Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

This has been briefly discussed here when it was still in Draft space. But, after it was published, it has recently been edited in a way that removed all criticism and added a lot of puffery and appeals to authority - mostly by WP:SPA Traumapsychscholar (talk · contribs · block user) and I feel tempted to revert the page to a version before they touched it. TBH, I think it would be better to summarize the whole thing and merge it into EMDR as a variation of it. Thoughts? VdSV9•♫ 14:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I thought PenguinyPenguiny did a creditable job on the draft, but they haven't been around in over a year. fiveby(zero) 14:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've reverted to the version before Traumapsychscholar started mucking with it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, haven't really been around--thanks for keeping an eye on this. I still think Brainspotting should be its own article rather than as a subset of EMDR because at least EMDR has an evidence base and is conditionally recommended as an evidence-based PTSD treatment in the APA Clinical Practice Guideline for the Treatment of PTSD. There are similarities between EMDR and Brainspotting in terms of the use of eye movements--especially since the development of Brainspotting was influenced by EMDR--though it's unclear if the eye movements themselves actually do anything in EMDR or if the main mechanism is exposure. There's not an exposure part in Brainspotting, only eye movements, and the eye movements take a bit of a different emphasis than in EMDR. PenguinyPenguiny (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The articles traditional ecological knowledge and traditional knowledge could probably use more scrutiny by folks with the time to do so. In fact, it might be good to merge them. But in any case, while there is undoubtedly something to the idea that people who have lived in and depended on an environment for a long time have gained knowledge about that environment, this topic never seems to be too far from people who use it to science-bash, or to give credence to unreliable ways of knowing or supernaturalism. There also seems to be a lot of bloat. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

...and, sigh:

• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_98#Indigenous_science
• Indigenous science (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch.
• Coloniality of knowledge (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

fiveby(zero) 18:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Was thinking some about the prior thread during the VP discussion with Tukdam and religion. Here also we have a call to legitimize other knowledge systems by exploring alternative epistemologies, ontologies and methodologies. While the Buddhism and consciousness revolution we are assured is on the way soon, it seems to me this one already happened. How do you provide information about knowledge when knowledge itself is disputed. fiveby(zero) 20:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Related: Decoloniality Leijurv (talk) 05:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I honestly have no idea what to do with these articles. The literature surrounding this topic, while published in reputable sources, is an intellectual walled garden that is largely ignored by non-proponents. This makes providing any sort of balance tricky. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Big garden in as you say reputable sources. What would you do with Bob Denver? Mind Beyond Brain is Columbia University Press. fiveby(zero) 00:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I was primarily talking about "indigenous science" What I mean is that historians and philosophers of science largely don't engage with the sorts of academics who write about "Indigenous science". Buddhism (the subject of Mind Beyond Brain) to me doesn't seem to come under the scope of "indigenous science" It seems more in the same sort of book genera as The Tao of Physics and The Dancing Wu Li Masters. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't see an inherent difference:

1. Wikipedia should legitimize other knowledge systems for religious observers
2. Wikipedia should legitimize other knowledge systems for paranormal believers
3. Wikipedia should legitimize other knowledge systems for Buddhist scientists
4. Wikipedia should legitimize other knowledge systems for indigenous peoples

Pick all that apply.

Before anyone jumps on me that is not commenting on the groups but those who talk of new "epistemologies, ontologies and methodologies" or some kind of fusion with science. fiveby(zero) 01:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't see an inherent difference: I mean, a big difference would be that, say, Christian Bible fundamentalists and UFO proponents haven't historically been the victims of colonialism, displacement, white supremacy, and genocide the way Indigenous peoples have been, and there aren't major fields of respected, university press-published academia that legitimize the former two while there is a wide range of academically published scholars who write about decolonizing knowledge.

Though I'd say the real question isn't whether 'Wikipedia should legitimize other knowledge systems for X'. The more pertinent question is 'is X knowledge system documented and analyzed as a subject of interest by reliable sources, like academic publications, and how do those reliable sources characterize that knowledge system?' Wikipedia looks to the best relevant sources for the best way to describe a topic. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I believe the approach you describe as the real question follows this: "De-centring the ‘big picture’: The Origins of Modern Science and the modern origins of science" i linked in the older thread. That sounds to me appropriate for a global encyclopedia. But what we have here is a critique of Western science, and so Ecosystem management is a multifaceted and holistic approach to natural resource management. It incorporates both science and traditional ecological knowledge to collect data from long term measures that science cannot. Science can't do that? fiveby(zero) 05:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

As that paragraph in traditional ecological knowledge isn't footnoted, it's hard to judge whether it hews to sources and to which sources or not. What I do notice is that the apparently main article, ecosystem management, seems to describe the practice's relationship to science differently: ecosystem management is guided by ecological science to ensure the long-term sustainability of ecosystem services.

As for the question whether science can or can't do X, that answer would depend on what relevant reliable sources say about the topic, and what is meant by 'science' in those sources (science as practiced at a specific moment in time? scientism? specific hegemonically influential scientific institutions?).

In any case, the question of what Wikipedia should do, broadly speaking comes down to simply that Wikipedia should cite and summarize relevant reliable sources. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, failed to link the TEK article, and you are right it is not cited. Look at those which are such as Kimmerer, Robin Wall (2022). "Weaving Traditional Ecological Knowledge into Biological Education: A Call to Action". BioScience., Oxford University Press, 566 scholar cites.

So on the "reliable sources" grounds that is what i was questioning in the prior thread. Why are you removing 'holistic' here. That is like removing The Trinity from Max Hedroom's views if he were all over in the academic press. Not sorry philosophers, sorry jps. If you see it reifying the false dichotomy between "Indigenous knowledge" and "science" as if Indigenous people aren't doing "real" science that dichotomy is intentional and in the sources. It's got predictive power we are told, but it's not universal so not everyone can test that power. Sorry again. fiveby(zero) 13:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reminder, but what is interesting in this 2002 (note the date!) paper is the uncited stereotype: Western science is conducted in an academic culture in which nature is viewed strictly objectively. I guess you could just write a sentence like that in a paper in 2002 and get away with it. I doubt that would pass the muster today! I don't think the "holism" is dichotomous, then. Now the framing seems to me to be more about eliminating intentional and unintentional bias against knowledge sourced to stakeholder communities. Does that track? jps (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes i think reading the wrong sources might be part of my problem w/ TEK. I don't know if "Indigenous Science" is a concept built on or a reframing of TEK? But was reading sources which included both and seeing the text in the article (which you removed) which seemed to merge both. Anyway this: Ludwig, David; Poliseli, Luana (2018). "Relating traditional and academic ecological knowledge". Biol Philos. 33 (5). reads much better. The aim of this article is to develop an account that relates the epistemic resources of TEK and AEK while avoiding both horns of the dilemma of assimilation and division. Some criticism of a couple authors i was reading and more: these accounts typically combine epistemic and political concerns also a simple holism–mechanism divide misrepresents the epistemic resources of both TEK and AEK and holders of TEK are perfectly capable of identifying mechanisms that underlie ecological phenomena.

Reading that source i don't think i need to "construct" or "fuse" or "legitimize" any epistemoligies do i? fiveby(zero) 02:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

This indeed aligns more closely with how I see TEK presently being used. jps (talk) 12:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Christian Bible fundamentalists and UFO proponents haven't historically been the victims of colonialism, displacement, white supremacy, and genocide the way Indigenous peoples have been, and there aren't major fields of respected, university press-published academia that legitimize the former two while there is a wide range of academically published scholars who write about decolonizing knowledge. While I do agree that traditional knowledge isn't necessarily on the same level as the former - even if Christian fundamentalists and ufologists had been the victims of colonialism, that wouldn't validate their views, even if they got more sympathy from some academics as a result. So that's not really relevant here. Aside from that, apparently some academics are legitimizing certain Western ideas of paranormal beliefs by appealing to non-Western beliefs, such as in this book mentioned earlier, from Columbia University Press. Even academics can be profringe. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

What is relevant is that according to the pertinent content guideline, in Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. If decolonizing knowledge is part of a prevailing view in the relevant particular fields—in this case the framework appears to prevail in fields like anthropology and in subject areas like studies of colonized peoples, histories of colonialism, etc.—then I'm not sure how that would qualify as 'fringe' under our content guideline. I or you having a personal disagreement with the conclusions of academics isn't on its own enough grounds to deem scholars 'profringe'. On Wikipedia, we don't try to lead; we follow the sources. If there is a substantial, reputed, legitimately published scholarly field concluding that conventional institutions/systems/patterns of contemporary science are colonized/part of colonialism (that's the impression I'm getting from the thread and the articles so far), then it's not a 'fringe' position in that field. It might not be a universally conceived idea across all individual humans, but a lot of reliable academic sources describe the world quite differently from how the average human might (e. g., a god being in some way involved in human origins is a majority belief in the United States but is not at all how science understands and describes the unguided and undirected process of evolution). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is a red herring. Whether a group has been historically oppressed has nothing to do with whether ideas associated with that group are valid. By that logic, we should be giving significantly more weight to Mormon views on archaeology and history. Furthermore, there is no policy or guideline that says academic sources should automatically be considered reliable, and the ones you are referring to here clearly are not, because they will publish almost anything that conforms to their a priori ideology/worldview. Partofthemachine (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

By that logic, we should be giving significantly more weight to Mormon views on archaeology: Suggesting that Mormons are as colonized, oppressed, and genocided as Native Americans—now that is itself a take quite out of step from academic consensus.

there is no policy or guideline that says academic sources should automatically be considered reliable: Not automatically—context still matters—but it seems significant to me that the neutral point of view policy recommends looking to books and journal articles and that the reliable sources guideline states that Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. With that in mind, personally disliking academics' conclusions isn't on its own a good enough reason to disregard scholarship. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think the worst way to describe what is happening here is ignoring scholarship. Let's take a source and me for a malicious editor on WP. "Discovering indigenous science" Cited in Indigenous science for TEK a type. Respectable publication, well cited paper. But i can look through that paper and find anything i want, reword, add to the article and cite. I've just ignored the rest of the paper, and anyone the authors might cite for opposition to their views. Let's see, the authors don't like universalism so how about:

When Western modern science (WMS) is defined as universal it does displace revelation-based knowledge (i.e., creation science); however, it also displaces pragmatic local indigenous knowledge

and

it is possible that the universalist “gatekeeper” can be seen as increasingly problematic and even counter productive.

then reword to

How much scholarship have i ignored there? Even if i just included a faithful representation of the source in opposing universalism i've probably ignored some philosophy of science, history of science, and maybe a couple scientists.

The paper tells me where the term "Indigenous Science" comes from and it's "Science education in a multiscience perspective". Masakata Ogawa tells me he was influence by Lucien Lévy-Bruhl and quotes him. Lévy-Bruhl wrote a book called How Natives Think in 1910 and divided the world into two mindsets "primitive" and "modern". What could i do with that and how much scholarship would be ignored there?

Those might be extreme examples—or maybe not—and might or might not be noticed by a page watcher. But it doesn't even really need to be done intentionally. Just incautiously like by the WikiED'ers at TEK. Just pick something, cut-and-paste, quote part and reworde part. There's a lot of things you can do with good sources, within policy, to make bad content and ignore scholarship. Yeah, i don't like it. fiveby(zero) 06:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

To me this seems more like an NPOV issue than a FRINGE issue. As Hydrangeans said, if these fields are discussed in reliable sources (and they are) then we can and should have articles. The problem is that "decolonisation of X" is often a fig leaf for tearing X to shreds, and we shouldn't write our articles from that kind of "in-universe" perspective. Based on a glance at the first couple of articles mentioned, it looks like they lean that way, but this isn't my field so I don't think I'm the one to edit it. As for the comment that Indigenous peoples have been victims of colonisation while UFO believers have not: Perhaps that's why university presses give them a pass, but we shouldn't. One's level of privilege has zero bearing on the validity of their ontology. If a Holocaust survivor tells me climate change is a government hoax, they are wrong. We would thus be taking sides with an article, say, on "Survivors' views of climate change" that reports uncritically that climate change is an anti-Zionist scheme to ruin Israel, or whatever. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would say the whole talk of "other ways of knowing", "data that cannot be collected by science" and this "taking into account the suffering and exploitation, past and present, of certain peoples while evaluating their epistemologies" are very much FRINGE. Although, NPOV and FRINGE are very closely related, so it's probably both. VdSV9•♫ 12:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

As someone who has worked as a science professor at a university with a strong science-studies community, I can confidently say it is not at all fringe in the science studies and postcolonial studies disciplines. A good chunk of those scholars (maybe not a majority, but a very large minority) are pushing right-wing denialism of science and expertise (perhaps unintentionally) by dressing it up in left-wing tropes like decolonisation, queer liberation, and so on. "Other ways of knowing" is to the Frantz Fanon set what "do your own research" is to the Alex Jones set...trust your gut, They^TM are lying to you. If a sizable minority of scholars holds a certain view, then by definition it can't be WP:FRINGE even if it's demonstrably wrong. So we can have articles on these subjects, but we shouldn't give them false balance because, you know, reality exists. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

And what is your source for your extraordinary claim about "A good chunk of those scholars"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The very scholars who write about this stuff very often characterize them as "marginalized", and "outside of mainstream science" (often using the misnomer "Western science"). Those fall very much in the definition of fringe (marginal happens to be synonymous). VdSV9•♫ 18:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Fiveby's comment above that talk of new "epistemologies, ontologies, and methodologies" is nonsense. And science-bashing is extremely harmful (having probably resulted in hundreds of thousands of extra deaths from Covid in the US). But I think that there is an inherent difference between #4 and #1-3 in Fiveby's list. Certain indigenous medical practices, while not science-based, are based on centuries of observation and experience. In modern times, scientists and pharmaceutical companies have studied some of them in a rigorous, scientific way and found that they could use them as a basis for developing new, safe, and effective medicines. For example Tu Youyou was awarded the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for (according to her Wikipedia BLP) discovering artemisinin [...] and dihydroartemisinin, used to treat malaria, a breakthrough in twentieth-century tropical medicine, saving millions of lives in South China, Southeast Asia, Africa, and South America. The Wikipedia article goes on to describe how she achieved this by studying a vast number of traditional Chinese medicines, finally finding two that were the basis of the medical breakthrough.

It is also possible that a folk medical practice that's still followed in some parts of the world could be harmless and somewhat effective for some people, although inferior to the best modern medicine. People who are impoverished might not have access to the latter, in which case such a folk practice is better than nothing. (This is the viewpoint, for example, of the Cuban Ministry of Health, due to the extreme scarcity of certain imported pharmaceuticals due to the US embargo.)

Because of these two possibilities, there is an inherent difference between folk knowledge and paranormal belief, superstition, and science-bashing. NightHeron (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think artemisinin is like one in the ten thousand TCM remedies that turned out to have promise, so perhaps isn't a representative example. Bon courage (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sure, but has there ever been a medical breakthrough and a Nobel Prize for saving millions of lives that resulted from studying ten thousand superstitions or paranormal beliefs? NightHeron (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

TCM beliefs didn't contribute to artemisinin's discovery... Artemisinin just happened to be among the compounds whose effects had traditionally been ascribed to a fundamentally faulty mechanistic framework (or, maybe more likely, were retconned into a pseudo-traditionalist system by Maoists). JoelleJay (talk) 02:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The artemisinin discovery story has also been heavily propagandized to promote TCM. I'm skeptical there was any real link between the purported TCM uses of the parent decoction and the antimalarial properties of its active compound. JoelleJay (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your first paragraph summed up my thoughts too. The one issue I've run into IRL with this is that the lines between historical/folk knowledge/alternative ways of knowing and transitioning to science-bashing is a very thin line that is easy to cross. This often comes up at land-grant universities nowadays and especially can get contentious and difficult to navigate at those meetings, especially when you have groups of scientists and non-scientists involved.

It's a good thing if the focus is on historical preservation of culture, finding accounts of plants to test in the current-day, etc., but I have seen talks where people try to label it Western vs. Indigenous ways of knowing that quickly gets into trouble. Labeling it "Western" science in that context, especially with dashes of colonialism mentioned in order to dismiss what is just simply science, can be a red flag. That starts to invoke a sort of special pleading to avoid the formal scientific process that we often see in other fringe topics. That's what it can easily become if a particular group is given "privileged" status in their knowledge even if that knowledge would violate something as simple as correlation ≠ causation.

So I'm glad this has been brought up because we probably do need to keep a guardrail in mind for the above, but as others have mentioned, it's a bit of a walled garden topic. I can see challenges for us editors in terms of NPOV when it's advocates primarily publishing on the topic. KoA (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

So, science has "legitimized other knowledge systems for indigenous peoples" in one case. Wikipedia cannot do that unless science does it before. --Hob Gadling (talk)

The more I think about it, the more I think we should merge traditional ecological knowledge and traditional knowledge, and probably indigenous science too. They are all the same basic topic as far as I can tell, and having it in one place will make it easier to keep an eye on so it doesn't accumulate stuff from the fringey end of this idea. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is an interesting idea... but I think the merge may be a pretty heavy lift as the articles are all strikingly different. Just to play devil's advocate, I think that there is a lot more to say about these concepts within the context of ecology since the idea of working with indigenous stakeholders has a much longer history in that discipline. jps (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Crossroads not sure merges are a good idea. I'm thinking TEK came from resource managers and tribes/First Nations in the 80's? I don't know about "traditional knowledge" as a concept, maybe earlier? "Indigenous Science" often points to TEK, but it came from educators in the late '90s. TEK is certainly applied in education, and likewise "Indigenous Science" to promote policy decisions. I'm having a difficult time when the sources start merging the two and not telling me exactly what they mean. fiveby(zero) 02:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Traditional knowledge and traditional ecological knowledge are not exactly the same thing. TK may incorporate TEK but incorporates things outside of Indigenous views on the natural environment (wildlife and the land). Look at Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, while incorporating Avatittinnik Kamatsiarniq (respect and care for the land, animals and the environment) one of the major aspects is Inuuqatigiitsiarniq (respecting others, relationships and caring for people) and most of the others are more than just a narrow focus on environmental concerns. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I just read through traditional ecological knowledge and I don't see the WP:FRINGE problem. Can someone explain what the problem is with reference to the current text? jps (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The opening image that dichotomizes and essentializes TEK and "Western" science as "holistic" and "reductionist" respectively seems pretty sketchy. There's also a lot of overly long quotes and descriptions of examples/case studies, and it's somewhat disorganized. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! That image needed to go, agreed. I found one on Commons that looked better to me. Poorly accounted-for, so we might want to contact the Forest Peoples Programme to see if they have information about the event that occurred in 2011 that we could add as a citation (although, vainly, I think the caption I wrote is relatively uncontroversial). jps (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have started the process of copyediting. There are issues here with undergraditis writing with value-judgements and dated jargon. The temptation of the prior authors (and some of the older sources, even) to slip into the false dichotomy between "western science" and "noble savage" seems particularly acute. Doing a quick search for the word "western" yielded some places where rewording was possible. jps (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I did a little more work on cleaning up problematic writing. This is definitely one of those cases where the poor quality of writing by assigned students was dragging down the content. However, most of what was included was fine. It's just really, really bad writing. jps (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I think I'm done with my copyedit. I did not remove any sources. I pared down a lot of the unnecessary text. The page was a victim of undergraditis and might be a good object lesson for what happens when half a dozen classes get a hold of an article and let unprepared college students just add text in the hopes of meeting arbitrary word counts. One thing that probably needs emphasizing more with our WikiEdu collabs is that less is more, brevity is the soul of wit, vigorous writing is concise, etc. jps (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Taking hatchet to sources, rv anything where you object. Let me know if you saw any sources which should be included be aren't. fiveby(zero) 16:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I trust your judgement. jps (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Lucien Lévy-Bruhl (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I'm leaving the article alone because Tollefsen tells me^[1] there is some discussion about anomalies being a signal to the reader and might be a bad thing to remove them. fiveby(zero) 15:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what to make of that. Regardless, bad content (either false or undue) should still be removed. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Was just angry about the "ignoring scholarship" comments. I can sure go add to his article that he was an armchair anthropologist who never went into the field and based everything on testimony of missionaries. And:

Levy-Bruhl had imputed to Africans a certain lack of mental skills and he had suggested that such a lack was due to the fact that they were black. Thus, his conclusion held that black people were incapable of logical and coherent thought. Instead, they tended to wallow in contradictions and could not distinguish between what he called the supernatural and reality.

— [1]

Then start in on Indigenous science, all within P&G, because i don't like it. fiveby(zero) 13:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

• This discussion has been listed at WikiProject Environment, WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas, WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, WikiProject Countering systemic bias, and WikiProject Discrimination. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Tollefsen, Deborah Perron Tollefsen (2009). "Wikipedia and the Epistemology of Testimony". Epistem. 6 (1). Cambridge University Press: 8–24.
• Segal, Robert A. (2007). "Jung and Lévy-Bruhl". Journal of Analytical Psychology. 52: 635–658.

Just a heads up in the event that there is some promotion of reality shifting, How should i write about Reality Shifting/Online communities? CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just took a look at the article and my initial reaction was "The human brain is so weird sometimes". I'm pretty sure no other animal has to deal with the possibility of being so bored that their brain literally manifests a perceivable hallucination to entertain itself. Sirocco745 (talk) 04:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

So, since this was restored back in December 2021, it seems like there's been quite a bit of back and forth on the talk page of the article, about 25 kB by my estimate. Someone's now listed the page at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Russian violence in Chechnya (1991–1994)), and since it's a fringe topic I figured people here might be interested in weighing in and maybe more or less settling things, instead of leaving it to people who are already aware of the article. I'm not too familiar with the topic area so I don't think I'd be much help any time soon, but I might drop a comment in a few weeks if I get the time to review it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Robert R. Redfield (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

One of those COVID-19 cranks; an IP insists they know better than reliable sources do. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Self-proclaimed expert using his own site/research to push that the orthodox perspective on this is Wrong. There's already been a trip to AN/I. Mangoe (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would just take him to ANI againHemiauchenia (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Done. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#AndriesvN_and_Christian_theology_articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm sympathetic to his argument, in his own Talk Page, that the Wikipedia pages on the Arian Controversy are edited not by the world's leading scholars but primarily by people intending to defend the Church. The consensus of modern scholars and the consensus of the church are very different. However, I don't even know who the leading scholars in this are, and would take me a long time to try and figure out if this argument really has any weight to it. Having said that, I'm really surprised at how long this has been going on. Guy keeps referencing his own blog and ignoring policy, no matter how many times people explain to him he's not supposed to. Pretty obvious WP:NOTHERE in my book and should just get an indef block. He has been given enough chances. VdSV9•♫ 12:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oxford Bibliographies entry "Son of God: The Nicene Era" has:

• Hanson, R. P. C. (1988). The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318–381. A long treatment of 4th-century Christology that reads like a sustained commentary on the major texts and issues of the Arian controversy. Masterful, balanced assessment of this crucial phase of the “Son of God” in Christian doctrine.
• Gregg, Robert C.; Groh, Dennis E. (1981). Early Arianism: A View of Salvation. A significant minority view on the Arian controversy, which argues that it was not so much a Christological controversy as a soteriological one...

if i'm reading the issue correctly. Neither currently cited. Like your looking for "leading scholars". fiveby(zero) 13:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

There have been multiple lengthy discussions of the content in this article, and now an IP user involved since last year is suggesting use of information from a, and I quote, "TECHNICALLU UNPUBLISHED SOURCE". The arguments on that talk page are giving me a headache even thinking about it. Sirocco745 (talk) 05:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

adding to my watchlist EvergreenFir (talk) 05:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

ubpubliahed source ? I took ans cropped the image from the "source" that's all SamuelRoth79 (talk) 06:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

https://osf.io/ecwf3/download/?format=pdf

That is the source SamuelRoth79 (talk) 06:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

So what's wrong with that "source" ? SamuelRoth79 (talk) 06:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Look, as it stands, I myself am still collecting information on the reliability of Soy Keita in the field of Egyptology. Until that is determined, the reliability of the source cannot fully be ascertained. Confirming the reliability of a source or the source's author is an incredibly time consuming process, so much so that I don't even really know where to start here. Sirocco745 (talk) 07:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

He is an anthropologist and even he is sited in the article. Just not the picture of the data. The information YES SamuelRoth79 (talk) 07:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

just read about him in the article, I will copy and paste what is written for you. SamuelRoth79 (talk) 07:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

n 2010 Hawass et al. undertook detailed anthropological, radiological, and genetic studies as part of the King Tutankhamun Family Project. The objectives included attempting to determine familial relationships among 11 royal mummies of the New Kingdom, as well to research for pathological features including potential inherited disorders and infectious diseases. In 2022, S.O.Y. Keita analysed 8 Short Tandem loci (STR) data published as part of these studies by Hawass et al., using an algorithm that only has three choices: Eurasians, sub-Saharan Africans, and East Asians. Using these three options, Keita concluded that the majority of the samples, which included the genetic remains of Tutankhamun, showed a population "affinity with "sub-Saharan" Africans in one affinity analysis". However, Keita cautioned that this does not mean that the royal mummies "lacked other affiliations" which he argued had been obscured in typological thinking. Keita further added that different "data and algorithms might give different results" which reflects the complexity of biological heritage and the associated interpretation.

According to historian William Stiebling and archaeologist Susan N. Helft, conflicting DNA analysis conducted by different research teams on ancient Egyptians such as the Amarna royal mummies, which included the remains of Tutankhamun, has led to a lack of consensus on the genetic makeup of the ancient Egyptians and their geographic origins.

Cleopatra SamuelRoth79 (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay, can you please explain why the screenshot of the table should be included? I am satisfied with Keita's reliability, but per WP:ONUS, "while information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."

You have yet to provide a coherent reason for why adding this table is a constructive edit. This whole discussion is a pain in the butt for me to understand because I do not understand your angle here. You have presented an edit you want to make, but you have not presented a reason. As such, I cannot assess the value you perceive in the table against Wikipedia's interpretation of value.

In short, my brain hurts trying to understand all of this qwq Sirocco745 (talk) 07:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

okay, my argument is that including the table isn't a constructive edit. my reasons why are because:

- it disrupts the flow of the article

- the information found in the table has already been put into the article

- unpublished studies cannot be used as a source

What is your argument? Sirocco745 (talk) 07:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would additionally like to add that the spreadsheet SamuelRoth79 wants included, is completely unprofessional and made in Microsoft Excel, unlike the other data charts/diagrams from studies that are incorporated into the article. The others included are professional genetics models on ADMIXTURE, PCA, F_ST ...etc and these illustrations are actually published in authentic scientific journals dealing with ancient DNA. This obscure table should be completely excluded, on top of it being highly questionable by not being peer reviewed via actual or other scientists/geneticists involved in Paleogenomics & Archaeogenetics. Neo the Enlightened One (talk) 08:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

becauae you have all the data of the 2017 Egyptians were whiter than today. Due to the "slave trade". The one that never happened through Egypt. SamuelRoth79 (talk) 10:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

That isn't exactly a reason. What value does the table add to the Wikipedia article from a content perspective? Sirocco745 (talk) 10:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

An admin needs to handle this case ASAP: we're not obliged to host them babbling about people groups getting "whiter" amid other nonsense. Remsense ‥ 论 10:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The only good reason this discussion has gone on this long is because SamuelRoh79 never made any sort of point before their last few edits. No point means nothing to understand, and you can't make a case against something without understanding the other side. Truth be told, I still don't understand Samuel's point. Sirocco745 (talk) 10:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Forgive me, I'm new to technology. Editing internet encyclopedia is a new interest. I should have put all the information in on the picture I added. SamuelRoth79 (talk) 10:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The anonymous IP user has been spamming many Talk pages with the same fringe DNA Tribes material, and the unpublished/not peer reviewed data from PopAffiliator. They were attempting to push a POV here: Talk:Bantu peoples#We've Gotten It All Wrong, the individual is also likely involved on this other page on multiple topics: Talk:Genetic history of Egypt#Inclusion Of The Study By DNA Tribes, it's obvious this is the same person. Neo the Enlightened One (talk) 06:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

no. This is not DNA tribes. This is a published peer reviewed article article using the data from the JAMA article on the Amarna mummies and Ramses III. This photo will get published. I guarantee you. Even if I have to fight tooth and nail SamuelRoth79 (talk) 06:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

and NO I am not the same person. I am white rich JEW SamuelRoth79 (talk) 07:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Any administrators handy? We have an editor walking around here with a sign that says “Please block me” in big bright letters. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 08:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would ask a reliable/respected Wikipedian for a neutral third party perspective take on this mess, but I don't think I have enough experience or credit to my name for that. Worth a shot though. @Dr vulpes, would it be alright if you gave this a quick peek? Sirocco745 (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

No it was not reviewed by professional geneticists and published authentically, the print originally comes from here: https://osf.io/preprints/osf/ecwf3, with the picture you screenshotted being from a Google Docs https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yhTOR3PZm4v-dr5ODtv28i-Ry25GFVEvrLRuVTG0IGE/edit?gid=1243251660#gid=1243251660 Neo the Enlightened One (talk) 08:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

you already have this information on your article. You know that right? It's just the picture SamuelRoth79 (talk) 09:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

What's on the article actually comes from a review of material in 2022, not from that so called "source" above, as it did not meet Wikipedia's criteria.

Here's where: Page 108, 'IDEAS ABOUT “RACE” IN NILE VALLEY HISTORIES: A CONSIDERATION OF “RACIAL” PARADIGMS IN RECENT PRESENTATIONS ON NILE VALLEY AFRICA, FROM “BLACK PHARAOHS” TO MUMMY GENOMES '

"Analysis of the short tandem repeat (STR) data published on Ramesses III and the Amarna ancient royal family (including Tutankhamun) showed a majority to have an affinity with “sub-Saharan” Africans in one affinity analysis,[102] which does not mean that they lacked other affiliations-an important point that typological thinking obscures. (Also, different data and algorithms might give different results, which would illustrate the complexity of biological heritage and its interpretation.) This analysis was performed using an available algorithm[103] that unfortunately only has three choices: Eurasians, sub-Saharan Africans, and East Asians-the best-known received racial schema by another name, but it still gets used; this is problematic when it is local populations that constitute the historical reality of interactions. One can imagine a database with numerous global local populations.“

https://egyptianexpedition.org/articles/ideas-about-race-in-nile-valley-histories-a-consideration-of-racial-paradigms-in-recent-presentations-on-nile-valley-africa-from-black-pharaohs/

SOY Keita in the above, makes clarifications on the unpublished report about the affinity analysis, and he references a 2011 publication by the PopAffiliator algorithm creator (Luisa Pereira) showing what regions are in the PopAffiliator program, and what it actually does, and the number of loci needed, that's why its so fringey, you can't just use 8 STR and it excludes important regions: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00414-010-0472-2 Neo the Enlightened One (talk) 10:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please see this on PopAffiliator's geographic regions, 'Eurasians' is only meaning Europeans, while 'sub-Saharan Africans' and 'East Asians' incorporates multiple human population groups whom are unrelated to each other, but the important local populations as SOY Keita was saying are not included, and thus he rightfully deemed it problematic: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/PopAffiliator_geographic_regions.jpg Neo the Enlightened One (talk) 10:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Since the above messages are an absolute mess to read through, I'm going to summarize what's happened in the past 24 hours for anyone still scratching their heads. @SamuelRoth79 has been trying to add a table displaying genetic distribution for Amarna mummies to the Ancient Egyptian race controversy page. The information comes from a DNA Tribes report, a source which the community has deemed unreliable. See this Archive thread for more information. SamuelRoth79 got this information from this POV-pusher IP editor, who has made multiple attempts to dispute mainstream consensus on a variety of race-related articles with DNA Tribes-sourced material. Upon seeing the image added to the article, I took a fringe theories approach and removed it. SamuelRoth79 then proceeded to call me racist, which genuinely surprised me and made me do a bit of a double take. After that, I added this current topic to the noticeboard to draw more attention from more experienced editors than myself to the situation because I was unsure on how to proceed.

The above thread can be summed up as "a few editors dissect the source while SamuelRoth79 makes nonsensical statements with big time gaps." I still believe they made their edits in good faith and thought they were genuinely trying to improve the article, so I must emphasize this is not an attack thread. However @SamuelRoth79, I do have some words of wisdom for you. Articles related to racial heritage and genetics are often designated as contenious topics, and all content that goes against mainstream consensus is to be treated as fringe theories. Please read up on Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, it is invaluable to know even the gist of them.

Lastly, while not required, an apology for calling me a racist would be greatly appreciated. Reading that almost gave me a heart attack (figuratively) because I could not tell if the comment was a simple attack or your genuine belief. Sirocco745 (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you took it that I called you a racist. Than I didn't mean it. Obviously I don't even know you. But you probably don't even know much about this polémique. That has been an intellectual debate for 200 years now. And now with DNA. We have people who are purposefully using DNA samples from a random cemetery in northern Egypt and saying this represents all of Egypt, whe. We already have the DNA samples of the 18th dynasty. So if you are new to this s debate. Than I would hope you would understand why this information is critical. Black people, at least in my country go ballistic every time a cop accidentally kills a black man. They start tearing down statues, which they would have NEVER DONE in Ancient Egypt, destroying public property was the death penalty and history to them really mattered. So I think if their self esteem was raised a little bit. By the knowledge that they were the Ancient Egyptians, maybe not by ethnicity but by appearances and haplogroup matchs. They would behave a little differently. This DNA was NOT taken from DNA tribes. You keep saying that, are you not hearing me?? Thus data was taken by SOY Keita himself and run through his samples and it came back 93 percent sub Saharan African. The 18th dynasty, the RICH ONES , AND Ramses III. It is just a picture. It's not like I put a Hypnotic spell on it. SamuelRoth79 (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Look, I understand where you are coming from, but it's still not acceptable from a Wikipedia perspective. The lede of the article establishes immediately that:

Mainstream scholars reject the notion that Egypt was a "white" or "black" civilization; they maintain that applying modern notions of black or white races to ancient Egypt is anachronistic. In addition, scholars reject the notion – implicit in a black or white Egypt hypothesis – that ancient Egypt was racially homogeneous; instead, skin colour varied between the peoples of Lower Egypt, Upper Egypt, and Nubia, who rose to power in various eras of ancient Egypt.

WP:WEIGHT states that "mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."

The genetics table you are trying to add supports the idea that those at the very top of the Ancient Egyptian social hierarchy were predominantly African. Since this perspective does not align with Egyptology's mainstream consensus, adding the genetics table to the article would be to give undue importance to a "fringe theory", and I'm pretty sure we're both tired of hearing that term by now. Sirocco745 (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

that is the point. It's not a fringe theory. Do you really believe that? So do you believe they painted TutAnchAmun pitch black to represent the soil,? Do you not belong even your own eyes? SamuelRoth79 (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've made a post at ANI Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#SamuelRoth79_disruptive_editing_at_Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Blocked as NOTHERE basically. Doug Weller talk 08:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Zhenghecaris: (contribs) is recently trying to create articles and add information from taxa described in "Deep Time Analysis: A Coherent View of the History of Life."[2] written by researcher Mark McMenamin. In this book, he claimed that there are Ediacaran fossils from Mexican site Clemente Formation, includes some surprising findings such as stem-chiton, aculiferan (Clementechiton and Korifogrammia), and trilobite-like organism (Palankiras). However, even through such finding should be important for evolutionary biology, searching google scholar about those findings only results researches by Mark McMenamin himself and almost no other studies. McMenamin himself is known from fringe therory such as the Triassic Kraken (hypothetical giant cephalopod around 30 m which hunted giant ichthyosaurs), and Near Eastern discovery of the New world before Columbus. In fact, there is no research other than McMenamin's own research regarding the occurrence of fossils from the Clemente Formation, and this may not be accepted by other researchers. However, I haven't found much concrete rebuttal to these studies, except that a 1999 study states that it is doubtful of biological origin and is much older than other Ediacaran Biota.[3] Zhenghecaris still adding information about Clemente Formation and taxa from there to articles like Kimberella, Chiton, and article of Clemente Formation itself. Also, this user doesn't seem to understand what sources are available, just that I told him like "I'm suspicious because this study was done by a researcher known for Triassic Kraken.", this user added about that to article even no sources claim like that. What especially problematic is claim in Evolution of the eye. McMenamin claimed that Clementechiton was the earliest animal with eyes, and in February User:Earthjewels830 (contribs) who seems to be a sockpuppet of McMemanin himself, added information about that even no other researchers accept. I deleted that cleim but Zhenghecaris reverted that, and this still remains in article. Zhenghecaris have some other problematic behaviors such as uploading copyvio images in Wikimedia Commons (see Commons:User_talk:Zhenghecaris), edit someone's image roughly to make it like what they claim (Commons:File:Zhenghecaris_with_setal_blades.jpg), and Complain rudely about a user's art style. I feel that something needs to be done about this user, but how should Wikipedia actually respond to these studies by McMenamin? (See also:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology#McMenamin's_taxa) Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I concur that McMenamin, despite being an employed professor, has crank tendencies and his research should be ignored unless cited by other researchers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

There are also similar examples I can provide. Muhammad Sadiq Malkani describes fossil taxa like dinosaurs from Pakistan, in the predatory journal SCIRP. Those are not considered as valid and article created are deleted, or redirected to List of informally named dinosaurs. Michael Wachtler[4] described things like Permian angiosperms in self-published books. Those are also not considered valid in Wikipedia. Now, all the taxa that McMenamin described from the Clemente Formation were described from the book he wrote. If you look at other chapters of the book (which is accessible via Wikipedia Library), you'll see unlikely things like a reconstruction of a slug-like creature with a crystal on its back... Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Publishing research in a book is unusual for Ediacaran paleontology. SO I think we should wait for confirmation from independent researchers before using those publications. This shows the risk of using primary research. Perhaps I wasted my time tracking down this book! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I get the impression that McMenamin's research is largely ignored by other Ediacaran researchers looking at scholar citations. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I also agree. First, largely unconvincing interpretations and arguments that nobody takes seriously are often going to judged too trivial to either spend time responding to and have a hard time getting judged worthwhile to print by reviewers, publishers, or both. Finally, if the researcher(s) making them are well repected, I suspect that many colleauges will also ignore them to avoid embarrassing the researcher by calling he or she a crank. The result is that many faultly and unconvincing interpretations and arguments die from being ignored instead of being refuted in print. This causes problems as there is no paper trail left explaining why they were judged to be bad and faulty by independent researchers. This can be seen in conference abstracts where interpretations and arguments appear never to be seen of heard from again. I understand this is one reason why "primary research" and conference abstracts are not used Wikipedia. Paul H. (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

User:Circulationsys (contribs) seems reverted addition of claim from 1999 study doubted affinity of Clemente fauna as "Inaccurate statement". As Earthjewels830, this user can be sockpuppet of Mark McMenamin himself as seeing their contributions. To be honest if that claim is inaccurate, I would like to see recent researches that supports biota from Clemente Formation (not by McMemanin himself, of course), rather than removing the existing claim... This user also added information about Clemente Formation in Shuram excursion. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't this also be at RSN? Doug Weller talk 09:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay I will not add information on taxa described by McMenamin. Zhenghecaris (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The naturopathic school Sonoran University of Health Sciences is formerly Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine & Health Sciences. The school's article was heavily edited by an employee and sourced to the school. This alt med school and others (National University of Natural Medicine, other naturopathic schools, Life University, Life Chiropractic College West) have few independent and reliable sources. @Jdcooper has nominated the Sonoran article for deletion. A recent article documents the high debt to earnings ratios of graduates of naturopathic, chiropractic, and Chinese medicine schools. Opinions are welcome on the AFD. ScienceFlyer (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

A new editor has complained that the YDIH article is not objective at all, there isn't any semblance of an attempt to be objective either and is adding content claiming that people have used "unethical language" against YDIH proponents [5]. Additional eyes would be welcomed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

An article opposing YDIH is cited in the wiki page about YDIH twenty four times, including the first sentence and majority of the first two paragraphs, while an article in support of YDIH from the same journal is relegated to the "Further reading" section without being mentioned in the body of the article. In fact, I found two Wikipedia:RS listed in Further Reading and Bibliography but not used to write the article.

That's in addition to the article having Wikipedia:WEASEL (2 examples: 1. calling a geologist a "YDIH proponent" without any source attribution for it right before presenting the geologist's view, but the same is not done for YDIH opponents; 2. article describes the "black mat" as claimed evidence of ancient forest fires, yet the cited source never uses the words "forest fires" but describes the black mats as something wholly different) and MOS:CONFUSE like choosing to use the words "extraterrestrial event" rather than "cosmic event" even though the latter term appears more frequently in the cited source.

I am happy to go into more details and come up with more examples, if need be. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've taken this to WP:NPOVN#How do we handle Pubpeer comments? The article seems fringe to me. Doug Weller talk 13:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also just noticed the use of this paper at Scientific method#Relationship with statistics where it seems accepted. "This is described in a popular 2005 scientific paper "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" by John Ioannidis, which is considered foundational to the field of metascience. " Doug Weller talk 13:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Template:Eugenics sidebar (edit | visual edit | history) · [[Talk:Template:Eugenics sidebar|Article talk]] (edit | history) · Watch

A Eugenics sidebar was created recently and may be of interest to editors here. Llll5032 (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

• I recommend that clear inclusion criteria be worked out on the template talk page. One general problem with sidebars structured like this, with several subtopics and controversial aspects, is that without well-defined and agreed upon inclusion/exclusion criteria, they tend to continually attract tangential cruft with questionable relevance to other distantly related articles, and become overly conspicuous when applied to such tangential articles. Then, other well-intentioned editors slap them on every article or section mentioning Eugenics (or whatever the navbox/sidebar subject is), which further distorts with undue visual/thematic emphasis, with little regards to WP:NAVBOX and WP:NAV guidelines. I note for instance the article Henry Fairfield Osborn is both in and bares the template: but is notably (thankfully) not in {{Paleontology}}. This could be construed as saying eugenics was a more significant aspect of his life and career paleontology, even though it only has a single paragraph in his article. And Charles Davenport now has two conspicuous sidebars about Eugenics, which looks rather clunky. I hate to image a future where every article is cluttered with a dozen sidebars each competing for the reader's limited attention. {{Alternative medicine sidebar}} is an example of one of the most egregious garbage bins of mish mash that users seem to relish stuffing and slapping on to any biography associated with any one of the dregs of detritus therein, almost as a badge of shame. Note how {{History of baseball}} is not tagged onto every person who has played baseball, nor is {{Evolution sidebar}} slapped on every evolutionary biologist biography. {{Alt-right footer}} is another controversial grab bag with nebulous to nil inclusion criteria, but at least it is less conspicuous as a collapsible footer. In general, with navboxes, fewer, tightly-interlinked subjects are preferable.--Animalparty! (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  I wouldn't necessarily take the length of coverage on Wikipedia as indicative of whether a certain aspect particularly significant in regards to a person's life. Henry Fairfield Osborn has a complex legacy both inside and outside paleontology. Henry Fairfield Osborn: Race and the Search for the Origins of Man is a book basically entirely dedicated to his views about race and related topics, rather than about his palaeontological contributions (that said, I don't think that eugenics was the overridingly important aspect of Osborn's life, with another book An Agenda for Antiquity: Henry Fairfield Osborn and Vertebrate Palaeontology at the American Museum of Natural History, 1890-1935 about his work at the AMNH). Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for the suggestion, @Animalparty. I agree in the case of Osborn and have removed the template. Besides, including him might have readers click the hyperlink while confusing its target with Frederick Osborn. Biohistorian15 (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Lumping in, say, preimplantation genetic diagnosis with racial policy of Nazi Germany seems likely to lead to POV issues, and this is even before we get into BLPs getting roped in. I don't think we need this and that it can be deleted. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Seems likely to generate more heat than light. Generalrelative (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please click on the link to see that this is no longer being done at all. The sidebar has been reduced to its bare essentials. Biohistorian15 (talk) 11:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is discussion about the recently created disambiguation page for Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and Marxist cultural analysis that may be of interest to this noticeboard. See the disambiguation talk page for details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Possibly readers of this board may want to weigh in on two discussions at Talk:William Happer. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Timeline of UFO investigations and public disclosure (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Also a question from Gronk Oz here about lists of articles for watch-listing. fiveby(zero) 13:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is a timeline of civilian and governmental efforts in investigating and disclosing the nature and presence of unidentified flying objects (UFOs), also known as unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAPs). It includes important publications and public events and also institutional countermeasures against the UFO disclosure process. For starters, the lead pushes a conspiratorial viewpoint in Wikipedia's voice. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The title is problematic, inviting editors to freely mix real-world things with fringelore. Timeline of UFOlogy might stand a chance of being notable. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

thanks for bringing this to our attention.Sgerbic (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

What is the inclusion criteria for items on this list? Seems very arbitrary at present, e.g. whatever the article creator thinks is relevant. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I WP:BOLDly moved it to Timeline of UFOs. We may need to think about how it might work with the already extant List of UFO sightings. jps (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The List of UFO sightings is a timeline. What is the case for needing both articles? Sgerbic (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ahhh I see, the Timeline of UFO's includes whatever the editor who wrote this thinks is important to UFO history, heavy on the Elizondo mentions. I'm not so sure about this, but leave this to you as I have pizza to eat. Sgerbic (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is stopgap meant to address the WP:PROFRINGE implications of the previous title. I *might* be able to see a case for having a separate timeline given that there have been some remarkably interesting points of heady interest, lack of interest, alien autopsy videos promoted, and the like, but am not quite convinced yet. jps (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Any day now Sgerbic (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

You said it. There is room for a competent academic to write the definitive history on this subject, but it hasn't happened yet. Probably because the endeavor is so exhausting. jps (talk) 13:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article arbitrarily combines non-notable books and films with content contained in List of reported UFO sightings, UFO conspiracy theories, and Investigation of UFO reports by the United States government. I'm not sure what this article accomplishes other than to be a WP:POVFORK of existing content. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm done with my pizza and am taking another look as the editor keeps beefing up the article with more and more dates. What I'm concerned with is this arbitrary submission of non-notable events based on the unknown criteria of this specific editor. For example this one "2024 October - The first Global Disclosure Day event was launched by the New Paradigm Institute" what is notable about this? Global Disclosure Day isn't notable, the New Paradigm Institute isn't notable and the citation is leading to a website for this Paradigm Institute, which isn't notable. So who is responsible for including these dates? Okay, let me go look at the talk page for this article, we should be having this conversation there. Sgerbic (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

There was no talk page - creating it now. Sgerbic (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have posted on that brand new talk page my concerns. I respectfully suggest that any future conversations about the article be taken to that talk page. Sgerbic (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Could use somebody who's more experienced with identifying good sources vs bad within this topic. Paging @User:Feoffer. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh no not the Brit! They spell everything wrong! Sgerbic (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Robert Hastings (ufologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ...similar NPOV problems by the same editor. Fixed for the moment. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I wonder if this was based on that timeline that has been circulating for a while and Michael Shellenberger included as an annex in his "testimony" (page 36 onwards on the pdf) to the US Congress this wednesday. Maybe it's a coincidence. VdSV9•♫ 13:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not related, but that's an incredible timeline. Most of the entries may never make it to Wikipedia because of the policies here. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

If by "incredible timeline" you mean, "halfwitted timeline". jps (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timeline_of_UFOs - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

As far as I can tell Kanawha people is not a real topic that archaeologists write about. The idea that they represent the ancestors to Native Americans appears to be made up. (Kanawha is a valley and as far as I am aware their is no modern ethnic group by that name) As such I've nominated the article for deletion. Please participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

An interesting edit - IP removed the word erroneous from the lead as the article doesn't suggest that. They seem to be correct in that the article is about support of the idea. Doug Weller talk 13:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

There have recently been two edits to this article recently which I believe are in violation of WP:FRINGE and would like to get input on.

• An SPA, in their only edit, replaced the text known for advocating the fringe view that gender dysphoria and being transgender are often caused by psychological issues that should be treated psycho-analytically as opposed to with gender-affirming care with known for his thesis that ...[6] despite many of the sources noting he's fringe and the statement being obviously fringe

• Another editor removed the text The Southern Poverty Law Center described Levine as part of an "old guard that advocated treating trans identity as mental illness with associated conversion therapy-style “cures”" whose activism began in response to changes in the DSM-5 and WPATH SOC 7 which represented a threat to their business practices and research agendas. stating Not appropriate for biography of a living person. Partisan statements and contentious tone[12] - this whitewashing is more obviously in blatant disregard of WP:NPOV and WP:SPLC

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is a discussion going on as to whether advocacy groups like the SPLC are SPS, as technically the way SPS is written right now they are self published sources and therefore unusable on BLPs. The discussion is ongoing, but if it comes to the consensus that such groups are SPS, the removal of the latter is justified. No comment otherwise. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

As a courtesy link, the discussion in question is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Grey Literature. As noted there, the language by which the SPLC is a SPS is an essay, WP:USESPS, not actual policy. I'll note that the the majority of votes say this is obviously too strict a definition of SPS and either voted that way or called it a bad RFC on those grounds. As it stands, the WP:SPLC are WP:GREL, and we shouldn't pre-emptively/speculatively downgrade RS. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can't see any consensus in that discussion either way, and our current definition in policy outside the essay is vague enough it could apply. SPLC being an SPS is not a new accusation, but we've never come to any real conclusion on it. And the question of whether SPLC is reliable is related to but separate from whether it is an SPS - if it is an SPS per policy it is unusable for BLPs always. Some people in that discussion (not me) were opposed to using advocacy group sources in BLPs at all, so until this is settled it should be treated cautiously, especially when it's very contentious allegations as it is here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply