Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Should it be clarified this board is not for religious doctrines?

I see that recently editors have been coming here with threads regarding doctrines of "Abraham in Islam", "Christian Science", "Jesus in India", and others, looking in several debates to find here some definitive official "rulings" on the validity of various theological positions and arguments. This is what I always feared and warned would happen. "Hmmm, that was fun, now whose beliefs system will we judge and marginalize next?" Otherwise it would be more honest just to move the board to Wikipedia:Heresy tribunal or the like. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The "Abraham in Islam" article was queried for original research. Perhaps this was not the right board for that problem, but that's another question. The "Jesus in India" issue is not about theology, but about fringe history. The "Christian Science" discussion was about scientific claims. While these concerns obviously link to the theologies of various religions that is not the reason for their presence here. Certainly, we do not judge "heresy" from within religious beliefs or "various theological positions" because that's something only a believer within a religion can do. Paul B (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Pseudoscience often dons a cloak of religion. List of topics characterized as pseudoscience#Religious and spiritual beliefs lists several examples. Pseudoscience says "Systems of belief that derive from divine or inspired knowledge are not considered pseudoscience if they do not claim either to be scientific or to overturn well-established science. Moreover, some specific religious claims, such as the power of intercessory prayer to heal the sick can be tested by the scientific method, though they may be based on untestable beliefs." In my opinion, this board has been pretty good about sepearting religion from religious pseudoscience. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

We can also, to some degree, touch upon the fringiness of theology if/when we make it plain that we're evaluating this with-world, as it were. Therefore we do have to acknowledge that non-trinitarian Christian groups are way out of the mainstream. There is something of a "Jesus in India" religious industry, but it consists of various individuals (e.g. Elizabeth Clare Prophet) who are making non-metaphysical claims that nobody accepts. We must make clear that these ideas are not historical divergences of opinions, but are instead eccentric ideas which are tied to their particular expositor and rejected by the rest.

As far as heresy is concerned, we do need to keep straight who rejects what. Therefore we do often have to use the word "heresy" but must always qualified this by "as defined by X Church." Mangoe (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

There are also always going to be ambiguous cases. Some UFO cults claim to be religions. Ahmadiyya itself is considered pretty fringe within Islam. We can never keep an absolutely rigid separation between these issues. Paul B (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

(e-c) There are two seperate issues here. One, should this board address matters of whether theological scientific and academic beliefs, some of which clearly run contrary to religious beliefs, can qualify as fringe theories for the rest of the world outside of the group which holds that belief. The second is about whether religious beliefs, as such, should qualify for inclusion on the basis of WP:WEIGHT. So, for instance, a request about whether the Raelian view on the Elohim might be raised here. In cases such as that, this board probably works as well as any other for determining issues of WEIGHT regarding such beliefs which have little if any support outside of those groups.

For the broader issue of heresy, we definitely should make an effort to differentiate between "heresy" and "heterodoxy." However, we had a recent discussion regarding a template about Heresies in Catholicism or Christian heresies, and, honestly, if there are independent reliable sources which discuss an idea as "heretical" to a given church or group, even if that church or group is only one of many within that broader field, yeah, I can and do see that we would be justified in discussing whether it qualifies as a "heresy" to the group which might have identified it as such. There are at least two separate articles on Heresy in the Lindsay Jones/Mircea Eliade "Encyclopedia of Religion" (I haven't checked to see if any articles were removed for the later editions, hence the qualification), so, based on that source, it is not unreasonable to use the word "heresy" as well. Granted, Raelian belief about the Elohim clearly couldn't have been addressed by the early heresiographers (which is what Iranaeus and the others are sometimes called), but we can probably help find ways to structure the content of a given article to address later ideas which might qualify as variations on a belief which had been directly called "heretical" earlier. John Carter (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we as Wikipedians can debate whether a belief can be called a hersesy from an orthodox Chrostian POV (I had a "Dictionary of Heresies" once), but I don't think it should be a function of this board, except in rare cases. I'm not sure what you mean by theological beliefs which "run contrary to religious beliefs". I guess we should concentrate on beliefs that seem to contradict standard scholarship about science, history etc. Paul B (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your first point above, I skwewed up, and have adjusted my comment accordingly. Actually, there is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Encyclopedic articles#Encyclopedia of Heresies and Heretics a list of articles in a recent encyclopedia of heresies and heretics published by ABC-Clio. Not every article in that source is about some person or group which has been labelled as heretic, because some like Augustine and Irenaeus are about people who labeled others as heretics, but it does exist. Regarding whether we should call anything a "heresy" in the broader sense, I don't think we should, although we do have good reason and more than sufficient notability to have content which discusses the history of things being labelled as heretical by others, and possibly or probably identifying those specific beliefs which have been counted as heresies. John Carter (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

"I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said 'Stop! don't do it!' 'Why shouldn't I?' he said. I said, 'Well, there's so much to live for!' He said, 'Like what?' I said, 'Well...are you religious or atheist?' He said, 'Religious.' I said, 'Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?' He said, 'Christian.' I said, 'Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?' He said, 'Protestant.' I said, 'Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?' He said, 'Baptist!' I said,'Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?' He said, 'Baptist church of god!' I said, 'Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?' He said,'Reformed Baptist church of god!' I said, 'Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?' He said, 'Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!' I said, 'Die, heretic scum', and pushed him off." -Emo Phillips --Guy Macon (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The Nutshell summary of the project page does not specifically mention science or history (or the pseudo-versions thereof), but “scholarship”. So ISTM that where reliable sources of theological (or, e.g., palaeographic) scholarship exist, even within the context of a particular denomination or sect’s world-view, a neutral assessment of a given position’s ‘fringeyness’ ought to be possible. Of course, as with scientific and historical matters, some knowledge of the state of the field is required—and to the extent that a board like this tends to attract editors of a skeptical bent, it’s unsurprising if theology is not a strong suit of many. This should not, however, be grounds for excluding such topics altogether. OTOH religious doctrines per se are not amenable to academic discourse, and will therefore lack neutral secondary sources.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Bit late, but nonetheless: yes WP:FRINGE covers fringe theories outside of science as well. There is a theological discourse, and fringe theological views do exist where WP:FRINGE applies. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes... "Fringe theology"... So then, I take it from a careful reading of the above, there is a general agreement between all the Wise and Knowing Ones who are regulars here that (for instance) Ahmadiyya is defined as "Fringe theology" - since in their view, "Jesus in India" is a part of their "theology". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You have "fringe theology" in quotation marks, but as far as I can see, its not actually a quote of anyone. IRWolfie- (talk)

Do try to read what people actually say rather than what you imagine they said. Otherwise you pointlessly fuel paranoid fantasies. Paul B (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you can clarify for me where I've got it wrong. In the Ahmadiyya view, "Jesus in India" is just plain "theology". Am I right or wrong? However, you are the one who stated above quite authoritatively, The "Jesus in India" issue is not about theology, but about fringe history. If that is the case, what does that make of Ahmadiyya's theology? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I was making clear what the remit of this board is. Discussion of "Jesus in India" is the concern of this board as an issue of history not theology. As I wrote "The "Jesus in India" issue is not about theology, but about fringe history". And inm speaking of Ahmadiyya I said "Ahmadiyya itself is considered pretty fringe within Islam". The point being that what is fringe from within a wider belief system is something we can note, but, as you can readily read from my own words above: "we do not judge "heresy" from within religious beliefs or "various theological positions" because that's something only a believer within a religion can do." Paul B (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, claims about Jesus being in India are a fringe historical claim, it's not about theology. By theology I was talking about something like Catholic systematic theology, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You did use the phrase "Fringe theological views". But I don't want to quibble about whether or not that phrase implies such a thing as "fringe theology". From what I can gather, Ahmadiyya claims up to ten million adherents who presumably do not see themselves or their doctrines as "fringe". And it is certainly accurate to mention that they are heretical / fringe from the mainstream Muslim POV. But what about from wikipedia's POV? Is it not a POV to declare as fact that their view of history is "fringe"? Before I get accused, I had better state that I am not an Ahmadiyya myself and don't know that much about them or their teachings. But I am willing to tolerate their belief that Jesus visited India without rushing in to label it "Fringe", because unlike some here, I do not claim to be one who "knows" the "truth" about such matters. It seems everyone has their own view of history, and everyone would probably like to label everyone else's view "fringe", but since we are never likely to get a time machine to settle the matter, nobody should be pretending on wikipedia that there is only one "correct" and "acceptable" view of history, and all others that deviate from it are to be persecuted as "fringe". The principle of NPOV has always been to just state matter-of-factly what all the major views are on their appropriate pages, and let the reader decide for themselves what seems more or less likely. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

There may not be only once correct view of history, but there are certainly many incorrect ones. We do no one a favor by having a page that argues that Charlemagne lived before Julius Caesar and 'let the reader decide'. Agricolae (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there is such a thing as fringe theology. Just as there is fringe history, fringe science, and even fringe English (ex: Ebonics). Ideas that are beyond the mainstream in any given field are by definition Fringe. All these are within the remit of this noticeboard. Blueboar (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

In general, when one talks about theology, fringiness maps over to heresy. Therefore even though Arianism is an extreme minority view in Christianity, we don't explicitly call it a fringe theory; but the fact that it is far out of the Nicene theological mainstream is noted. Islam's claims about Jesus in general run contrary to mainstream Christian views, but we do not characterize this discrepancy as fringy. On the other hand I would not be shy about drawing attention to claims that some theological view was predominant when this was not the case, or attempts to conceal the truth that a particular theological position was not widely held, or playing down mainstream condemnation of a position. Those are matters of scholarship about theology and not theolofy per se. Mangoe (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

If there are fringe opinions in the, say, catholic theological discourse, we treat them with WP:FRINGE. The same reasoning about not giving undue weight etc applies. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know much about Ahmadiyya except for what I read here regarding a self-published book making historical claims, and I didn't see any discussion of theology.

It would seem that the point here, however, would be to evaluate a "theology" in relation to the other doctrines with which it is associated in one way or another. So the eccentric may wind up being considered fringe, for example, because it is not directly related to any of the doctrines with which it claims association.

Ahmadiyya, on the other hand, may wind up being considered something more akin to a syncretic form of Islam insofar as it incorporates something related to Christianity, which would make them heterodox with respect to mainstream Islam. I've seen the Allawites described as incorporating syncretic elements, and they are regraded as heretics by mainstream (i.e., Sunni) Islam, but that is yet another issue.

If you want to discuss whether Ahmadiyya theology is fringe or not, I would imagine you would have to address the manner in which the historical claims regarding Jesus in India relate to Ahmadiyya theology. I don't think that the result of discussion on this board would be to dismiss Ahmadiyya as fringe because it diverges from Christianity on Jesus with respect to theology, because it is, after all, a form of Islam.Ubikwit (talk) 12:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Paul B has already clarified this point. It is regarded as fringe with respect to the claims it makes about history, not theology, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I remember reading once that in the Ahmadiyya view, when Jesus was in India he spread the teaching "This life is like a bridge, but don't build a mansion on it", so that's why I assume that Ahmadiyya theology itself involves Jesus' alleged ministry in India, not just history. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The Fathpur Sikri agraphon, whose text can be found at Buland Darwaza, does say that, yeah, but I don't know how much emphasis the Ahmadiyya give it, although, considering they're from that general area, I can imagine they incorporate it in some way. I know that the Ahmadiyya do have some decidely heterodox beliefs, like a stated belief in the existence of Krishna in some form or other anyway, which is more or less rejected by "orthodox" Islam. And, for what it might be worth, while I do think that the "real world" idea that Jesus visited India, in this case if I remember right after the crucifixion and married Mary Magdalene (I think), qualifes as "fringe" as per the scientific application of WP:FT, I'm not sure it applies regarding the beliefs of a group within articles about that group itself. There is however a not unreasonable question whether religious beliefs about things which the scientific community has determined to be "fringe" should more or less get the same sort of application of WP:WEIGHT as what might be called scientific fringe theories. My own guess would be "yes," because, based on what I've seen in other reference works, that tends to describe the amount and depth of attention they give such scientifically unorthodox beliefs. But, I suppose, in at least some cases, like if a new NRM believing Jesus survived the resurrection and today drives an ice cream truck in Los Angeles (yes, I am making that example up), if that group became so notable that this belief became one of the better known and more significant topics regarding that person, then maybe it might qualify for some mention in a main article.

THere are however a huge number of encyclopedic articles regarding religion present in other encyclopedias that we don't have yet, and statements regarding beliefs of that sort might well belong in some that are still absent. But, in general, unless such beliefs get so much attention that they are at that level, then it probably would make sense to apply WP:WEIGHT regarding them in roughly the same way we do to other scientific fringe theories which get the same amount of relative attention regarding their main topics as these other-than-orthodox religious beliefs. John Carter (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: religious beliefs about things which the scientific community has determined to be "fringe" - John, your use of this phrase raises several more questions in my mind, because it strongly suggests that such a determination has actually been made by "the scientific community". So here goes: 1) When and where was this determination made regarding what beliefs the "scientific community" considers fringe, and what beliefs it considers canonical? 2) Who are the members of this scientific community who made this determination? How many were invited? 3) Where can I find a copy of the proceedings whereby this determination was made? Are the general public allowed to be privy to these things? Is there any kind of comprehensive listing in a reliable source I can look up that states all those beliefs to which the term "fringe" is to be applied (scientifically of course), and a listing of all those beliefs that are indeed canonical? Are there any sources anywhere that even use the term "fringe" in these cases, or does that take some kind of special insight that remains a mystery to me? Thanks in advance for any help on this you can give me. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that there would be any way for anyone who answer the rather long string of questions you ask, particularly considering that (1) you seem to be assuming that I somehow know everything about this apparently indeterminate topic, which I am fairly sure I never even implied and (2), so far as I know the actual subject under discussion hasn't been clearly determined or so far as I can tell even necessarily indicated, unless it is in fact the Fathpur Sikri description or the Ahmadiyya movement. Regarding the apparent insistence on the use of the exact word "fringe" regarding any topic, I don't know, but, honestly, the WP:FT does not seem to necessarily absolutely insist that that word has to be used, at least so far as I can see.

But, in general, I do know of and have access to at least one at least fairly highly regarded two-volume encyclopedia of "science and religion," which deals with the intersection between the two fields. Also, honestly, there are any number of reference books, I think in the hundreds if not thousands which deal in some way with topics regarding science and religion. These range from the very highly regarded Eliade/Jones Encyclopedia of Religion to any number of volumes on individual faith traditions, as well as any number of other reference books in the broad field of culture, philosophy, weltanschauung, whatever one might want to call it. If the issue is about WP:WEIGHT to be applied regarding matters in which science and religion, I would have to think that in almost all cases where the subject is actually one which has received sufficient attention to merit discussion in one or more such works, that if they are highly regarded by academia, then they would be an extremely good indicator of how much weight to give such matters in directly related articles here. If it is something that these academic sources don't even discuss, then that could reasonably be seen that the amount of weight we give it could be proportional, except in the extremely rare cases when the "evidence", if that's the term, is extremely recent, in which case there are certainly other ways to deal with it, like with RfC's. John Carter (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Flow

In case anyone isn't aware of this already, Wikipedia:Flow is software that is planned to replace our current way of editing talk pages. I would encourage you all to take a look and possibly comment on the project. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Board regulars may be interested in my merge proposal here which concerns wikiprojects in the fringe area: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#Merging_projects_-_Fringe, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies

There's a long discussion at Osteopathic manipulative medicine about whether/how some content from this journal can be used. I've stepped back from it now, but raise this here as questions of policy/guidance interpretation have been raised which may have a bearing on how WP:FRINGE applies, and so may be of interest to this noticeboard. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

META: User:Tom Morris introducing Guerrilla Skeptics to WP:FTN

Just an FYI: [1], thanks for spreading the FTN Gospel, Tom! ;-) --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

3 years ago though. Dougweller (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Doh! --Salimfadhley (talk)

META: Scope Creep?

I have a question about what direction we want this noticeboard to go. In the "Can this peer-reviewed article..." case, it appears to me that we have strayed considerably from our stated purpose of

"This page is for requesting input on possible fringe theories. Post here to seek advice on whether a particular topic is fringe or mainstream, or whether undue weight is being given to fringe theories."

Instead I see a lot of discussion that, in my opinion, belongs on the article talk page or possibly at WP:RSN. In essence, we have become an extension of the article talk page.

You might think "who cares? no harm done", but from a standpoint of attracting new participants a Fringe Theories Noticeboard that has a number of concise and to-the-point sections is a different animal than one that contains a (...opens word count program...) 10,040-word monster.

Comments? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

...and it gets moved / closed without any reply to the above. Not that it shouldn't have been closed, but are we a team working together by consensus or are we a bunch of cowboys doing our own thing while ignoring attempts at discussion? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It was a complicated question and we did our best to consider it and listen to each other. The discussion did bring up more widespread concerns, but I don't think you can diagnose scope creep just from this discussion. I highlighted a general problem with the article, but only because I couldn't decide which way to go on the original question without that being resolved. (Having thought about it a bit more I did work that out separately.) I don't think it is bad practice to point out problems with articles when replying to questions. Quite often we have articles brought to our attention that actually need to be merged, or to go to AfD, or need sourcing, or are incomprehensible - everything really. Pointing those things out is often part of helping editors get to the place they want to be with an article. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that. The question is how to accomplish it without having some noticeboard entries become lengthy extensions of the article talk page. Perhaps pointing out the problems on the article talk page with a link to it on the noticeboard? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I think keeping the majority of discussion on the talk page of articles is preferable. On the other hand analysis of a particular case as it pertains to or illuminates issues frequently dealt with by editors active here can be useful here. I see some vague separation if it is useful in advancing the common approach (precedent) discussion in general should be here, if it is highly specific or deals directly with changes to the content of an article, specifics should be discussed on the article's talk page. I realize there is certainly overlap. I also think as a matter of practice, transparency and adherence to policy if substantial discussion about an article is carried on here a link to the discussion should be posted on the talk page of the article discussed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Not very happy about recent closure of debate

Just to say - I posted this comment far earlier in the debate last night, amongst many other comments by other editors.

When I woke up this morning, it had been moved to start a new section by another editor as if I had posted it as a proposal to resolve the debate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Towards_a_possible_resolution

That was not my intention. And I wake up to find out this huge long discussion of my comment, with no opportunity for me to reply to any of it - as the whole thing has already been closed. And the admin closing the debate says that the proposed theory is established scientific fact. But if you look at the debate, though many editors said this vocally, it was nearly all OR. And a literature search didn't turn up anything that suggested that it was an established scientific fact. The arguments presented against using the source I mentioned as a citation in wikipedia were weak in my opinion - seem mainly based on his religion, that the author, the indologist Edwin Bryant (author) is a Hindu - but I got no chance to reply.

I don't have any particular axe to grind here. I'm a Buddhist and I'm interested in the origin of the culture that the Buddha was born in, but no religious interest in the Vedas as we don't have them. I'm also interested to know why it is that India didn't have writing even as late as the Buddha while they had it much earlier on in the middle East and this debate seems relevant to that question.

Also am preparing a DRN Notice about the author who rewrote this article. In the case of the articles on Buddhism one of his main characteristics is that he chooses a single POV which he presents as "the facts" and does not mention any articles critical of it and does not mention any competing POVs in the article. And also includes unsourced material in his articles. He presents an impressive case for his views which convinces other editors - that is - until you do a literature search and read the citations. Robert Walker (talk) 11:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Edwin Bryant is an expert on Hinduism. As far as I am aware he is not a Hindu (!), but he is, apparently, a practitioner of yoga. As I recall, it was argued by one or more contributors that his expertise is in religion, not in linguistics and archaeology. I've no idea why you think that India having or not having writing later than "the Middle East" is "relevant to the question". Paul B (talk) 12:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Right - but that doesn't prevent him from presenting material on archaeology or linquistics. It's a multidisciplinary debate and nobody will be expert on all the topics. For instance experts on language similarly will not be expert on religion or on archaeology. I've seen no suggestion at all that it is fringe. And his book on this topic has 170 citations in Google scholar, https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cites=15267137824182952891&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en He passes all the criteria for a citation to use in Wikipedia.

The absence of writing - except the enigmatic Indus valley script - is presented in Edwin Bryant's book as one of the reasons given by some authors against the migration hypothesis - why didn't the migrators bring writing with them? Sadly I can't read the book in its entirety online, but he definitely covers this topic.

As for the arguments about his religion, reviewing the discussion I don't think anyone did say that, sorry. As you say, his personal page says he practices yoga and meditation and receives teachings from Hindu teachers, but doesn't say he is Hindu. In any case whether he is Hindu or not, his book doesn't seem at all biased towards the Out of India hypothesis.

Also in the debate I made the comment that his book is from 2004 before the recent advent of low cost easy comprehensive DNA testing as with all the other citations mentioned except the two ones given by Bladesmulti which favoured an Out of India hypothesis. So it would probably be a good idea to consult more recent sources on the topic of DNA sequencing to see if there is an emerging consensus there - but again the debate was closed so I couldn't take that further.

I feel particularly strongly about all this because it was my comment that was moved and used, without my consent, to start this new section, while I was asleep (as I am in the UK on UK time). Robert Walker (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You are not competent to judge whether Bryants book is biased. Neither am I. But other scholars in reviews are. Stephanie Jamison for example has described it as " "a gloss of intellectual legitimacy [...] on what is essentially a religio-nationalistic attack on a scholarly consensus." You also are not competent to asess which significancy if any DNA studies have on this topic, and as long as you rely on Blademsulti's summaries you will be inevitably misled because either he doesnt understand them or he deliberately misrepresents them.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

May I propose a topic-ban? WP:DONTGETIT and WP:COMPETENCE are still friendly qualifications here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I have proposed a topic-ban at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic-ban proposal for Robert Walker. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I have read Bryant's book from, cover to cover, but I admit it was some years ago. I have no memory of his saying that the absense of writing is an argument against migration, not can I understand why or how it would be. I can (just about) see it being used as an argument against OIT (if the "Indigenous Aryans" are presumed to be from the IVC, why didn't they take their script out of India with them?). But since no-one thinks the 'Central Asian Aryans' were literate, I would have thought that the the absence of writing would be consistent with the theory. No-one disputes that Bryant's book is WP:RS. Of course it is. His critics are saying that it should not be treated as authoritative. Reviewers object that he is overly 'even handed' and creates a false impression of the relative validity of differing arguments. The DNA arguments referred to by Bladesmulti do not favour an OIT model, and he tends to quote populist reports in Indian newspapers rather than the actual science. In any case, they claim that there was no influx of definably "Aryan" DNA at the time of the claimed migration. But these arguments also undermine OIT, since they cannot identify DNA markers of bronze age migrations out of India to account for IE in Europe. They are based on the false assumption that there must have been massive population replacement, which need not be the case at all, especially when language is tied to religion. We don't expect there to be 'Arab DNA' in Bangladesh because the country is Muslim. Of course the Bengalis don't speak Arabic, but this is also true of countries that do. See for example a DNA study of Arabic-speaking Egypt, quoted in Population history of Egypt: "We conclude that the Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations. As others have noted, Egyptians are Egyptians, and they were so in the past as well." This is not an argument that there were no invasions or migrations, since there is overwhelming historical evidence that there were. Paul B (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Robert Walker: My apologies for moving your post to a new section, but I believe it was justified because each thread was going all over the place and comments were being inserted in the middle of threads, preventing comprehensibility. The request to close the discussion was given even before your post. So, I don't think you can claim that the issue was closed prematurely. The new issue that you have opened belongs on the article talk page, not here. You are not arguing for any fringe theory issues. The previous fringe theory issue has been closed with a clear cut decision. There is nothing new that you are saying about it here. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. The main issue was not so much the move itself, as that it happened while I was asleep so there was no opportunity at all to respond to any of the replies criticising my comment - and then when I woke up the discussion was closed.

With the close decision, I found out that this is the wrong place to discuss it. So I posted it to the Administers notice board here: Review Closure of debate : Proposed Hypothesis/Theory as fact where it has had two overturn votes and a couple of comments so far. The main issue is that it got closed so quickly, less than 24 hours after it was posted - with citations on both sides of the debate, and without enough time to respond to comments, or for many editors not involved in the debate to find out about it (I would count myself as an uninvolved editor - more like me would be welcome).

With Bladesmulti's arguments yes he quotes newspaper articles - but those articles in turn cite papers in scientific journals and you can then follow those up - which nobody had yet done in the debate. I followed one of them up and I found this article by the same author in 2013: Genetic Evidence for Recent Population Mixture in India. The article is published in the American Journal of Human Genetics and you'd think surely represents at least a valid view on the recent DNA evidence. He says there

"It is also important to emphasize what our study has not shown. Although we have documented evidence for mixture in India between about 1,900 and 4,200 years BP, this does not imply migration from West Eurasia into India during this time. On the contrary, a recent study that searched for West Eurasian groups most closely related to the ANI ancestors of Indians failed to find any evidence for shared ancestry between the ANI and groups in West Eurasia within the past 12,500 years (although it is possible that with further sampling and new methods such relatedness might be detected). An alternative possibility that is also consistent with our data is that the ANI and ASI were both living in or near South Asia for a substantial period prior to their mixture. Such a pattern has been documented elsewhere; for example, ancient DNA studies of northern Europeans have shown that Neolithic farmers originating in Western Asia migrated to Europe about 7,500 years BP but did not mix with local hunter gatherers until thousands of years later to form the present-day populations of northern Europe.

"The most remarkable aspect of the ANI-ASI mixture is how pervasive it was, in the sense that it has left its mark on nearly every group in India. It has affected not just traditionally upper-caste groups, but also traditionally lower-caste and isolated tribal groups, all of whom are united in their history of mixture in the past few thousand years. It may be possible to gain further insight into the history that brought the ANI and ASI together by studying DNA from ancient human remains (such studies need to overcome the challenge of a tropical environment not conducive to DNA preservation). Ancient DNA studies could be particularly revealing about Indian history because they have the potential to directly reveal the geographic distribution of the ANI and ASI prior to their admixture."

Which is reasonably clear that he is not in favour of the mass migration hypothesis but sees it as undecided and with some evidence against it. At least certainly not established as a scientific theory, surely, if someone can say this in a peer reviewed journal. The problem with this debate is that nobody was reading Bladesmulti's sources carefully to check what they said. Please note, I HAVE NOT TAKEN ANY SIDE IN THIS DEBATE, AND I HAVE NOT EDITED WIKIPEDIA ON THE TOPIC. I am just concerned that the latest version of the article seems to present a single POV when the literature to my mind presents many competing hypotheses on the topic. Robert Walker (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

"The close happened while I was asleep". If we waited for everyone to be awake at the same time, nothing would ever close. But you're still not getting the issue--There is no competing hypothesis on this issue. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus and there is a fringe view. Fringe views do not warrant "equal time" in Wikipedia. --Taivo (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Is a difference between a close after say 7 days when everyone has had their say and they are repeating themselves - and a close within 24 hours with a long debate open on a single comment by an author who hasn't had the opportunity to reply to any of it. As for the scientific consensus - that's the very thing to be established. In my literature search so far, in Google scholar, I didn't find any clear evidence at all of a consensus in favour of, or indeed of much support, yet, for the mass migration theory. I found some older papers from around 2008 or earlier, claiming support for the theory. But this is the sort of field that can change rapidly in a few years. We need more recent papers, and the one I just cited says clearly, lthough we have documented evidence for mixture in India between about 1,900 and 4,200 years BP, this does not imply migration from West Eurasia into India during this time. as the authors view. We need more recent citations from the scientific literature on DNA analysis, also more recent survey articles, and it would help also if there are any encyclopedia entries on the topic. It's often not that easy to establish whether a theory is regarded as fringe, but I think a paper published in the American Journal of Human Genetics is unlikely to be seriously fringe, do you not think? Robert Walker (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Robertinventor: I still maintain that this discussion should happen on the article talk page, not here. You are welcome to copy the relevant parts of it to the article talk page and continue the discussion. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree this discussion should be continued elsewhere. As to where, I don't know, will see what happens in the closure discussion. Maybe the discussion here will be re-opened or maybe they will recommend an RfC, hard to tell yet. BTW Joshua Jonathan has proposed that I should be topic banned from all the articles on India, Buddhism or Hinduism partly as a result of my action of participating in this debate. If this goes ahead of course I will no longer be able to take part in the discussion. It also means I have to be very careful about taking any further initiatives myself. Though the last ANI action he took against me ended with no conclusion. Robert Walker (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Robert, I've proposed a topic-ban because you started to canvass other editors in your crusade against me, and used this thread to attack me again:

"Also am preparing a DRN Notice about the author who rewrote this article. In the case of the articles on Buddhism one of his main characteristics is that he chooses a single POV which he presents as "the facts" and does not mention any articles critical of it and does not mention any competing POVs in the article. And also includes unsourced material in his articles. He presents an impressive case for his views which convinces other editors - that is - until you do a literature search and read the citations."

Stop attacking me, and post your DRN - or just stop this nonsense.
Regarding the study you're referring to: I did read about it, as I did read about the other studies, and I do notice some other things than you do. Basically they support the IAMt. See Talk:Indo-Aryan migration theory#Reviewing the Genetics literature. If you want to know more about the topic, start with David Anthony's "The Horse, The Wheel, and Language". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Maps
File:Indo-European migrations v02.02.png Indo-European migrations, according to the IEMt. Spread of the Proto-Indo-European language from the Indus Valley according to Elst.

In 2002 Kazanas was allowed to publish in "The Journal of Indo-European Studies" (the only publication in the JIES by an "infigenist", I guess). Mallory introduced this with an explanation. This is a comment on it by User:Kautilya3 at Talk:Indigenous Aryans#Mallory and Bryant:

I previously gave a weblink to a yahoo groups post [2] for Mallory's editorial note on the Kazanas paper. I now have the source and can confirm that the yahoo groups post is accurate. Curiously, he also quotes a paragraph from Bryant, which seems topical in the light of our recent discussions:

"This does not mean that the Indigenous Aryan position is historically probable. The available evidence by no means denies the normative view—that of external Aryan origins and, if anything, favors it. But this view has had more than its fair share of airing over the last two centuries, and the Indigenous Aryan position has been generally ignored or marginalized. What it does mean, in my view, is that Indigenous Aryanism must be allowed a legitimate and even valuable place in discussions of Indo-Aryan origins."

So the Indo-Aryan migration view is the "normative view." The indigenist view had been "marginalized." So, it should be "allowed" in the debate. It does not mean any acceptance that the indigenist view is "probable." How different this is from what we have been led to believe here, viz., that Bryant has supported the indigenist view and that the migration view has now become a fringe view?

Also found on the same page of Bryant is this sentence:

"Vedantic discourse, for one, would consider nationalism (whether Hindu, American, English, or anything else) to be simply another upadhi, or false designation, imposed on the atman out of ignorance ("Hindu nationalism" from this perspective, is something of an oxymoron)."

It is an upadhi, born out of "ignorance." How enlightening! Kautilya3 (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Mallory introduced Kazanas publication with an explanation, in which he stated:

"Many regard the scholarship of the Indigenous Indo-Aryan camp so seriously flawed that it should not be given an airing [...] I indicated that I thought it would be unlikely that any referee would agree with [Kazanas'] conclusions [...]"

Michael Witzel commented, "It is certain that Kazanas, now that he is published in JIES, will be quoted endlessly by Indian fundamentalists and nationalists as "a respected scholar published in major peer-reviewed journals like JIES" -- no matter how absurd his claims are known to be by specialist readers of those journals. It was through means like these that the misperception has taken root in Indian lay sectors that the historical absurdities of Kak, Frawley, and even Rajaram are taken seriously by academic scholars."

How many more devastating criticisms do we need? (Many, I'm afarid; see also WP:CHEESE). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Joshua I have not canvased any other editors. I defended a newbie editor on Talk:Anatta against your actions of deleting all his edits, 47 edits reverted in 24 hours, I thought appalling way to treat a newbie editor who is doing his first ever major edit of a wikipedia article - and doing so in a subject he can reasonably claim expertise in as he is studying it at masters level. When you gave as your reasons for deleting his content that Bikkhu Biddhu is a Bikkhu scholar rather than a western scholar, even though his books are used as textbooks in Buddhist studies - I told him that this was your personal opinion and subject of a current RfC with equal numbers on both sides and not wikipedia policy.. No way could that be called canvasing. And it is actually not going to help with the DRN at all because I'd ask for a roll back - defending a newbie editor editing your version of the article would of course complicate any attempt at rolling back. I don't see that it helps with the DRN notice at all. Again I don't see why you'd think that my participation in this debate here is canvasing. And it is a topic that interests me, enough for me to take part in. And I think there are issues in the article similar to the ones in the Buddhist articles, that you present a single POV in the lede when even the article itself makes it clear that there are many POVs on the subject and a search of the literature turned up many POVs. And - I am paying attention to your edits of articles in wikipedia for legitimate reasons, in process of preparing a DRN notice. If I then take part in debates or talk page post discussions as a result of that - what guideline is involved? What is your evidence that I am engaging in canvasing? I haven't done anything at all that seems like canvasing to me. Following Kautilya3's advice, I will leave further discussion of the Indo-Aryan migration topic to some other place and time. Robert Walker (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Ages in Chaos

Many apologies, another one. Latest edit POV, OR, etc. Dougweller (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dougweller: Did you mean to post this on the Talk side? - Location (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Ooops. No. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

silliness update

several years ago someone developed a userbox for fringe theory devotees.

This user saw Bigfoot and a Mokele-mbembe cured by Magnet therapy at a Reportedly haunted location while debating Climate change denial with a UFO piloted by an Aquatic ape at the Fringe theories Noticeboard.

Please use at your leisure. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

edit for tidiness. I know this is kludgy, but I can't read the next topic without getting my doggy mind all confuseled. Roxy the dog™ (Talk to the dog who doesn't know when her owner is coming home) 07:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

LOL. That joke infobox was made several years ago when those items were hot topics on FTN. Maybe it should be updated (which I did). - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Starchild skull

I honestly don't get the idea that the best way to handle an article where over 2/3rds of talk page threads are objectively unhelpful is to mmake sure that the talk page threads linger for years, but McGeddon likes it that way. Expect a huge mess there. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, this doesn't need a noticeboard thread. Or hyperbole. VQuakr (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. This is a trivial matter that can be easily be worked out on the talk page.- MrX 19:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

A Master List of Articles Frequently Subject to Pro-Fringe Editing?

Question: Should we create a master list as a subpage of this noticeboard on which to list articles that are frequently the object of problematic editing involving the promotion of Fringe Theories? It could be a reference for editors who want to help out in the fight against POV pushing. We could track edits on the articles and if so inclined editors could add some of the articles to their own watchlist. I think we could all rattle off a short (or long) list of articles that are frequent targets of this kind of editing and that could use some extra eyes. Just a thought. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

I often include such articles in WP:WikiProject Skepticism. That provides a means of identifying them for the community. There' some good stuff at that WikiProject, but it seems a bit quiet. Alexbrn (talk) 04:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Ad Orientem: I don't think you necessarily need agreement from anyone for this. I would just write it, and if editors find it useful, they'll cite it in discussions. If there are objections, it could always be changed to an essay, or you could decide to write it as an essay in the first place. Sunrise (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, just create it as an essay. Maybe WP:The usual fringe suspects, shortcut WP:TUFS? VQuakr (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

If there is development of some sort of master "watchlist", consider adding various categories as well as Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Conspiracy theories and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Paranormal. - Location (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm dubious, as I think that the better approach would be to just tag the article for wikiproject skepticism or something. We also already have List of topics characterized as pseudoscience out there anyway. Montanabw^(talk) 20:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paper Abortion

May be of interest. Jytdog (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I think a highly discussed topic in Denmark and Sweden was supposed to say, "a highly discussed topic on /r/european." Ugh. Idk if there are other redditors here who know what I'm talking about, but as much as I probably think that article should be deleted based on the title, I had to close it. Can't contribute. PermStrump(talk) 11:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

A template for scientifically unsupported healing modalities?

I was looking at various fringe articles on vaguely medical topics, and noticed that we have a wide variety of ways of saying "this modality is not supported by any scientific evidence". For example, in Aromatherapy we have the rather vaguely worded:

_{It can be offered as a complementary therapy or, more controversially, as form of alternative medicine. Complementary therapy can be offered alongside standard treatment,[2] with alternative medicine offered 'instead of conventional treatments', conventional treatments being often scientifically proven.}.

In Myofacial Release we have the much clearer:

_{The use of myofascial release as a treatment is not supported by good evidence, and using it as a replacement for conventional treatment risks causing harm}

Meanwhile Moreman Therapy gets directly and specifcally to the point:

_{there is no evidence of its worth as a cancer treatment}

My concern is that we have lots of different ways of saying essentially the same things, and not every expression of the sentiment puts it well. For me the most fundamental points I'd want to get across are:

• This modality is not based in scientific research
• It has not been shown to be effective against any disease including /cancer|aids|etc/
• It may be offered as a complimentary therapy but can be dangerous if used as a substitute for conventional treatment.

Could we make a template that expresses these ideas in a way that is compact enough to fit into an article's lead section? --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a tricky topic and I did raise it at WT:MED once (see here for the discussion). As an illustration of how tricky it is, this very question of is being discussed at both Deepak Chopra (is ayurveda effective?) and Anthroposophic medicine (is mistletoe therapy effective?) right now. I think it'd be hard to have a formal template - part of the problem is that the language of EBM needs to be translated into lay terms, and fringe-povsters often like the verbatim statement from a medical source as it sounds hopeful to the ininitiated, the classic case being wanting to say "researchers said further study was necessary" (which of course they nearly always do - it means please extend my funding!).

An interesting insight into this need for "translation" is given in this post by Edzard Ernst about Craniosacral therapy, where he translated these words from one of his own papers "the notion that CST is associated with more than non-specific effects is not based on evidence from rigorous randomised clinical trials" into "CST is bogus". Alexbrn (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to see something with that level of clarity! --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that standardized wording is a good approach. We need to cover a wide variety of situations. Consider these:

• "no evidence either way"
• "no good evidence either way"
• "no good evidence either way, but experts say that it sounds scientifically plausible" (e.g., most conventional treatments for rare diseases or rare combinations of diseases)
• "no good evidence either way, but experts say that it sounds scientifically implausible"
• "no good evidence either way, but proper trials are underway" (e.g., most conventional drugs under development)
• "weak evidence on both sides"
• "weak evidence for, and no evidence against" (e.g., most poorly studied treatments)
• "weak evidence for efficacy, and good evidence that it's harmless" (e.g., most kinds of massage)
• "some evidence against efficacy, but no evidence that it's harmful" (e.g., telling patients not to drink any water at all for 12 hours before surgery)
• "some evidence for efficacy in X, but no evidence for efficacy in Y"
• "weak evidence against efficacy, but experts say that it sounds plausible"
• "weak evidence against efficacy, and experts say that it sounds implausible"
• "evidence against efficacy and safety" (e.g., withholding food from patients after abdominal surgery)
• "strong evidence against efficacy, but experts say that it sounds plausible" (e.g., conventional arthroscopic knee surgeries)
• "strong evidence against efficacy, and experts say that it sounds implausible" (e.g., homeopathy)

I don't think that it's possible to create a standardized sentence that covers all of these situations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we are thinking too broadly. Might we be able to make a template that works in a narrower ser of circumstances - I'm thinking of things that are either implausible or proven not to work. It wouldn't have to be a single sentence - perhaps we might use a template that has only enough variability in it. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you have the right general idea, but perhaps a scale, sort of like the quality scale we use to asses article quality for wikiprojects; here maybe a 1-10 scale, using the concepts you have above. (Perhaps adding, "no evidence of efficacy and evidence that it is harmful"!) I also disfavor the imprecise phase "no good evidence", as that is wording that triggers tendentious discussions. I think scientific evidence (which is a term of art with definitions in law) or empirical evidence are better, more precise choices. Montanabw^(talk) 20:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I think WP:Lunatic charlatans is a useful guide, give the whackos not a shred more credence than they objectively deserve. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe templates would be too limiting with all of the nuance, but it would be cool to start a list with well-phrased statements like that, so when someone comes across an article where it's awkwardly worded like in aromatherapy, they can find a quick list of ways other people have phrased it that they can adapt to individual articles and available sources/other active editors. PermStrump(talk) 11:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Pseudoscience in Wikipedia's Folklore Coverage

As some of you are aware, we've had a major problem with pseudoscience in our folklore-related articles for a long time now. I've been pushing back on this for some time, and I've put together an article reflecting what I've been seeing. I welcome feedback and input going forward. You can view the writeup here. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Related, please see discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Standard_for_sourcing_for_cryptozoology_terms. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Typo?

From the noticeboard header: Discussions related to fringe theories may also be posted here, with an emphasis on material that can be useful for creating new articles of improving existing articles that relate to fringe theories. Shouldn't that read, "...for creating new articles or improving existing articles..."? - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I would have thought so.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Amusingly, I corrected that before I saw this, because I noticed it in my quote. --tronvillain (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed change to the instructions at the top of this page.

The consensus is clearly against this proposal. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I propose that we add the following to the the instructions at the top of this page: "While discussing the behavior of editors on other pages is allowed if it is directly related to a fringe theory, in general, complaints about the behavior of editors on the fringe theories noticeboard should be posted to their talk pages, or in extreme case to WP:ANI." --Guy Macon (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC) Support as proponent. We have forums for discussing user behavior. We should use them and keep our focus here on fringe theories. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC) As something about the nuts and bolts of the noticeboard, isn't this really better discussed on the noticeboard's Talk page? (I say this out of consistency, having recently advised another editor to do the same with their discussion of the functioning of the board.) Agricolae (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2019 (UTC) Good point. Moved. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC) Although I would probably word it differently, I agree with the idea. This noticeboard is for talking about content, not behavior... edits, not editors. Blueboar (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC) Seems reasonable to me. Guy (help!) 00:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC) Support. Looks like the Guys have it. CThomas3 (talk) 01:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC) Support, would prefer ...in cases where Administrator intervention <may be/is> required to WP:ANI. or similar. - Ryk72 talk 02:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC) Oppose only on the basis of necessity (as in, there is a distinct lack of such). There in nothing wrong with this proposal except that it shouldn't need to be made at all. Rewriting prominent page instructions because one editor got a bee in their bonnet over one post is usually a bad idea. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC) Oppose per Eggishorn. There are a lot of noticeboards and there is no need to expand their banners to spell out everything that is desirable. At any rate, some text at the top of the page cannot define a policy that limits what editors can write on the page—it's standard procedure (backed by a possible ANI report) that provides limits. Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC) Oppose as WP:CREEP. I can't see any benefit to this, but can imagine it creating space for procedural shenanigans (i.e. would the apparent socks here[3] object that they weren't "notified" if sanctions were proposed against them?) Alexbrn (talk) 06:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC) Clearly my wording is vague and/or incorrect, as evidenced by at least one person completely missing the meaning. I did not intend to create any sort of notification requirement. What I was trying to convey is that right now person A posts something on the noticeboard, person B complains about what person A wrote -- again posting on the noticeboard -- and we are once again off to the races. Can you think of any way -- any way at all -- that we can encourage such back and forth accusation/defense/accusation/defense threads to happen somewhere more appropriate where they don't clutter a noticeboard that is supposed to be dedicated to fringe theories and not to general arguments about how people should behave? We would of course still want to leave open the option to discuss behavior that is happening on pages about fringe theories. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC) This is an area where content issues are closely related to behavior issues and advocacy, so I'm not sure if there should be a clear delineation between the two for this board (unlike RSN, etc.). I won't flat out oppose the change, but I also thought the current text of the board was fine too, so I'm not really sure what a better option is here right now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC) Oppose I dont do off-wiki comms, we need a place where we can talk about trolls etc without having to notify. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 09:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC) Oppose a very weird proposal. I agree that discussions on editor behaviour generally belong at editor talk pages or ANI or AN. But this applies to all discussions on editor behaviour. There's no reason why it's more acceptable to discuss the behaviour of an editor in an article here than it is to discuss the behaviour of an editor on this notice board. If anything it's often slightly more acceptable to discuss editor behaviour on this board here since we allow such nominally offtopic posts but it's generally more acceptable when they arise organically. So just like discussion of editor behaviour on an article talk page is off-topic, there's some limited acceptance when it arises out of the article or talk page, but it's far less acceptable to bring up whatever wrongs they may have done elsewhere; here too discussion of editor behaviour which arose out of something which was discussed here may be acceptable within strong limits. But opening a thread focused on an editor's behaviour instead of the content issues their behaviour is causing, far less so. Yet this proposal suggests the opposite. Nil Einne (talk) 06:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC) To give a specific made up example of why this proposal is so weird, according to it an editor A could open a thread where the only thing they mention is that editor X is socking to promote pseudoscience (with no mention of any articles whatsoever). Editor X could arguably not then respond that editor A first tried this at various article talk pages, WP:RSN, and WP:ORN and were told to bring it to WP:SPI each time so is clearly WP:FORUMSHOPPING. They definitely could not do so if their comment is something like "various article talk pages, WP:RSN, and WP:ORN and were told to bring it to WP:SPI each time and have now brought it here to FTN, so are clearly WP:FORUMSHOPPING" since in that case they've clearly brought up an editor's behaviour on the FTN, a supposed no-no. In what world does that make sense? Yes this may be an extreme made up example, but it IMO well illustrates the problem of trying to regulate discussion in such a weird way. Nil Einne (talk) 07:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Race and Intelligence and SPAs

Curious as to why users are being labeled as SPAs without cause. There are now four editors who hav e had the tag added to their signature - only one of them could possibly be defined as an SPA according to WP policy. When I attempted to remove a tag (which had been placed contrary to policy) I was reverted and the article was then locked down to ip editors for literally no discernible reason. Coincidentally, all the editors tagged as an SPA just happened to vote “no” on what should be a fairly uncontroversial RFC. However some of the “yes” voters seem to take personal offense to the topic instead of working cooperatively. Our readers deserve access to relevant data and reliable sources in an unbiased manner. Instead, mainstream, reliably science is being decried as “fringe” by a vocal minority who fears the political ramifications of some of these theories. What gives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B01E:1E68:901A:F290:2F24:7780 (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you User:JzG for removing page protection. 2600:1012:B009:B8C7:B91D:A6C2:405C:8300 (talk) 03:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Completely bogus removal

Completely bogus removal:[4]

WP:COPYVIOEL says:

"External links to websites that display copyrighted works are acceptable as long as the website is manifestly run, maintained or owned by the copyright owner; the website has licensed the work from the owner; or it uses the work in a way compliant with fair use."

The removed link to [Still Alive - Frank Sinatra Big Band Swing Version (The 8-Bit Big Band)] is to a YouTube video copyright 8-Bit Big Band and the video is on the official 8-Bit Big Band YouTube channel.[5] Clearly they own the work and this is not a case of someone stealing the work of another and posting it on YouTube.

As for the legality of releasing a cover version of a composition copyrighted to a video game maker, as it says at Cover version#U.S. copyright law, "Since the Copyright Act of 1909, United States musicians have had the right to record a version of someone else's previously recorded and released tune, whether it is music alone or music with lyrics... a composer cannot deny anyone a mechanical license for a new recorded version."

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Another bogus removal:[6]

Valve Corporation, like pretty much every modern publisher of video games, encourages users to post clips from games on YouTube. They even publish a free tool, Source Filmmaker (SFM), that makes it easy to capture anything from their games in the format that YouTube likes. They are in the business of selling video games, not video clips from their video games, and the publicity drives sales.

"We encourage our users to make videos using Valve game content, such as playthrough or instruction videos or SFM movies. We are fine with publishing these videos to your website or YouTube or similar video sharing services."

"You are free to monetize your videos via the YouTube partner program and similar programs on other video sharing sites. Please don't ask us to write YouTube and tell them its fine with us to post a particular video using Valve content. It's not possible to respond to each such request. Point them to this page."

"The Source Filmmaker (SFM) is the movie-making tool built and used by us here at Valve to make movies inside the Source game engine. Because the SFM uses the same assets as the game, anything that exists in the game can be used in the movie, and vice versa." Sources:[7][8]

--Guy Macon (talk) 05:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Is this relevant to this board? Maybe try WP:ANI? jps (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

One can only hope that if we have a problem with a particular editor deleting other editors' posts on the fringe theories noticeboard we can deal with it the way we deal with most disruption; by reverting. What is relevant to this board is letting people on this board know that when they see that particular editor deleting someone else's comments with an edit summary claiming copyright violation, they should look at the deleted edit instead of just assuming that the copyright violation actually exists. This gentler path seems to me to be superior to dragging the editor over to ANI to be beat over the head with the banhammer. Alas, there is no way to take this gentler path without discussing why the removals were bogus. Those who are not interested are free to stop reading posts to this section. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, but perhaps this should be moved to Wikipedia Talk:Fringe theories/Noticeboard where more meta-matters tend to be hosted. jps (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Good idea. Done. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Is there a Wikiproject related to conspiracy theories, para-science and topics related to FTN?

Much of my editing and interest is related to the kind of junk science that we deal with every day on the WP:FTN. As we know, not all articles about bogus subjects are themselves bogus. There is room for sober discussion of topics such as UFOs and conspiracies. Is there a wikiproject that might act as a focus for constructive editing about these kinds of parascientific topics? --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative views | Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology | Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism | Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal. Try these. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 04:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

There is also Guerilla Skeptics (see Susan Gerbic), but that's off-wiki, in some social network or other. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Not to mention the WP:CABAL. I think you're suitable; join us - the pay is unbelievable! (Seriously I think FT/N is the best place for such discussions because of its wider readership. Discussion doesn't have to focus on pushback, but it does just because that is the reality of what happens when an enyclopedia "anyone can edit" has limited numbers of good editors for stewardship.) Alexbrn (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

There Is No Cabal (TINC). We discussed this at the last cabal meeting, and everyone agreed that there is no cabal. An announcement was made in Cabalist: The Official Newsletter of The Cabal making it clear that there is no cabal. The words "There Is No Cabal" are in ten-foot letters on the side of the International Cabal Headquarters, and an announcement that there is no cabal is shown at the start of every program on the Cabal Network. If that doesn't convince people that there is no cabal, I don't know what will. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Attempts to add fringe theories at Black Indians in the United States

Pre-Columbian Black Indians - The term Black Indian may also refer to pre-Columbian black peoples in the United States, as well as elsewhere in North, Central, and South America. There are historical reports of black indigenous Americans, and many scholars have asserted that black populations existed in the Americas at and/or prior to European contact.

Either unsourced or sourced to non-RS sources for the field. This is a fringe theory usually promoted by anti-Indigenous groups who then characterize Native Americans as Asian. I haven't gone over all the "sources" being cited yet, but no reputable scholars believe this stuff, and it has been wielded by certain groups with harmful intent. User is quacking a bit so this may need SPI, as well. Just getting on it after a complaint. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

That language is substantively similar to language recently added to African Americans in this series of edits by a "different" user. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mcelite. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Shilajit

I would think needs attention. Health claims without actually telling us what the stuff is. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)