Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:46, 23 November 2021

Did you know

• 13 Dec 2024 – Frankfurt silver inscription (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Renerpho (t · c); see discussion

Good article nominees

• 23 Dec 2024 – Transgender health care misinformation (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist (t · c); start discussion
• 15 Dec 2024 – Conspiracy theories about the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Dan Leonard (t · c); see discussion
• 14 Dec 2024 – Flying saucer (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Rjjiii (t · c); start discussion
• 23 Aug 2024 – Epistemology (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Phlsph7 (t · c); see discussion

Requested moves

• 21 Dec 2024 – Avril Lavigne replacement conspiracy theory (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Avril is dead by Kailash29792 (t · c); see discussion
• 19 Dec 2024 – Sowa Rigpa (Traditional Tibetan medicine) (talk · edit · hist) move request to Traditional Tibetan medicine by Seefooddiet (t · c) was moved to Traditional Tibetan medicine (talk · edit · hist) by Frost (t · c) on 26 Dec 2024; see discussion
• 19 Dec 2024 – 2024 Northeastern United States drone sightings (talk · edit · hist) move request to 2024 United States drone sightings by Very Polite Person (t · c) was closed; see ]
• 16 Dec 2024 – 2024 New Jersey drone sightings (talk · edit · hist) move request to 2024 Northeastern United States drone sightings by Very Polite Person (t · c) was closed; see ]

Articles to be merged

• 02 Dec 2024 – Amulet (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Ta'wiz by Klbrain (t · c); see discussion
• 24 Nov 2024 – Omphalos hypothesis (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Last Thursdayism by Викидим (t · c); see discussion
• 13 Jul 2024 – Peter A. Levine (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Somatic experiencing by Klbrain (t · c); see discussion

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Ann Coulter

"Mainstream Science on Intelligence"

In response to points raised by Sesquivalent, I've tried to improve the lead of the article "Mainstream Science on Intelligence", which describes a 1994 letter published in the Wall Street Journal defending the controversial book The Bell Curve. More eyes on this would perhaps be helpful. Generalrelative (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Why not post a link to the actual points raised?

The more eyes the better, but I am curious what the relevance of FTN is here. On the one hand that page is already extensively monitored by race and intelligence guardsmen familiar with the whole story and context of the Gottfredson letter and associated sources. On the other, the letter itself has never had the odor of fringe (in 2009 Steven Pinker called it literally "the mainstream" in the New York Times) and it seems that all your edits are trying to tar it as fringe-by-iterated-association with a liberal dose of SYNTH. That's far beyond any Misplaced Pages RfC's, however those may be interpreted. Sesquivalent (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

This is an article about a controversial letter published in support of a well known WP:PROFRINGE book, so its relevance to this noticeboard should be clear. You are of course free to cite Pinker in the "Response and criticism" section, and to point out any instances of WP:SYNTH that you've found. But characterizing what you believe my edits are trying to do will get you nowhere. Just imagine if the same standard were applied to you. Generalrelative (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, we can all discuss particular edits over at the article Talk page, regardless of whether or not this is FTN related. However, "defending ... The Bell Curve" and "in support of PROFRINGE" (and thus a link to FTN) are assumptions, or SYNTH. It's a not-uncommon claim, but the letter and Gottfredson's article on this say different, and (even excluding all 20 Pioneer Fund affiliates) the lion's share of respondents who expressed an opinion on the content of the letter agreed with it, which seems hard to arrange for a fringe position. There is at least as much evidence that the motivation for the author and most of those who agreed with her had to do not with embracing Murray and Herrnstein but frantically separating psychometrics and its funding from the scourge of public association with that one famous sentence in the Bell Curve. Much like the population geneticists after Nicholas Wade's book. (Pinker reference is https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/books/review/Letters-t-LETSGOTOTHET_LETTERS.html ) Sesquivalent (talk) 22:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

"defending ... The Bell Curve" and "in support of PROFRINGE" (and thus a link to FTN) are assumptions, or SYNTH. Goodness no. I've even supplied a couple of sources to support the existing language in the article's first paragraph, which state explicitly that the letter in question was a defense of The Bell Curve. One is a scientific journal: . And please note that SYNTH is something we're not permitted to do in article text. Of course we're meant to use our capacity for putting 2 and 2 together when discussing what belongs in articles and how to apply guidelines like WP:FRINGE. I hope that clears things up.

And thanks by the way for the link to the exchange between Gladwell and Pinker. I'm not a huge Gladwell fan but it was fun to see him get the better of a Harvard prof, whom he clearly caught out relying on garbage sources. It should be abundantly clear, however, that that passing and rhetorical mention doesn't count for much as far as sourcing goes. Especially when compared with the litany of criticism discussed in the "Response and criticism" section of the article. Generalrelative (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, SYNTH is fine on talk pages -- I've posted the same remark myself several times recently. I was using the Misplaced Pages term of art in a less formal sense to mean that the idea Gottfredson and supporters (again, excluding the 20 Pioneers) were defending the Bell Curve, rather than trying to avoid fallout from it, is something for which there is as much negative as positive evidence, and AFAIK no direct evidence to contradict Gottfredson's account, so is being constructed from speculation at various points. I cannot access the JSTOR link at the moment but (as I said) the existence of sources that merely call the letter a defense of the Bell Curve is not in question. The issue is whether that is likely to actually have been the reason.

The Pinker link, which comes from his bio page here, is provided for local comic relief. I haven't thought about it in connection with the article proper. Their exchange immortalized the unfortunate term "Igon Value" in online STEM and quant circles. Sesquivalent (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

no, that journal article does not say the letter is a defense of the Bell Curve. What?? Just like in the above discussion of Ann Coulter, you are advancing a distinction without a difference. The McInerney article is very clear about what is meant by "commentaries that are supportive". No one who has read the article could possibly interpret it otherwise. Saying no indication whether the author thinks so. Merely "supportive" if all commentaries are dichotomized into supportive or critical is utterly baffling since the author explicitly discusses Gottfredson's letter as a defense of both the The Bell Curve's evidentiary basis (p.85) and its pretension to inform public policy (p.91), and in the latter discussion holds it up as a paradigmatic example. But in any case, it's immaterial whether you agree on this since you've conceded that there are numerous other sources we can use which say the same thing. So let's both move on to other things now. You can go on doubting whether Gottfredson and her co-signers meant to defend The Bell Curve, and we will continue to abide by what reliable secondary sources say. Generalrelative (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Telling people what they can go do, and speaking in the majestic plural --- are those recommendations from MOS or something? I must have forgotten.

Searching the paper for all appearances of "Gottfredson", "Mainstream" and "1994b" gives an exhaustive idea of what the McInerney article says about this, which does not much resemble what you are saying. I am sure Murray was happy to read the Wall Street Journal the day the letter appeared but that is neither here nor there. (Come to think of it, even that might not be true. The letter could be seen as hanging him out to dry on the critical point of genetic differences, by showing that even right-wing psychologists were not willing to go as far as he and Herrnstein did.) You seem to have deduced some of this yourself though a few hours too late to modulate your tone above. (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence&type=revision&diff=1047303881&oldid=1047302591 ).

In any case, you sent out the bat signal here and the effect over there was an edit ever so slightly in the direction I suggested on the talk page re Campbell. All good! Sesquivalent (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Just imagine if the same standard were applied to you. Using Steven Pinker as a touchstone is prima facie evidence of an ideological WP:POVPUSH in my opinion. jps (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Pinker is the quintessential example of an academic who is very careful to maintain his cultural and intellectual standing, and thus the last person to say something in the New York Times that would mark him as an outlier or give his enemies ammunition. So if he quotes from the Gottfredson letter that's a pretty good sign he sees no risk in treating it as mainstream or at least as a serious document. How does my thinking this and citing Pinker establish an ideology?

As to the standard, a well known guy around these parts cited NOFUCKINGNAZIS and threatened to have his admin friends eject me from the site (spoiler: that's not how the movie ended), GeneralRelative has at least twice vaguely hinted that I should be banned (spoiler: nobody took up the cause), and a certain Talk page buddy of his and yours has poured lots of similar passive-aggressive speculation and insinuations in my direction. So I don't have to imagine what it would be like, it's been a parade of vitriol from the day I posted on a talk page about their pet issues. Sesquivalent (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

If you think that because Pinker is IDW that's why he should be trusted, I think we're done here. Crow all you want. Accounts that adopt the self-satisfied and cynical right-wing rhetorical arguments of which you are fond do not last. jps (talk) 01:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

IDW?? Trusting Pinker??? Who mentioned that? I only think what I stated, that because Pinker is embedded in some very sweet high status gigs that he likes to keep, and because I have some other reasons to be confident in my suspicion that he works hard to stay respectable, him citing something isn't an indicator it's correct, but it is a great indicator that it's not fringe. All the more so when he riffs on it calling itself "the mainstream". Shoot First, Read Later doesn't work well online --- at least those IDW dorks preach epistemic humility. Sesquivalent (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

That's some pretty strong contortionist logic there. It is, at least, consistent with the alternative fact that Pinker or other "IDW dorks" are humble. jps (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Counterpoint: “Rationality is uncool,” he laments. It isn’t seen as “dope, phat, chill, fly, sick or da bomb.” As evidence for its diminished status, he quotes celebrations of nonsense by the Talking Heads and Zorba the Greek. (Pinker is also vexed by the line “Let’s go crazy,” which he says was “adjured” by “the Artist Formerly Known as Prince.”)

In any case, the relevance of FTN is pretty obvious; editors familiar with racist pseudoscience and its history on Misplaced Pages hang out here, so this is a better place than most to solicit informed opinions. XOR'easter (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how much you follow the Racist Pseudoscience topics here, but the editors concerned with fighting that battle are already patrolling and in some cases strictly OWNing a large group of articles including the one in question. If you think of those articles as topically organized in concentric circles (like Dante's Hell) centered on race and intelligence, the difficulty of making an edit without approval from this group is inversely proportional to distance from the center. The same editors summon each other on their user talk pages and posting here looked (to me) like the same sort of bat signal. The effect of posting at FTN in such cases seems to be a few fresh eyes from the FTN crowd that might edit independently of the collective, but also a signal to the latter that enforcement is desired. Both happened here as far as I can tell. Either way I don't think the question was an empty one considering all this. Sesquivalent (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I've followed those topics for a good long while, and I don't think your assessment is accurate. Also, WP:AGF. XOR'easter (talk) 03:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I hope you're right, but: when I detailed the OWNership situation of R&I on its talk page in a discussion with the alleged OWNer and her supporters, nobody disputed it, including the 850 talk page watchers, and the only meek response was 3 of her talk page friends saying that (be the OWNership as it may) they like the resulting edits. One of those friends posted this thread and shortly afterward the alleged R&I OWNer went over to argue at the very article talk page discussion it points to. So I'm not exactly seeing the error of a model in which a clique of like-minded editors control edits on a large number of interrelated pages. And R&I isn't even the page where ownership is most apparent.

I do AGF and the comment on the effect of an FTN posting does not require any assumption about the motive for the post. Sesquivalent (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Pinker has his share of interesting work and controversial claims. Evolutionary psychology is not an easy field and some hypotheses are useful, others very tentative or contested. In any case, he's notable and because of that, secondary sources will often report about his ideas or positions. When so, it may be DUE on a case by case basis. Then on fringe topics there's WP:PARITY, where a lower standard is acceptable when it's to cite someone who reminds of the scientific consensus, or that a particular idea is either nonsense or has not gained traction... Then there's CONSENSUS. But how is it possible to really understand what the exact request is, when instead of concise suggestions what we read are confused rants? Why not attempt WP:BOLD and WP:BRD? —PaleoNeonate – 06:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:BRD is broken on the patrolled pages. "R" is almost guaranteed for edits toward neutrality, so changes have to start from "D" at the talk page. Talk page discussions of such edits or proposed edits lead to a lot of... talk... but no change to the article, for the same reason BOLD editing does not work. The upshot is that not only does the process have to start from a talk page but the "D"iscussion needs to be structured as some sort of legal brief.

The thread at Talk:Mainstream Science on Intelligence that led to this FTN notice is one example, another is my recent post at Talk:Noah Carl. They don't look like "confused rants" to me, and caused a lot of edits on the articles, generally in the direction if not the extent that I suggested. Does that mean the system is working? Not exactly: for every slanted source or statement removed, several new ones are added on the occasion. The overall trend is therefore to skew the articles further, with the BRD and Talk pages serving as "fight harder" instructions to the POVFIGHTERS. Sesquivalent (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

"R" is almost guaranteed for edits toward neutrality This assumes that the "B" was "toward neutrality", which begs the question. Whether the changes were neutral is exactly what is to be discussed during the "D" part. It seems you want to skip the "R" and "D" parts because you already know which "D" result you would like. That is exactly the reason why we have BRD. It is not "broken". --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

"Neutrality" was correct. Like its sketchy cousin "consensus", NPOV is a relatively objective assessment of other people's expressed opinions and can be assessed independent of one's own views. Nor do the edit histories follow a Neutrality or a Consensus Maintenance pattern. Under either of those (in, e.g., the very commonly occurring case of a subject where views tend to fall along a left/right spectrum) there would be many successful edits that make small movements in both directions, that on the whole tend to cancel each other out POVwise, or maybe a slow drift over a period of years (Misplaced Pages swims slowly, but it only swims left), with the (N)POV enforced by a broad set of contributors. Under an OWNership and takeover model, one sees instead: a relatively fast phase transition in the article's POV within weeks when the group or individual takes over; motion almost exclusively in one direction, with exceptions of the "one step back, 3 steps forward" variety; a high proportion of reversions on edits in the other direction, always by the same watcher or two or three.

And while neutrality is in fact the right concept, if you replace "edits toward neutrality" by "edits directionally against the POV of the OWNers" then it is not subject to your objection and amounts to the same thing as a breakdown of WP:BRD. Maybe in some lucky cases the group controlling the page has a near neutral POV but that's not something to rely on and not what can be observed. Sesquivalent (talk) 09:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:NPOV includes WP:GEVAL warning against there would be many successful edits that make small movements in both directions, that on the whole tend to cancel each other out POVwise —PaleoNeonate – 19:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

GEVAL would be one of the mechanisms enforcing, not preventing, the maintenance pattern (of an NPOV or CONSENSUS equilibrium) that I described. But we don't see the pattern, we see forced drift. If you look at the recent ANI on the OP of this thread, and material linked and related to that, people are proudly and openly saying that they patrol not only the political content of Misplaced Pages pages but based on their perception of other users' politics, essentially assigning themselves the role of an immune system to surround and neutralize any rightward drift. No such welcome wagon in the other direction, which happens several multiples more often. Sesquivalent (talk) 10:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

As I said, you want to skip the "R" and "D" parts because you already know which "D" result you would like. You have already determined that the "B" changes were "toward neutrality", because you assessed it in a relatively objective way, and therefore the "R" and "D" parts are unnecessary. In other word, other editors should not revert or contradict you because you know what you are doing, because you are the arbiter of neutrality. But they do revert you, and they do contradict you, and they do not accept that you are arbiter, therefore the system is broken.

At least that is how you sound. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:04, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

This is not about my edits being reverted. I don't edit the patrolled/broken articles much and when I do it's usually either bulletproof or starts on the Talk page (which currently requires the absurd legal briefs), so not much reversion. If you dispute that people are competent to assess Neutrality or Consensus independently of their own position I can only wonder what you make of RfC closures, and as I said you can just look at the pattern of left/right motion or use "POV of the OWNers" instead of neutrality/consensus and get the same result without any such competence assumption. During the same time as this FTN thread similar concerns have been raised at the Village Pump and ARCA, of far too strong POVFIGHTER tendencies related to fringe, politics, racism etc which is often where and why the BRD tends to get broken. This isn't the place for behavioral evidence on particular tagteams but there's also that if needed. Dismissing it out of hand as a person or two not liking the current ideological stance of various pages is not plausible, there's a large gap between BRD as described and how these pages work. Sesquivalent (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not "dispute that people are competent to assess Neutrality", I am saying that "I am competent to assess Neutrality, therefore I am right and you are wrong, and if a guideline leads to me losing a discussion, then the guideline is broken" is begging the question. Your reasoning is devoid of meaning. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, i think that is the wrong part of WP:PARITY you are looking at, and should focus on the first paragraph. The last thing the topic area needs is a lower standard of sourcing. Consider this discussion. Trying to use a minor paper from Warne spirals into this. What a waste of time. A minor paper criticizing something that is widely used within introductory textbooks? WP:PARITY certainly applies, but you are highlighting the wrong side i think. Since that fringe RfC there have been many arguments to redefine "reliable" based on POV. Redefining in the way WP:MEDRS does, might provide a more streamlined and longer lasting improvement. fiveby(zero) 15:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

You're right, my comment was more intended as a summary and not to suggest that this was a particular case, thanks for noticing. —PaleoNeonate – 01:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Wang Sichao

Wang Sichao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Whaddya think about that last section?

jps (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it was sourced by the CCP's media outlet and poorly written. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure how to handle this. Is someone else up for the task? jps (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, so...The People's Daily is a suspect source for pretty much anything, the subject's UFO claims have not received any attention in actual, reliable, secondary sources, and I'm far from certain the subject is sufficiently notable to merit their own article. At a minimum, WP:UNDUE applies, so I will try to edit the section accordingly. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Notability is also a concern of mine that I expressed at its talk page. —PaleoNeonate – 23:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

AfD started here. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The article is now uncritically declaring that most of the world agrees 5% of UFOs are not "human-originated" (But since there are four types of UFO ids: natural phenomena, human technology, delusions, and hoaxes... I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean). jps (talk) 23:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jps: Yup, that source is WP:PROFRINGE beyond a doubt. Removing statement. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Somatology

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

In case someone would like to work on this obscure article. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 23:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Some other related:

• Deviance (sociology) § Biological theories of deviance
• William Herbert Sheldon
• Somatotype and constitutional psychology

—PaleoNeonate – 07:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

So it's an archaic term that would now be called Physical Anthropology? Could it just redirect to Biological Anthropology? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pyrrho the Skeptic:  Done. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Pumapunku, again

Hello all, eyes would be again appreciated on this article, especially with regard to the 'liquid stone' section; anyone with particular knowledge of material sciences or geology would be especially welcome. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Fucks sake, this shit again? Where have these claims got any critical secondary coverage? WP:GEVAL is dead. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I feel very much the same way, but have perhaps too acute a sense of my own limitations. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Left a statement at Talk:Pumapunku#How old is this ?.--JonskiC (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Same old same old

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

ID not pseudoscience! News at eleven! --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The article seems rather promotional, and similar to his biographies at the two ID institute pages (currently references 6 and 7), as though written by one publicist.

The statement in the lede that he is "an advocate for intelligent design" is not specifically supported. What's known is that he is/was listed as a fellow of the ID houses, which is obviously closely related but not quite the same thing. There is also no indication of this connection having been mentioned anywhere outside Misplaced Pages or the institutes themselves. Despite this, Mims is placed in 4 categories on ID and creationism, against WP:DEFINE and WP:COPDEF. Sesquivalent (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

It's possible that it's slightly promotional. Definitely notable for his popular electronics introduction/experiment booklets (I'm a fan, yet interestingly when I reread some a few years back I noticed a mix of good basic practical science and opinions questioning more complex science)... As for "pseudoscientific", same old indeed... I'd argue that "Intelligent Design creationism" would also be acceptable (with the link). —PaleoNeonate – 22:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I replaced some of the unsourced material on being an "advocate" of ID with the known fact of being a member of the creationist institutes. It's not clear why these affiliations belong at all in the article, since no secondary source appears to discuss this aspect of Mims' life. Misplaced Pages is not a kook documentation database and it is not incumbent on us (if anything, the opposite) to highlight connections to ID etc where others do not. Sesquivalent (talk) 10:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Adding in case anyone wants to work on this: I left a note at that article's talk page before about the extensive CV-like material citing primary sources. —PaleoNeonate – 21:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Fringe, Anti-fringe, and Turning Misplaced Pages's Values Upside-down

Most here have probably seen DGG's ARCA request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Amendment request: Fringe science which is still open but you may not have seen this. Doug Weller talk 11:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

In the arbitration case, we have three separate questions:

1. Is a certain viewpoint actually being taken seriously by experts, by those who know what they are talking about?
2. Is that viewpoint being propagated by popular media and portrayed as actually being taken seriously by experts?
3. Did Misplaced Pages users, by consuming those popular media, arrive at the belief that the viewpoint is actually being taken seriously by experts?

I get the impression that regarding the race-intelligence question, as well as regarding COVID outsider ideas, the answers are no, yes, yes. The #3 yes" leads to sentences like this:

The problem is adequately discussed in the case statements, and epitomized by Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis, but I can summarize them as Consensus has changed and what was originally a far fringe theory from sources associated with conspiracy theories, became one seriously considered by both the medical establishment, and the most reliable possible news sources (WSJ, NYT--in a series of major articles).

Lacking direct access to the scientific consensus, users apply instead the trickled-down out-of-context information framed by those media they happen to read. It's the availability bias in action. And they think this is somehow better than the real, original sources, because, heck, the result agrees with their own impression. This is a concrete attempt at making Misplaced Pages more fringe-friendly.

The village pump thread looks much more vague, like "there are anti-fringe users, I won't say who exactly, who do bad things, I won't say what exactly. I disagree with them. Who is with me?" The bad things consist of one hypothetical example which, if addressed by pointing at policies, would be resolved quickly in a satisfying manner - the hypothetical anti-fringe users would lose. It sounds as if that solution would not work in the actual cases that inspired the thread (because they are different; the hypothetical example is an exaggerated one), which is why the actual cases are kept under the hat. Since those bad things the anti-fringe users are doing are not against policy, a mob of "pro-fringe" and "meh-everything but strongly anti-anti-anything" users is gathered first. But they will not be able to do anything because all they have is hot air. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

This reminds me of another different discussion currently going on, but going nowhere. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 13:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• It's usual in this cases that an editor with a certain axe to grind dresses it up as some kind of righteous general policy stand. If there are editors mis-applying fringe, this is the noticeboard for discussing the content in question (it happens quite a lot). Persistent offenders get sanctioned. There's no big mystery to it. Alexbrn (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, do you have an example of someone mis-applying fringe, coming here, and being told so? I would interested in seeing that. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Alexbrn (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about anti-fringey editors misapplying fringe. This seems more like the usual pro-fringey ones misapplying it. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what you imagine to be "anti-fringey editors" or "the usual pro-fringey ones"; WP:FRINGE is a guideline for everybody. Sometimes, though, editors think something WP:FRINGE when it ain't (or vice verse). Even I've done that. Occasionally this noticeboard gets misused by editors who think they can easily bring down the Wrath of Fringe on something they don't like just by bringing it here. It doesn't work like that. Alexbrn (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

For everybody, exactly, in theory there are no "anti-fringe editors", we instead have a non-pro-fringe encyclopedia, —PaleoNeonate – 20:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pyrrho the Skeptic: Another example: A few months ago I brought concerns about the article Psychedelic therapy here to FTN (). In a brief discussion other editors convinced me that it wasn't a fringe issue, and I shouldn't have brought it here. So the discussion moved to a more appropriate venue. NightHeron (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I never understood that "shouldn't have brought it here" reasoning. Since it made you wonder if those articles are WP:PROFRINGE, yes, you were right in bringing it here and learning that it was not fringe. If someone wonders if something is fringe, this is the place to find out. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

You're right, it happened to me as well, in an area I lacked experience with, that used outdated but historically-relevant terminology I also wasn't familiar with. —PaleoNeonate – 06:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 81#Transubstantiation - does sacramental bread transform into the body of Christ? is another example I remember of. —PaleoNeonate – 20:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Which, incidentally, was initiated by the OP of the Village Pump thread. If I didn't know better I might suspect some kind of WP:POINTy game playing. Alexbrn (talk) 09:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, —PaleoNeonate – 16:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

How about Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_77#Putin's Palace or Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_78#Are all Jews to be called "Middle Eastern" ? or Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_79#Sex Redefined (note added in post: I see Alexbrn mentioned this last one above already)? jps (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Health Freedom Idaho

• Health Freedom Idaho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm concerned about this new page which seems to give free advertising to an Idaho anti-vax group under the guise of alternative medicine. The page is only mildly promotional in tone but seems to have been written by connected individuals. It's possible there's sufficient local coverage to indicate meeting GNG, but I'm concerned Misplaced Pages's voice is being used to legitimize an organization dedicated to misinformation about vaccinations of all types. BusterD (talk) 06:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

BusterD, the earliest history of the article as written by its creator states in Misplaced Pages's voice that at least one of their claims is "false", so I am unsure where the free advertising claim comes from. Someone writing advertising for Coca-Cola or Facebook would be fired immediately if they called those company's assertions "false" in an advertisement. Would "connected individuals" call the group's claims false? Please explain how the article legitimizes this group. I am just not seeing that. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328—presumably BusterD is referring to the 03:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC) version of the article, edited by HFITruthBeTold. Kleinpecan (talk) 13:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes... there was a concerted attempt by a SPA to make the article promotional. I took care of that and had a temp lock added to the page. RobP (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I noticed the article when watching RfPP and after edits by User:HFITruthBeTold I saw the page protected by an admin. I failed to investigate the page history more thoroughly before I posted here. The page appears to be a good faith effort to accurately portray the group and User:Cullen328 is quite correct the earliest versions are relatively neutral; the current version also seems fine. Sorry for not providing better documentation when I OPed, and thanks to all those who have responded here. BusterD (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Havana syndrome

• Havana syndrome (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Just stumbled across this after noticing an RfC. Definitely in the WP:FRINGE space and based largely on non-WP:MEDRS sources for biomedical claims. Could uses eyes from fringe-savvy editors. (Also note drama at ANI) Alexbrn (talk) 06:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The ANI drama you started. Geogene (talk) 06:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

It is the correct venue for what's been raised. See WP:ANI#Havana syndrome and guerilla skeptics. Alexbrn (talk) 06:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

And I thought you were just complaining about the ultimatum you left on my talk page being ignored. Geogene (talk) 06:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Related. A newbie tagging Susan Gerbic. Sheesh. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 08:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm quite enjoying the conversations. It's not my first rodeo. Sgerbic (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Tricky, clearly a notable topic based on news coverage, but no really good sources that can adequately evaluate the medical aspects. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

There does seem to be a report from the CDC which sums it up (with a kind of shrug). I suspect most of the primary sources/buzzfeed etc can be swept away leaving that. Alexbrn (talk) 08:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

As long as the mass psychogenic illness discussion is in the lede we are on the right track. As the experts start publishing and their voices get louder then it will become clear that the brief mention in the lede of PI will need to grow. This is how it is done on Misplaced Pages. If it goes the other way and countries start zapping people's brains like in Mars Attacks! then we can include that in the lede, that is IF Misplaced Pages and the Internet still exist. The Misplaced Pages page needs to reflect the growing consensus of experts, and not holding onto outdated theories just because that was current back in 2017. Sgerbic (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

It's been months, but from what I remember the independent sources that reported that some considered the microwave brain injury plausible were also full of caveats (I commented before on the talk page about the misrepresentation of a specific one)... —PaleoNeonate – 19:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Havana syndrome/Archive2021/August#December 2020 for more information. If that is true, that the "attack" terminology was no longer used, the new article should likely also reflect this... Moreover, it's understood today that traumatizing anxiety can lead to observable neurological damage, as can be seen with MCS or PTSD (unsure if some sources do mention this IRT this topic). And it's not even conclusive that there was any damage in this case... —PaleoNeonate – 00:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a VERY interesting case to me. It's an odd case of what should be fringe masquerading as mainstream, and those that believe the mass psychogenic illness hypothesis of the psychology experts (and other mass psychogenic illness experts) are called fringe. As been said in various Talk venues regarding this topic: Skeptics are "part of a skeptic religion" and should just "shut up about medical matters" and "stick to debunking UFOs and Bigfoot." In truth, the only things pointing to the "attacks" causing the reported symptoms as being real are (poorly done) studies starting with the Trump administration, with the goal of finding things that could be attributed to enemy attacks and backing-up the administrations early position, taken before any evidence was in. When you look for things to prove what you're looking for, instead of investigating IF the hypothesis is true at all, you find "evidence" you want. This is why homeopathic doctors and Reiki masters think what they do is real. And admitting you were wrong is near impossible for people, organizations, and esp. governments. So the attack claims have spread in the years I've been following this (When the page was named Sonic attacks in Cuba) from just being in Cuba to happening pretty much everyplace, including folks walking their dog on the mall in DC, and even to embassies and hotels in US allied countries. (Yet oddly sparing nearby people of any issues - people who were not pre-warned about getting attacked don't seem to get symptoms of the attacks. These must be amazingly focused energy weapons.) All this has the signs of BS spreading as BS does. And the gov't and media are (mainly) still assuming its all true, with the US gov't even passing a bill to pay for medical treatments. For the media, it's a more interesting (click-baity) story if they keep reporting we are under attack everywhere than reporting that nothing nefarious is going on anywhere. And experts on the skeptical side, pointing out all the flaws and red flags in the mainstream story, barely get heard. Because they are not medical experts. Of course the issue there is pre-assuming whatever medical problems are found are due to attacks. And then, because the skeptical view is underrepresented in the media, and seen as fringe even when it is mentioned, the WP article reflects this situation. A damned shame I say. Seems to be slowly changing, but not fast enough for me. This has been a travesty of the truth, and luckily a war hasn't started (yet) over the unsubstantiated claims of these unproven "attacks". RobP (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

This is the kind of ranty editor opinion/POV crap that that talk page has been filling up with for years instead of just following what reliable sources say about it. Geogene (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes it was ranty... Here I can rant...As for articles, yes, WP:reliable sources rule apply. The problem is that in the RS sphere things are often gray and some editors (you know who you are) are leaning way too far in one direction IMHO trusting only JAMA conclusions (and the like), downplaying other commentary and subject matter expert opinion when they don't agree with JAMA. RobP (talk) 05:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The trouble with the article is the crap sourcing. The JAMA source is unreliable; Buzfeed and podcasts are unreliable. One decent source (CDC report) seems to be saying, in effect, we don't know that anything caused anything, and if it did, we don't know what it is. That seems to be pretty much the state of "accepted knowledge" on this topic and what Misplaced Pages should be reflecting, so far as the science goes right now. Of course there's a shedload of politics on top of that which should also be covered. Alexbrn (talk) 06:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

So it is my understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong. A podcast can't be used if it is two (or one) podcaster(s) talking about a subject if they are just non-notable podcasters. But if it is an interview with a notable expert on a subject discussing their expertise on the subject then that is fine. If it is two notable experts discussing the subject then it is even more relevant. The recording over a podcast or video isn't relevant, it's just the vehicle in which the content is being listened to. What we are trying to avoid are non-notable people talking about a subject they are not known experts on. Sgerbic (talk) 09:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

It depends, expert sources can be useful even if self-published - especially in WP:FRINGE areas where decent sourcing is otherwise thin. But putting such sources up against the CDC is a no-no. If we did that, imagine where we'd be with COVID-19, where a number of highly-credentialed, respected, and eminent scientists took to social media to show they were in fact blowhards who would say anything for attention. Alexbrn (talk) 09:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I personally have concerns about this trend of quoting experts in our articles. If a field has enough experts, some are likely to have minority or fringe beliefs, and can be cherry picked. And I find it harder to evaluate an expert's credentials than I do to just apply WP:RSPSOURCES or WP:MEDRS. Experts speaking directly also shortcut other processes, such as academic paper peer review, or a newspaper or book's editorial process. At its core, it really feels like WP:SELFPUBLISH to me, and a way for POV to creep into the encyclopedia. Plus don't get me started on quotations, which have their own problems. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, and for biomedical content we should stick to WP:MEDRS. That Havana syndrome article is full of content in that realm which is not WP:MEDRS sourced. Alexbrn (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

According to Susan Gerbic "I love quotes in Misplaced Pages, seeing their own words written out as they were said makes the page more interesting to read and engaging". Gerbic later stated that she knows that the subject of quoting in Misplaced Pages articles is off topic for this specific discussion, so please go easy on her, she just woke up. Sgerbic (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks no doubt to nefarious Google tracking cookie monsters, I was spoonfed this old-news NYTimes op-piece with my morning coffee. Thanks for nothing, sheeple. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/26/opinion/havana-syndrome-disorder.html jps (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Although an op-ed, thanks, this includes links to other sources. —PaleoNeonate – 00:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Tall el-Hammam, Creationist sources

Too many of the sources are Creationists Steven Collins and Joseph Holden. Doug Weller talk 19:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I removed the Holden one as redundant. However, the only recent excavation research (since 2005) has been done by Trinity Southwest University and Veritas International University College of Archaeology & Biblical History headed by Collins, so it would make sense that the publications about it would have Collins as an author. Reviewing who the publishers are and what the sources actually say (Collins may actually be doing legitimate archaeology) would determine whether they need to be kept. My concern is that removing them also removes about 2/3 of the article content. If the sources simply present what was discovered without leaping to faith-based conclusions, they may be OK.

I looked at a couple of them and they seem to be focused on actual archaeology as opposed to proselytizing. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

There has been considerable controversy over the last published paper in Scientific Reports. Check the last archive. I tried and failed to come up with a workable solution for how Misplaced Pages can explain this situation. jps (talk) 12:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I looked at the sources on the site when the meteor stuff struck, but didn't get around to doing much to improve the article unfortunately.

Collins et al. try hard to make what they're doing look like archaeology, but it isn't. They have no idea what they're doing and that comes through very clearly in their publications, which are almost always from TSU-affiliated vanity presses. Somehow they managed to get one excavation report through a university press, but the reviews are politely excoriating and consensus on the talk page is that that can't be considered a reliable source either.

They also try hard to make it appear is if they were the first to properly work on the site, but Prag's surveys and excavations in the 90s are actually quite detailed and well-published. I think between them and discussions of textual identifications in reliable sources (there seems to be a decent chunk of literature on the geography of Livias) we can have a decent article without reference to Collins et al. – Joe (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately I couldn't relocate it, but I remember of a source expressing concern that this may also affect the site negatively for future research by less ideology-motivated groups, —PaleoNeonate – 22:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation

• Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

The WP:WEASEL is strong with this one. Nine times "some". The medical types can handle this better than I would. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Hard to know how much their COVID model was WP:FRINGE vs "just wrong" - but the prediction of zero COVID deaths by July 2020 certainly raised eyebrows at the time. From the present article, you wouldn't get much of an inkling there had been this controversy. Alexbrn (talk) 07:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Some new leak-oriented pages to watchlist

• Scientific Advisory Group for Origins of Novel Pathogens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• WHO-convened Global Study of Origins of SARS-CoV-2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Draft:Criticism of the World Health Organization (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

For archives and as an invitation for editors to patrol or merge as needed (some redirects were also created for these pages), it seems that the intention was to create a WP:POVFORK of the Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 article, rather than needing to expand its own section because it's too long (WP:SPINOFF). One of the stated goals being to promote standard arguments like presenting a false balance between Adhanom's opinions and the WHO's official report (or as I observed at the other article, between Alina Chan and the WHO), etc. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 08:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

POVFORKS upon POVFORKS then! Alexbrn (talk) 08:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Merger discussion at The Bell Curve

Your participation is welcome in the discussion at Talk:The Bell Curve#Merger proposal concerning merging the article Cognitive elite into The Bell Curve. NightHeron (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Steven E. Koonin‎

• Steven E. Koonin‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Persistent IP tries to turn the evidence for man-made climate change on its head quoting Wall Street Journal. I reverted twice, but that probably won't be the end of it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

List of scientific misconduct incidents

• List of scientific misconduct incidents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While tracking some paranormal activity I recently reverted an edit there (I didn't take the time to see if it was legitimate but this criticism exceeded what was at the actual BLP article and was added by an obvious sock, so removed per WP:BE). But this also made me realize how this type of article is problematic. Since it concerns a topic that's important in science I thought I'd notify FTN rather than BLPN. My impression is that we'd generally prefer a main article like scientific misconduct where the most notorious cases can be mentioned, rather than an always-growing list article (that also has potential BLP implications, other than constant issues with inclusion criteria and patrol). I didn't take the time to really check but there's no AfD template at the talk page, it possibly never was discussed yet by the community. Input welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 23:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• I immediately searched for Tuskegee Syphilis Study and, on not finding it, think that the article is far from comprehensive and worryingly, perhaps some sort of WP:POVFORK at best. jps (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

  Which made me think of Josef Mengele, who is also not mentioned. Actually letting people die or killing them in exchange for knowledge is obviously a blind spot of the people who wrote that. Well, it is an order of magnitude worse. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

  Probably because (rightly) its concerned with the ethics of conducting research and publishing, falsification of data etc, not the ethics of "Should this research have been done in the first place?" which would be variable given the time and place it is conducted. This does mean that Mengele slips through (although I agree it misconduct should cover obviously unhumanitarian abuses), but equally if it passed moral judgments, how much stem cell research would be labelled 'misconduct'?

  I did a spot check of about 10 random people on that list. The sourcing is all sufficient to justify the *science* was misconducted, eg data falsification/manipulation or plagiarism followed by retractions or sanctions. Its probably worth someone doing the entire list to check however. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

  The title of the list does not lead me to understand that this would be a list of academic scientists who have been accused of research misconduct since 1970, for example. jps (talk) 12:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

  Agree that "this research prompted new ethical rules that didn't exist when performed" would make the already arguably unmaintainable list even harder to draw the line. I feel like this is probably better as a category for existing articles, with the notable misconduct already taking up the bulk of said articles about people (ex: Cyril Burt, Joachim Boldt, John Darsee) and particular treatments (ex: High-dose chemotherapy and bone marrow transplant). But many of the incidents either don't have their own article or reference an otherwise non-notable scientist, including the very first entry, which feels like a weak case for WP:LISTCRITERIA. Sure, scientific fraud is a notable topic, but do we really need a collection of every time a kid cheats in the local science fair? If it isn't notable enough for another article, it probably isn't notable enough for an unmaintained list. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

  Then there's always the issue that categories in relation to BLPs are constanly challenged even when well sourced (all excuses are good), with the technical issue that when linking them there's no associated slot to tie a source to (only the article itself and its sources to verify)... —PaleoNeonate – 16:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: While I agree that would trim the list further, I'm not convinced it's necessarily a bad thing. The instances most worth putting in a category seem relatively unambiguous, including direct references to their misconduct. It's not a case like "conspiracy theorists" categories that have WP:COATRACK fights, as in most cases we can point to authoritative decisions made regarding the misconduct. And, per the sample I looked at, either they aren't notable enough for an article, shouldn't be in the category because it's a WP:COATRACK (the Richard Eastell article and his entry in the list both note he was negligent but didn't engage in actual scientific misconduct, so I removed it), the article already is primarily about the misconduct (Joachim Boldt, Steven A. Leadon), or there's even a section on the topic (John Darsee#Wider misconduct, Andrew Wakefield#Fraud and conflict of interest allegations). I'd rather see maintenance fall on the individual scientist articles themselves, than have things fall through the cracks of a massive list. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps the article can meet with broader community approval by restricting inclusion to people with an existing BLP article on enWiki? That would certainly cut down its size and limit the rate of future expansion, and I am willing to begin that editing process. Lastly, although I understand where you are coming from, Bakkster Man, with the "kid cheats in the local science fair" comment, AFAIK all of the misconduct documented in that article is supported by RS, and a great majority of the listed people in that article attached their misconduct directly to research projects/grants totaling millions of dollars. That is of course nothing compared to the crimes of Mengele, but it ain't no children's science fair, either. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@JoJo Anthrax: I'm of course being extreme, but being reliably sourced doesn't necessarily mean notable. And it's not unreasonable to suggest that a science fair project could produce reliable reporting about misconduct, as in this case. I think we agree that inclusions should be notable enough for their own article (this instance in the list without an article didn't even get barred from grant money). But I also think changing from a list article to a category not only makes enforcing such a restriction easier, but also reduces the possibility of the list being a WP:POVFORK with limited visibility by keeping the discussion of the misconduct on the article about the topic. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Did the Nuclear Boy Scout commit scientific misconduct to earn his Atomic Energy merit badge? What about the professor in Japan who recently published a proof of the ABC conjecture, or the machinations in the Manifold Destiny controversy? As a crimelike designation it should have a certificate, similar to being convicted of a crime, in order to assign someone to the list or category (i.e., in Wikivoice). Retractions are not enough as they frequently result from error not misconduct. Sesquivalent (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

We don't always agree, but I concur here, that a retraction doesn't always mean misconduct, we could expect sources to mention misconduct, like we'd expect them to mention a conviction in the case of a crime. —PaleoNeonate – 16:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with all that you wrote in the initial post and consider having almost any variant of this list to be inherently problematic. In addition to the already discussed reasons, misconduct and related allegations are subjective whereas retractions, dismissals, admissions of fraud, and legal proceedings are objective events. So if this type of list or category is to survive I would prefer to organize it around objective indicators, such as "academic firings in the 2010's" rather than some Index Of Wrongdoing. Even that would be hard to do without appearing to imply misconduct in cases that generated the indicators for other reasons (such as error or political pressure). Sesquivalent (talk) 05:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Is there a difference between "Scientific Misconduct" and "Misconduct by Scientists"?

My understanding, and the definition in the Scientific misconduct, is that scientific misconduct is specifically misconduct with the actual handling of scientific data. (Fabrication, Plagiarism, influencing peer review, etc.)

Nobody doubts that the Tuskegee experiments were a horrible form of misconduct, but do they fit that narrow definition of "Scientific Misconduct"? ApLundell (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It's a magnet for problems. As one omnibus article for all branches of science it would have to be overly long or extremely selective (currently the latter). Even if split into multiple articles there is a demarcation problem. In psychology for example it excludes Cyril Burt, Hans Eysenck, and Marc Hauser, all of whom were credibly accused of misconduct, but includes Philippe Rushton who was accused of many other things but not scientific misconduct in the normal use of that term. And are accusations enough? For the dead they tend to be controversial and unresolvable, for the living there are BLP restrictions. Without a clear and definite criterion for inclusion it becomes a political battleground of who is and is not included. Sesquivalent (talk) 10:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

(Rushton) Apart from manipulating his students into taking part in his research under the threat of additional work. Thats misconduct by any standard. But lets be fair, there is plenty of criticism specifically about his research and methodology as well as his data analysis. The problem with highly intelligent people is that you can never really credibly claim they didnt know what they were doing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Using students in a class for research is par for the course in psychology, and whether he violated any policy depends on whether the research or the use of students is viewed as illegitimate (Rushton obviously didn't think so). Scientific misconduct refers to falsification of data or fraud, as opposed to sloppiness, writing shoddy but honest papers, unprofessional conduct toward students or other failings other that are (1) relatively common, and (2) concern the quality but not the honesty of the work. Sesquivalent (talk) 10:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

p.s., a relatively objective indicator that whatever Rushton's sins, they were not considered (scientific) misconduct is that his university never was able to dismiss him. Research malfeasance is always sufficient for that, and in Rushton's case there was outrage and protests at all levels from students to faculty to the provincial governor denouncing him as a racist. Yet he kept his position. Sesquivalent (talk) 12:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with those identifying the page as a problem magnet. I also agree a good first step is to remove entries that aren't associated with a Misplaced Pages article. If the people aren't notable, listing misconduct or allegations thereof is a BLP vio. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I have started that process. I do not believe the page has been a "magnet for problems," or if it has its H-field is quite weak, but BLP issues are certainly paramount. When that weeding process is complete I will review the remaining entries and remove any for which actual misconduct is not explicitly cited/mentioned in the sources (as opposed to, for example, retractions arising from honest errors). Having previously worked on this page I do not anticipate finding many, if any, such entries, but you never know. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Came upon this by semi-coincidence (I'm a frequent reader of the article for new-article ideas and have written articles from it in the past). I respect this is certainly a complex article from a BLP perspective. I have concerns about the height of the threshold being used for omission, and particularly its disparate impact in terms of what topics enwiki does and doesn't cover. A disproportionate number of the removals have been of subjects from non-English-speaking backgrounds/regions, which are notoriously underrepresented on the project as a whole; as this is a list where not-yet-bluelinked subjects often do have sufficient coverage to be notable, this risks having broader knock-on effects on the erasure of notable non-Anglosphere/non-Western subjects. "No enwiki article" is an understandable threshold, but it's both stricter than WP:LISTCRIT necessarily recommends for a list of this limited scope, and one that risks playing into the biases of when subjects do and don't have enwiki articles and stymying their creation. Vaticidalprophet 02:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Restricting diversity is not the goal, of course, and one could argue that adding entries in this list for people who don't yet have an article is not a service to them, considering that this is about misconduct of usually living people... I understand the concern about having a list of people to write about though, certainly an effort could produce and maintain such a list, like as part of a wikiproject (it may exist perhaps? It does for Women in Red for instance and a countering systemic bias WP also exists). —PaleoNeonate – 07:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that this list has limited scope, as it's going to be very difficult to ensure 'completeness' as suggested in the third WP:CSC. I'd also argue that we'd be making the "not enough coverage of non-English language topics" problem worse by expanding notability for "non-English speakers behaving badly". Making the limited coverage more biased is worse than having a smaller amount of balanced coverage. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Realm of Sweden

Is this a thing? Not reading Swedish I can't tell whether hits like this are using the term "Svenska väldet" in a technical sense or as a generic term for territories controlled by Swedish kings. This has been entirely unsourced since it was created in 2003 and has no corresponding page in svwiki, so I feel reasonably comfortable saying that this is not, in fact, a thing. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@AleatoryPonderings:, this looks like a fork of Swedish Empire and probably should be merged and redirected, don't you think? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Eggishorn, I'm not super opposed to that. Yet the phrase "realm of Sweden" does not appear in Swedish Empire and I'm not clear whether "realm of Sweden" has ever been attested in English in a technical sense as "a term that historically was used to comprise all the territories under the control of the Swedish monarchs" (as asserted in realm of Sweden). My sense is that the name of the article is one editor's translation of "Svenska väldet"—a term that (a) does not appear in sv:Stormaktstiden (although it does appear in sv:Kurland); and (b), while it is used in some sources, does not clearly refer to a defined period in Swedish political history. So I wouldn't mind redirecting but I also wouldn't mind nominating this at AfD. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The article is essentially an extremely obscure povfork, not having received only 50 edits since 2004. I'd recommend a bold redirect to Swedish Empire. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I've had a quick look and only found Swedish sources like yours, where it's "svenska väldet i " (i.e. "Swedish dominion in "), not used as a standalone concept or to refer to a defined period in Swedish history. The article itself has barely changed since it was first written in 2003/2004 so it could well just be one editor's misunderstanding or mistranslation. I think we can ahead and redirect it to Swedish Empire. – Joe (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Interested to see if anyone reverts with sources, tbh. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

It is probably just a translation of Konungariket Sverige, i.e. 'The Kingdom of Sweden'.--Berig (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Unidentified flying object

• Unidentified flying object (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

At the moment, disproportionally influenced by the opinion of recent gullible journalist Gideon Lewis-Kraus. This idea has been out there for many decades, and there is no reason to replace what has been learned during that time by one guy's collection of ignorance from this year. See WP:RECENT. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

That's for damn sure. I have been trying to whip this article into shape for the better part of a decade, but it is a painful slog. jps (talk) 13:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the current problems arose from this section being introduced, which I will assume was a good faith effort to note the WP:RECENT increased attention on UFOs by the US government and the media, which has been interpreted by some to indicate a dramatic paradigm shift, i.e. all things UFO are now to be taken seriously. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Robert Hare (chemist)

• Robert Hare (chemist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Robert Hare is a chemist who died in 1858, but is remembered in certain circles today for his efforts to validate mediumship and spiritualism. An IP editor apparently does not like that our article on them includes criticism of those experiments, and has vowed to edit war 'forever' to keep it out. More eyes on the situation would be appreciated. - MrOllie (talk) 12:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I semi-protected it for a month to start with. If they continue after that, I guess we'll have to protect it "forever" too. – Joe (talk) 13:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Lawrence A. Tabak

I just corrected some cite errors at Lawrence A. Tabak. They were caused by an addition related to COVID and gain of function, so I thought it would be good if someone with relevant knowledge could caste their eye over it. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I reverted as a WP:COATRACK addition that is more suitable to COVID origins articles. And that's before getting into the potential selective citing (like the Yahoo News repost of a National Review link) and potential misinterpreted by those members of Congress to play politics (seems to have been a private letter, and I didn't find a source where Tabak addressed it publicly). Bakkster Man (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll also note, there's a few more COVID-adjacent edits by the user that could use a second set of eyes. I've reverted another using the same potentially-unreliable sources as the first one, but the chemistry related antiviral edits I'm unsure if they're trying to make unsubstantiated claims. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

QAnon expecting JFK to be resurrected, won't leave Dallas

"Why hundreds of QAnon supporters showed up in Dallas, expecting JFK Jr.’s return""QAnon followers who went to Dallas to look for JFK Jr are refusing to leave". Lots of other sources. And how about this Protzman guy mentioned in the Independent article and elsewhere? We don't seem to have anything on this weird fringe stuff. Doug Weller talk 11:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Why Dealey Plaza in Dallas? He did not even die there, his father did. Don't they know the first thing about how ghosts operate? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

They aren't interested in the first thing, since it is clearly faked by the people behind the thirty-seventh thing... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

You may have something there Hob Gadling. Where should they have gone? Has that been faked yet? ϢereSpielChequers 12:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm wrong anyway, it is in the QAnon article. But Protzman isn't. And it belongs at John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories I'd think as it's arguing for a conspiracy that he's still alive. Doug Weller talk 12:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

They think that JFK (b. 1917) is still alive as well as JFK Jr? jps (talk) 12:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure they think either are still alive. From your second source: "Others believed that John F Kennedy would also return along with his son..." I think that means that they believe there will be a resurrection, but that they really did die. jps (talk) 12:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It’s Elvis that’s still alive, surely? Brunton (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It's JFK Jr some think is still alive "Will Sommer, author of the upcoming book Trust the Plan: The Rise of QAnon and the Conspiracy That Reshaped America and a longtime observer of the conspiracy theory, estimates that about 20 per cent of Q followers believe in JFK Jr’s re-emergence, but that those who do, “100 per cent believe”." See John F. Kennedy Jr.#Conspiracy theories. Doug Weller talk 15:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Should we have a section in John F. Kennedy Jr.'s article on conspiracy theories? That seems... inappropriate. jps (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It would be. If this lunacy belongs anywhere, it belongs in the QAnon article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, definitely the best place for any of that... It's quite incredible, I can imagine a type of opportunist variety show (by them or by third parties, to parody or exploit them) with a bunch of lookalikes... —PaleoNeonate – 22:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, others have disagreed and now I have removed the section twice. I wonder if it will return. Seems pretty obvious to me that it doesn't belong on that page, but what do I know? jps (talk) 12:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

ජපස, While discussion here is fine, the consensus you need for wholesale removal is at Talk:John F. Kennedy Jr.. It's inappropriate to forum shop if you don't get a consensus where you want it. Yes, discuss here, but get the consensus where you need it. Anyone commenting here is welcome to comment on the JFK Jr. talk page. Sundayclose (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Weil

• Andrew Weil (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Proponent of various WP:FRINGE altmed ideas. Possible NPOV problems with this article. Alexbrn (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems that there was obvious COI editing but it's been a while ago. I've seen a few recent improvements, thanks for working on this, —PaleoNeonate – 23:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

CfI @ RSN

• WP:RSN § Center for Inquiry sources on CFI-related articles

A discussion that may be of interest to readers of this noticeboard, —PaleoNeonate – 05:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Arkana Publishing

This is an imprint of Penguin Books that publishes on the occult. I can't tell whether I should trust books they publish to be out-of-universe, or whether it's a case-by-case thing. Any thoughts? Reason I'm here is Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gandanta; there's a brief discussion of gandanta here. It seems in-universe-y, but then again discussions of mythical things often adopt an in-universe style because it's easier than constantly saying "as believers in this thing believe …" AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

On the list of books they've published, the ones that look respectable seem to be reprints. Atlantis: Myth or Reality by Murry Hope, Mysticism and the New Physics by quantum-woo peddler Michael Talbot... I'd regard them as "in-universe" until proven otherwise. In the specific case of the book mentioned, Light on Life, the authors call themselves the only Westerner ever to become a licensed Ayurvedic physician and someone who has been studying and practising Vedic astrology since 1968. It's very definitely in-universe, not a view from outside. XOR'easter (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Usenet newsgroup sci.archaeology - anyone remember it?

Just wondering. I used it when it was on bulletin boards. Then came the Internet. And then modems that I didn't need to stick my phone into! Doug Weller talk 16:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Usenet was on the internet, but you may mean the web... I do remember reading usenet via a Fidonet gateway before internet was mainstream, so likely in the early 90s. I also used it a bit later occasionally and ran a small NNTP server (these were an alternative to email lists and predecessor to web forums so various organizations used private NNTP networks). It still exists but NNTP access is rare today (almost every internet provider used to provide a link), most people access it via web gateways including Google Groups. At the time, I was unfortunately also reading a lot of pseudoscience, conspiracy theory and esoteric material, including on BBSes, Fidonet and Usenet. On the other hand it gives me a perspective on those topics today... —PaleoNeonate – 23:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I remember it. I still remember the endless discussion and debates between Andrew M. and Ed Conrad about Ed's claims that Carboniferous (siderite?) concretions are fossil human bones and miscellaneous other pseudoscience and conspiracy theories. That I think is where I became acquainted with Doug. Paul H. (talk) 02:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I certainly remember it! I usually posted as Aelfric back in those days. I do recall feeling like there was quite a bit of woo involved; and in those blessed times I thought such beliefs were inconsequential and only held by a small fringe. How innocent I used to be. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Remember Yuri anyone? Or Inger? @PaleoNeonate: Bulletin board systems seems to suggest BBS was pre Internet. Fascinating that you ran an NNTP server. Ed Conrad drove me nuts. Doug Weller talk 17:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes most BBS were indeed pre-internet. Then some were connected to it, or indirectly could serve as gateways to usenet as well (just like some FidoNet nodes also provided usenet to their points). The concept mostly moved to web forums later on, although some more traditional text BBS still exist that accept telnet or SSH connections. I'm not sure about those names off memory alone though, but I worked on software projects with people that I remembered from usenet CS groups back then, it was good shared memories. —PaleoNeonate – 03:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Since this is mostly a forum thread already, Noah's Ark found drifting around in Vancouver BC! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK6w6Vnp8hs —PaleoNeonate – 09:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Kerfuffle about Joy of Satan Ministries

WP:ANI#Edit conflict at Joy of Satan Ministries. Doug Weller talk 17:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Now it's at WP:RSN. Doug Weller talk 17:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Race and intelligence again at Talk:The Bell Curve

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dennis Prager

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

A reliable source is not sufficiently denialist to copy Prager's anti-science propaganda word by word, therefore it is not reliable and cannot be used. Discussion on Talk page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Race and crime

The Race and crime article has long been problematic, and has been discussed on this noticeboard several times before. A fundamental issue, beyond the obvious one of attracting proponents of fringe perspectives, is that it doesn't cover the supposed subject matter from any sort of global perspective. As has been noted on numerous occasions, in practice it only discusses the supposed relationship between 'race' and crime the United States in any detail at all, while managing to imply that it is giving some sort of broader perspective. This is of course entirely misleading, and contrary to Misplaced Pages policy, given that the article Race and crime in the United States already exists: it is either redundant, or a POV fork. I'd appreciate WP:FTN regulars taking a look, to se if anything merits merging elsewhere, because beyond that, it is an obvious candidate for deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

This arguably because "Race" is primarily an American construct that doesn't really apply elsewhere, with "race" often being a euphemism used for black people. I'd recommend a redirect to Race and crime in the United States. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The supposed relationship between arbitrary 'race'-based social constructs and crime has certainly been discussed beyond the United States. Not that it really matters though when discussing the content in question, since it doesn't actually cover any broader studies. Which of course couldn't be discussed without pointing out just how arbitrary it all is anyway. Quite likely explains why the POV-fork doesn't do that... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think a redirect to race and crime in the US is appropriate. Race is absolutely not a US concept, it's just that race means a different thing to each culture and so there is a US "version" of race. The US is also not the only country that has a race disparity in crime. That all being said, this article is 100% a fork. But we should get WikiProjects Discrimination (and probably BLM) to help decide what to do about it. --Xurizuri (talk) 07:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Nominate it for deletion or redirect to R&C in the US. The alternative is actually edit the article to a point where it reflects the varying situations worldwide rather than the current US-centric construct. Since no one has seemed interested in doing that (probably because it would be a mountain of work) the first two seem more appropriate. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• I definitely agree with the WP:POVFORK concerns. I've started a proposal to redirect the article. Pinging those involved in the discussion: Only in death, Hemiauchenia, AndyTheGrump. ––FormalDude 11:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Numerology

• Numerology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article could stand a little attention. It's rather drastically under-sourced and sports an "in popular culture" junk drawer. XOR'easter (talk) 01:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I've deleted the 'popular culture' section as WP:OR. As for the remainder of the article, it could certainly do with scrutiny. Even ignoring the lack of sources, it is an inconsistent decontextualised mess. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

US vaccine mandates and the Third Reich?

• Vinay Prasad (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Some interesting recent edits on how to deal with a celebrity doctor's view on all this, a WP:FRINGE connection I'd say. Note potential BLP and COI considerations may apply. Alexbrn (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

My initial thoughts… we are giving the entire incident (both the initial blog post and the various reactions to it) too much weight, and should not mention it AT ALL. It was a blog post, not something published in a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The fact that it got picked up by The Cancer Letter lends a certain amount of weight, no? Alexbrn (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

He's a signer of the Great Barrington Declaration and involved with a dubious new think tank. The Cancer Letter article is here also here. He's recently been accused of anti-semitism and racism by Arthur Caplan reported here. Doug Weller talk 11:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The irony is that the Third Reich was against vaccine mandates, as were their core supporters. TFD (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Yep, trying not to let people die, it's not a million miles from what Hitler was doing.Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Claim that an anti-Islam professor has proved statistically that a large part of Islam is political, not relgious

This is Bill Warner (writer) (a pen name}} where someone has added the statement " Warner with the help of statistical methods proves that a substantive part of the Islamic doctrine is not religious but falls within the domain of politics." There are three sources for this - all are the subject himself. I think that the use of mathematics to define a religion is fringe. Doug Weller talk 09:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the article for a long time. This diff maybe a better one to see the changes made. Doug Weller talk 09:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

"I think that the use of mathematics to define a religion is fringe". Stupid would be a better term, I think. Does Misplaced Pages need a stupid theories noticeboard? As for the article, recent edits certainly haven't improved it. Given the subject matter though, I suspect that might be a losing battle. Just how notable is this guy and his ' Center for the Study of Political Islam' anyway? AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Its incredibly bad wording they have shoved in the article but its not actually a stupid idea to statistically model what is political and what is religious in a given text - thats actually used in a number of places on historical documents to analyse what the motivations behind a document are. (eg X % devoted to human rights vs much bigger % devoted to commerical concerns would indicate money was more important than people to the writers). The 'proves that' part is publisher hyperbole however. Its what you read on a dustjacket. What Warner did was show with statistical methods how much of the Koran is concerned with certain topics. The conclusions however are the fringe bit. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Bullshit with added numbers is still bullshit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

(ec)The idea that religion and politics are closely intertwined is about as surprising as the idea that water is wet. Both are systems of social organisation. Start reading at Divine right of kings... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dodger67: of course they are closely intertwined. But trying to apply statistics to what must be subjective interpretations - GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). Doug Weller talk 16:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Warner has committed violation #1 of "doing bad science" which is that he started with a pre-determined conclusion (that Islam is a political, and not religious system) then generated a set of data that "confirms" what he already believed was true. This is bullshit, and if it is to be mentioned, should not be presented as though he "proved" anything; at best we can say he "claims" that he showed it. But it is bullshit, plain and simple. --Jayron32 13:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The article is even worse now, using Warner as a source far too often. Doug Weller talk 16:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Trimmed, but I expect that'll be edit-warred over, because that's how these things go. XOR'easter (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Just trying to understand: In a biography article persons' own opinions whether those are right or wrong, mainstream or fringe can not be quoted or how it is? Idk if I have misunderstood the issue here.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

These opinions certainly can be quoted, but not stated in Wikivoice as happened here. –Austronesier (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Further, in general Misplaced Pages does not use the article's subject as a source for themselves. The only exception is that when a secondary source has commented in a noteworthy manner on the beliefs of a person, it is legitimate to clarify with their own words (because it is not uncommon for critiques to mischaracterize a target's beliefs). This is entirely driven by the coverage given and any quoting should not be disproportionate to the original claim - one should not give an elaborate explication just to clarify an off-handed comment that may not merit mention at all. Misplaced Pages should not be used as a platform to propagate/proselytize beliefs the person happens to hold that have not drawn particular notice in independent secondary sources - not every opinion a notable person holds is inherently a noteworthy aspect of their biography. Agricolae (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Per Agricolae, if a secondary, independent source notes that Warner holds a particular opinion or has published a particular bit of bullshit he calls science, it would be appropriate to cite the original bullshit as a source alongside the secondary source, since it is likely that a person may want to read such a thing. What is not appropriate is using the original bullshit to write its claims into Misplaced Pages's voice uncritically or to make those views more prominent than should be. If Warner is a noted critic of Islam, and that is a key part of his notability, then perhaps mentioning his bullshit calculations would be appropriate. However, unconnected to any discussion of such in a secondary source, then it also isn't appropriate in Misplaced Pages. That Warner did such <fingerquotes>"research"</fingerquotes> is only worth mentioning in the article if other sources have also mentioned it.--Jayron32 18:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Astrology AfD's

Possibly of interest to the community here:

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Angle (astrology)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Descendant (astrology)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Derivative house

Cheers, XOR'easter (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I did not nominate this one, but on reflection I think it suffers from the same problem: Midheaven. Salimfadhley (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

That one's at least fleshed out. IMO the issue is acting like it's a standard term that astrologers also use, rather than a wholly astrological terminology. I made some quick edits to clarify that. But really, most of these articles could just be redirected to Horoscope#Angles, with any notable details placed there. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Does anybody else feel creeped out by all this interconnected nonsense. We cover worthless stuff in this project, lots and lots of it, but this stuff ranks up there with Merkian Professional Wrestling in its absurdity, and frankly, meaninglessness. Aargh. -Roxy the dog. wooF 15:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Compared to COVID origins and treatment, or race and intelligence, this is refreshingly straightforward. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I am concerned that proponents seem to be suggesting that fringe sources should be permitted in order to show that these subjects are notable. Salimfadhley (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:NFRINGE may be pertinent, in that case. Alexbrn (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• I see only one user making the "astrologers exist, therefor notable" argument, and each place they made it another user brought up WP:NFRINGE. Then there's this comment on the Angle (astrology) AfD that gives multiple independent sources (some stronger than others) in their suggestion to keep.

I think it's completely reasonable to say that the topic of astrology (and its major concepts, like the signs and angles) should be covered as a notable topic. It's just making sure it's coverage of pseudoscience as a pseudoscience, rather than a credulous WP:NOTHOWTO guide or with entire unmaintained articles about the minutiae. Of note: WP:WikiProject Astrology has over 200 low importance start/stub articles, which I expect will include a number of other articles with similar issues (no citations, stub length, could be rolled into a larger existing article), such as Diurnal sign. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• In general, these are better as merge/redirect than delete. The terms are likely link targets or search terms, and while they cannot support a stand alone target, an article on astrology (or one of the sub-articles thereof) would likely touch on these concepts, therefore we don't need to remove the content or delete the article. There are many ways to deal with non-notable sub-sub-topics like this, and AFD isn't always the best tool for the job. Not every problem is a nail, and you don't always need to use the biggest hammer. --Jayron32 17:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Slightly different subject, but related. Profringe editors teaming up on the Talk page, untoward consequences expected. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

First, you should know that notices like this must be neutral in their presentation.(see APPNOTE) Second, calling Apaugasma and Aingotno "profringe" is a personal attack (see NPA). Please stop treating editors who are acting in good faith this way. Springee (talk) 13:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello again gatekeeper. A little hypocritical, wouldn't you say? -Roxy the dog. wooF 13:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you should also read NPA. I'm not editing the page in question so how am I gatekeeping. Springee (talk) 13:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

there's nothing constructive to be expected from them and Profringe editors teaming up have about the same quality. But apparently the second is bad and the first is not, according to one person, and there is indeeda word for that. Could you please go WP:SEALION somebody else, somewhere else? Isn't there any article about a right-wing nut needing removal of criticism? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

CIVIL is policy. The first paragraph makes it clear that it applies even in the case of content related questions. It's quite possible you are correct on the content but if so why not do it politely? Springee (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: I admit I was not being polite here, and I see why it provoked the reaction it did. I apologize for that. I hope that on reflection, you will come to perceive that the other editor on that talk page and I are not WP:PROFRINGE. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

It certainly looked that way to me at the time. I associate you with a false-balance worldview, with rejection of scientific skepticism and with misunderstanding what NPOV means, based on User talk:Apaugasma#Reflections and response, but I guess "profringe" is not quite the right word. On top of that, profringe editors never apologize, so, definitely not the right word.

Also, Aingotno is too fresh to say anything, so you are right: that was rash of me, and I am sorry. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I hope there will be an occasion for me to show you that a false-balance worldview and misunderstanding of NPOV (I fear I've misworded a few things in the talk page comments you link to) are also not among my attributes. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Who's really 'teaming up'? There is a content issue being raised there, a reliable source has been quoted, etc. Anyone who doesn't want to engage with that should not be posting to that talk page. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Why dont you take a long walk off a short pier? -Roxy the dog. wooF 13:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Classy and mature. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Hob and Roxy, please be civil even if you don't agree with people, this is just unnecessarily rude for no reason whatsover. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I second this. Being uncivil does not help the encyclopedia in any way, shape, or form. Civility and understanding do. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 02:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

We'll get there eventually. After all, Rome wasn't built in a day!!! -Roxy the dog. wooF 10:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

That's true. People here at least care and make an effort. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Gimbutas fringe material being added, sourced to Tank Magazine

By User:Timeismotion . Doug Weller talk 19:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

They are also adding Joseph Campbell as if he is the premier authority, which isn't a good sign either. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Timeismotion's edit history seems to revolve largely around promoting Tao Lin. I suspect that the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard might be a more appropriate place to discuss this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this boils down to promotional refspamming. –Austronesier (talk) 09:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

And I've taken Tank (magazine) to RSN. Doug Weller talk 10:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't be necessary. Fashion magazines are never going to be RS for statements about mythology or religion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, while Tank magazine is not a good source, they aren't really being used to prop anything fringe, mostly just undue content. Marija Gimbutas's ideas that of a homogenous matriarchal "Old Europe" are pretty fringe and need to be put in context. The entire first section in the Old Europe (archaeology) is a disaster and has barely any citations. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Gerard Rennick

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

Is this OK? The source does not explicitly say "misinformation", but those things clearly are misnformation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The source seems to say that he "posted about" ivermectin, and "questioned why Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration had not yet recommended use of ivermectin", not that he himself recommended its use. I'm not sure that constitutes misinformating, since we are both ourselves "posting about ivermectin" right now.jp×g 10:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

But that also means that the article misrepresents the source now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's definitely not optimal. I'll take a crack at it. jp×g 20:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Is "quantum artificial intelligence" a real thing?

I've come across an article called Quantum artificial intelligence. Aside from some bizarre SPA edits (which other people have reverted) and weird copy-pastes of other articles into this article (which I've reverted), I find myself rather puzzled at the idea being proposed here. The sources are not very great and they seem to mostly just say the same thing as the article: adding "quantum" to "artificial intelligence" make computer work gooder go faster, ergo "quantum artificial intelligence" is a thing. This source is a simple explanation of what quantum computing is, followed by a vague handwave of "I guess we could use this for artificial intelligence". This abstract alone (perhaps fortunately, I lack journal access) makes me want to bang my intelligence against the quantum. Having previously worked with neural networks, I am aware that people really love to throw spaghetti at the wall with the phrase "artificial intelligence". It seems to me like having a separate article for "quantum artificial intelligence" is somewhat akin to forking off drag racing into a new article titled "really fucking fast drag racing" whose only content is "it's hypothesized that, if cars could go 4,000 miles per hour, and you drag raced them against each other, they would go really fucking fast". I am, however, not able to evaluate whether this article is making meaningful claims about "quantum"; pinging @XOR'easter: to see if there is anything smart going on here. jp×g 09:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Quantum algorithms for machine learning and statistics, at least as a topic in theoretical quantum computing (i.e., as mathematics) is a real thing and is normal academic science, though obviously new and not well developed. Quantum probability exists, quantum statistics (as in a noncommutative form of classical theory of statistical inference, not "statistics" as the word is used in quantum physics) barely exists in the sense that there is a small number of papers, so I would be surprised if there has been a serious attempt to quantize the ideas of something more complicated like AI or machine learning rather than studying the complexity of classical AI/ML problems on a quantum computer. Sesquivalent (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I should add, though, that outside (and sometimes within) the primary literature, quantum computing suffers from a lot of hype, so when you combine that with AI hype it can go supernova. Probably not a lot of usable secondary sources. Sesquivalent (talk) 11:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I have a colleague at my department who is working on this. She is a mainstream physicist, not a fringe scientist.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm in CS and although quantum computing may be promising, so far it's mostly so for secure key distribution; qbits also permit fast computation but there always remains the bottleneck of configuration and sampling (so theoretically we don't need post-quantum cryptography yet, but it may eventually be required for secure communications and is in the works; for instance all cryptography based on the factoring problem like RSA could suddenly become obsolete). It's not a fringe field in itself, but it has been used as an argument for all kinds of fringe claims. AI has its own problems and similarities. I don't doubt that as quantum computers become more useful it can also be useful to accelerate AI. That said, the brain itself, as far as we know does not require quantum effects for neurology to function the way it does and create the mind. This means that any quantum computing accelerated AI would still not be magic. —PaleoNeonate – 12:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I expect the promise lies in the ability to better optimize problems that are difficult for digital computing, which are likely to be the most beneficial problems for AI. The traveling salesman and wedding banquet seating arrangements being two of the standard examples, with the benefit of finding 'good enough' solutions that might not be 100% optimized being a major advantage. So I doubt the concept itself is fringe, but it might very well lack the secondary coverage indicating its maturity as a notable field (at least, yet). Definitely needs some stronger sources if we keep the article, this one was at least published, and might replace the ArXiV citation. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that was formally published, just posted at SSRN. But overall, yes: it's a serious topic , though not yet what I'd call a mature one. XOR'easter (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

QuAIL at Ames. fiveby(zero) 13:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Health benefits of vegan diets

• Veganism (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Some disagreement about whether the knowledge from a recent review article can be included. More eyes from fringe-savvy editors welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Based on what I am seeing in the "Positions of dietetic and government associations" section there is inaccurate material. Whilst it is true that some dietetic associations do support a vegan diet for all stages of life (all ages), others have not offered a professional opinion on this or do not support for all ages. Health organizations do list benefits of a vegan or vegetarian diet but they also list nutrients of concern. But such associations and organizations also support plant-based diets and the Mediterranean diet but this is ignored by those with an exclusive vegan agenda. The section is using failed citations because most of the sourcing is on vegetarian diets, not vegan. A familiar banned user was saying I am anti-vegan on the talk-page , its funny because a different banned user shows up every few months and calls me a paid vegan activist.

I am not anti-vegan. I have been involved with vegan/vegetarianism for over 12 years now, I am just honest 1. To admit there is a lot of quackery involved with it. 2. Be critical and not accept biased or unsupported claims without good evidence. For example, the ADA paper that mentioned vegan diets was very biased and not all dietetic or health organizations support vegan diets for all stages of life but of course some do, I am not denying that some do, maybe this will change in the future when more research is done but for now evidence is not clear for all stages of life and this must be admitted. From what I can see all the health organizations now support plant-based diets but this is not the same as a strict vegan diet. There is a lot of misrepresentation on this topic. My personal opinion is that a vegan diet is not suitable for babies or pets. There is lack of research in this area, in 10-20 years things might be different. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories

Several users (and IPs) have, in the recent few weeks, been adding more in-universe and fringe-y websites to this article, along with more fringe content which puts it even farther from WP:NPOV. It's often just adding the sources themselves to acceptable already-sourced content. I think the risk is that this may legitimize these sources in an undeserved fashion, granting them legitimacy. We must be very weary of this, given the impact wikipedia has on site-reliability scores.

Some examples:

Questionable FRINGE sources added include: history-matters.org, which has this gem on its front page: "In the wake of the end of the Cold War and the passage of the 1992 JFK Assassination Records Collection Act, the U.S. Government has declassified an enormous number of formerly-secret documents. Among the most stunning are those pertaining to the 1963 assassination of President Kennedy and its subsequent investigations. The new records contain stark indications of conspiracy, and a great wealth of material concerning the hows and whys of the ensuing coverup."

and the conspicuously named Assassination Archives and Research Center which is itself a part of history-matters: "The JFK Assassination Archive disk and other AARC electronic document products are developed by History Matters. Visit our website: www.history-matters.com for more information and to order."

Any and all help provided is much appreciated. And criticism is, as always, welcome. Thanks — Shibbolethink 05:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Exact same user responsible for Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_82#John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories, I'd just take them to ANI, or try and get the article permanently semi-protected. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Fruitarianism

Repeated removal of "fad diet" from the lead and the fad diet category removed. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I mean, there should be a better term than "fad diet". There is no solid definition and fad implies it has a limited time, and that's something we can't conjecture about. I suppose we can say it's been "labeled as a fad diet". Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal

• The Wall Street Journal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Should the article say in the lead which fringe ideas the WSJ has supported? Should the article say how wonderfully reliable the WSJ is, completely ignoring its spreading of that misinformation? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:APPNOTE. This is not a neutral request. Also why ping this noticeboard vs NPOVN which is the nature of the question. Springee (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution