Welcome to the fringe theories noticeboard | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||
Additional notes:
| ||||||||||
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:
|
Articles for deletion
- 13 Jul 2022 – Reality Check (podcast) (talk · · hist) was AfDed by TipsyElephant (t · c); see discussion (1 participant; relisted)
- 02 Jul 2022 – Hello from Heaven! (talk · · hist) AfDed by Asilvering (t · c) was closed as no consensus by Scottywong (t · c) on 19 Jul 2022; see discussion (8 participants; relisted)
Proposed deletions
- 15 Jul 2022 – International Polygraph Accreditation Board (talk · · hist) PRODed by SimLibrarian (t · c) was deleted
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
- 20 Jul 2022 – Astrology (talk · · hist) has an RfC by DolyaIskrina (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 |
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 [1]. 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: [2]. 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 [3]. 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 [4] 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? [5] 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)
- At least James F. McGrath has made a positive review of the book in his blog [1]. Potatín5 (talk) 10:03, 15 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)
- @Potatín5 have you read no personal attacks? Doug Weller talk 08:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Have I insulted or threatened tgeorgescu at any point during the discussion? I deny ever doing that. Potatín5 (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- You certainly demonstrated a lack of good faith, but maybe you got carried away. Doug Weller talk 12:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Have I insulted or threatened tgeorgescu at any point during the discussion? I deny ever doing that. Potatín5 (talk) 09:50, 15 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)
- Paradigms have huge inertia and cannot be shifted by a single person just by claiming to have done it. (How did that go? "Brother, can youse paradigm?") --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- It also has an endorsement from James F. McGrath.[6] StAnselm (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Besides, Bernier is not even a full professor (correct me if I am wrong). So, if you mean that he did change the paradigm but did not even get a full professorship, you're clutching at straws. There is no indication that his attempts to redate the NT writings have been accepted by WP:CHOPSY.
- McGrath said "With careful attention to the evidence for each work, Bernier makes a strong case for dates that are often earlier than the scholarly consensus." So, this renders Bernier's position in respect to the scholarly consensus. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. Mentioned it on the Gospel talk page. While I think tgeorgescu is being rather fiery on the topic, I am inclined to agree that Jonathan Bernier does not appear to be a particularly impressive source (nor is Brant Pitre). It's not so much that he's an apologist for fundamentalism or something, just that he's a random assistant professor at a not particularly distinguished university. The New Testament is quite possibly the single most deeply covered topic in all literature, with people spending their entire careers on just one book of it, and over a century worth of material since the "modern" dating and its arguments came to the fore in the late 1800s and early 1900s. I'm not opposed to including a "traditionalist" view (with the proper WP:DUEWEIGHT, i.e., acknowledging it's a minority of modern scholars and not subtly phrasing everything in favor of it), but surely, surely better sources can be found. If editors want to include more on the traditionalist view, cite the actual respectable traditionalist heavyweights who acknowledge the issues and their explanations for them, not Bernier. SnowFire (talk) 19:47, 19 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)
I don't know, the article reads okay to me. Other than serving as a honeypot that we have to watch, does anyone see any problems with it as is? jps (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- As I mentioned above, the source cited for the pseudoscience label may as well not be there because it doesn't support it, and it's written by a first time guest blogger without any sort of expertise on an already non-RS. There are a few decent quality sources (which I also put above) that can be used to state that the premise of the movie is false, and also provide critical reception. The article is also missing information on how one of the scientists in the movie wanted the final cut revised. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Looking through the history, the claim in the lead was originally sourced to this, this and this source. They were removed under the pretense that they don't address the film specifically, and as such, cannot be used in this article (example). However, as the film openly supports creationism, I personally find it ridiculous to suggest that sources discussing creationism shouldn't be used in the article. The claim that the film discusses creationism, and the claim that creationism is a pseudoscience are both true and both verifiable. And of course, they are not the same claim. A source that supports one doesn't necessarily need to support the other. Happy (Slap me) 16:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Or we could cite this and just call it false, and not have to worry about WP:SYNTH concerns, instead of using an incredibly bad source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- See my comment about finding it ridiculous that we can't use such sources. Any expressed concerns about WP:SYNTH that arise from us saying "this film is about creationism,[source] which is a pseudoscience.[source]" are either ignorant of the policy on a fundamental level or downright dishonest. Simply putting two claims into the same sentence doesn't make them one claim, after all.
- I think the only problem right now is that there's nowhere in the body to go over the content of the film and include those statements and sources, so as to then support the lead section. If there's not enough sources to build such a section in the article, then I'm fine with dumping whatever number of sources into the lead section to support the statements. It certainly reads very accurate, as it is. The only problem is, as you've pointed out, the sourcing on that claim. Happy (Slap me) 21:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Or we could cite this and just call it false, and not have to worry about WP:SYNTH concerns, instead of using an incredibly bad source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Here is a source by a professional geologist (notable enough to have a wiki biography: Lorence G. Collins) which explicitly calls the film's content "pseudoscience". See the last paragraph, e.g. jps (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- The problem is that it's a self published open letter. Is there really any objection to (change in bold)
Is Genesis History? is a 2017 American Christian film by Thomas Purifoy Jr. that promotes the false notion of Young Earth creationism, a form of creation science built on beliefs that contradict established scientific facts regarding the origin of the Universe, the age of the Earth and universe, the origin of the Solar System, and the origin and evolution of life.
with [7] and [8] as sources? They're not the best sources, but they're not self published or blogs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)- Why is the open-letter style a problem? The fact that it is self-published seems fine to me given that the author is an expert. After all, there is no third-party venue that would want to publish a take-down of this film. See WP:PARITY, e.g. jps (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've linked to three non-self published sources above, although one is the objections of one of the people in the film, rather than the take-down the other two are. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- The three sources that are non-self-published are rather less impressive in their analysis than this one. Two of them are to rather problematic outfits (biologos and the discovery institute, fer goodness sake)! It's a question of genre. Collins is writing a specific take-down of pseudoscience while the other sources are a bit more popular-level or explicitly within the religious milieu. Since Collins is a great source for debunking creationism, I don't understand your hesitation to use the source. jps (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Because it's still an apparently unpublished open letter stashed away on someone's private web space, unlinked to from the index. The BioLogos source is written by three professors, is not self published and has editorial oversight. Seems like an objectively better source to use. That said, either the source you provided or the ones I provided are dramatically better than what's being used now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- The three sources that are non-self-published are rather less impressive in their analysis than this one. Two of them are to rather problematic outfits (biologos and the discovery institute, fer goodness sake)! It's a question of genre. Collins is writing a specific take-down of pseudoscience while the other sources are a bit more popular-level or explicitly within the religious milieu. Since Collins is a great source for debunking creationism, I don't understand your hesitation to use the source. jps (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've linked to three non-self published sources above, although one is the objections of one of the people in the film, rather than the take-down the other two are. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Why is the open-letter style a problem? The fact that it is self-published seems fine to me given that the author is an expert. After all, there is no third-party venue that would want to publish a take-down of this film. See WP:PARITY, e.g. jps (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
If the concern is about it being stashed on someone's private web space, it's also uploaded to ResearchGate [9]. jps (talk) 00:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Doesn't make it any less self published. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Stop fetishizing the means by which something is published. What matters is the reliability of the source, not the publishing. When an expert self-publishes about a topic, it is the equivalent of getting an interview with the expert about the topic. jps (talk) 10:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, self-pub doesn't matter in a case like this, but couldn't we use both that and the published sources? Certainly it should be clearly debunked, esp. if there's a sequel coming out this year. Also, there seems to be a lot of trivia in the release history, as if trying to promote the importance of the film. — kwami (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- This is literally enshrined in policy, at WP:SELFPUB. Happy (Slap me) 12:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't really care about this that much, which is why I haven't edited the article, but we're talking about using a self published source by someone with an h-index of 4 and a 138 citations rather than a source by co-authored by someone with an h-index of 11 and 541 citations and someone with an h-index of 21 and 2259 citations which was published in an independent source with editorial oversight. WP:SELFPUB says
exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources.
I don't even care about the pseudoscience label, which is why I haven't removed it, I just don't know why we're looking at using a self-published open letter from someone with no impact and almost no publications over a secondary source co-written by authors which much higher impact, more publications and more citations. That is thesomeone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources
that WP:SELFPUB is talking about. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)I just don't know why we're looking at using a self-published open letter from someone with no impact and almost no publications over a secondary source co-written by authors which much higher impact, more publications and more citations.
- We're not. jps and I are both opining that this source is perfectly useable for this purpose, and you seem to be pushing back on that, despite the fact that this source's usefulness in this case is literally spelled out explicitly in policy.
- I think there is an element of us talking past each other, here. See jps's comment to kwami about being in favor of using all fours suggested sources. I too, am perfectly on board with using all four sources. Happy (Slap me) 14:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't really care about this that much, which is why I haven't edited the article, but we're talking about using a self published source by someone with an h-index of 4 and a 138 citations rather than a source by co-authored by someone with an h-index of 11 and 541 citations and someone with an h-index of 21 and 2259 citations which was published in an independent source with editorial oversight. WP:SELFPUB says
- Stop fetishizing the means by which something is published. What matters is the reliability of the source, not the publishing. When an expert self-publishes about a topic, it is the equivalent of getting an interview with the expert about the topic. jps (talk) 10:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Lynne Kelly (science writer)
Fringe writer arguing that Stonehenge served the purpose of a mnemonic centre for recording and retrieving knowledge by Neolithic Britons, who lacked written language. Needs cleanup, most is still the original text. Doug Weller talk 08:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Hugh Ross (astrophysicist)
Please see latest edits. Thanks Doug Weller talk 19:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- And Talk:Stephen C. Meyer - the thread at the bottom about the talk page. Doug Weller talk 19:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- And Mitochondrial Eve. And the Genesis section from above. We have a user on a mission. --mfb (talk) 06:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Not the first time. Maybe, however, we should let him know that his WP:ADVOCACY is being discussed here. jps (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. Doug Weller talk 11:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oh hell. I've told them, but on their talk page I found "Discretionary sanction is a restriction placed on a Wikipedia editor who is found not to subscribe to leftist thought and ideology Lightest (talk) 7:06 pm, 15 July 2022, " Doug Weller talk 12:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. Doug Weller talk 11:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Not the first time. Maybe, however, we should let him know that his WP:ADVOCACY is being discussed here. jps (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- And Mitochondrial Eve. And the Genesis section from above. We have a user on a mission. --mfb (talk) 06:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
That's cool. I mean, people can believe and argue whatever they want on the talkpages, I guess. What I think is a problem is when they become WP:WikiDragons who start to impose novel editorial philosophies in articlespace that contravene things like WP:ENC and WP:NOT. jps (talk) 12:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
See this about Bigfoot investigator David Paulides
WP:RSN# Violation of Biography of a Living Person Guidelines. Doubt it’s going anywhere but a bit amusing. Doug Weller talk 19:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Better-working link: WP:RSN#Violation of Biography of a Living Person Guidelines --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I blame my iPad. He's getting support there. Doug Weller talk 07:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I wonder whether this person is notable enough for a biography. There does not seem to be a whole lot of mainstream coverage of him. The fact that the best sources that seem to exist about his ideas are in the form of a podcast gives me pause as to whether Wikipedia is equipped to host a biography of this person. jps (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'd suggest the best sources on the article are Vice, HuffPo, and Mercury News. Not sure on full deletion, but it does look like it has more coverage than his notability warrants. Though this is something of an issue with Fringe topics, hard to give enough context to be neutral without also having quantity of text. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Vice is dodgy at best for BLPs, and that's probably the best here. The Huffpo article is a blog by a "UFO content producer", and the Mercury News piece is about an accusation with no resolution that wasn't covered anywhere else, so if those are the best we can do we probably can't produce a good article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Fair, all good catches. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Vice is dodgy at best for BLPs, and that's probably the best here. The Huffpo article is a blog by a "UFO content producer", and the Mercury News piece is about an accusation with no resolution that wasn't covered anywhere else, so if those are the best we can do we probably can't produce a good article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Missing 411 might be a more notable topic and easier to write as an article. Could we perhaps write that one instead and redirect? jps (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- That's still pretty fringy. He implies that many of the disappearances are paranormal. Likely BigFoot. ApLundell (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Definitely fringe-y, but arguably the subject of more reliable sources that the person himself: [10]. I don't know, I'm just trying to think of alternatives here. jps (talk) 18:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- I was about to suggest that an article on "Missing 411" might be more warranted than an article on Paulides, given the comparative thinness of the biographical background material. XOR'easter (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- I looked in NewspaperArchive (via Wikimedia Library) and found an additional source providing significant coverage of Paulides' involvement in Bigfoot investigations. I agree, however, that recasting the article about Missing 411 would be better than a biography, of which scant information is available. Most of the article is about Paulides' claims, not his life. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- I was about to suggest that an article on "Missing 411" might be more warranted than an article on Paulides, given the comparative thinness of the biographical background material. XOR'easter (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Definitely fringe-y, but arguably the subject of more reliable sources that the person himself: [10]. I don't know, I'm just trying to think of alternatives here. jps (talk) 18:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- That's still pretty fringy. He implies that many of the disappearances are paranormal. Likely BigFoot. ApLundell (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Roy Spencer (meteorologist)
IP is insistent that ID should not be called pseudoscience. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Frankly, given the complete lack of context, I'm not sure that the IP's objections are entirely invalid. Context-free sentences like "In TCS Daily, Spencer embraced the pseudoscience of intelligent design", sourced only to TSC Daily itself don't belong in a biography. If Spencer's views on Intelligent Design are relevant to his biography, demonstrate it through content cited to independent WP:RS.
- Biographies are not galleries of shame. Even for people we don't like. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed that bibliographies are not properly galleries of shame, but in this case Roy Spencer is pretty well-known for his embrace of intelligent design. It's not just a private religious matter or anything like that. Take a quick Google search and you can find a few sources which show this. I think the thing to do here is improve the sourcing. jps (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Improve the sourcing, and then improve the writing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed that bibliographies are not properly galleries of shame, but in this case Roy Spencer is pretty well-known for his embrace of intelligent design. It's not just a private religious matter or anything like that. Take a quick Google search and you can find a few sources which show this. I think the thing to do here is improve the sourcing. jps (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I've tried to improve the sourcing and the writing in that section of the article. That section is now dominated by Spencer's own written statements on the topic, so I believe it is WP:DUE. Based on his writings it seems that none of this content would bring Spencer any "shame." Just the opposite. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- And "the opposite of shame" is a good thing in a page about a fringe proponent? I think WP:FRINGE says it is not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, we should shame this monstrosity. All they've done is *checks notes* been the
principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.
What kind of scientist does he think he is?!?? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)- "All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?" There are aspects of Roy Spencer's work that are mainstream and process science, no doubt. But to ignore his profound rejection of the conclusions of most of the scientific community in matters of global warming predictions, abiogenesis, and cosmology is to do a disservice to the reader: [11]. jps (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, which is why it's covered extensively in the article. Writing in a neutral manner, rather than aiming for "shame" isn't a bad thing, however. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- You are using a strawman here. I did not say we should shame him, I said we should not do the opposite, that is, not quote his opinions extensively.
we should be trying to shame someone, as Hob Gadling said
is thoroughly false. I really dislike strawmen and people who use them, and this is not the first time you are doing this. I don't expect you to retract this, because last time you didn't either. My opinion of you is steadily getting worse and worse. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- "All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?" There are aspects of Roy Spencer's work that are mainstream and process science, no doubt. But to ignore his profound rejection of the conclusions of most of the scientific community in matters of global warming predictions, abiogenesis, and cosmology is to do a disservice to the reader: [11]. jps (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- That a 'card-carrying' scientist repeatedly self-identifies as a fringe proponent violates WP:FRINGE? Look, please remove the
damncontent if it is so egregious. I care insufficiently about this article and the article subject to edit war over it. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)- You're doing good work, JoJo Anthrax. Don't let the caustic environment of this website get you down. jps (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Like I said below, your work is a definite improvement. What I'm objecting to is that we should be trying to shame someone, as Hob Gadling said. It looks like the climate change section covers that pretty well, although I'm a bit surprised there is nothing in the lead that covers his non-consensus hypothesis that it's cloud cover variation rather than human made co2 causing global warming, since that seems to be what most of the coverage about him deals with. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, we should shame this monstrosity. All they've done is *checks notes* been the
- It's certainly an improvement. Secondary sources would be nice, because I'm always uncomfortable picking out a bunch of a BLP subject's quotes, but if that's what we have, that's what we have. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, it's not. Wikipedia should not give him a megaphone for his outsider views on biology or climatology. That's how we handle it with other fringe proponents: it's better to just say where he stands than help him proselytize.
- WP:FRIND says,
Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles.
What happened to this board? Did everybody get replaced by pod people? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)- I think we all agree that third-party sources are much preferred. jps (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- But we do not seem to agree that
Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles.
Some users here want to give them space. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)- And when it's brought up in multiple secondary sources ([12][13][14][15][16]) perhaps it's worth expanding a bit using WP:ABOUTSELF?. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Points that are not discussed in independent sources
obviously means that we have to actually use those multiple secondary sources. If we just repeat the misinformation fringe proponents spout without adding any mainstream refutation, Wikipedia becomes a vehicle for fringe views.- See WP:PROFRINGE:
The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. However, it also requires that they not be given undue weight. A conjecture that has not received critical review from the scientific community or that has been rejected may be included in an article about a scientific subject only if other high-quality reliable sources discuss it as an alternative position.
- Some people here seem to think that claims
may be included
even if they havebeen rejected
, in direct contradiction to that. - Regarding WP:ABOUTSELF, that page uses the conditions:
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves [..] so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; [..] and the article is not based primarily on such sources.
- Spencer's claims we quote are exceptional, starting with "evolution is a religion" and ending with "global warming is just hysteria". And although the article may not be based on questionable sources as a whole, the sections on Spencer's anti-science beliefs are just his own mouthpiece.
- Usually, when I am swamped by users who want to include unrefuted fringe propaganda in Wikipedia articles, I come to this board. To me, this looks like WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY, yeah, let's spout creationist and denialist nonsense, it's fine as long as it's attributed, it's better than nothing. It would be really nice if someone agreed with me. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- That he believes that intelligent design and evolution take the same amount of faith is not an exceptional claim. An exceptional claim would be using an ABOUTSELF source to say "Spencer can fly, and can also speak with animals." We're dealing with someone who is partially notable for, and often described as, their belief in intelligent design. The religion is as scientific as evolution quote is actually from a secondary source[17], which is already in the article. The other quotes provide context to his beliefs, and the article is making no exceptional claims, only using his words to describe his beliefs to provide context. Again, more secondary sources would be great, but as it stands ABOUTSELF covers what's in the article. I certainly wouldn't, for instance, go to evolution and add in "unfortunately for the evolution types, evolution takes as much faith to believe in as intelligent design. Checkmate, atheist evolution believers" citing him. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- And when it's brought up in multiple secondary sources ([12][13][14][15][16]) perhaps it's worth expanding a bit using WP:ABOUTSELF?. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- But we do not seem to agree that
- I think we all agree that third-party sources are much preferred. jps (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hob Gadling, if you really think that context-free single-sentence paragraphs like
In TCS Daily, Spencer embraced the pseudoscience of intelligent design
are a way to refute anything, I can only suggest that you are going to find it difficult to find people to agree with you. That doesn't belong in a biography. Not remotely. Refute with (properly-sourced, on topic) evidence. Evidence directly concerning the subject of the biography. Not appeals to emotion and denunciations of heresy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hob Gadling, if you really think that context-free single-sentence paragraphs like
- Spencer's claims themselves are WP:ECREE-able, but the fact that he makes such claims and he has been given a platform to spout those claims in the anti-science/denialist/merchants-of-doubt media is something that is plainly true. The secondary sources we have that document these claims are doing so critically. That is what we should point out. Y'know, phrasing that captures ideas like "Spencer's claims that evolution is a religion and attribution of global warming to human causes is hysteria belie his ideological opposition to those scientific facts that have become politicized in the ongoing US culture wars." That is the sort of analysis which I see in secondary sources which will help readers. We can also mention that many of his claims which go well-beyond his expertise are simply and flatly contradicted by the experts who study those fields -- and they have done so in direct reference to things Spencer has said in various venues (such as in testimony before legislative bodies or on Rush Limbaugh's show). I guess the simplest way to say this is that if there are claims being made on the page which have not been noticed by WP:FRIND sources, by all means get rid of them. But I don't think that's what is happening here. jps (talk) 12:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, this seems to be the right threshold. Which of his beliefs are notable enough to get significant secondary coverage. The ID section is probably the one that needs the most scrutiny, with Spencer being brought up only in passing on a list of ID+Climate people, with the remaining two citations being Spencer himself. Without another relevant secondary source that demonstrates due notability, it feels like a WP:COATRACK.
- The climate topic is certainly notable, both being directly related to his profession and due to his providing congressional testimony on the topic. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- [18]
In Huntsville, Christy began working with a NASA scientist, Roy Spencer. Spencer shared Christy’s religious orientation—he has written about rejecting the science of evolution in favor of the creationist theory known as intelligent design...
- [19]
Seriously, read that link to get quite a bit of background on Dr. Spencer. I was also surprised to find Spencer is a big supporter of Intelligent Design. I was initially reticent to mention that, since it seems like an ad hominem. But I think it's relevant: Intelligent Design has been shown repeatedly to be wrong, and is really just warmed-over creationism.
- There are plenty of sources that provide secondary coverage, including a secondary source explaining why they think it is relevant information, just not in-depth enough to provide much in the way of context. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- In general, if a fringe idea get aired in an article the framing mainstream context can come from any decent source, which need not be on-topic for the article's main subject. This is core in NPOV/PSCI: "The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included". It's counter-intuitive because it seems like a license-to-synth; but it's core policy. Alexbrn (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- We don't even need other, unrelated sources, since we have
rejecting the science of evolution in favor of the creationist theory known as intelligent design... But I think it's relevant: Intelligent Design has been shown repeatedly to be wrong, and is really just warmed-over creationism.
We just need a bit of expansion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- We don't even need other, unrelated sources, since we have
- In general, if a fringe idea get aired in an article the framing mainstream context can come from any decent source, which need not be on-topic for the article's main subject. This is core in NPOV/PSCI: "The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included". It's counter-intuitive because it seems like a license-to-synth; but it's core policy. Alexbrn (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- [18]
- Spencer's claims themselves are WP:ECREE-able, but the fact that he makes such claims and he has been given a platform to spout those claims in the anti-science/denialist/merchants-of-doubt media is something that is plainly true. The secondary sources we have that document these claims are doing so critically. That is what we should point out. Y'know, phrasing that captures ideas like "Spencer's claims that evolution is a religion and attribution of global warming to human causes is hysteria belie his ideological opposition to those scientific facts that have become politicized in the ongoing US culture wars." That is the sort of analysis which I see in secondary sources which will help readers. We can also mention that many of his claims which go well-beyond his expertise are simply and flatly contradicted by the experts who study those fields -- and they have done so in direct reference to things Spencer has said in various venues (such as in testimony before legislative bodies or on Rush Limbaugh's show). I guess the simplest way to say this is that if there are claims being made on the page which have not been noticed by WP:FRIND sources, by all means get rid of them. But I don't think that's what is happening here. jps (talk) 12:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Arithmancy
Not sure what to do about this one. I'm not sure that arithmancy needs a separate article to numerology, or whether it should be included in it. Either way though, it needs proper sourcing, and at least something to suggest that it lacks anything in the way of credible evidence regarding its efficacy for 'divination'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Probably merge and drop the tables. And are you telling me that themystica.com isn't a reliable source?! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)