Welcome to the fringe theories noticeboard | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||
Additional notes:
| ||||||||||
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:
|
Did you know
- 07 May 2022 – Empirical limits in science (talk · · hist) was nominated for DYK by Airstarfish (t · c); see discussion
Articles for deletion
- 13 Jul 2022 – Reality Check (podcast) (talk · · hist) was AfDed by TipsyElephant (t · c); see discussion (0 participants)
- 02 Jul 2022 – Hello from Heaven! (talk · · hist) was AfDed by Asilvering (t · c); see discussion (6 participants; relisted)
- 07 Jul 2022 – Joseph D'Aleo (talk · · hist) AfDed by Femkemilene (t · c) was closed as delete by Liz (t · c) on 14 Jul 2022; see discussion (2 participants)
- 06 Jul 2022 – Empirical limits in science (talk · · hist) AfDed by ජපස (t · c) was closed as redirect by Sandstein (t · c) on 14 Jul 2022; see discussion (7 participants)
Proposed deletions
- 15 Jul 2022 – International Polygraph Accreditation Board (talk · · hist) was PRODed by SimLibrarian (t · c): Unreferenced article made in 2011. No indication that this board exists, let alone has any notability. Google search for "International Polygraph Accreditation Board" returns nine results, all of which appear to refer to this article.
Categories for discussion
- 07 Jul 2022 – Category:Hoaxes in fiction (talk · · hist) was CfDed by Zxcvbnm (t · c); see discussion
- 02 Jul 2022 – Category:Deniers of the Armenian genocide (talk · · hist) was CfDed by Madame Necker (t · c); see discussion
Redirects for discussion
- 10 Jul 2022 – The Beautiful Truth (talk · · hist) →Max Gerson was RfDed by Bearcat (t · c); see discussion
Good article nominees
- 27 Dec 2021 – Warsaw concentration camp (talk · · hist) was GA nominated by Szmenderowiecki (t · c); see discussion
Featured article reviews
- 28 Jan 2022 – Green children of Woolpit (talk · · hist) was put up for FA review by Q28 (t · c); see discussion
Requests for comments
- 25 Jun 2022 – Marjorie Taylor Greene (talk · · hist) has an RfC by Jtbobwaysf (t · c); see discussion
Articles to be merged
- 29 Jun 2022 – Quantum brain dynamics (talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to Quantum mind by SamuelRiv (t · c); see discussion
- 20 Jun 2022 – Fringe science (talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to Fringe theory by Piotrus (t · c); see discussion
- 20 Jun 2022 – Pseudo-scholarship (talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to Pseudoscience by Piotrus (t · c); see discussion
- 09 Jun 2022 – Russian disinformation in the post-Soviet era (talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to Propaganda in Russia by Euor (t · c); see discussion
- 26 Feb 2022 – COVID-19 party (talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to Pox party by Piotrus (t · c); see discussion
- 16 Feb 2022 – Apocalypticism (talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to End time by Beland (t · c); see discussion
- 07 Feb 2022 – Sol Invictus (holiday) (talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to The Satanic Temple by Singularity42 (t · c); see discussion
- 02 Feb 2022 – New chronology (Fomenko) (talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to Anatoly Fomenko by TrangaBellam (t · c); see discussion
- 06 Jan 2022 – Astral body (talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to Subtle body#Western esotericism by Skyerise (t · c); see discussion
Articles to be split
- 09 Jul 2022 – List of common misconceptions (talk · · hist) is proposed for splitting by Blubabluba9990 (t · c); see discussion
- 18 Nov 2021 – Hypnosis (talk · · hist) is proposed for splitting by Vizjim (t · c); see discussion
- 16 Jul 2019 – Humanists International (talk · · hist) is proposed for splitting by Zythe (t · c); see discussion
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 |
Science-Based Medicine
- Science-Based Medicine ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
Some discussion lately at the article on how to characterize this website and its activities (including maybe mention of its role on Wikipedia). May be of interest to FTN regulars. Alexbrn (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Just a reminder... WP:Parity applies to the sourcing for the SBM article. IOW, not so strict rules as for mainstream topics. Just sayin'. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC) |
Robert Clancy and "miraculous drugs"
- Robert Clancy (doctor) ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
Got one or more IPs keen to remove any mention of false claims from this person; could use more eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 09:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- OK. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 09:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- These IPs are all from one small range, 103.79.255.0/24. I've blocked it indefinitely from the article. Bishonen | tålk 11:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC).
Pre-Columbian transoceanic contact theories
Could use a going over. Of course, there are no theories in the article, just speculation and hypotheses. I'm not sure we should have sections labelled "Disputed evidence", as anything not disputed probably doesn't belong in the article. The Iceland section is a bit confusing. Worse is the "Claims of Norse contact with the Toltec" which seems based on this University of York article[2]. The problem is the author works in the University nursery[3] and is a member of the Visitor Experience Team Member at York Museums Trust, I'm not sure that "5 years of experience in various customer-facing roles alongside the full-time study of Medieval Archaeology, with a specialisation in The Viking Age and it's peripheries; from 535 AD to the mid-15th century" qualifies him as an RS.[4] Doug Weller talk 16:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Forgot. Toltec suggests there may have been no Toltec people. Doug Weller talk 19:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Polarity therapy
Polarity therapy was created last month, and proposed for speedy deletion per WP:G4 because of the deletion in 2012 resulting from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polarity therapy. However, I had to decline the speedy-deletion nomination because this incarnation of the article is substantially different from the deleted one. The topic seems to have significant coverage in mainstream-consumer health websites, which might meet our threshold of notability even if no WP:MEDRS can be found (and I'm skeptical that any MEDRS sources can be found on this alternative health topic). ~Anachronist (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Nought out of ten for spolling at that theraphy page. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 23:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- After futzing around with this a bit I've ended up blanking and redirecting to Randolph Stone, where his quackeries are dealt with more thoroughly, and where they make more sense in context per WP:NOPAGE. I don't think there was any new suitably-sourced actual knowledge here. Alexbrn (talk) 05:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, well, I am pleased to see the comments above. Pity all the children who left stay anonymous with their accusations of child abuse. His son has a Youtube channel where he gives the facts out. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Anachronist,[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]],Whiteguru.Thank you all for participating here and sharing your views. But the article has beeen moved without giving me opportunity to expand. Isnt it wrong as per Wikipedia policy. In every past such instances, I was asked to elaborate the article and I did it. There are many articles where there is no universal consensus but they exist. Request you all to consider. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Gardenkur: What you should do is expand on the topic in the Randolph Stone article, citing WP:MEDRS compliant sources, and then if it grows big enough we can think about splitting it out into its own article. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Anachronist. Thanks for your prompt response. However as you felt earlier that it meets Wikipedia policies I left it for other editors to improve. Will do the same now. Gardenkur (talk) 04:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I did not say that. I said that it didn't meet WP:G4 speedy deletion criteria, and it might meet our threshold of notability. Now that I know there is already another article that covers this topic well enough, additional work must be done for the topic to merit a stand-alone article. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
YEC in the US a conspiracy theory?
See the links I added to Talk:Young Earth creationism#YEC as a conspiracy theory (in the US). It seems that the idea was important enough for at least two creationist sites to attack it. Maybe it's significant enough not to be WP:UNDUE in the article? Doug Weller talk 09:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Sanat Kumara
And his family. Is this woowoo really all encyclopedic? Doug Weller talk 15:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Alfred Kinsey
Need more eyes upon Alfred Kinsey. See [5]. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- I took out the anti-Kinsey movement section, given that it starts off with an ad-hominem and seems mostly devoted to discrediting Reisman as if she were the only critic of the work, which she is not. The article on the reports is conspicuously more balanced, and Kinsey's own article does need to mention that, as the thing is rather hagiographic as it stands. Mangoe (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- So, agree with your view. I was mostly reacting to people who have been rabble-roused by What is a Woman? in order to write rants that Kinsey was a
child abuser or fraud.
- I am a man who fights against egregious violations, I usually don't touch nuanced stuff. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- So, agree with your view. I was mostly reacting to people who have been rabble-roused by What is a Woman? in order to write rants that Kinsey was a
Mind control protester images
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Move_Earth_to_new_Habitable_Zone
Interesting collection of images: one showed up at Microwave auditory effect. If they are used in other articles, captions will definitely need editing to conform to FRINGE guidelines. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like that's the only enwiki article impacted and they've been around for about a year, so I don't know that it needs much more scrutiny. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Talk:Larries#Requested_move_1_July_2022
Move discussion on a CT you probably never heard about. Opinions welcome. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Because of my age, I'm going to treat this one the same way I treat Wrestling and Religion. -Roxy the bad tempered dog 17:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- For context, the discussion is about whether the article should be titled after the conspiracy theory or the adherents of the conspiracy theory. ~BappleBusiness[talk] 20:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Empirical limits in science
- Empirical limits in science ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- {{Did you know nominations/Empirical limits in science}}
I don't have much time for Wikipedia lately but thought I'd post these links here, considering that other regulars are familiar with science and its principles. My impression is that this may be confusing empirical science with naive realism; science of course goes way beyond human senses to formulate and test hypotheses (and it develops its own extra senses, a simple example being chemistry). This article probably belongs in WP but may need extra eyes, one of the proposed DYN seemed misleading, particularly. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 08:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- It is a bit of a strange article. It looks like a decent overview of how various technologies have allowed for scientific observations to be made beyond the boundaries of human sensory faculties. Of course, if I were writing this article, I don't know that I would emphasize it this way: separate sections for "taste" and "touch" seem quite weird when there is only one section on moral and epistemological judgment. But I don't think anything here is actually incorrect. jp×g 21:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Contested redirect and so now at AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empirical limits in science. jps (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Gospel
This is about [6]. Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- This seems premature - I literally just dropped the comment, and the other party hasn't had time to respond yet. I obviously won't complain if others want to stop by and take a look but to be clear, there is no dispute / edit war / anything afoot here, just a perfectly standard editing discussion. It's not (yet?) a big deal. SnowFire (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- bruh, SnowFire deleted 4,000 bytes of text from an article apropos of nothing. Give WP:BRD a chance, please. I've responded at Talk:Gospel Red Slash 04:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Red Slash: Just as a point of clarification, I didn't randomly slash a long-standing section. All of that material was added just a few weeks ago. So, the bold was adding the section, the revert was me reverting it, and you're the one being bold again. ;-) (Will discuss content on the talk page, just wanted to mention this as a procedural matter.) SnowFire (talk) 05:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Lucius Artorius Castus
There has been an ongoing dispute among editors among the status of the article, specifically content related to a supposed inspirational relationship of the subject to the legend of King Arthur by Linda A. Malcor and coauthors. I have no ability to discern whether or not that relationship exists, but it is adequately cited, at least at face, though other editors contend that it flies in the face of scholarly consensus (usually by demonstrating their knowledge of the original Latin, rather than pointing to secondary sources). See e.g. Special:Diff/1096381621. Any input onto the ongoing dispute would be appreciated, as would willingness to guide the editors along the dispute resolution process. Pinging @TonySullivanBooks and Artoriusfadianus as a courtesy (several IP editors are involved as well). Feel free to briefly state your reasoning and view of the dispute here. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 04:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, I will try to be brief and to the point.
- We have a stone inscription below:
- L ARTORI[.........]STVS 7 LEG
- III GALLICAE ITE[....]G VI FERRA
- TAE ITEM 7 LEG II AD[....]TEM 7 LEG V M
- C ITEM P P EIVSDEM [...] PRAEPOSITO
- CLASSIS MISENATIVM [..]AEFF LEG VI
- VICTRICIS DVCI LEGG [...]M BRITANICI
- MIARVM ADVERSVS ARM[....]S PROC CENTE
- NARIO PROVINCIAE LI[....] GLADI VI
- VVS IPSE SIBI ET SVIS [….]T[...]
- Some historians just as Higham and Tomlin suggest an Antonine date is more likely. Others such as Loriot, Birley and Davenport suggest Severan. No-one claims to be certain except those pushing the Artorius Castus =King Arthur theory. Putting it simply the style suggests Antonine but the wording suggests Severan. A date range of c.160-240 thus covers all the expert opinions.
- The main topics of controversy, aside from the dating, are in lines 5, 6 and 7.
- ……………………………[…]AEFF LEG VI
- VICTRICIS DVCI LEGG [...]M BRITANICI
- MIARVM ADVERSVS ARM[….]S…………
- These three missing pieces have a number of possible interpretations:
- 1. PRAEFF LEG VI means praefectus of the Sixth.
- In the second century this would normally be accompanied by CASTRORUM which denotes the third in command, the camp prefect. However this began to be dropped from inscriptions in the late second century, the last attested case being c. 202. In fact we have a similar inscription from Caerleon dated to 198-207 which uses the same phrasing:
- RIB 326 dated to 198-209 A praefectus legionis of the Second at Caerleon: praef(ectus) leg(ionis) IIAug(ustae)
- Equestrian legionary commanders did not generally appear until the time of Gallienus (Egypt is an exception being one of the four great prefectures). Early examples under Severan were specific and termed equestrian prefects acting vice legati rather than praefectus legionis. Thus a praefectus legionis without CASTR in an inscription of this time was likely late second or early third century and a camp prefect.
- The pro-Artorius Castus =King Arthur proponents would have it that he was a praefectus not of the sixth but of an auxiliary unit. They insist auxiliary units were attached to legions permanently. However these units were only attached for campaigns. When in forts they had their own command structure and reported to governor not the legionary commander. In inscriptions they would always refer to the auxiliary name e.g. praefectus ala (or cohortes) I Tungrorum. Yet the stone indicates clearly praefectus legio VI Victrix.
- Even more bizarrely they claim he must have been commander of a specific unit, the Sarmatians. A claim we have no evidence for other than Cassius Dio stating 5,500 were sent in 175. Which is why the proponents have to date Castus to this time period because they have to connect him to Sarmatians. And they have to place Sarmatians in same area as Castus. The only evidence for a unit of Sarmatian is at Ribchester in the wrong period for them, c225-40 and closer to Chester and the Twentieth legion.
- 2. DVCI LEGG [...]M BRITANICIMIARVM: The missing letters could be:
- LEGGIONUM (unlikely with a double G)
- LEGG ALARUM (Cavalry wings)
- LEGG TRIUM
- LEGG DUARUM
- Most scholars go for option 3 or 4. However only the pro-Artorius Castus =King Arthur proponents insist this must be LEGG TRIUM and that this must mean he led all 3 legions in their entirety.
- The historians listed above all agree this can simply mean detachments or vexillations. The absence of vexillations on the stone is not particularly significant. Indeed the fact it does not list the legions by name suggests the implication is it was detachments. The likely interpretation of the next bit makes this even more likely.
- 3. ADVERSVS ARM[….]S:
- Funerary, dedication or monument inscriptions such as this would always name the enemy.
- Internal enemies would be called public enemies, defectors or rebels.
- External enemies would be named.
- There are only two known names beginning ARM.
- 1. ARMORICANOS
- 2. ARMENIOS
- The first seems too long for the missing gap and the regional name is not attested in that period. Still perhaps a form ARMORICOS could have been used.
- The second is seen as most likely as we do indeed have 3 campaigns in Armenia against Armenians. We have coins depicting this, emperors taking the title Armeniacus, and inscriptions referencing the 233 war:’expediteone Partica et Armeniaca’.
- Plus we have the first reading in 1850 which claimed to see signs of an E as the fourth letter. The stone has since been weathered.
- No other alternative tribal or peoples’ name has been found to date but that option remains open.
- The pro-Artorius Castus =King Arthur proponents reject the first reading and claim because ARMENIOS is not found anywhere else it must be impossible.
- They have suggested ARMATOS, armed men. But this is too vague and not found on any similar inscription.
- However the two examples they have offered of ARMATOS are not funerary, dedication or monument inscriptions listing a cursus honorum or tres militiae military career. One is a law code written on 9 bronze tablets concerning a town in Spain, The second is in a similar context but on stone on the Danube. Both are embodied in text and relate to the carrying of arms. Literary examples are irrelevant as it’s a Latin word.
- Their insistence the most likely options are ‘impossible’ and every historian who has looked at it is wrong is just bizarre. We do indeed have individuals who travelled from Britain to the other side of the empire. The governor of Britain, Priscus, was sent to Armenia and he captured the capital in 163. To deny even the possibility he was accompanied by units from Britain is not reasonable.
- The problem as I see it is there is a fringe theory with a small but devoted group of believers. Any page concerning Lucius Artorius Castus, Sarmatians, Roman Britain or King Arthur is targeted and adjustments, both minor and major, are made to fall in line with their theory.
- For example on the Governors of Roman Britain page they placed Artorius Castus as a Roman governor in Britain c. 191-7. Roman Britain was an imperial province with senatorial governors throughout the 2nd and early 3rd centuries. Castus was an equestrian. His inscription makes no mention of this and would have been the pinnacle of his career.
- The word dux evolved throughout the centuries. In the second century it was a descriptor simply to denote ‘commander’. It’s on several inscriptions as that. It did not become an official title until the early third century c. 230s (first attested is the Dux Ripae at Duro-Europos) and when it did it concerned a geographical area not a temporary command over a body of troops in a campaign. The Artorius Castus =King Arthur proponents insist this denotes a post similar to the dux in the 4th century in northern Britain. TonySullivanBooks (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
I will try to be brief
You failed.- This is a noticeboard. It is a board for posting notices. Notices which tell the reader that something is going on somewhere, and where it is going on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- See this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Artoriusfadianus#c-WhinyTheYounger-2022-04-28T13%3A59%3A00.000Z-TonySullivanBooks-2022-04-28T12%3A35%3A00.000Z.
- And please leave the page as it was. Otherwise you can delete my profile. Wikipedia is not a serious encyclopedia if allow men like sullivan to ignore new information and doesn't deserve person like me. Artoriusfadianus (talk) 12:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- A fringe theory is a theory held by only a few. Unless this is a mainstream opinion it is fringe. Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- The page can't be left as it was because you keep posting hugely speculative and unfounded statements about Lucius Artorius Castus, Sarmatians, Roman Britain and the Arthurian legend. I'm happy to take each topic point by point and spend as long as you have got to explain why you cannot make the statements you do and present them as fact. TonySullivanBooks (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- No idea what you mean. The person above asked for info and I supplied it. What's that link for you put below? Am I supposed to do something with it? It doesn't seem to go to the relevant talk page of the article in question where I've posted similar explanations. I'm very happy to post more information as long or as short as you like on any particular page or by email. But you are going to have to be very very clear exactly what you want and where you want it because this is not an easy site to navigate or understand. ta TonySullivanBooks (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- How comes whenever I reply to someone it doesn't sit under the message I replied to? TonySullivanBooks (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Nomination of Chronovisor for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronovisor until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Books by "New Paradigm Books" are used in other articles too: [7]. They publish authors of junk books I am familiar with, and de:Hartwig Hausdorf. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Long term abusive rants on fringe subjects
Blondeignore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) does mostly abusive rants on fringe topics (eg claiming NASA killed JFK) - not just talk pages either and their response to their talk page is snide comments.
Since they have been at it for more then a decade, they might need something 2001:8003:34A3:800:756A:FD3E:7FAF:BD1A (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- This might get a quicker admin response at WP:ANI, since this noticeboard is more often about content issues. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Nomination of Transrational for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transrational until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Georgia Guidestones
There is discussion on this article's talk about a fringe source used in the article. (And used by the John Oliver show. So we're in good company.)
Discussion seems to revolve around whether or not it's ok to use the source, and if so, how to present it, and if not, is it still possible to include the facts allegedly discovered by the filmmakers. (Perhaps by citing Oliver.) ApLundell (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Discussion of using labels, esp "conspiracy theorist" at Jimbo's talk page
I'm not sure if this is concerning enough to bother with, but take a look at [8]. Including my posts at the bottom of the thread. Doug Weller talk 09:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The usual suspects lacking clue and whining away. Probably best to ignore. Alexbrn (talk) 10:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Are you referring to the usual suspects whining that it's a good thing or those who feel it's not a good thing for a source that professes to be encyclopedic? Per CIVIL it might be best not to accuse either side of whining. Springee (talk) 11:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yep, whining away is apropos. -Roxy the bad tempered dog 11:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- And of course the whole thing is made worse by the inevitable introduction of AP2 headbanging into the argument. Ultimately, if editors want to change BLP/NPOV/FRINGE they'll need to propose the changes they want; any amount of whining in other venues will achieve bugger all. Alexbrn (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yep, whining away is apropos. -Roxy the bad tempered dog 11:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Are you referring to the usual suspects whining that it's a good thing or those who feel it's not a good thing for a source that professes to be encyclopedic? Per CIVIL it might be best not to accuse either side of whining. Springee (talk) 11:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Jimbos talk page has not and has never been a place where a consensus on a topic like this will be decided, I'm not even sure a well attended RfC would stop the bickering. Are they also expecting Jimbo, who called alt-med practitioners "lunatic charlatans" to be a sympathetic ear? Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- All I see is a bunch of people claiming that a factually accurate term is somehow an opinion-laden value judgement, and a bunch more pointing out that no, in fact, it's not. And all of them are so mired in the minutiae of the arguments that 80% of the discussion is a tangent to that. There's no value to this discussion. Nothing good can come from it. It's just a giant waste of time and energy. Happy (Slap me) 12:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- I ignore Jimbo's talk page, and I understand Jimbo does too, for the most part. Nothing useful, nothing worthwhile. It's a cesspit similar to WP:ANI, which I also try to ignore (and what do you know, WP:CESSPIT actually redirects there). ~Anachronist (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- In all my years here, I have been to Jimbo's talk page exactly once. And that was because someone alerted me to some vandalism there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Benny Peiser
Pretty one-sided. It recounts what Peiser thinks but no reactions from the scientific community. Not just on climate change. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Orthopathy and list of orthopaths
Bad edits being made by Dchmelik on list of orthopaths and orthopathy. User is repeatedly adding a website healthscience.org [9] which is the website of the National Health Association (The American Natural Hygiene Society) which has a long history of peddling raw food and anti-vax nonsense. Worse still the links being added do not mention such people as being orthopaths. For example, Dean Ornish is not an orthopath. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Herbert M. Shelton is now a nurse scientist? [10] which is unsourced and clearly false. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Jonathan Bernier
I take issue with some recent edits by Special:Contributions/Formcriticism. They seem to promote very early dating for NT writings, especially based upon a WP:PROFRINGE book by a certain Jonathan Bernier. I mean: from the title of his book it is patently obvious that he does not like the mainstream consensus.
At amazon.com he boasts an endorsement of his book by Pitre, but an endorsement by Pitre is nothing to be proud of, since Pitre is an apologist of fundamentalism rather than a real scholar. It's a free country, and if he does not want to obey the requirements of the historical method, no one can force him to do that. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Tgeorgescu: The book also boasts an endorsement by Anders Runesson, who is a member of the Faculty of Theology at the University of Oslo [1]. Are you going to disqualify him as an evil fundamentalist too? Potatín5 (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Too lazy to Google Anders Runesson. But, anyway, people do not have to be evil to hold WP:FRINGE beliefs. In certain churches fringe beliefs are encouraged and applauded.
- To tell you the truth, the historical method and archaeology are backstabbing traditional (conservative) Christianity. Christian traditionalists will dance around this truth, nevertheless it is true: history and archaeology are the enemies of traditional Christianity. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Too lazy to Google Anders Runesson" is a pretty hilarious comment from someone who has disqualify Bernier's book just after seeing in Amazon that he has boasted an endorsement by Pitre. The same follows with your disqualication of Runesson: unless you can demostrate that he is a member of a fundamentalist Church and not a trained New Testament scholar then your claims say little to the truth Potatín5 (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Not denying that he is a trained New Testament scholar. Even trained New Testament scholars could support views which fail WP:DUE. In the end, Wikipedia is mainstream encyclopedia, heavily based upon mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Other views are free to exist, just it isn't our job to publish them. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- By that logic then we should remove references to scholars who hold an Hellenistic date for the Pentateuch since the mainstream consensus is that said Pentateuch reached its final redaction during the Persian period (and based on earlier sources). But our article on the Composition of the Torah does not seem to have any problem in presenting such minority view... Potatín5 (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- In the end, i feel kind of sorry for faithful believers, but Wikipedia has to render mainstream scholarship instead of trying to make everyone happy. Do Britannica or Larousse do otherwise? And that article is not endorsing the minority view, just reporting that some have that view. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- "And that article is not endorsing the minority view, just reporting that some have that view" Then we can do the same in the article on the date of the New Testament and report that some have the view that the NT books were written at an early date. Potatín5 (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Generally speaking, I don't go into attack mode if the text has enough nuance in respect to WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE. There is a difference between rendering the views of scholarly minorities for what they are and aggrandizing minority views. While I can tolerate a brief mention, I won't tolerate that the scholarly minority view gets more space than the academic consensus. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- "And that article is not endorsing the minority view, just reporting that some have that view" Then we can do the same in the article on the date of the New Testament and report that some have the view that the NT books were written at an early date. Potatín5 (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Are there any reviews of the book, or is any other scholarship citing it? Is there any evidence that it's claims are noteworthy? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- In the end, i feel kind of sorry for faithful believers, but Wikipedia has to render mainstream scholarship instead of trying to make everyone happy. Do Britannica or Larousse do otherwise? And that article is not endorsing the minority view, just reporting that some have that view. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- By that logic then we should remove references to scholars who hold an Hellenistic date for the Pentateuch since the mainstream consensus is that said Pentateuch reached its final redaction during the Persian period (and based on earlier sources). But our article on the Composition of the Torah does not seem to have any problem in presenting such minority view... Potatín5 (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Not denying that he is a trained New Testament scholar. Even trained New Testament scholars could support views which fail WP:DUE. In the end, Wikipedia is mainstream encyclopedia, heavily based upon mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Other views are free to exist, just it isn't our job to publish them. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Too lazy to Google Anders Runesson" is a pretty hilarious comment from someone who has disqualify Bernier's book just after seeing in Amazon that he has boasted an endorsement by Pitre. The same follows with your disqualication of Runesson: unless you can demostrate that he is a member of a fundamentalist Church and not a trained New Testament scholar then your claims say little to the truth Potatín5 (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- A single book that claims to be a "paradigm shift" on such a well discussed issue as the dating of the books of the New Testament is clearly undue. Wikipedia should be attempting assess the consensus of the academic literature, not cherry picking sources with minority views that contradict it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- It also has an endorsement from James F. McGrath.[11] StAnselm (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Is Genesis History?
Are the theocratic developments oozing from SCOTUS encouraging fundies to come out of the woodwork and turn out alternative facts everywhere now? --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- That movie, and the article, appeared 5 years ago. I don't see how either the film or the Wikipedia article have anything to do with theocratic fulminations from SCOTUS. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think the above comment missed this diff as the concern relevant to this noticeboard. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- The larger problem is that the source is a guest blog post by someone without a salient degree who doesn't actually say what they're being cited for. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Here are some better sources, "They only tangentially addressed the elephant in the room, that conventional science has overwhelmingly concluded that the Big Bang and evolution are real, and a 6000-year-old earth and global flood and the rest of the Bible’s “history” are not.", "Unfortunately, the narrative that accompanied the rich display of God’s amazing creation fell far short of reflecting what we actually find revealed in nature.", "As I explain below, I must dissent from my role in the production.". These are much higher quality sources than a guest blogger with no expertise on a blog, and directly attack the correctness of the movie. Also, one of the scientists in it spoke out against the portrayal in the movie. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think the above comment missed this diff as the concern relevant to this noticeboard. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- The article has always had some problems, and frankly should've been deleted last time around at AfD. The coverage is basically advocacy in religious publications, a couple interviews with people associated with the film, and local "this movie will be shown on Thursday; here's the summary" bits and pieces. No mainstream film reviews/criticism to be found. As I said back then, we should either treat it as a film and use real reviews from real film critics (there are none), or we treat it as a piece of creationist apologetics and use WP:FRINGE guidelines for sources (which results in pulling in some marginal sources to get past FRIND). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)