocanyons Downsize Megafloods. Geophysical Research Letters, no. e2022GL097861. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL097861 Paul H. (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Vabbing

    The brand new article vabbing could use some attention. First two sentences: "Vabbing is a term coined to describe the process of rubbing vaginal juice as a perfume. It has been described as being a very effective way to attract individuals of the opposite gender." Surely pseudoscience, right? –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Citation used in article: Professor Elgar says there's no research that vabbing works. "I think the whole idea of vabbing is hilarious, and I hope no one takes it too seriously."[1] Text sourced to that citation: There has been some science to support vabbing as per Dr. Marc Elberg of the University of Melbourne. Lol. Endwise (talk) 06:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why the itch to label every bizarre fad or speculation "pseudoscience"? Is wearing makeup or torn jeans pseudoscience? Is there a prize for inserting the word "pseudoscience" the most often, as close as possible to the first sentence in an article? --Animalparty! (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think people just want to be able to "TOLD YA SO!" their woo woo family members at Thanksgiving dinner, when they tell them to Google it. Earlier it appears, the easier it is for woo woo family members to be "gotcha'd!" when they Google it. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The important thing is that you've found a way. [2] --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops, sorry. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The quote from the article says There has been some science to support vabbing as per Dr. Marc Elberg of the University of Melbourne., and then goes on to mention some junk studies. Seems pseudoscientific to me. I can't say the same for the "lipstick on jeans" example though. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It's definitely pseudoscience to claim that humans have pheromone receptors. But the easy solution is to just excise that poorly attributed idea entirely. The sources used are fine. We just need to focus on the facts rather than the wild speculations of the true believers. jps (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I know there's similar belief in scent cues from sweat, might need a check on Body odor#Humans as well. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, that section gives too much weight to human pheromones, and virtually none to evidence against. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Edzard Ernst copies from Wikipedia

    According to this diff from user:Aliveness Cascade, a seven year veteran editor, yesterday. They made the same claims on the same Talk page in January, but that slipped past me at the time. After I stopped laughing, I remembered that a number of fellow FTN frequentors actually know Eddy, and I wondered what his reaction is? Thanks, - Roxy the dog 13:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    World Council for Health

    I created this recently (it's just notable I think) as one of the many pseudo-bodies in the UK lobbying with health misinformation, particularly wrt COVID/vaccines. It's started attracting more attention and could definitely uses some eye from fringe-savvy editors. Bon courage (talk) 14:51, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    M Sweatman publishing a blog attacking Wikipedia and two editors

    Some editors may recall discussions of Sweatman and Göbekli Tepe, eg Talk:Göbekli Tepe/Archive 4 Pinging a few: @Aluxosm, GenQuest, Schazjmd, and Joe Roe:. The attacked editors are me and User:Hoopes. The blog, evidently the first of several, is here.[3]. Among other things it says that someone, probably me, deleted an article he created about Coherent Catastrophism. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coherent catastrophism and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coherent catastrophism (2nd nomination). SPI about the creator of the article, MystifiedCitizen, is here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FireDrake/Archive. Doug Weller talk 07:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    What worries me is how much of Younger Dryas impact hypothesis he considers "correct". That article really needs a close look from someone who knows the sources well to see whether WP:DUE is being followed. – Joe (talk) 08:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of what he considers "correct" is the basic self description of the ideas of YDIH proponents. I don't think that's a big deal, because we would have to include those anyway in order to rebut them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I still am not clear how Clube and Napier came to be the sanguine catastrophists in the context of the Velikovsky affair. This is the bizarre aftermath a generation later. jps (talk) 12:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Interested editors should check out Comet Research Group. I just removed material sourced to the dubious journal "Science Progress". jps (talk) 12:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Re: Younger Dryas impact hypothesis: That WP:PROSELINEy mess that is the "The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis " section needs a total rewrite. It also screams "cherry picking! cherry picking!". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis Wikipedia page needs some serious help to clean out the nonsense. I don't have enough confidence on the topic to push back. I would hope someone else would. I'm told that another one of these pseudoscience archeological shows is on Netflix in a week, a lot of people will be checking out the page. Please someone take care of it, I'll happily work on a page in return if it's something I understand in trade. Sgerbic (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that there's pretty much nobody with enough expertise on the topic to really take the article to task. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Their group does not pass the smell test. com/projects/killer-comets-are-coming/#/ The problem is that they seem to be able to collect enough interest from certain sectors that they have ended up with a higher visibility than they should. The argument that seems to be made by the up-and-up is as nefarious as those I used to read coming from plasma cosmology proponents who claimed on the one side of their mouths not to be cavorting with Velikovsky, but then always seemed to end up at their conferences with honoraria and trips to their favorite petroglyphs. jps (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So I guess we just allow them full reign? There are experts on this topic, I'm sure some would be happy to help. We can't count on them to know how to do the editing though. I care, but would be eaten alive within 15-minutes of trying to fix this page. Sgerbic (talk) 00:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem is that pocket journals exist. The question really is one of trying to decide how much of the idea has been discussed by truly independent sources. What I suggest is contacting relevant experts in paleoclimatology and asking them what they think. After they stop yelling, try to gather some indication of where the best debunking may be. Some of it is already present in the article, no doubt. jps (talk) 01:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Exactly. I tried to raise the issue of a source written by Sweatman being used several times in the article, and was just met with months of stonewalling from the main editor of the article, whose rationale for keeping it in basically boiled down to "it was published in a journal". But the YDIH isn't the kind of blatant pseudoscience that sits entirely outside of academia. It's a fringe view held by a small number of legitimate scientists (and a large number of wackos besides), and so it does appear in reliable sources. The difficulty is assessing whether those are given due weight. – Joe (talk) 05:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a new editor with very little WP editing experience but a lot of relevant subject matter knowledge. I would be happy to assist anyone who wants to deal with the aforementioned pages which I agree have serious problems from a scientific perspective. Proxy data (talk) 07:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest being bold especially with an eye towards removing poorly-attested to claims in the article. One approach is to WP:STUBIFY the thing and rebuild from scratch. Also pinging @Hoopes: who seems to have some experience with this work. jps (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words Proxy, go for it. The other editors here will fix the issues related to coding. Just make your changes with a strong reason in the edit summary so we can understand. Lets see if we can get this fixed. Sgerbic (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate this vote of confidence but I don't think I have the skills or experience to lead this effort, not to mention the time. Even though I do think this page needs a complete rewrite I would have to spend a lot of time learning about Wikipedia editing, the do's and don'ts etc before I could even start. Sweeping it clean and starting from scratch as I think jps is suggesting would probably be the best approach, but in my opinion would be a full time job that would be life dominating and my life is already pretty full with commitments. Normally when I start a writing project, I start with an outline, but WP is a community project so that outline would be a community project too. I wouldn't even know where to begin. Proxy data (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Although Wikipedia is a community project, it is fine for someone to do all the work themselves. One technique if you are nervous is to WP:SANDBOX your ideas. Don't worry about formatting, style, community building, etc. The oldtimers can shepherd that through. We are happy just to have the data dump, as it were. jps (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Sweatman's blog that precipitated this thread has disappeared (probably because of this thread). Did anyone think to archive it? If not, please check to see if you still have it in an open tab or a cached copy for the record. Proxy data (talk) 05:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No archive on archive.ph or internet archive. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, some things are better left forgotten. I don't have any record of the page in any case. jps (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Drilling deep into the article structure

    Do we really need sentences like this?

    Proponents of the hypothesis have responded to defend their findings, disputing the accusation of irreproducibility or replicating their findings,[1][2][3][4] and have published further research.[5][6] Critics of the hypothesis have addressed the claims,[7][8][9] and have published counterarguments.[10][11][12][13][14]

    This essentially says nothing of substance. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    No, we don't. When there is so much disagreement about every individual paper, I just look for a source that summarizes the entire debate. Listing every possible source has its uses, but in these cases it just invites cherrypicking and undue weight (not just by design but also by accident). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone ahead and just straight up removed the sentence. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the entire structure needs to be revamped. It is currently written with a block structure which starts with “Evidence” and “Consequences” and then a huge “History” section that goes through the development of the hypothesis and its chronology. It really isn’t until deep into the article that we arrive at section 4: “Criticism”. The block structure creates the impression that the burden of proof is on the skeptics, which turns the scientific method on its head. It doesn’t really make it clear that the YDIH contradicts the basic and well-established understandings of every single field of science that it intersects with. In my opinion it should be presented with a tightly coupled parallel structure focused on the current version of the YDIH (even though it remains self contradictory and ambiguously defined). I’m guessing that most people who will be coming to read the YDIH page are not interested in immediately drilling down to the details of the claimed geochemical, mineralogical, geochronological, and stratigraphic evidence or the supposed paleoclimatological, paleoecological, paleontological, and archaeological consequences. They are going to want to know, up front, in general and nontechnical terms, what the idea is right now, who is promoting it, why it matters, why it has been so broadly and thoroughly rejected by the mainstream scientific community from the beginning, and why it is widely considered by skeptics to be a fringe theory and/or pathological science. I propose a more parallel presentation of information in which every element of the hypothesis is immediately followed by an explanation of how it contradicts mainstream accepted science. Likewise, every claim of evidence should immediately be followed by a factual statement about why that evidence is considered by mainstream subject matter experts to be flawed, irreproducible, misinterpreted, or contradicted in all cases where it is. Every assumption, explicit and implicit, should be accompanied by the fact-based statement backed by conventional science, whether it agrees or disagrees. In this way, both sides can be presented in a way that is completely fair, balanced, and factual, but would be much easier to read and digest for non-experts. The historical development and chronology is useful as background information, but I think it belongs at the bottom, maybe just before the popular culture and a section in which Comet Research Group spinoff ideas (both indirect and direct) of Hancock, Carlson, Sweatman (Gobekli Tepe decoded), Bunch (Tall el-Hammam is Sodom), and Tankersley (Hopewell comet) are discussed. Also, it is impossible to talk about the YDIH and all the associated knock-off pseudoarcheology without referring to the influence of the Comet Research Group, which was not formally incorporated until 2016 but came into existence as an un-named entity in May, 2007 with the first public announcement of the YDIH in its current form at the AGU joint assembly meeting in Acapulco with public statements to the media by Firestone, West, Kennett, and Becker (three of whom went on to be co-founders of the CRG for the sole purpose of funding, promotional, and media work on the 2007 version of the YDIH and its related spinoffs). The CRG and the YDIH are inseparable and the YDIH page should make this clear from the beginning of the page. Proxy data (talk) 23:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this is very much in line with how we usually try to handle critical views (long story short: siloing them in one section is not a good idea). I've had a go at restructuring the article along these lines and I think it's already better, even though I haven't really added or removed any material. What seems to be missing now is a proper statement of what the hypothesis is, as well as more information on the mainstream view. – Joe (talk) 12:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent work on framing, Proxy data. I think this is doable. We'll need to dig up sources for these points, but I think it is much better to approach framing this way. One thing I noticed when "drilling down" in the sources is that Allen West is not well-attested to. In fact, the author links from Google Books and Amazon go to the politician which, I assume, is not the same Allen West. Anyone know who the correct Allen West is? jps (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ජපස Allen West is actually Allen Whitt, "who, in 2002, was fined by California and convicted for masquerading as a state-licensed geologist when he charged small-town officials fat fees for water studies. After completing probation in 2003 in San Bernardino County, he began work on the comet theory, legally adopting his new name in 2006 as he promoted it in a popular book. Only when questioned by this reporter last year did his co-authors learn his original identity and legal history. Since then, they have not disclosed it to the scientific community." [https://psmag.com/environment/comet-claim-comes-crashing-to-earth-31180] Wikidata also identifies him as Whitt, but it's not an RS.. More on his alleged PhD here from Mark Boslough.[https://www.unm.edu/~mbeb/Publications/Boslough_Skeptical_Inquirer_Sodom_2022.pdf] Doug Weller talk 14:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. Now that you've provided that information, I recall reading about it before, but this connection has been pretty thoroughly buried in the search results. Allen Whitt, probably, does not deserve as standalone article, I'm guessing. jps (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Another questionable sentence:

    In January 2022, James L. Powell compared the hesitancy in accepting the hypothesis to other initially controversial ideas such as continental drift, lunar impact cratering, and anthropogenic global warming[15] and suggested that a kind of groupthink had set in amongst critics.[16]

     Is Powell's opinion really due here? What does this sentence add to the article? Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just the usual Galileo gambit, now extra crunchy with bits of Wegener. One can probably add that to every article about a pseudoscience since it has definitely been used to defend every pseudoscience. Just like one could add that there are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, to all those articles. Weightless fluff, sweep it away. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, removed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    References

    1. ^ Israde-Alcántara I, Bischoff JL, DeCarli PS, Domínguez-Vázquez G, Bunch TE, Firestone RB, Kennett JP, West A (21 August 2012). "Reply to Blaauw et al., Boslough, Daulton, Gill et al., and Hardiman et al.: Younger Dryas impact proxies in Lake Cuitzeo, Mexico" (PDF). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 109 (34): E2245 – E2247. Bibcode:2012PNAS..109E2245I. doi:10.1073/PNAS.1209463109. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 3427057. Wikidata Q45746116.
    2. ^ Napier WM, Bunch TE, Kennett JP, Wittke JH, Tankersley KB, Kletetschka G, Howard GA, West A (November 2013). "Reply to Boslough et al.: Decades of comet research counter their claims". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 110 (45): E4171. Bibcode:2013PNAS..110E4171N. doi:10.1073/pnas.1315467110. PMC 3831498. PMID 24350338.
    3. ^ Wittke JH, Bunch TE, Kennett JP, Kennett DJ, Culleton BJ, Tankersley KB, Daniel IR, Kloosterman JB, et al. (October 2013). "Reply to van Hoesel et al.: Impact-related Younger Dryas boundary nanodiamonds from The Netherlands". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 110 (41): E3897-8. Bibcode:2013PNAS..110E3897W. doi:10.1073/pnas.1313207110. PMC 3799356. PMID 24244962.
    4. ^ Kennett JP, Kennett DJ, Culleton BJ, Aura Tortosa JE, Bunch TE, Erlandson JM, Johnson JR, Jordá Pardo JF, et al. (December 2015). "Reply to Holliday and Boslough et al.: Synchroneity of widespread Bayesian-modeled ages supports Younger Dryas impact hypothesis". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 112 (49): E6723-4. Bibcode:2015PNAS..112E6723K. doi:10.1073/pnas.1520411112. PMC 4679043. PMID 26604309.
    5. ^ Bement LC, Madden AS, Carter BJ, Simms AR, Swindle AL, Alexander HM, Fine S, Benamara M (February 2014). "Quantifying the distribution of nanodiamonds in pre-Younger Dryas to recent age deposits along Bull Creek, Oklahoma panhandle, USA". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 111 (5): 1726–31. Bibcode:2014PNAS..111.1726B. doi:10.1073/pnas.1309734111. PMC 3918833. PMID 24449875.
    6. ^ LeCompte MA, Goodyear AC, Demitroff MN, Batchelor D, Vogel EK, Mooney C, Rock BN, Seidel AW (October 2012). "Independent evaluation of conflicting microspherule results from different investigations of the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 109 (44): E2960-9. doi:10.1073/pnas.1208603109. PMC 3497834. PMID 22988071.
    7. ^ Boslough M, Harris AW, Chapman C, Morrison D (November 2013). "Younger Dryas impact model confuses comet facts, defies airburst physics". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 110 (45): E4170. Bibcode:2013PNAS..110E4170B. doi:10.1073/pnas.1313495110. PMC 3831451. PMID 24170865.
    8. ^ Boslough M (April 2013). "Faulty protocols yield contaminated samples, unconfirmed results". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 110 (18): E1651. Bibcode:2013PNAS..110E1651B. doi:10.1073/pnas.1220567110. PMC 3645552. PMID 23599285.
    9. ^ Holliday VT (December 2015). "Problematic dating of claimed Younger Dryas boundary impact proxies". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 112 (49): E6721. Bibcode:2015PNAS..112E6721H. doi:10.1073/pnas.1518945112. PMC 4679064. PMID 26604317.
    10. ^ Reimold WU, Ferrière L, Deutsch A, Koeberl C (2014). "Impact controversies: Impact recognition criteria and related issues". Meteoritics & Planetary Science. 49 (5): 723–731. Bibcode:2014M&PS...49..723R. doi:10.1111/maps.12284. ISSN 1086-9379.
    11. ^ van Hoesel A, Hoek WZ, Pennock GM, Drury MR (2014). "The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis: a critical review". Quaternary Science Reviews. 83: 95–114. Bibcode:2014QSRv...83...95V. doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2013.10.033.
    12. ^ Meltzer DJ, Holliday VT, Cannon MD, Miller DS (May 2014). "Chronological evidence fails to support claim of an isochronous widespread layer of cosmic impact indicators dated to 12,800 years ago". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 111 (21): E2162-71. Bibcode:2014PNAS..111E2162M. doi:10.1073/pnas.1401150111. PMC 4040610. PMID 24821789.
    13. ^ Thy P, Willcox G, Barfod GH, Fuller DQ (2015). "Anthropogenic origin of siliceous scoria droplets from Pleistocene and Holocene archaeological sites in northern Syria". Journal of Archaeological Science. 54: 193–209. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2014.11.027.
    14. ^ van der Hammen T, van Geel B (2016). "Charcoal in soils of the Allerød-Younger Dryas transition were the result of natural fires and not necessarily the effect of an extra-terrestrial impact". Netherlands Journal of Geosciences. 87 (4): 359–361. doi:10.1017/S0016774600023416. ISSN 0016-7746.
    15. ^ Powell (2022), pp. 1–2: "Scientists have initially rejected many theories that later achieved widespread consensus..."
    16. ^ Powell (2022), p. 37: "Instead of critically examining and rejecting these false claims, many geologists and impact specialists embraced them, thereby allowing an alleged absence of evidence to trump abundant, peer-reviewed evidence, even photographic evidence. Then a kind of 'groupthink' seems to have set in, rendering the YDIH beneath further consideration."

    Anthony Summers

    I suspect that the article of conspiracy theorist Anthony Summers and the pages that mention him should be given a closer look. His article is a listing of his books in WP:PROMO tone, and many articles reference his theories (and his JFK conspiracy theories in particular) with varying levels of authority. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I converted it to a simple bibliography list. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And that was reverted. Now being discussed on the Talk Page. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See [Special:WhatLinksHere/Anthony Summers]. He seems to have a lot of promotion in our articles. Doug Weller talk 19:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be great if there could be some consensus building about whether the current format of the books section is appropriate, or if it should be a bibliography only, or perhaps a brief prose summary. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Summers often gets a break because he is supposedly one of the "honest" JFK conspiracy theorists who eschews some of the wilder claims. I think I may have added some reliable secondary sources for his book reviews a number of years ago. Personally, I would rather see one article that contains a discussion about his books rather than separate articles about all of them. It's easier to pull weeds from one article than 15 or 20 articles. - Location (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would prefer a prose section about his career than the current list format, but since I'm the only one banging this drum, I'm going to drop it. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    His bio of Hoover is slammed here.[4] but used in a lot of articles.[5]. Doug Weller talk 12:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This thread caught my eye because I'm currently reading a new two-volume book on the ties between organized crime and intelligence agencies, and it mentions Summers a number of times. The NYT review does disparage Summers' Hoover bio on one level but it also acknowledges "In researching his book on Hoover, the author conducted more than 800 interviews and consulted much previously concealed documentation" and "the case that "Official and Confidential" makes is so overwhelming in its detail and extensiveness that it has to be acknowledged as ... impressive ...". Does anyone really think JEH was a paragon of integrity and sanity? I wouldn't be too quick to throw it out as a source, unless the wikitext is just prurient garbage or unprovable theories. Softlavender (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding "prurient garbage or unprovable theories", Bugliosi called Summers the "chief peddler" of the Hoover-was-gay rumors and said his book on Hoover is filled with "scurrilous trash". Knowing what we know about Summers cherry-picking with his JFK conspiracy theories, I think using him as a source for anything or anyone remotely controversial should be used with extreme caution. - Location (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is Hoover was a gay crossdresser controversial at this stage? As far as I recall even PBS has documentaries that mention this. Softlavender (talk) 03:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WaPo: Cross-dressing J. Edgar Hoover story dismissed by historians.
    FWIW: Not sure what you might have seen on PBS, but I've seen Frontline documentaries on JFK, Waco, and CIA/Contra/crack cocaine conspiracy theories that seem to give equal (read "undue") weight to various views. - Location (talk) 03:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Liberal Fascism

    Article on a book by conservative commentator Jonah Goldberg. The lead accurately notes that this book presents a view that contradicts the mainstream view among historians and political scientists that maintains fascism is a far-right ideology. However the Reception section is carefully weighted to provide the reader with a WP:FALSEBALANCE on the matter. It's also a WP:QUOTEFARM, but that's a lesser concern. I'll be doing a clean-up when I am able to find the time, but if others are inclined, help would be greatly appreciated. Generalrelative (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the framing w.r.t "mainstream history" is a bit off. The book is a paleoconservative jeremiad meant to muddy the waters since the right-wing provenance of fascism is so painfully obvious. Looking at excerpts from the book, I don't see much in the way of a rejection of mainstream history, just an ignoring of it. And authoritarianism, of course, can have any number of ideologies behind it. So it seems that Goldberg got excited when H. G. Wells said he wanted a leftwing Hitler. Sure, George Carlin reimagined the (perhaps apocryphal) Sinclair Lewis remark that if fascism came to America it would come wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross in terms of a corporatized, neoliberal approach which is just as much the bugbear of the right as it is left. This is a lazy political work in the same vein as many written by Coulter, D'Souza, PregerU, Candace Owens etc. It's not really a fringe theory, per se. Framing it as such seems to perhaps be missing the real context. jps (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Alex Epstein (American writer)

    I saw concerns about the editing of this article on WP:BLPN, and thought I would cross post it here as it may be of interest. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Ghouta chemical attack

    I am having a dispute on consensus on reverting the edit these edits in Ghouta chemical attack as I am being told the Syrian government and U.N investigation are fringe and shouldn’t be in the infobox, I don’t think the U.N or Syria accusations are fringe figures in the war as the U.N investigation is what government accusations of both sides are based on and the Syrian government is one of two being accused which makes it a key figure in the attack, the accusation and investigation have been reported on by mainstream media below https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2013/8/28/syria-denies-chemical-weapons-claim

    and the u.n investigation, which can be found here https://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/politics/syria-civil-war

    I don’t think the accusation of Syrian government opposition using chemical weapons is fringe as mainstream media has mentioned accusations of notable Syrian opposition using chemical weapons multiple times by Al Nusra Front, ISIS and the FSA which can be found below https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/world/middleeast/isis-chemical-weapons-syria-iraq-mosul.html https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2013/5/6/syria-rebels-reject-un-chemical-weapons-claim https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/syria-says-it-did-not-and-will-not-use-chemical-weapons/

    I think the controversial nature of the Wikipedia page is leading to a bias in consensus on the balance/neutrality of the page and that the Syrian government accusations and U.N investigation links should be relisted in the infobox due to their notability in the attack Bobisland (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    You seem to be confusing different things. I don't see anyone saying the UN investigating is fringe. I do see editors saying the Russian and Syrian government's claims are fringe, which is likely a fair assessment. The other things editors are saying and the reason there is a dispute about inclusion of links is there is often no need to include any sources in the lead since the lead should only cover details which are already covered in more depth in the article. Note that while we occasionally include URLs in info boxes see e.g. TikTok or Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign, these are only for official websites or similar things of the subject of the article. References in the infobox are not intended to be used because they are "notabl"e or of interest to the reader, they are only used as with any references, to support some claim being made. The external link section is where URLs which may be of interest to the reader are listed. Nil Einne (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the assessment that the Russian and Syrian claims are fringe and should be properly attributed and couched in a lot of careful language, and do not belong in the infobox. Andre🚐 17:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Both the U.N and Syrian government accusations and investigations are references to support claims being made and yes they are also not wanting to include the U.N investigation and only including one claim in something that’s disputed rather than both and the U.N investigation which is based on evidence Bobisland (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    That makes no sense since the UN investigation is discussed in detail and I see no evidence on the talk page or edit history anyone has suggested the should be removed. In particular, it's discussed in the Ghouta chemical attack#Evidence of the attack, Ghouta chemical attack#Independent International Commission of Inquiry, and finally in fair depth in the Ghouta chemical attack#UN investigation section. Your comment also makes no sense for another reason. There is zero mention of the Syrian government claims in the lead. (There is brief mention in a footnote in the infobox.) Frankly, I don't think there should be any mention of the Syrian or Russian government claims in the lead, but in any case, until and unless there is mention of the Syrian government claims in the lead there is absolutely no reason to include references for it in the lead. If you want to propose we include mention of the Syrian government claims in the lead, or some details of the UN report, please concentrate on that aspect rather than getting distracted by whether we should include references for these two things in the lead. You're putting the cart before the horse. We include references for things we say, not for things you think we should say but we don't. (The Syrian government and Russian government claims are discussed in the body of the article, with references.) Nil Einne (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Since they aren’t directly mentioning re-adding the U.N investigation it doesn’t mean they aren’t against it as they’ve repeatedly disputed my claim that the U.N investigation isn’t fringe by calling the edit a improvement that shouldn’t be reverted when I mention it (or they ignore it) and I never said the Syrian government claim was in the lead only the accusation against the Syrian government which was placed in the same edit that removed all accusations into a note in which later edits removed the disputes altogether and editorialized the 3rd party accusations as a fact

    “If you want to propose we include mention of the Syrian government claims in the lead, or some details of the UN report, please concentrate on that aspect rather than getting distracted by whether we should include references for these two things in the lead.”

    I already disputed that the Syrian government accusations being stated as fact in the lead and all the other accusations links including the U.N investigation being removed, regardless the dispute of perpetrators doesn’t have to be in the lead to be in the perpetrators infobox Bobisland (talk) 06:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Mike Baillie

    Stumbled across this article while reading Worlds in Collision, in which the author is quoted criticising the book. However, the section Mike_Baillie#Comet_theories seems to affirmitively support Baillie's comet catastrophism claims in wikivoice. I am aware this is a BLP, but the section should be heavily modified/cut down. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Padre Pio

    Are stigmata "real"? Is it fringe to describe them as such? See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Any external opinion is welcome. Unfortunately you are missing the point. The discussion is not about whether the stigmata are "real" or not. The wounds are real as there were many witnesses confirming the presence of such wounds. Then regarding the question of the origin of the wounds, whether self-inflicted or else, it's not up to you to decide. Some people think it was deliberately self-inflicted, others believe otherwise. Writing that "the stigmata are false/fake/artificial" is definitely not in line with the policy. SanctumRosarium (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    About 60% of the content in the "stigmata" section on that article is massively undue weight and should be deleted. For example, a huge quote is cited after the text "In a letter to Padre Benedetto, his superior and spiritual advisor from San Marco in Lamis, dated 22 October 1918, Pio described his experience of receiving the stigmata", this is primary sourced material. The section also cites material from Pio's friends and loyal supporters. In total about 5 or 6 physicians examined Pio's wounds. It's clear the physicians conclusions should be cited over the opinion of bishops and non-medical men. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't that kinda what he's known for though? The stigmata accounts? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look at the Gemma Galgani article the stigmata section is more balanced with just a few accounts and then some skeptical examination. Maybe we can cite one or two accounts on the Padre Pio article but currently the stigmata section is very unbalanced. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is written quite “reverently” compared to Gemma Galgani. Not exactly encyclopedic prose. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there is any meaningful "discussion" on the "origins" of the wounds. Religious cultists believe they were caused by God just as you would expect. The rest of the world including all of those who are the literal experts in such proposals is unimpressed with this assertion. We can leave it at that. jps (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The followers of Pio claim not only the authenticity of his stigmata, but also the authenticity of levitation (!), miracles, healings, prophecies etc.. This is all nonsense, of course, and is based on the "reports" of affect-laden followers. The user SanctumRosarium (nomen est omen!) now wants to press a Catholic summary into the introduction of the article. This is certainly not possible, because all the criticized things never happened, of course. In addition, extremely long quotations from followers are put into the article, which do not contain any encyclopedically meaningful information. They should be massively shortened, and in some cases deleted. A WP-article can present faith content, but it certainly cannot pretend that the view of believers and often fanatical followers is equivalent to an ideologically neutral orientation.

    Catholic POV is what both users Rafaelosornio and SanctumRosarium in particular are trying to set. Both are believers in an ultra-conservative form of Catholicism. Their contributions are not suitable for a neutral encyclopedia. I ask for support to let the article remain reasonable. Mr. bobby (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The article desperately needs the addition of independent critique of a number of supernatural claims, e.g. Joe Nickell, J. Gordon Melton. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ad Orientem: Religious belief in and of itself is not fringe, but empirical claims such as the ones being discussed here (e.g. literal miracles for which physical evidence is claimed to exist) are definitely in the remit of this board and always have been. Thus I have reverted your "procedural close". I did not know whether to add your closing comment back as a regular comment or not, but it's not okay for you to close this discussion when it is ongoing about how to handle this matter. jps (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ජපස I have replied on my talk page to the comment you left there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct. This is not about religion. If Wikipedia accepts people's crazy beliefs about hovering people and lets them stand as facts, we could just as well close shop and leave the field to Conservapedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a reason why WP:PSCI and WP:RNPOV are distinct sections. Have you read them? SanctumRosarium (talk) 10:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Never heard of RNPOV before, but I have probably long ago read it as part of the whole, and it fit my impression of it. It does not seem to support treating flying people as a real "phenomenon". --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    information Administrator note With respect to @ජපස's reversion of my close, I believe their objection is within the bounds of reason though I am unsure that there is a community consensus treating belief in alleged religious phenomena as fringe. It is a sufficiently gray area that I agree this should remain open. That said, this is fundamentally a dispute over content and tone, and that should almost always be resolved on the article talk page. As there is already a discussion going on there, I would suggest this discussion be migrated to the talk page and future comments be left there. As I noted in my closing statement, additional input can be requested via an RfC or by leaving a neutrally worded request on the talk pages of relevant wiki-projects, taking care to avoid Wikipedia:Canvassing. Lastly, I would gently remind anyone concerned that when disagreeing with an admin action, in all but the rarest of cases, common courtesy if nothing else, would suggest you should try discussing the matter before reverting it. We don't always get it right. But reverting admin actions without discussion and leaving messages that might reasonably be interpreted as implying bad faith are not generally conducive to a collegial discussion. In extreme cases, such behavior could be seen as disruptive. Based on a comment left on my talk page, I believe ජපස did not understand I was acting as an admin. Still, let's all try to remember to AGF and behave courteously with one another, especially when dealing with potentially contentious issues or subject matter. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. I will be away from my computer for a good deal of the day. If anyone needs to discuss this with me further, I will be checking in later this evening. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think closing a noticeboard thread should be considered an admin action and I object strenuously to that kind of officiousness. Admin action is needed when special tools are required to effect a specific change to the database. That was manifestly not the case here. In some circumstances, admins may be called upon to close difficult or contentious discussions as a pro forma approach to consensus reading with the assumption that admins are better versed in WP policy and culture and thus are able to make judgement calls appropriate to such scenarios. That does not apply here either. Thus, I'm very concerned that you have adopted a kind of authoritarian view of Wikipedia that is counter to the way the community really is. You are no better at deciding what is or is not appropriate discussion matters here on this board. Anyone is allowed to close a discussion here if they think consensus will support it. Contrariwise, anyone is allowed to reopen a discussion if they think that judgement is wrong. There is no need to have some sort of drawn out metadiscussion just because the person who closed the discussion went through a successful WP:RfA. jps (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I just checked how long I have been on this board (surprisingly, it is only 5 years), but that was the first time I am aware of that a discussion here was admin-closed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Me too. And yet...I'd welcome an admin close of this tiresome discussion. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    CO2 Coalition‎ and Oregon Petition‎

    New user edit-warring WP:PROFRINGE text into articles. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Sweatman is back

    [https://martinsweatman.blogspot.com/2022/11/james-powells-response-to-mark-boslough.html?m=1] defending Allen West. Doug Weller talk 21:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably emboldened by this [6]. jps (talk) 03:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting comments there about West dodging his lack of credentials. Doug Weller talk 18:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking of YDIH, the recently active user Incendiex90 appears to be a member of CRG, going by their userpage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Attack on Paul Pelosi

    Lot of fringe- and fringe-adjacent edits emanating from mostly infrequent editors. More eyeballs may be helpful. Neutralitytalk 21:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Most were a bot I think. Doug Weller talk 10:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Book of Daniel

    WP:FRINGE POV being advocated at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Book of Daniel. Please reply there.

    DRN has been closed at premature. I was speaking of edits like [7] and [8]. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion is now taking place at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic ban. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Tgeorgescu:
    • The second-century date for the visions of Danial (caps. 7-12) is accepted as beyond reasonable doubt by critical scholarship. The dating of the tales in chaps. 1-6 is less evident and is keenly debated. [1]
    • Modern scholarship now judges that the book had a long process of development. Although oral traditions concerning Daniel may indeed go back to the end of the Neo-Babylonian Empire (mid-6th century BCE), the story collection appears to have taken shape during the Persian period and to have reached its final form in the early Hellenistic era (3rd century BCE). The apocalypses, however, can be closely dated to the time of the Maccabean revolt against Antiochus IV Epiphanes (168–164 BCE).[2]

    That division is obscured by the articles opening "The Book of Daniel is a 2nd-century BC biblical apocalypse..." and buried later in Book_of_Daniel#Development. fiveby(zero) 04:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]



    References

    1. ^ Collins, John J. (1984). "The Date And Unity of Daniel". The Apocalyptic Imagination (1st ed.). (Same text in the 2nd edition)
    2. ^ Newsom, Carol. "Daniel". https://www-oxfordbibliographies-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/view/document/obo-9780195393361/obo-9780195393361-0026.xml#obo-9780195393361-0026-bibItem-0002. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |work= ignored (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)

    Pam Reynolds case

    Can there be “scientific consensus” among near-death researchers? - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Are they scientists? Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes. The idea that we should decide who is or is not a scientist is more-or-less a distraction. The better question is one of looking at whether their claims pass a basic baloney detection kit test. Publishing in JDNS is almost always a WP:REDFLAG in this area. jps (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. The issue isn't deciding if a person is a scientist, but rather if FRIND sources support their claims as being scientific. As far as I can tell (for whatever that is worth), all of the near-death experience "researchers" base their claims - and ultimately their in-group consensus - upon some combination of intuition, personal experience, and personal belief/desire, none of which are scientific. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My point was "how can it be “scientific consensus” if they are not even scientists?". Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, sure. But technically a group of non-scientists could engage in research that is valid scientifically. That isn't the case here, at least not according to any FRIND sources I can find, but rather that wading into a distracting (and unnecessary) "Am too! Are Not! Am too!" debate/determination of who is or isn't a "scientist," we can just stick with what is available to us from reliable sources. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoJo Anthrax @Slatersteven @LuckyLouie @ජපස this article[9] (from a journal published by the Missouri State Medical Association) provides a summary of the major lines of evidence considered by such researchers; I suppose you could classify "observational data gathered by the researcher" as "personal experience" but that doesn't seem like an accurate characterization of their work. To summarize a few points:
    (1) Patients who report an out-of-body experience are significantly more accurate in describing their resuscitation procedures compared to those who don't
    (2) They report lucid, organized experiences while under conditions of oxygen deprivation, which is inconsistent with what we know of how the brain operates under such conditions
    (3) Cross-cultural consistency in the accounts of what happens during these experiences. If near-death experiences were considerably influenced by pre-existing religious and cultural beliefs, one would expect significant differences in the content of NDEs from different cultures around the world.
    As an aside: there is currently no theory of physics that deals with the formation of awareness (except perhaps quantum mechanics, where the observer plays a crucial rule in collapsing the state of the system). Incidentally, very recent studies suggest the brain does quantum computing [10]. No honest scientist will claim that our current knowledge of physics rules out the possibility that awareness is tied to physics operating at very large or very small scales, under which scenarios information can be communicated in unusual ways. As an example of theories of consciousness that leverage the physics of the very large/very small, Roger Penrose (Nobel laureate in physics) in collaboration with Stuart Hameroff (an anaesthesiologist) put forth Orchestrated Objective Reduction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose#Consciousness), in which consciousness is proposed to arise from quantum gravity effects in microtubules, and it looks like the theory has survived various attempts to poke holes in it (several of which involved misrepresenting the original theory, which is disheartening but also par for the course given what academia is like today based on my experiences during my PhD; being right and gaining status have become secondary to truth). AvantiShri (talk) 07:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am concerned that you think an obscure paper in a state medical association journal (not even clear what the relevance to Missouri is except that I think one of the authors may be on the editorial board) which has not been cited by mainstream researchers is something on which to base Wikipedia content. This kind of primary source is not really good enough for us here at WP. As for your speculations about physical models of awareness, this strikes me as being original research and, as such, is not allowed for inclusion in articles either. Orch-OR is well known to this board. Criticisms of it are well known as well. jps (talk) 10:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @LuckyLouie @Slatersteven @ජපස if the phrase "scientific consensus" is replaced with "researchers of near-death phenomena have stated...", is there still an issue? Because this was what was in the last version of the article before LuckyLouie's second reversion. Wikipedia's policy states "views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the flat Earth)". Even if you believe that flat earth claims are in the same category as the idea that the formation of awareness (a long-standing open problem in physics) is linked to a phenomenon that involves distortions in spacetime (literally all that you'd need to postulate to allow for an explanation of these events; no need to involve the "paranormal", physics at very large and very small scales is weird enough to make room for this), wikipedia's own policy states that we should make room for those views in articles devoted to those claims. AvantiShri (talk) 06:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem here is that "researchers of near-death phenomena..." tacitly assumes credulity on the part of the researchers and is a so-called WP:WEASEL. Direct attribution to the actual people who are making the claim is okay as long as third parties have noticed this. Wikipedia is not allowed per its own rules to offer that kind of analysis. We only make room for ideas that have been noticed by expert third parties. I'm pretty sure no one has noticed your claim that spacetime distortions cause awareness. jps (talk) 10:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @AvantiShri:. Welcome to Wikipedia! We have been working on these kinds of topics for a long time. jps (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the tag AvantiShri (talk) 07:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the issue here more than anything is that the label "researchers" lends credulity, as @ජපස has said above. I think my needle-threading on this would be to call them proponents of NDEs or NDE advocates. We should not afford them terminology which suggests they have bona fides from a WP:FRINGE point of view. The determination would be what is included in scholarly publications in neuroscience, psychology, and modern anthropology journals. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The Galileo Project

    The Galileo Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Just alerted to this one where it’s basically a “we’re looking for UFOs project” that seems to be focused on sourcing from the research group itself. Didn’t have time to really delve into it since I’m just heading out, but it definitely set off some red flags for me at a glance. Hopefully someone more familiar with this area can take a look. KoA (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not a terrible article, but it suffers from some of the same problems in style that we've identified before coming from this editor. In any case, I've notified them that we're discussing it and I've culled some of the more problematic aspects out of the text. jps (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand your concern. It's definitely not "sourcing from the research group itself", especially not "focused" on that. There are also no red flags, it's WP:N and WP:RS etc – strange that I have to point that out. To me it seems you "identify" whatever doesn't fit your views (see WP:NPOV) and/or is anyhow related to UFOs as problematic. If you have concerns post them on the respective talk page, and name/explain them explicitly. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you take this criticism seriously. We've already caught you coordinating off-wiki and explaining to others your goal of skewing UFO coverage here. I'm not okay with you returning to this patterned behavior. jps (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I was alerted to this off-wiki when someone with the same username was bragging about just making the article today. UFO stuff aside, it did come across as WP:PUFFERY. On mobile, so can't really do much right now to help. KoA (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a short note, read this just now: I do take this criticism seriously. I'm not "coordinating" off-wiki and it's not my "goal [to] skew[] UFO coverage here". I only created a new well-written policy-compliant article about a notable subject with lots of WP:RS. I did so because I found the article was missing despite being significant and notable. I'm not "bragging" either, don't think it's okay to accuse me of that but I don't mind. I refer to WP:AGF.
    -
    Thanks for your efforts of keeping pseudoscience, charlatane-content, policy-incompliant content etc out and the site high-quality, neutral and reliable.
    Btw especially the latter is a main intention of mine – not related to any particular topic – too along with helping make sure what I think are globally-highly-notable topics² are covered and so with high-quality.
    ²(mainly not related to UFOs but that too; if these days it's often related to UFOs, it's mainly/partly because it appears that the topic is somewhat getting more activity / news coverage recently) Prototyperspective (talk) 12:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This particular article is much better than the last one you wrote, but writing about WP:FRINGE and WP:FRINGE-adjacent ideas is delicate and sometimes sourcing needs to be more carefully done, writing needs to be more carefully considered, and problematic WP:PROFRINGE subtext should be addressed to make an article better. This is not the same thing as your typical "Science News" piece. jps (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Inclusion of Gustave Whitehead's alleged 1901 machine in a list in our article on 'flying cars'

    See Flying car#List of flying cars, and Talk:Flying car#Whitehead.

    In brief, the Flying cars article includes in its list of such vehicles, Gustave Whitehead's alleged 1901 machine, claimed by his supporters to have successfully flown that year, two years prior to the Wright brothers first flights. Though the description given in our list is somewhat equivocal ("Believed not to have flown, although this has been challenged") any inclusion in the list at all appears to me to be undue per WP:FALSEBALANCE etc, given the lack of credibility given to the claims by academic historians of aviation. Am I right in my assessment? AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a correction to the above. The 1901 machine is not "alleged", its existence is not disputed. Nor is there any dispute that its inclusion of a road engine and folding wings lead it to be classed as a flying car. The only fringe allegation is that it actually flew. The rest is expanded on in the linked discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Aircraft WikiProject notified. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the claim that it was a 'flying car' (or any kind of flying machine) is the issue under dispute. Given that the list purports to be one of things that fly, or have flown, that would appear to be the relevant criteria for inclusion. Or at least, the primary one, since 'car' is somewhat ambiguous, while 'flying' generally isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Another correction or two. The list is no such thing as just suggested. It is a list of flying car types, many of which never left the promotional brochure or static model workshop, let alone flew; it even has a special Status column to make this crystal clear to the reader. In the present discussion, one also needs to keep a clear distinction between what is in dispute in the real world and what is in dispute here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia articles are supposed to describe the real world. A world where historians appear to agree that Whitehead's claims (and/or claims made about him) were fabrications. If the list includes more recent non-flying 'flying cars', they should be removed too. Or at least moved into a 'promotions' section. Wikipedia needs to distinguish between things kept aloft by fluid dynamics, and those supported by hype. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "If the list includes more recent non-flying 'flying cars', they should be removed too." Really? That proposal should be made at WT:WikiProject Aircraft, as it affects a large number of aircraft lists, built up over the years under an established consensus to the opposite. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't a 'proposal', it was a statement concerning the list on the 'flying cars' article, which appears to describe things that haven't flown (at least according to RS) as 'flying'. I find it hard to believe that a Wikiproject would reach a consensus to intentionally misrepresent such things. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's exactly why you need to ask the WikiProject itself what we all think. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikiprojects cannot override Wikipedia policy. Including not-X-things in a list of X-things would appear to do so, regardless of which project X came under. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's exactly why you need to ask the WikiProject itself what we all think. Maybe we are not violating policy and the confusion is yours. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your continuing attempts to drag this thread off-topic duly noted. Since this thread isn't about your entirely evidence-free claims regarding a supposed Wikiproject 'consensus', I shall wait until someone prepared to actually address the inclusion of fringe claims regarding Whitehead in the list responds. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems to me that the list contains a lot more than just literal "flying cars". Some of the things included are just plans. jps (talk) 12:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The current text reads American immigrant Gustave Whitehead believed that a practical aeroplane would have to be roadable, so that it could be taken from its storage shed to a suitable takeoff point. In 1901 he equipped his No. 21 aeroplane with a road engine. Although mainstream consensus is that it never flew (the claim remains controversial), the machine was reported to have driven satisfactorily. which seems to be accurate and acceptable. Whiteheads' #21 was built as a flying car, although perhaps not a successful one, so it should be included. If this article excluded unsuccessful flying cars, ones that were only prototypes or very short production runs that never made full production, then we could just delete the whole article, as there has not been one produced in any significant numbers to date. - Ahunt (talk) 12:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The 'controversy' seems to only exist amongst Whitehead's promoters, who it would appear have been (ab)using Wikipedia as a platform to continue the campaign to rewrite history they have been engaging in elsewhere (and yes, I can provide direct evidence for this). AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If that is the only contentious part, I would be fine with just removing (the claim remains controversial). - Ahunt (talk) 13:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. If a statement that something is controversial is itself controversial here, then it is not serving its intended purpose of clarification and can go. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am more immediately concerned with the inclusion of Whitehead's machine in the list, since that amounts to a Wikivoice claim that it was a 'flying car', contrary to established historical consensus. The exact wording of any text relating to it in the article (if it merits inclusion at all) can be addressed separately. As can be what appears at face value to undue weight being put on Whitehead's claims elsewhere on Wikipedia. Text can be nuanced. A list-of-X should not, in my opinion, be 'nuanced' to include examples of not-X to suit the wishes of fringe historical perspectives. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that Steelpillow has chosen to attempt to retain an intentionally-misleading list title in the article (see [11][12]) I'll now provide the evidence backing up my earlier comment regarding abuse of Wikipedia by a contributor engaging in a campaign to rewrite history elsewhere [13] All this talk of 'Wikiproject consensus' etc is clearly a smokescreen. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I invoked BRD and started the relevant discussion, while AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) merely earned himself this warning against personal abuse. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    BRD is an essay. Not deliberately misleading readers is policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    An aircraft can still be an aircraft if it hasn't flown, or is incapable of flight (like the Rockwell XFV-12). From the description in a contemporary edition of Scientific American here, Whitehead's flying machine had both powered wheels for propelling it on the ground, and propellers (driven by a separate engine) to propel (and steer) it in the air. What should be the question is whether the powered wheels were intended to allow it to be driven on the roads rather than just to get the aircraft up to flying speed - the Scientific American article suggests the latter function, and does not mention an intent to use as an automobile. What sources refer to the device as an automobile? And please keep this about the subject, not about other editors!Nigel Ish (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nigel Ish@ there are a couple of citations to the Whitehead entry, which is the last one in the table at Flying car#List of actual and claimed flying cars. I may be able to find more if needed, as Jackson must have got his information from somewhere. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    An aircraft can still be an aircraft if it hasn't flown, or is incapable of flight...? Really? So Wikipedia should describe things that can't fly as 'flying cars'? I'd like to see a policy-based justification for that... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Consider the Rockwell XFV-12 - intended to fly and built by a reputable manufacturer but was incapable of flight - was that an aircraft? How about the Dewoitine HD.780 - which never flew - was that an aircraft - if not aircraft what were they? While the Langley Aerodrome did not fly, and wasn't capable of flying in its original form, no-one said it wasn't a flying machine. An aircraft does not become an aircraft on the occasion of its first flight.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Putting aside whether it flew or not, do any sources refer to Whitehead's invention as a "flying car"? The flying car article describes a flying car as "a vehicle which can function both as a personal car or automobile and as an aircraft" - was there any indication that Whitehead's invention functioned as "a personal car or automobile" or was it just an "aircraft" with a novel way of taxiing? -M.nelson (talk) 15:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    M.nelson@ there are a couple of citations to the Whitehead entry, which is the last one in the table at Flying car#List of actual and claimed flying cars. I may be able to find more if needed, as Jackson must have got his information from somewhere. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are more citations at Claims to the first powered flight#Whitehead, where the mainstream perspective is more accurately reflected. Citations including direct rebuttals of the major sources being cited in the 'Flying cars' article - see the subsection entitled Jane's renews controversy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Those citations do not address whether the No.21 was intended to be a flying car. Please stay on topic. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the fringe theories noticeboard. The topic here is whether the promotion of fringe claims regarding Whitehead is in agreement with Wikipedia policy. Please address the topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No. The topic here is whether listing a flying car that probably never flew is permissible in a list including many types that never flew. You titled this discussion yourself. If this is not a fringe issue, you have only yourself to blame for posting it here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The title of this thread is "Inclusion of Gustave Whitehead's alleged 1901 machine in a list in our article on 'flying cars'". Please give a clear, policy-based explanation as to why Whitehead's non-flying (per WP:RS) machine should be included in a list of 'flying cars'. Policy-based. Not according to some imaginary 'consensus'. Based on policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no policy that forbids it, no case to answer. Your arguments amount to nothing more than an opinionated, uncivil and error-riddled personal crusade against some irrelevant claim that the article doesn't make anyway. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are seriously suggesting that there is no policy against describing something that didn't fly as a 'flying car'? How about WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOPV for a start? And as for 'personal crusades', you are the one using Wikipedia to promote the same revisionist history you have been engaging in elsewhere, not me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If somebody designs an aeroplane, we call it an aeroplane even if it never flies. If somebody designs a submarine, we call it a submarine even if it sinks on its first launch. If an architect designs a house that is never built, we still call it a house. So it goes with flying cars. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If lying through our teeth to promote fringe historical revisionism is compatible with policy, heaven help Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (NB the above response was posted in reply to :Steelpillow's original comment, since amended [14]). 20:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
    Why don't we just segregate the list into "Models with recorded flight", "Designs that never flew", and "Still under development" — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That would seem an entirely sensible suggestion. Though I'd still think it advisable to look carefully at the sources that describe the Whitehead machine as a 'flying car'. This phrase seems to originate with 1901 newspaper reports since dismissed as unreliable, and suggestions that the device was intended to be a 'flying car' as the term is now generally understood would seem very much open to question. Which might well lead us to the conclusion that his machine doesn't belong on the list at all. We have a biography on Whitehead and his endeavours. We describe them further at Claims to the first powered flight#Whitehead. Inclusion of one of his machines in a list which otherwise seems to be describing other things entirely purely on the basis of a phrase in a questionable newspaper article seems undue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think if we have any sourcing from reliable places which says he even intended it to fly, then it would belong on a "designs that never flew" list. If we don't have that, and we have no reason en face to believe he intended it to fly, then yes, I would agree it does not belong on the page at all. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there's much room for doubt that Whitehead intended to build a flying machine. He had already successfully built a Lilienthal-style glider, and continued to build further powered designs for some time afterwards, though again without success, per mainstream RS. My last point was more aimed at whether he intended a 'flying car' in the sense that our article otherwise describes - something designed to mimic both an automobile and an aircraft. His 1901 machine was claimed to have engine-driven wheels, but this seems to have been intended for launching purposes rather than for long-distance travel on roads. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is where you guys really do need to grasp the wider impact of your arguments, stop discussing the aircraft list guidelines as if they were a fringe issue relating to a single list, and engage with the Aircraft WikiProject. This related discussion provides some pointers to how we moved away from multiple lists to sortable tables. Before undoing that, you will have to convince the WikiProject to change those guidelines. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We are under no obligation whatsoever to convince any Wikiproject of anything. WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations, nor can they assert ownership of articles within a specific topic area. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    While I understand the personality type of those who think that every Wikipedia article needs to be consistent, there really is no imperative that this is the case. We can deal with the list in one article while other articles do completely different things. We don't need to rewrite any rules to WP:SOFIXIT. jps (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems obviously misleading to include on a list of "flying cars" entries that were never cars that flew. The list split suggestion above could work, but it should be quite clear which sub-lists are made up of entries that are not actually cars that could fly. CMD (talk) 03:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a Status column with a sorting widget, explicitly to indicate which flew and which did not. It is intended to address exactly this issue. In what way does it fail to do so? Should the article title not also be modified accordingly? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The 'status' for Whitehead's machine is given as 'prototype'. Which isn't an indication of whether it flew or not. This is however beside the point, since the debate was whether Whitehead's 'car' merited inclusion on the list at all, given the rejection by mainstream historians of the claims surrounding it. Or at least, that was what the debate was about as far as I was concerned. If we'd stuck to actually discussing that, rather than being dragged of into conspiratorial claims about "WP:FRINGE police... wanting to turn our aircraft list style guide on its head", it would no doubt have gone more smoothly. Style guides are, on the whole, a good thing. Even those on Wikipedia. The best style guides (which aren't generally found on Wikipedia) will however make it clear that 'style' should not be enforced at the expense of accuracy, and that they aren't a means to avoid actually thinking about what you are doing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    AndyTheGrump@ So really, the issue was that you disagreed with the practice of including both flown and unflown types in the same list? Settle that and you will be happy? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue was what I said it was in the thread I started on the article talk page: the inclusion of Whitehead's 1901 machine in a list of 'flying cars'. Historical consensus is that it didn't fly. There appear to be no explicit inclusion criteria for that list, but whatever they are, they cannot, per Wikipedia policy, be used to promote fringe historical perspectives, which an implication that Whitehead was flying it in 1901 clearly does. Furthermore, as has already been noted, the description of the machine as even an attempted 'flying car' seems little supported in RS. It was described in those words, certainly, in a newspaper report of the time, but that doesn't necessarily make it an attempted 'flying car' as the terminology has since been used. The engine-driven wheels appear to have been intended to assist launching, rather than as a means of long-distance travel, and the very limited ground clearance would surely have been limiting on 1901 roads. Which mainstream sources actually support claims that this device was intended to be driven long distances on road? Come to that, do even Whitehead's supporters claim that? They generally seem more concerned with its attributes as an aircraft than as an automobile. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet until we can agree on what 'flying car' implies, we cannot settle your concern. But then again, you also said here that "the core issue is whether Wikipedia should be including fringe claims in the list at all". I think the question has to be, are you muddling things up through ignorance or design? Is it the meaning of 'flying car', the inclusion of Whitehead in the existing mixed list or the Whitehead fringe issue that is core to your concern? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    'We' don't have to agree on anything. Wikipedia operates according to consensus, which need not always be universal. And I'm sure other people are capable of seeing what my concerns are. I have just explained them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, how does a status of "Prototype" say anything about whether something can fly? Secondly, having the status is insufficient if the status ends up being "not a flying car". I have also just noticed that the list considers a person, Mr. Bel Geddes, to be a conceptual flying car. CMD (talk) 13:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I have realised that both the Status and Notes need to be taken into account. Shows how long it is since I checked my own handiwork. :( A proposal to modify the Flying car list has been put here, and I have expanded on the issues there. As with the closed subtopic below, there is nothing fringe about this issue. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A claim of Whitehead’s machine flying in 1901 would certainly be fringe as it is rejected by mainstream scholarship. Hopefully the discussion now taking place on the article talk page will resolve the issue of Wikipedia potentially implying this claim. Now that this board has been fully alerted perhaps the discussion can continue there. Brunton (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Inclusion of failed and unbuilt designs in articles on aircraft

    Closing this before it goes any further WP:OFFTOPIC for this noticeboard. This is not an indictment of any particular user, but simply an attempt to help decrease tensions. Stop sniping at each other. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    A wider issue has emerged from this discussion. Many articles on aircraft discuss and/or list both types which have flown and types which have not and/or never left the drawing board. An illustrative selection include; List of de Havilland aircraft, Variable-sweep wing, the overarching multi-page List of aircraft and of course Flying car; there are dozens, if not hundreds more. This follows the standard practice of the thousands of reference works which these articles draw on as reliable sources. (There are exceptions, of course. For example there are works dedicated to unbuilt projects under one theme or another, and no doubt some of those will have sufficient coverage here to merit their own articles. But these are the relatively rare exceptions that prove the rule.)

    However some editors here, who are not familiar with mainstream aviation literature, feel that this is confusing. Should all these articles and lists be:

    1. Retitled to make the distinction explicit, as for example "Variable-sweep aircraft which have flown and designs which have not flown" or "Flying cars which have flown and designs which have not flown".
    2. Split into multiple articles and lists, titled accordingly.
    3. Left to follow mainstream practice.

    — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The inclusion criteria and titles of lists has nothing to do with Fringe theories. The Fringe Theories Noticeboard is not a general forum about article content so this part of the discussion is on the wrong board.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's interesting. Here you said that "This discussion started at WP:FTN. It should have stayed there." Were you referring to this subtopic or to the FTN issue which you yourself had taken over there? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The reply I made to ZLEA was a reply to his last post, obviously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, so that was part of the above FTN discussion you had spilled over there and suddenly wished you hadn't. We can safely discount it here, fair enough. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:43, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How about we 'safely discount' your attempts at mind-reading, and at dragging this discussion off-topic once again, instead? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    some editors here, who are not familiar with mainstream aviation literature - This is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia for everyone. Sorry you have to deal with us plebeians. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, had I not taken your view seriously I would not have asked the question. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to agree that this discussion has veered well away from the scope of FTN. It is not “fringe” to classify a prototype aircraft as “an aircraft”. It is not “fringe” to classify an aircraft that never left the design stage as “an aircraft”. I suppose one can argue that such classification is inaccurate (or perhaps incomplete) … but that isn’t an issue for FTN. Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with blueboar, more or less. It's a question of inclusion criteria. The fringe claim is that it flew. If the inclusion criteria for that page requires reliable sourcing that the vehicle was not only built or intended to fly but that it did fly, then it shouldn't be included. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:43, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Martin Kulldorff

    Persistent IP edit-wars fringe stuff in. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Telegony (theory)

    This is about [15]. Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Question: Who directly characterizes Telegony (theory) as "pseudoscience"? Is it unfalsifiable, or incompatible with the scientific method? It appears to be closer to a superseded historical idea like Lamarckism (which does not have "pseudosientific" shoehorned into the lead sentence). Recent literature and reference works variously refers to Telogny as "hypothetical", "unsubstantiated", "long-ago discredited", but not pseudoscience, and the purported case in flies suggests that there may be different "flavors" of telegony theory, not all based strictly on genetic contributions of the first mate. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be good question for the article Talk page, where such discussions should take place. I will ask it there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Before the discussion, we need to define the terminology first. Scientific terminology must be defined in the way scientists use in scientific literatures. Telegony is not a theory. The term is used to call an observed phenomenon by scientists. The definition of telegony written in the latest scientific research papers.

    Telegony refers to the appearance of some characteristics of the female's previously mated male in her subsequent offspring by another male.

    — Hamid Reza Nejabati, Leila Roshangar, Mohammad Nouri, Uterosomes: The lost ring of telegony?

    Telegony: Effect of the male element on the female reproductive system such that long-past mates still influence the offspring of later mates.

    — David W. Pfennig, Phenotypic Plasticity & Evolution: Causes, Consequences, Controversies

    This provides a simple mechanism for the phenomenon known as telegony, where offspring acquire the characteristics of their mother's previous mates even when they are not the offspring's genetic parents.

    — Sonia Pascoal, Benjamin J. M. Jarrett, Emma Evans, Rebecca M. Kilner, Superior stimulation of female fecundity by subordinate males provides a mechanism for telegony

    Please reply if you have any objections. --Trusci (talk) 11:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Aseem Malhotra

    Aseem Malhotra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Last paragraph of the lede:

    His views on diet and health have been criticized by the British Heart Foundation as "misleading and wrong", and his public questioning of the need ever to use statins has been condemned as a danger to public health.[10] His "Pioppi diet" was named by the British Dietetic Association as one of the "top 5 worst celeb diets to avoid in 2018".[4] During the COVID-19 pandemic, Malhotra published a book called The 21-Day Immunity Plan,[11] which claims that following the diet can quickly help people reduce their risk from the virus; such claims are not backed by medical research evidence.[1] He has also campaigned against the use of COVID mRNA vaccines.[12]

    Dispute over how much background info to present on (mostly nutritional) health, for which he has notable fringe viewpoints. --Hipal (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Leave it to me. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=1121081784"