Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:33, 27 May 2023

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.

Melanesia and Melanesians

Both pages have been constantly targeted by IPs pushing for a terminological revisionism that is partly based on racializing arguments. Things like "dark skin pigmentation, "curly hair" are brought into play to redefine the well-established scope of a geographical region (see Talk:Melanesia; note that historically, the term "Melanesia" was indeed coined with racial undertones, but this has long been discarded; the term continues to be used in scholarship and geopolitics, but entirely without the racialist baggage). Austronesier (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone know if there's a policy about genetics in ethnicity articles? I've removed bunch of weird haplogroup stuff from a number of ethnicity's articles, because it almost always comes off as genetic essentialism or y-haplogroup is the same as ethnicity, but i don't know enough about human genetics to know if there is a potentially appropriate reason to include it—blindlynx 19:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@Blindlynx: As far as I know, there is no policy about the inclusion of such material in general, but at least this RfC about sourcing:

• Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_249#RfC:Genetics_references.

I'm not sure if we need a dedicated policy, but much of the mess we can see in many articles can be tackled with WP:DUE and WP:SYNTH. There are some editors who focus on group X (an ethnic group, a geographically defined population etc.), comb through all possible sources for genetic data about it and add everything that can be extracted, even it is only mentioned in passing or just one out of hundreds of data points and actually not related to actual topic of the study. Or they read one study, and again extract all data points and distribute them to dozens of articles about ethnic groups, geographical areas etc. without considering due weight, and often linking data in a WP:SYNTH manner.

Usually, genetic studies have a specific spatiotemporal scope, covering a geographical area over a certain stretch of time. E.g. in the case of Oceania, there are good studies that indeed cover the genetic history of Oceania, allowing to build an article about the Genetic history of Oceania; oddly enough, still a red link, but actually not surprising when you consider that the number of ethnochauvinist Oceanians in WP is apparently much lower when compared to the usual suspects in contentious topic areas ;)

A few genetic studies indeed specifically address single ethnic groups for various reasons. Sometimes, they just fall into the great amount of scholarship that has been triggered by identity-seeking (write about the genetic history of Hungary and you can be sure to get lots of public attention). Or there is genuine scholarly interest in an ethnic group that occupies an isolated position from a general anthropological viewpoint (not just limited to biological anthropology), e.g. in the case of this study.

Writing a topical guideline (as an essay first) might be a good solution (there is a comaparable project in User:Joe_Roe/Archaeology_conventions#Archaeogenetics). WT:ETHNIC is the best place to initiate something if you're interested (I defintely am, but have little time for WP right now). –Austronesier (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Amazing, thank you! I'll ask around there—blindlynx 23:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Chicxulub crater

GSHD2023 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps edit warring Chicxulub crater to add reference to a 2021 conference abstract that claims that the Chicxulub impact was not responsible for the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary layer, and that the Chicxulub impactor was an iron asteroid. I've never seen these ideas entertained or even mentioned in any actual scientific papers, and conference abstracts in my experience are a magnet for crank/fringe theories, as they are effectively self-published. In my opinion, including any reference to this abstract is completely undue and PROFRINGE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not even clear to be that the author of the abstract, Gerhard Schmidt, is even a published scientist, as the abstract doesn't even list an institutional affiliation , and no research papers come up on scholar when I search his name relevant to asteroids (though there is plently of self-published stuff on researchgate). Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I've researched further, and he does seem to have published some papers on the topic, but they were decades ago, and all of his recent "publications" are conference abstracts or posters, which is not a good sign. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Primary sources, e.g. conference abstracts, posters, and so forth authored by a single author as used in the edits are not acceptable as Misplaced Pages sources. Misplaced Pages needs additional independent and reliable secondary / tertiary sources that document and evaluate the the notability of the ideas proposed by the posted sources.

By the way, the user name, "GSHD2023" is uncomfortably close enought to being an abbreviation of "Gerhard ScHmiDt" that there possibly might be a conflict of interest involved. Paul H. (talk) 02:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I think there is good reason to suspect COI. They've also added some stuff to the German wiki article, though briefly looking at a Google translated version of that article it seems to have a multitude of problems. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

HD is the car licence tag of Heidelberg and that is where Schmidt works (I think that is him; it is a very common name), which makes for a more plausible meaning of GSHD. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Green Man

I always thought I knew what "Green Man" meant. Now I'm not so sure after reading this Slate article. where independent scholar (who has a book published by Cambridge University Press) says "I spend a lot of my time trying to debunk the idea that the Green Man is an ancient figure from British folklore. He’s a made-up figure of 20th-century folklore." The article itself calls it "a folkloric or mythological figure" but also says " Lady Raglan coined the term "Green Man" for this type of architectural feature in her 1939 article The Green Man in Church Architecture in The Folklore Journal. "

The history section starts with discussing a book by Mike Harding, "an English singer, songwriter, comedian, author, poet, broadcaster and multi-instrumentalist. Harding has also been a photographer, traveller, filmmaker and playwright." I see it uses a recent letter to the Guardian from a Stephen Green, who published through Cambridge Scholars. I don't have time to look at all the sources, but a quick glance suggests that a lot are unreliable. And am I wrong in thinking the article seems to link different concepts? Doug Weller talk 08:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I would say that it is more of a decorative and artistic motif used on churches than a mythological figure, and the article should reflect that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

From Lady Raglan's article, page 47: "Sir Albert Seward, who has made a special study of the chapter-house at Southwall, where there is a number of 'Green Men,' has found a great variety of foliage there, and I have myself noticed a good deal of poison ivy, always a sacred herb." I should point out that Toxicodendron is not found in Europe, being confined to North America and a strip along the East Asian coast from Sakhalin to Taiwan. Mangoe (talk) 01:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, one of the sources (I think the New Yorker article) described her theory as "total bunk", which I'm having a hard time disagreeing with. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

My attempt to fix the article has been reverted by @Wuerzele:. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion ongoing at Talk:Green_Man#Article_remains_a_mess... if anyone wants to comment. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Maryanne Demasi

There has been a user with about 12 IPs trying to remove references from this article going back 3 months. Basically it was discovered that Maryanne Demasi had duplicated some data based on her PhD dissertation. The paper was later retracted. According to the journal "This article has been retracted by the publisher. An investigation by the Journal determined the following. In Fig 4, the “no LPS” lanes in the GAPDH Northern blots were duplicated between normoxic and hypoxic conditions." . The IP is repeatedly removing "determined" from the article and is claiming duplication is only "alleged".

The same IP is also removing references from the article claiming they are part of a conspiracy to smear Maryanne Demasi. I think some extra eyes are needed on this article because there has been repeated attempts at removing certain sources going back 4 months. Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Robert F. Marx‎

I changed the short description from "American scuba diver (1936–2019)" to "American scuba diver (1936–2019) and writer about White gods" as that's an important aspect of his work (which wasn't even mentioned in the lead despite having its own section. User:GhostInTheMachine reverted me. In any case, "scuba diver" which GITM had added isn't adequate. Note I also made other changes. Doug Weller talk 11:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

What's the WP:MOS rule for whether to capitalize "white" in this context? Do most sources capitalize the word? It looks a little cringe to me. jps (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)W

MOS:RACECAPS, which says to be consistent within an article. Donald Albury 14:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

In White gods, it is consistently "white", so I would argue for lower-case in the above case. Donald Albury 14:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. And I see lower case in most sources, at least those I could read. My bad. Doug Weller talk 16:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Callahan, Tim (2008). "A New Mythology". Skeptic. Vol. 13, no. 4. wplibrary. But when i see the phrase "white gods" it's this which comes to mind and not pre-Columbian contact pseudoarcheology per Shermer and Callahan.

You might find better sources for Heyerdahl in this review of Thor Heyerdahl og jakten på Atlantis from Kon-Tiki Museum, instead of using an article published in The Drama Review. fiveby(zero) 16:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

See you already had Callahan in Marx, but not in white gods. Fritze, Ronald H. (1993). "White God Legends". Legend and lore of the Americas before 1492. Davies, Nigel (1979). "White Gods with Black Faces". Voyagers to the New World. Really don't see "extensive writing on white gods", but one opportunistic Columbus Quincentenary work. Diver, treasure hunter, pseudo/amateur archeologist. fiveby(zero) 18:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@Fiveby The Kon-Tiki Museum is, I believe, biassed. The authors of that review are Reidar Solsvik who is an archaeologist and Curator of the Kon-Tiki Museum andEirik Stokke is a lecturer and is studying for a MA Degree in the history (of something, I can't see the rest).I agree with your summary description of Marx. I have: Norbeck, Edward (1953). "Review of American Indians in the Pacific". American Antiquity. 19 (1): 92–94 and several other reviews. Not about white gods, but the book Hunt, Terry (2011). The Statues That Walked: Unraveling the Mystery of Easter Island. Free Press sasys "\This is the tack taken by Thor Heyerdahl, who was convinced that Incan colonists from South America were the makers of the ahu and statues. His assumption goes even further, also claiming that the Incans responsible for the cultural florescence on Rapa Nui were ultimately the descendants of colonists with European origins who taught Native Americans the secrets of “advanced culture.”2 For Heyerdahl, simply tracing the “cause” of Rapa Nui culture back to Europe solved the apparent paradox of cultural achievement. Leaving its racist assumptions aside, empirical support for this argument is entirely lacking." p110

Thor Heyerdahl's The White Gods Caucasian Elements In Pre Inca Peru can be downloaded here. Doug Weller talk 16:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm just being a best sources snob. Hunt is better than a professor of theater history published in TDR: The Drama Review. But look at the "2" in your quote, he's citing Moore, Thomas (April 2, 1990). "Thor Heyerdahl: Sailing Against the Current". Us News & World Report. Reading that Kon-Tiki Museum article leads me to believe you should be citing Ralling Kon-Tiki Man which i can't find online, and/or Axel Andersson A Hero for the Atomic Age, or "Resan ut, resan in: Den unge Thor Heyerdahl och det mystiska folket". fiveby(zero) 21:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Or is it that one source uses the phrase "white gods" where Andersson only says an itinerant race of white and blue-eyed culture-bearers that had journeyed from some centre in the Old World to jump-start the world’s great civilization so it's WP:OR to use the better source? fiveby(zero)

While we're here white gods needs some serious work, it's presented almost totally uncritically in wikivoice—blindlynx 15:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Fake Bible conspiracy

Added to Bible conspiracy theory by an IP, I suspect this is vandalism but since my wife has been researching David Barton of late, I just can't withstand exposure to that much idiocy in order to search for this. Mangoe (talk) 00:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Already deleted. Mangoe (talk) 01:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Emergence

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

Is the concept of "strong emergence" fringe? That's the claim in this edit, which is part of a large body of BOLD cuts to the article. On the whole I think these cuts are good, and I do not disagree with the edit in questions (because the material removed was unsourced). But a quick search did yield some other sources that do seem to support the idea that "strong emergence" sits somewhere within the mainstream, at least in the philosophical literature. The SEP, for instance, provides a helpful overview of the debate: . And here is David Chalmers, one of the most respected living philosophers, arguing in its favor (it's a chapter from the Oxford UP book The Re-emergence of Emergence): . Even where the concept is criticized, e.g. here: , it appears be treated as a more or less mainstream position, or at least as an "alternative theoretical formulation". Anyone else have insight to offer here? Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I do not think it a fringe concept at all; we have a very good example of "strong emergence" in the human brain. Roger Wolcott Sperry essentially said as much without using the precise term. There is a pretty good precis on the topic here. Then again, there are very good reasons that my livelihood depends on neither science nor mathematics, so I am of course open to the opinions of others. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

In retrospect, I may have not been as clear as I should have been - I think that philosophical debate for the concept itself is not fringe per se, and there is a robust debate on the topic, which is still in the article and I think should stay there, especially the debate with respect to the human brain. But claiming to have definitively made observations of strong emergence in physics is what I intended to characterize as fringe, which lands fairly closely to the idea of vitalism. - car chasm (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Aha, thanks for the clarification. Looks like we're all basically on the same page. Generalrelative (talk) 05:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Minor-attracted person

The article appears to be citing deeply unreliable literature, including this critical criminology piece that claims that attraction to minors is merely a form of sexual orientation akin to being gay or straight. I attempted to BLAR, but was reverted by the page's creator. Additional eyes to review the citations for fringe would be appreciated. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Per the result of Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Minor-attracted_person, I would recommend creating an AfD for the article. The creator, who only started editing in late March, seems to be a SPA, as all of their edits relate to pedophilia in some way. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

per google scholar the term definitely does have some use in Academia, mostly within the last few years, but I assume this is massively dwarfed by other studies that just use paedophilia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Now up for deletion again. Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Minor-attracted_person_(2nd_nomination). Not really a good nomination rationale, and seems to be trending towards keep. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You could have tagged me here. I would not have seen this discussion if another editor had not linked it in the current AfD.

Anyway, if you have an issue with the sourcing, consider making a source eval table or something similar to prove your point. Show us HOW the sourcing is bad, instead of just saying that it is; nitpicking a single source does not count as a substantial evaluation of the article. Besides, as I told you yesterday, this Critical Criminology source was used only a single time, to make a single statement, that had nothing to do with saying that pedophilia is a sexual orientation. The the statement that this source was supporting was the idea that the term minor-attracted person had some variations. That source was so insignificant that after the discussion that we had yesterday, in which I tried to be cordial and agreed with you that Critical Criminology did not need to be included there, I removed it from the article and didn't have to change a single word of its body because there were other reliable sources that supported that same claim relating to the variations of the term "minor-attracted person". I already told you yesterday in your talk page that the idea that pedophilia is a sexual orientation is fringe and that I had never supported that idea, it was pretty dishonest of you to come here writting this topic in a way that suggests that I had made a claim that I never actually did, especially after I had already told you in your talk page that that was a position that I never held. If you want to criticise me or the article (both of which fine), please be clear in your critique and don't nitpick a just a single source from the article. And don't accuse me of having written things that I never had. 🔥 22spears 🔥 23:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

You've repeatedly cited the author of that same piece multiple times in the article, including in the article's use of A Long Dark Shadow, "I Would Report It Even If They Have Not Committed Anything": Social Service Students’ Attitudes Toward Minor-Attracted People, and "I’m Not like That, So Am I Gay?" The Use of Queer-Spectrum Identity Labels Among Minor-Attracted People. This is an extremely WP:FRINGE set of sourcing in the article—it ain't limited to the most egregious one that's been noted above. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Now it's not about the journal anymore, it's about the author? Why do you keep changing you accusations each time I respond? Again, I never used any source coming from this journal or this author to promote any fringe theory, the source was to make statements regarding etymology, most of which could and often are already supported by better sources not related to that journal or author. 🔥 22spears 🔥 16:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Red-tailed hawk, thank you for bringing this up. The article has multiple SPAs involved with it lately, some of which have similar usernames, and feels like a POV fork. See also stigma of pedophilia created by 22spears and other articles in the topic area. It really needs closer eyes on it. Crossroads 01:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC) PS see also List of pedophile advocacy organizations in which I had to remove links to two different such groups, and in which an SPA described a group as "advocat for at least some age of consent reform and circulat alternative child sexual abuse testimony". Mmmkay. Crossroads 01:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Query: it's been a year or two since I've looked at any of the research surrounding this (as it's very tough reading it for obvious reasons), but isn't minor-attracted person just a euphemism for paedophilia? If that's still the case, then shouldn't this at best be a redirect to the paedophilia article or relevant subsection? Because it seems like this is maybe a WP:POVFORK . Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

It definitely seems that way to me. That's what I argued at the AfD. It looks like we're dealing with a few highly motivated SPA accounts in this topic area right now, and some pretty glaring signs of socking. If anyone has tips that could be assembled into an SPI case, feel free to let me know by email. I'd be happy to put together cases. Generalrelative (talk) 02:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Sideswipe. Roxy the dog 19:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Same. DFlhb (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, something's up. Bon courage (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

If memory serves, Flyer22 used to keep an eye on the paedo/hebe/ephebo-philia articles to weed out the sockfarms. They are unfortunately departed now, but perhaps folks who worked with them might be able to check? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand that argument. It appears to be an article about the term itself, not an article about pedophilia. If it was discussing pedophilia it would be a povfork, but it seems to be literally just discussing the phrase "minor-attracted person", which the article on pedophilia isn't? Endwise (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. I've said the same at the AfD. The idea that this is a fork does not match with the actual contents of the article. small jars tc 22:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I think this needs to be part of a larger discussion on whether journals that specialize in critical theory and related subjects should be deprecated for not relying on empirical evidence, and instead attempting to conform to an a priori politically desired conclusion. Partofthemachine (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

missed the chance to drop a comment in the AFD. Will state here: we have an article on coprophilia (sexual attraction to feces), if people wanting to normalize this as an orientation wanted a separate article at feces-attracted person, that would amount to the same thing, and would surely not fly. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Westford Knight - was this edit Undue?

- I've reverted it, the editor has brought it up at Talk:Westford Knight#Why is the new statue WP:UNDUE. There are a few sources for it, Note that both Scott Wolter and Jason Calavito are mentioned in the source used and see also this article by Calavito where he says that the sculptor and Wolter claimed to have discovered another Hooked X (surprise!). It might be useful for editors to reply on the talk page. Doug Weller talk 15:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Genetic history of Egypt

Genetic history of Egypt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's been a recent uptick in edit warring and generalized incivility on this article and its talk page, perhaps having to do with renewed attention to the topic in response to an upcoming Netflix series on Cleopatra (see e.g. and for coverage). Uninvolved editors with strong working knowledge of genetics would be most helpful. Generalrelative (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@Masrialltheway Seems to have broken WP:3RR, as seen by the string of reverts he has done here.

@24.228.27.179 Casually called an user a White Supremacist on the talk page, this probably also warrants a warning or short block.

The discussion doesn't seem that bad to me, just put some warning templates on the new users' profiles and they will understand the message and start to behave. 🔥 22spears 🔥 00:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Article has always been pretty contentious, I gave up and took it off my watchlist. Doug Weller talk 08:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Principia Cybernetica

Is this a legitimate organization? I have to say I'm very confused at the mere existence of cybernetics after the 1950s, but their website seems really full of woo, such as reinventing philosophy, global brains, pantheism, explaining not just evolution, but also abiogenesis! I'm concerned about the extent to which the content on wikipedia about systems theory and cybernetics seems to mirror this site. - car chasm (talk) 05:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Some of those pages genuinely are concerning, but websites of other small professional organizations sometimes have some woo on them, so I don't think we can go exclusively on that.

My general principle here is that we should never have a page on an organization cited entirely or primarily to its own website. So, the best thing to do is to find some reliable third-party sources to see what their reputation is overall. A quick Google doesn't really turn up much, which is concerning, and makes me suspect they wouldn't have the notability to survive AFD. Loki (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Fringe material in Pre-Columbian transoceanic contact theories

Looks like this edit added a lot of fringe material relying on dubious sources. I've dealt with a little bit but it needs more and I don't have time right now. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, it should be the section Pre-Columbian transoceanic contact theories#Claims of pre-Columbian contact with Christian voyagers.

2007 Alderney UFO sighting

2007 Alderney UFO sighting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Oh dear. This one slipped past our "radar", it seems. Full of absurd credulity and terrible sourcing.

@JMK: who is the main author. Might be worth checking those contributions as well.

jps (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually, you know what?

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2007 Alderney UFO sighting.

I think we should WP:TNT this. jps (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

This note has been accused of being WP:CANVASSing. Further machinations continue at both the article and the AfD. I have also found a small discussion in a UFO forum encouraging people to comment at the AfD to get it kept. Sigh. jps (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

ජපස, did you see the Journal of Scientific Exploration article "Unusual Atmospheric Phenomena Observed Near Channel Islands, UK, 23 April 2007", a little bit more discussion than Clarke has in The UFO Files? fiveby(zero) 20:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

For sure. I'm not particularly enthused that Clarke, an expert in (check notes) folklore, is declaring that this nothing burger was "unusual atmospheric phenomena". It might be, but it also might be, I don't know, window glint. When it is only eyewitness testimony of UFOs, attempting to say anything about the situation is basically impossible. jps (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

You both know this, but I note for other readers that the Journal of Scientific Exploration is a mouthpiece of the unquestionably pro-woo Society for Scientific Exploration, and as such should not be considered a reliable source for anything. An examination of some 2022 issues reveals that it promotes perpetual motion machines, parapsychology, the Loch Ness monster...and I think I'll end the list right there. The only question I have is whether it is more laughable than Rudy Schild's Journal of Cosmology. You know, the journal with "scientific" articles that claim to have discovered extraterrestrial life within meteorites. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

UFO sightings in South Africa

UFO sightings in South Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Same author, similar issues. Sourcing is atrocious. I notice some have been active cleaning things up, but a lot of cruft remains (sourcing to obscure newspaper articles, trade journals, and even Lonely Planet).jps (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/UFO sightings in Thailand

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/UFO sightings in Thailand.

Sigh.

jps (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Lancet MMR autism fraud

• Lancet MMR autism fraud (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• MMR vaccine and autism (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Recent high some-say-this-some-say-that activity. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah I see its time for the annual anti-vax 'Wakefield totes is not a giant fraudypants' cycle. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Giants

I'd appreciate third opinions on these two newly created articles and their respective DYKs:

• Giant skeletons (United States) (Template:Did you know nominations/Giant skeletons (United States))
• Giantology (Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Giantology)

I'm concerned they gave more credence to this fringe theory than is warranted. – Joe (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that reports of 10 foot tall giants from newpaper articles from 1885 (!) should be stated in Wikivoice.  Tewdar  12:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Please respond at Template:Did you know nominations/Giant skeletons (United States). I’ve done as much as I can tonight. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I started both of these articles. They are well sourced and accurate. I am disappointed in the rapid fire AfD !votes and the gigantic stop sign shutdown of the DYK nomination. Clearly like minded people are being called to action with this notice so I mentioned it at both the DYK nomination and the AfD. Bruxton (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Glancing over it there seem to be multiple issues related to sourcing and accuracy. For instance: The first sentence states the wrong centuries. The bulk of the article cites tabloid articles. The "Background" section isn't about the background, and starts with "As early as 1859 it was reported", when the Columbus Dispatcher source you use later says "as early as 1845". Hypnôs (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Hypnôs:, what you describe are WP:SURMOUNTABLE issues. And I think the bulk of the RS is from newspaper articles. No redlined sources. Bruxton (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Tabloids are usually questionable. They are not redlined, but that's the case for most non-reliable sources. Hypnôs (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Your understanding of article sourcing seems well out of whack to what would be expected per WP:RS. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

There might be a very good article titled giantology, but it ain't this one. fiveby(zero) 00:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• I took a look at Giant skeletons (United States), and as others have mentioned, it seems to be mostly sourced to poor quality tabloids or newspapers. It doesn't look like it was seriously discussed in high quality sources. With that problem, it's looking like it may be an AfD candidate if not major pruning. Curious what others think here. KoA (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with thinking of Giant skeletons (United States) as a possible AfD candidate. Its notability is certainly questionable in that it lacks high quality sources. Summarizing old tabloid and newspaper articles does not give the topic notability. Maybe change the title and remove all outdated material sourced to articles written between 1868 and 2020. Misplaced Pages is not a repository for indiscriminate information. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree. At least two U.S. presidents believed this and it was influential for 1800s North America. The article is just missing context (that scholarly sources would provide). The significance of these giant skeletons being found in Native American burial mounds is that the white power structures embraced the narrative that a primeval race of people (white, giant, or both) built the impressive structures in the Mississippi river valley, and were then exterminated by the Native Americans (who were in reality the descendants of the mound builders). Doug Weller covered it in Archaeology and racism on Misplaced Pages (dope article btw). Jason Colavito released a book on it a couple years back, which looks dope but I haven't read it. I think Edwards Watts covers it in Colonizing the Past: Mythmaking and Pre-Columbian Whites in Nineteenth-Century American Writing. There are also scholarly sources that connect the white supremacist mythology of the 1800s to some of the modern conspiracies and hoaxes like Contested Indigenous Landscapes: Indian Mounds and the Political Creation of the Mythical "Mound Builder" Race. Bruxton, have you come across this stuff yet? I think the context would improve the article. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 03:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Rjjiii: Thank you for the comments and the ping. I appreciate your efforts and interesting comments above. At the moment KOA and Brunton have erased all the background/news articles from Giant skeletons (United States). I tried to restore the research as necessary background but at this point I have to walk away from this article so I do not get in trouble for edit warring. I have attempted to invite the editors to the talk page but was unsuccessful. FYIL Doug Weller came to my talk page and said he thought the Giant skeletons "article is a good one and a useful addition to Misplaced Pages". I will read the article he started which you referenced above. Have a great week! Bruxton (talk) 04:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Rjjiii: — If someone were to use the sources you provided this might turn out to be a much better article. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 13:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Same as giantology, the good content here is description of the pre-20th erudite arguments for existence of a giant race or that humans were larger in the past. Add to giant first, then sub-article if needed. Afd this after the current runs its course? fiveby(zero) 16:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Category:Pathological science has been nominated for discussion

Category:Pathological science has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion re: how to word DJT's mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic at Talk:Donald Trump

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Donald Trump § Testing and unproven treatments (Misinformation) in the lead. — Shibbolethink 15:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC) — Shibbolethink 15:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Some users have expressed a desire to remove the current mention of promoting "unproven treatments" or spreading misinformation re: treatments from the lead of Donald Trump when discussing his COVID response. Any and all outside input would be appreciated in properly determining what is WP:DUE inclusion here. @KoA@Jayron32@FormalDude@Slatersteven @other FTN regulars who have been interested in this talk page in the past — Shibbolethink 18:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Authorship of the Petrine epistles

This is about . Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The scholarly consensus seems quite clear and putting a minority theory in the lede is WP:UNDUE/WP:FALSEBALANCE. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The diff you point to is a simple misrepresentation of the source. Once an editor does that, it should be just WP:RBI instead of having to argue with them. fiveby(zero) 14:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Indian psychology

Indian psychology appears to be yet another article on transpersonal psychology. It has no apparent connection to anything of any actual scientific value, and from the citations it seems like it may just be the invention of a few isolated people. Is there anything worth salvaging or should it be AfD'd? - car chasm (talk) 08:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories

Not surprisingly, it's a giant stew of WP:FRINGE theories, mostly sourced to fringe sources, with very little in the way of response to most of them. I've tagged the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Definitely needs a heavy overhaul. Lots and lots of obscure proFRINGE content all over the place. Will take a look when I get a chance, but cannot do it alone — Shibbolethink 18:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I recommend Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History for anyone looking at Kennedy conspiracy theories. It's probably the gold standard when it comes to demolishing kookery of that sort. Most well stocked library systems will have a copy. Ad Orientem (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeesh, what a mess! Needs a major overhaul, perhaps organized roughly-chronologically through Gallup polls 1963-64, Buchanan 63, Lane 66, HSCA, Marrs & Stone, etc; Refuting each's claims as they get more elaborate. Feoffer (talk) 22:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

A. E. Wilder-Smith

• A. E. Wilder-Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is there a source saying that this creationist was a three-star general? I find nothing useful on the net. Only German Misplaced Pages, which is not RS, and obvious copies of it. IPs keep adding the general bit and deleting other stuff. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

He claims so in his autobiography. Oh that's already on the talk page. Had to be some kind of rank equivalency and not a real rank. fiveby(zero) 16:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I am finding no records for a Wilder-Smith of such a rank (or anything approaching) in British service in those years. I also doubt its a rank equivalent, in a uniformed medical service a three star equivalent would likely be the top dog and there is no indication that Wilder-Smith ever was such a top dog or even served in a uniformed medical service. There is no such thing as an "advisor" "with the rank of a three star general," not within NATO and not anywhere to the best of my knowledge. All things equal I think Wilder-Smith is telling a fib, there really isn't another logical conclusion. In general this probably means that we can't use him for WP:ABOUTSELF (there are a lot of other extraordinary achievements in that bio, all seemingly sourced to Wilder-Smith himself). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Grover Furr

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

New activity by new user, "proving the truth", removing "negationism" and moving the article towards something Stalin would have liked. That is not necessarily bad, depending on whether there was really an "anti-Stalin bias", but it may need checking by historians. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

A new user with the username "TheVictoryOfTheProletariat" making blatantly pro-Stalin edits?

I think you're perfectly safe just blatantly reverting them. Remember, AGF isn't a suicide pact, and this user is not worth wasting your time on. 2601:18F:107F:E2A0:3C73:875F:3BDB:E988 (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Nazario Collection

A fringe mess, not sure what to do to fix it. Doug Weller talk 09:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Scope of the Holocaust

At the suggestion of Aquillion let's discuss the scope of the Holocaust because there has been an "underlying disagreement in the topic area." In scholarly works, is it a fringe view to define the Holocaust as something other than the Nazi genocide of European Jewry?

In scholarly works, I understand that the Holocaust is demarcated as the Nazi genocide of ~6 million European Jews during World War II. In popular culture (and in Misplaced Pages) there are occasional statements that the Holocaust includes other Nazi mass killings, including the Roma people, homosexuals, Slavs, Soviet POWs, etc. While equally awful, and thoroughly documented, these other Nazi mass murders are related to but distinct from the Holocaust. Several have their own names, and each should have its own article, including: the killing of Romani people (Porajmos ), Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany, euthanasia of the disabled (Aktion T4), execution of the Poles (Polish decrees, Intelligenzaktion), the German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war, Nazi mass murder of political opponents (where is this article?), and the persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses.

To be clear, articles about the Holocaust should, when appropriate, mention these other killings as highly relevant context, and link to them. The demarcation between different Nazi mass murders should be clearly explained. For starters, we could improve the clarity of Names of the Holocaust, which presently seems a bit muddled. Jehochman 13:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing 'fringe' about this. The question as to whether the term 'Holocaust' should only be applied to Jewish victims of Nazi mass killings has been a matter of scholarly debate for many years. A debate about appropriate terminology amongst those who all agree that the events occurred involves no 'fringe theories' at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any high quality sources that give a broader definition of the Holocaust? Your opinion is in conflict with the lede of Holocaust, which says, The Holocaust was the genocide of European Jews during World War II. Jehochman 14:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Again, disputes about terminology are not 'fringe theories'. There is no 'fringe theory' to discuss. As for what the Misplaced Pages article says, wasn't question as to how exactly the article should be worded the reason this was raised in the first place? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/holocaust says (my emphasis): the Holocaust : the killing of millions of Jews and other people by the Nazis during World War II.

The Britannica encyclopedia article at https://www.britannica.com/event/Holocaust begins (again my emphasis): Holocaust, Hebrew Shoʾah (“Catastrophe”), Yiddish and Hebrew Ḥurban (“Destruction”), the systematic state-sponsored killing of six million Jewish men, women, and children and millions of others by Nazi Germany and its collaborators during World War II.

As far as Poles are concerned, the Britannica article mentions that: Following the invasion of Poland, German occupation policy especially targeted the Jews but also brutalized non-Jewish Poles. In pursuit of Lebensraum, Germany sought systematically to destroy Polish society and nationhood. The Nazis killed Polish priests and politicians, decimated the Polish leadership, and kidnapped the children of the Polish elite, who were raised as “voluntary Aryans” by their new German “parents.” Many Poles were also forced to perform hard labour on survival diets, were deprived of property and uprooted, and were interned in concentration camps. Further down, the article mentions the Jedwabne pogrom.

I am not saying this to advocate defining the Holocaust one way or another, just to illustrate that there are indeed high-quality sources supporting this point of view. Andreas JN466 16:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Minority opinions are not fringe, this is not the proper forum for this discussion that would be NPOV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I believe after your recent research spree you probably have something intelligent to say here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Intelligence is a bit like a sponge, which can soak up a lot but if you wring it too much, it dries out:) I agree with Horse Eye's Back that the NPOV noticeboard is the place for this, if anyone is keen. I'm busy still slowly reading and rereading lots of books and articles collected on this and until I've worked my way through them, I'm tempted to reserve my opinion. I'd be interested in seeing this examined however by others, as long as it doesn't just develop, as would be likely, into a RfC quick- glance-then-vote process. The problem is deep and the query legitimate, and, if one good collateral effect of the G&K hullabaloo was to examine this point exhaustively, demanding that we go through the RS specifically discussing this issue, we would be in the latters' debt.Nishidani (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Your perspective is excellent. I agree that we should do a deep dive. Jehochman 15:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• Let's just discuss what is the most policy compliant way to frame the Holocaust on Misplaced Pages. Arguing whether this is FRINGE, or NPOV, or whatever is not the point. Aquillion recommended this board, so I stopped here first. Let's see what the uninvolved have to say, shall we? Jehochman 15:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

How about no? There is no 'fringe theory' to discuss, and raising the question here inappropriately implies that there is. The NPOV noticeboard is clearly a better place to ask whether due balance is being applied to different usages of terminology in scholarship, and on what the scope of our article should be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I lean towards a "teach the controversy" style of maintaining policy compliance. I would suggest that the most practical solution would be to make a page for Holocaust as a term where the history, historiography, and scope of the term can be extensively covered without having a disruptive impact on all of the articles you've mentioned. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

There's not controversy among respectable academics. If you think there is, show sources. Jehochman 16:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

(EC x 2) I'm sorry, are you attempting to solicit input from uninvolved editors are are you sealioning? Because you're going to have to choose one, if you want a productive discussion to happen you can't attempt to derail it at every turn. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it is correct to dismiss any WP:FRINGE aspects out of hand. I would certainly take a very hard look at any work which defines the Holocaust as something other than the Nazi genocide of European Jewry depending on why the author chose to do so. I'm sure you're very aware of the issues here and don't need them pointed out. If I were to see something such as Holocaust victims outside of WP i would be very skeptical of the author. I'd ask why in the hell aren't you giving me and adequate explanation in the lede and "Scope of usage" sections. Just linking Holocaust trivialization doesn't cut it. Names of the Holocaust the same, i'd say inadequate instead of muddled. The objections here are a significant viewpoint, and after reading such articles i should clearly be informed as to what those objections are. Think you may be getting some of the responses here based on the way the question was presented. fiveby(zero) 16:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Here's what the leading, highest quality source says: The Holocaust specifically refers to the systematic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of six million Jews. However, there were also millions of other victims of Nazi persecution and murder. In the 1930s, the regime targeted a variety of alleged domestic enemies within German society. As the Nazis extended their reach during World War II, millions of other Europeans were also subjected to Nazi brutality. (emphasis added) I cannot find any reliable source that declares the Holocaust to refer to the other victims of Nazi persecution. The Holocaust is specific to European Jews as the victims. This is why I call the "broad view" fringe -- no academic source is presented that defines the Holocaust otherwise. Jehochman 16:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did you see the Britannica quotes I posted above? Andreas JN466 16:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

It should probably be note that the Holocaust Encyclopaedia Jehochman links above includes its (excellent) article on the 'Genocide of European Roma' as one of nine 'must read' articles at the top of each web page. It evidently considers that documenting the often-neglected Roma genocide as central to its purpose. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

A simple question. What exactly is under dispute here? Which specific wording, in which article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I asked whether the "broad view" of the Holocaust including all Nazi victims, versus being specific to European Jews, is a fringe view, or perhaps a minority view. This question impacts dozens are articles related to the Holocaust, including the lede of the flagship article. We need to understand how to deal with this view across this topic area. Perhaps somebody smarter than me can restate the questions more effectively and set up a new thread, here or in a more appropriate place. These are details. What's important is getting to the bottom of the question. Jehochman 16:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

RS generally for some decades limited the definition of Holocaust to what Nazis did to Jews. Historical overviews of the development of this definition (see my page) show that there was (a) in the early post war period indeterminacy as to what term to use, with various terms vying for ascendancy,khurbn,(the Yiddish term used by the (Eastern) Jewish victims) shoah (the term that was eventually favoured in Israeli usage by the Yishuv), holocaust (extermination, genocide etc.etc.) These had different denotational ranges, khurbn etc., referring to 1941-1945, shoah to 1933-1945. 'Holocaust' eventually, in the 1980s, won the day in the Anglophone world, taking on the restrictive sense of the Jewish victims, whereas earlier (since 1944) it had a more general sense of all victims of the Nazi exterminatory programme. From the late 1990s, a number of academics with either a background in holocaust studies or in genocide studies (the two fields had a competitive relationsship) began to revive the idea that the term 'holocaust', in so far as it defined the topic ethnically as applying only to half of the victims, was conceptually inadequate. As it is 'Holocaust' is predominantly used of the Jewish holocaust in major sources, with a vast number of studies that accept the way the term underwent this restrictive definition. The problem is that the holocaust as now taught and discussed, habitually includes passing mention that other groups, gypsies, the disabled, Rom and Sinti, suffered the same fate in the same manner by the same racial logic, while Poles and Slavs, half of the victims are rarely mentioned even in this concessionary tweak to the definition institutionally established by the 'holocaust industry'. Since an emerging scholarship does consider Slavic peoples also as victims of the same machinery that murdered the Jews, the question arises as to NPOV, i.e. is there a neutrality imbalance caused by our faithful dependence on a definition which excludes 5 million+ people of non-Jewish background from the process of Nazi extermination. What do we do, then, as wikipedians? Nishidani (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful comment. I wish our article Names of the Holocaust was half so eloquent. I think we can do a better job explaining all the nuances. Jehochman 17:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I would, at the very least, strongly object to: ...definition institutionally established by the 'holocaust industry', along with other framing of the question. fiveby(zero) 18:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

no one is proposing that. It is my way of summarizing a lot of evidence, starting with the fact that President Carter was the subject of a vehement campaign of abuse when, hailing the opening of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, which he had decided to finance with federal funds, he spoke of 11 million victims whose suffering was to be commemorated there. The USHMM, also on pressure from Israel, set about removing mentions of Poles, or the Armenian massacre. That moment marks a major shift towards the institutionalization of an ethnospecific definition of the holocaust. I have no interest in mentioning this kind of thing in an article, but editors should try to grasp backgrounds and contexts.Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I just looked at the Holocaust article and found this version. It made no mention of Poles in the lead – even though it mentiond Romani people, Soviet urban residents and Soviet POWs.

The section on the death toll created the impression that all in all, 285,000 non-Jewish Poles died at the hands of the Nazis. That figure was seven to ten times too small. Andreas JN466 18:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Wartime death rate was higher for non-Jewish Belarusians or Russians living under German occupation than non-Jewish Poles. Neither Kay nor Gerlach, or other sources cited in the article, suggests that Poles as a group were targeted by Nazi mass killing practices. It is also the case that not all civilian deaths during the war can be attributed to mass killing. For example, Kay's figure for Soviet civilian victims of Nazi mass killing is millions less than Soviet civilian war losses. He does not argue that Poles, Belarusians, Russians, etc. were targeted for mass killing as a group, rather certain subgroups were targeted for particular reasons. (t · c) buidhe 23:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Jehochman, you seem to be asking that we start a thread where we come to some specific conclusion regarding multiple articles, without actually saying what the problem is with any of them. I don't consider that appropriate. There has been discussion, certainly, at Talk:Holocaust over the question of scope, but I can't see much evidence of any impasse over it, or any reason to think that the lede doesn't reflect current scholarship. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Technically, in terms of how wikipedia works, the provisory resolution of this issue would be (a) to retain holocaust in its restrictive sense, for that is how the term came to be used. This means no major overhaul of the article (b) since a significant minority view exists that would extend the meaning to include the massive number of Slavic peoples whom the same Nazis aspired to, and did, massacre (by the way, one Nazi project for the post-war was to eliminate 20 million French as well), a tweak to the lead, with a short paragraph, duly sourced, noting the dimensions of not only the Sinti/Rome, homosexuals, disabled murdered but also the Polish and Russian casualties, Kay puts them at 5 million+, with a brief explanation that the the article will concentrate on the Jewish victims, would allow a quick interim fix. In the future, the weight of scholarly focus may well change - there are some indications it already is, but for now we should accept that RS dictate that this is about Jewish casualties, while taking due care, for that extraordinary number of people who hear about the holocaust every year (in my country for a full week) with mentions of gypsies and homosexuals but nary a whisper about the Slavic massacres, to correct the misprision caused by an understandable systemic bias in RS. We are, ultimately serving a global public, not (which is the tendency of RS) articulating a Eurocentric perspective, and the fact that in Eastern European countries resentment of this systemic bias feeds into antisemitic attitudes (i.e., the idea that wikipedia like other Western sources reflects Jewish interests, which are antagonistic to a fair representation of the equally tragic plight 'we' suffered - this is the impression I got from looking at some bad editing in the Polish-Jewish articles. Repugnant but, like all things one dislikes viscerally, something that requires attentive study to grasp why (not justify) people can get this impression). Nishidani (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources that document the persecution of Slavs and others not currently mentioned in due proportion to weight, per our usual rules, I would support adding that content and framing the murder Jewish genocide as part of a larger pattern. Something to the effect of, "What Nazi Germany did to the Jews in the Holocaust was part of a larger pattern that also affected these other groups..." I support documenting history in a way that gives equal attention to all groups around the world. I don't necessarily agree to redefined what "Holocaust" means, but we can certainly mention the plight of these other groups, link and develop appropriate articles about those atrocities as well. Maybe this larger pattern of Nazi German atrocities against various "out" groups needs to have a name? I think parties on all sides are quite sensitive about their history. Jews don't want to be sidelined, and Slavs want their victims to be documented and remembered. In that regard, both sides are right. Jehochman 20:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

My interests always lie in source bias, and the way historical paradigms come and go. One example that bears on this:

When an international collective memory of the Holocaust emerged in the 1970s and 1980s, it rested on the experiences of German and west European Jews, minor groups of victims, and on Auschwitz, where only about one in six of the total number of murdered Jews died. Historians and commemorators in western Europe and the United States tended to correct that Stalinist distortion by erring in the other direction, by passing quickly over the nearly five million Jews killed east of Auschwitz, and the nearly five million non-Jews killed by the Nazis. Deprived of its Jewish distinctiveness in the East, and stripped of its geography in the West, the Holocaust never quite became part of European history, even as Europeans and many others came to agree that all should remember the Holocaust. Timothy Snyder, Bloodlands, 2010 p.377

Even there, many might disagree with Snyder, since his general thesis is that the holocaust as a Jewish tragedy must be contextualized within the larger dynamics of the massive murderous wave of violence that affected East Europe from two empires, the Soviet and the aspiring Nazi empire. To treat events here in an isolated topical approach, by ethnos, nation or geography, is to lose sight of the larger entanglements of the two totalitarian powers. I happen to agree with Snyder, which is why I find most articles, however well documented, largely evasive of serious sociohistorical understandings. I don't think these proposals will get anywhere, so I'll shut up.Nishidani (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from Aquillion, if they think there is really some "problem" which needs solved at FTN, or are we are all just overreacting. Their comments in Talk:The_Holocaust#Article_scope_redux seem very reasonable and make me think otherwise. fiveby(zero) 20:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, my position is what you see there (ie. the broader definition is a minority opinion, and so probably shouldn't be the first thing in the lead of the relevant article or what decides its overarching structure, but is not fringe, so it shouldn't be excluded entirely), with the caveat that that's just based on my initial impressions of the obvious sources and my recollection of what I was taught, not a detailed examination or anything. My comments suggesting that someone could bring this here were premised on them doing so if they think it's fringe so that aspect could be settled (since that was how I interpreted Jehochman's comments in particular) and because, if we can reach an agreement either way, that will at least set some basic definitions which might be helpful in terms of how we evaluate sources going forwards, or at least avoid constant rehashes of the same questions. If I felt it was fringe myself then I would have brought it here myself, rather than suggesting that anyone who does believe it do so. --Aquillion (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I think Nishindani's explanation might be correct, that usage has changed over time. I think we can say who includes other victim groups in the Holocaust scope, if we can identify notable scholars who take that position. We should also say when that was if it has changed over time. In any event, I agree that we should identify the other persecute groups and link to those articles because context is important. So maybe this is not quite fringe, but it could be a minority opinion if those sources are found. Jehochman 22:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@Jehochman: The fact alone that Britannica uses the wider, non-exclusive definition (and has done so for decades) surely lifts it out of the realm of "fringe". Andreas JN466 23:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Britannica is a garbage source for any articles about historical events, in my experience. I've found many inaccuracies there, which is why I cite the scholarly literature almost exclusively. (t · c) buidhe 23:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust published by Columbia University Press in 2012 distinguishes four definitions of the Holocaust that enjoy scholarly support. It states that the trend has been towards greater inclusiveness and itself adopts a non-exclusive definition. It argues that scholars defending the various definitions should be given a respectful hearing. Andreas JN466 23:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Another tertiary source, published more than 20 years ago. (the actual publication date is 2000, not 2012). Anyway, this article is about a definable topic, not what various people might refer to with the word "Holocaust". (t · c) buidhe 23:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• The issue is that practically all scholarly books that define their subject as "the Holocaust" are referring to the mass murder of Jews. No one denies that the Nazis murdered many other people who were not Jewish. Even Snyder, discussed above, actually wrote a book specifically about the Holocaust, which he defines as referring only to Jews. This is why I created the article Mass killings by Nazi Germany (now redirected). However, the central issue is that Misplaced Pages article is not about the term "Holocaust" and what different people might use it to mean, but a specifically identifiable topic that is the clear primary topic for the term, which would be the mass murder of Jews during World War II. (t · c) buidhe 22:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
• This has been discussed ad nauseum on the article's talk page. The broader definition of the Holocaust is unquestionably a minority opinion, but it is not fringe. I don't think this discussion belongs here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

  Support a close of this discussion, this isn't productive or leading anywhere, or the right venue for this discussion. Make an RFC on the talk page and notify the relevant wikiprojects if you need a broader consensus - car chasm (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the primary fringe issue with respect to this question is the handling of Holocaust denial. But questions as to the precise definition of the Holocaust (with a capital "H") do not seem to be fringe excepting that there are those anti-Semites who argue that Holocaust remembrance is a part of wider conspiracy theories relating to "Jewish cabals" and the like. To the extent that these fringe theories are what we need to discuss and identify, this board is relevant. Otherwise, terminology about what particular Nazi abuses are or are not part of the Holocaust is something I don't think the expertise of this board can help with. jps (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Holocaust denial has been understood as a fringe theory for as long as I can remember. Anyone promoting that kind of racist drivel is almost always blocked, often summarily. That said, I don't think that is the subject of this discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• Note I have posted a notice of this discussion on the article's talk page. That really should have been done right away. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
• I think there is a general scholarly consensus that the scope of The Holocaust relates to primarly the Jews; although in the end the name is a bit generic - Polish scholarship increasingly prefers a specific and not ambigious term "Zagłada Źydów" ("the destruction of the Jewry"), and you can see that the interwiki from The Holocaust for pl goes to pl:Zagłada Żydów. What I am concerned with is that the (arguably, minority, but due) point that the term can be used to describe suffering of some other groups, or even that it this term is closely related to such concepts, has recently been pretty much removed from our TH article (see Talk:The_Holocaust#Relevant_content_recently_removed_(Other_victims_of_Nazi_persecution)). Pl wiki article has a section dedicated to the "broader use" (pl:Zagłada_Żydów#Szersze_znaczenia), something that our article seems to ignore completely. I don't think this is a way to write about this neutrally... and the "broader meaning" is hardly a Flat Earth-level fringe view that we should totally ignore. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
• I'm not seeing any Fringe issues in this discussion. This is not the place. These are due weight issues. As was stated earlier, the NPOV noticeboard is the appropriate place. Or the article's talk page. I support closing this discussion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Ad Orientem please withdraw your notice of this discussion from the article's talk page. See my comment just above this one.----Steve Quinn (talk) 04:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn If/when the discussion is closed, which I support per my comment a little north of here, I will remove the discussion notice. But until then, this obviously pertains to the subject of the article and the notice is appropriate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• This doesn't seem to really be a discussion about fringe theories - no-one seems to be arguing that these killings (either of Jewish or other groups) did not take place, but rather how to refer to them, and what the scope of articles should be. This isn't really the best place to have discussions about content and scope of articles, and such discussions need a properly drawn up and advertised RFC.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
• Is this discussion about the scope of the Holocaust, or about the scope of The Holocaust? The difference is explained here. In my opinion, the problem is fully artificial, and it is a result of the fact that Mass killings by Nazi Germany was converted to a redirect, whereas in reality it should be a summary style article and a mother article for The Holocaust. That will resolve all problems.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Salvatore Pais

This article on a aerospace engineer could use some more eyes - especially whether the article should speculate that Pais invented technology used in UFOs and whether we should link to youtube videos claiming that. MrOllie (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution