Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the fringe theories noticeboard
This page is for discussing possible fringe theories. Post here to seek advice on whether a particular topic is fringe or mainstream, whether there may be problematic promotion of fringe theories, or whether undue weight is being given to fringe theories.
  • Discussions related to fringe theories may also be posted here, with an emphasis on material that can be useful for creating new articles or improving existing articles that relate to fringe theories.
  • The purpose of this board is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but rather to ensure that neutrality and accuracy are maintained.
  • Familiarize yourself with the fringe theories guideline before reporting issues here.
  • To aid in promoting constructive dialogue with advocates of a fringe theory, {{talk fringe|fringe theory name}} may be added to the top of the corresponding talk page.
Sections older than 20 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so.

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

  • If your question regards whether material constitutes original research or original synthesis, please use the no original research noticeboard instead.
  • Discussion of fringe theories will depend entirely on their notability and reliable coverage in popular media. Above all, fringe theories should never be presented as fact.
  • Volunteers: To mark a discussion resolved, place {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Article alerts


Today's featured articles

Articles for deletion

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Requests for comments

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split


Jonathan Bernier[edit]

I take issue with some recent edits by Special:Contributions/Formcriticism. They seem to promote very early dating for NT writings, especially based upon a WP:PROFRINGE book by a certain Jonathan Bernier. I mean: from the title of his book it is patently obvious that he does not like the mainstream consensus.

At amazon.com he boasts an endorsement of his book by Pitre, but an endorsement by Pitre is nothing to be proud of, since Pitre is an apologist of fundamentalism rather than a real scholar. It's a free country, and if he does not want to obey the requirements of the historical method, no one can force him to do that. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: The book also boasts an endorsement by Anders Runesson, who is a member of the Faculty of Theology at the University of Oslo [1]. Are you going to disqualify him as an evil fundamentalist too? Potatín5 (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Too lazy to Google Anders Runesson. But, anyway, people do not have to be evil to hold WP:FRINGE beliefs. In certain churches fringe beliefs are encouraged and applauded.
To tell you the truth, the historical method and archaeology are backstabbing traditional (conservative) Christianity. Christian traditionalists will dance around this truth, nevertheless it is true: history and archaeology are the enemies of traditional Christianity. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Too lazy to Google Anders Runesson" is a pretty hilarious comment from someone who has disqualify Bernier's book just after seeing in Amazon that he has boasted an endorsement by Pitre. The same follows with your disqualication of Runesson: unless you can demostrate that he is a member of a fundamentalist Church and not a trained New Testament scholar then your claims say little to the truth Potatín5 (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not denying that he is a trained New Testament scholar. Even trained New Testament scholars could support views which fail WP:DUE. In the end, Wikipedia is mainstream encyclopedia, heavily based upon mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Other views are free to exist, just it isn't our job to publish them. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By that logic then we should remove references to scholars who hold an Hellenistic date for the Pentateuch since the mainstream consensus is that said Pentateuch reached its final redaction during the Persian period (and based on earlier sources). But our article on the Composition of the Torah does not seem to have any problem in presenting such minority view... Potatín5 (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the end, i feel kind of sorry for faithful believers, but Wikipedia has to render mainstream scholarship instead of trying to make everyone happy. Do Britannica or Larousse do otherwise? And that article is not endorsing the minority view, just reporting that some have that view. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"And that article is not endorsing the minority view, just reporting that some have that view" Then we can do the same in the article on the date of the New Testament and report that some have the view that the NT books were written at an early date. Potatín5 (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Generally speaking, I don't go into attack mode if the text has enough nuance in respect to WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE. There is a difference between rendering the views of scholarly minorities for what they are and aggrandizing minority views. While I can tolerate a brief mention, I won't tolerate that the scholarly minority view gets more space than the academic consensus. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Are there any reviews of the book, or is any other scholarship citing it? Is there any evidence that it's claims are noteworthy? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At least James F. McGrath has made a positive review of the book in his blog [1]. Potatín5 (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Potatín5 have you read no personal attacks? Doug Weller talk 08:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have I insulted or threatened tgeorgescu at any point during the discussion? I deny ever doing that. Potatín5 (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You certainly demonstrated a lack of good faith, but maybe you got carried away. Doug Weller talk 12:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A single book that claims to be a "paradigm shift" on such a well discussed issue as the dating of the books of the New Testament is clearly undue. Wikipedia should be attempting assess the consensus of the academic literature, not cherry picking sources with minority views that contradict it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Paradigms have huge inertia and cannot be shifted by a single person just by claiming to have done it. (How did that go? "Brother, can youse paradigm?") --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It also has an endorsement from James F. McGrath.[1] StAnselm (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Besides, Bernier is not even a full professor (correct me if I am wrong). So, if you mean that he did change the paradigm but did not even get a full professorship, you're clutching at straws. There is no indication that his attempts to redate the NT writings have been accepted by WP:CHOPSY.
McGrath said "With careful attention to the evidence for each work, Bernier makes a strong case for dates that are often earlier than the scholarly consensus." So, this renders Bernier's position in respect to the scholarly consensus. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. Mentioned it on the Gospel talk page. While I think tgeorgescu is being rather fiery on the topic, I am inclined to agree that Jonathan Bernier does not appear to be a particularly impressive source (nor is Brant Pitre). It's not so much that he's an apologist for fundamentalism or something, just that he's a random assistant professor at a not particularly distinguished university. The New Testament is quite possibly the single most deeply covered topic in all literature, with people spending their entire careers on just one book of it, and over a century worth of material since the "modern" dating and its arguments came to the fore in the late 1800s and early 1900s. I'm not opposed to including a "traditionalist" view (with the proper WP:DUEWEIGHT, i.e., acknowledging it's a minority of modern scholars and not subtly phrasing everything in favor of it), but surely, surely better sources can be found. If editors want to include more on the traditionalist view, cite the actual respectable traditionalist heavyweights who acknowledge the issues and their explanations for them, not Bernier. SnowFire (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is Genesis History?[edit]

Are the theocratic developments oozing from SCOTUS encouraging fundies to come out of the woodwork and turn out alternative facts everywhere now? --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That movie, and the article, appeared 5 years ago. I don't see how either the film or the Wikipedia article have anything to do with theocratic fulminations from SCOTUS. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the above comment missed this diff as the concern relevant to this noticeboard. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The larger problem is that the source is a guest blog post by someone without a salient degree who doesn't actually say what they're being cited for. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here are some better sources, "They only tangentially addressed the elephant in the room, that conventional science has overwhelmingly concluded that the Big Bang and evolution are real, and a 6000-year-old earth and global flood and the rest of the Bible’s “history” are not.", "Unfortunately, the narrative that accompanied the rich display of God’s amazing creation fell far short of reflecting what we actually find revealed in nature.", "As I explain below, I must dissent from my role in the production.". These are much higher quality sources than a guest blogger with no expertise on a blog, and directly attack the correctness of the movie. Also, one of the scientists in it spoke out against the portrayal in the movie. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article has always had some problems, and frankly should've been deleted last time around at AfD. The coverage is basically advocacy in religious publications, a couple interviews with people associated with the film, and local "this movie will be shown on Thursday; here's the summary" bits and pieces. No mainstream film reviews/criticism to be found. As I said back then, we should either treat it as a film and use real reviews from real film critics (there are none), or we treat it as a piece of creationist apologetics and use WP:FRINGE guidelines for sources (which results in pulling in some marginal sources to get past FRIND). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know, the article reads okay to me. Other than serving as a honeypot that we have to watch, does anyone see any problems with it as is? jps (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I mentioned above, the source cited for the pseudoscience label may as well not be there because it doesn't support it, and it's written by a first time guest blogger without any sort of expertise on an already non-RS. There are a few decent quality sources (which I also put above) that can be used to state that the premise of the movie is false, and also provide critical reception. The article is also missing information on how one of the scientists in the movie wanted the final cut revised. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Looking through the history, the claim in the lead was originally sourced to this, this and this source. They were removed under the pretense that they don't address the film specifically, and as such, cannot be used in this article (example). However, as the film openly supports creationism, I personally find it ridiculous to suggest that sources discussing creationism shouldn't be used in the article. The claim that the film discusses creationism, and the claim that creationism is a pseudoscience are both true and both verifiable. And of course, they are not the same claim. A source that supports one doesn't necessarily need to support the other. Happy (Slap me) 16:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Or we could cite this and just call it false, and not have to worry about WP:SYNTH concerns, instead of using an incredibly bad source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    See my comment about finding it ridiculous that we can't use such sources. Any expressed concerns about WP:SYNTH that arise from us saying "this film is about creationism,[source] which is a pseudoscience.[source]" are either ignorant of the policy on a fundamental level or downright dishonest. Simply putting two claims into the same sentence doesn't make them one claim, after all.
    I think the only problem right now is that there's nowhere in the body to go over the content of the film and include those statements and sources, so as to then support the lead section. If there's not enough sources to build such a section in the article, then I'm fine with dumping whatever number of sources into the lead section to support the statements. It certainly reads very accurate, as it is. The only problem is, as you've pointed out, the sourcing on that claim. Happy (Slap me) 21:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here is a source by a professional geologist (notable enough to have a wiki biography: Lorence G. Collins) which explicitly calls the film's content "pseudoscience". See the last paragraph, e.g. jps (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem is that it's a self published open letter. Is there really any objection to (change in bold) Is Genesis History? is a 2017 American Christian film by Thomas Purifoy Jr. that promotes the false notion of Young Earth creationism, a form of creation science built on beliefs that contradict established scientific facts regarding the origin of the Universe, the age of the Earth and universe, the origin of the Solar System, and the origin and evolution of life. with [2] and [3] as sources? They're not the best sources, but they're not self published or blogs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why is the open-letter style a problem? The fact that it is self-published seems fine to me given that the author is an expert. After all, there is no third-party venue that would want to publish a take-down of this film. See WP:PARITY, e.g. jps (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've linked to three non-self published sources above, although one is the objections of one of the people in the film, rather than the take-down the other two are. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The three sources that are non-self-published are rather less impressive in their analysis than this one. Two of them are to rather problematic outfits (biologos and the discovery institute, fer goodness sake)! It's a question of genre. Collins is writing a specific take-down of pseudoscience while the other sources are a bit more popular-level or explicitly within the religious milieu. Since Collins is a great source for debunking creationism, I don't understand your hesitation to use the source. jps (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because it's still an apparently unpublished open letter stashed away on someone's private web space, unlinked to from the index. The BioLogos source is written by three professors, is not self published and has editorial oversight. Seems like an objectively better source to use. That said, either the source you provided or the ones I provided are dramatically better than what's being used now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the concern is about it being stashed on someone's private web space, it's also uploaded to ResearchGate [4]. jps (talk) 00:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doesn't make it any less self published. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stop fetishizing the means by which something is published. What matters is the reliability of the source, not the publishing. When an expert self-publishes about a topic, it is the equivalent of getting an interview with the expert about the topic. jps (talk) 10:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, self-pub doesn't matter in a case like this, but couldn't we use both that and the published sources? Certainly it should be clearly debunked, esp. if there's a sequel coming out this year. Also, there seems to be a lot of trivia in the release history, as if trying to promote the importance of the film. — kwami (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm all for using as many sources as possible. The reason Collins' monograph might be useful, however, is that he explicitly identifies the subject material of the film as pseudoscience. There were those arguing that we did not have a source that said that. jps (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is literally enshrined in policy, at WP:SELFPUB. Happy (Slap me) 12:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't really care about this that much, which is why I haven't edited the article, but we're talking about using a self published source by someone with an h-index of 4 and a 138 citations rather than a source by co-authored by someone with an h-index of 11 and 541 citations and someone with an h-index of 21 and 2259 citations which was published in an independent source with editorial oversight. WP:SELFPUB says exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. I don't even care about the pseudoscience label, which is why I haven't removed it, I just don't know why we're looking at using a self-published open letter from someone with no impact and almost no publications over a secondary source co-written by authors which much higher impact, more publications and more citations. That is the someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources that WP:SELFPUB is talking about. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just don't know why we're looking at using a self-published open letter from someone with no impact and almost no publications over a secondary source co-written by authors which much higher impact, more publications and more citations.
We're not. jps and I are both opining that this source is perfectly useable for this purpose, and you seem to be pushing back on that, despite the fact that this source's usefulness in this case is literally spelled out explicitly in policy.
I think there is an element of us talking past each other, here. See jps's comment to kwami about being in favor of using all fours suggested sources. I too, am perfectly on board with using all four sources. Happy (Slap me) 14:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hugh Ross (astrophysicist)[edit]

Please see latest edits. Thanks Doug Weller talk 19:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And Talk:Stephen C. Meyer - the thread at the bottom about the talk page. Doug Weller talk 19:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And Mitochondrial Eve. And the Genesis section from above. We have a user on a mission. --mfb (talk) 06:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not the first time. Maybe, however, we should let him know that his WP:ADVOCACY is being discussed here. jps (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. Doug Weller talk 11:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh hell. I've told them, but on their talk page I found "Discretionary sanction is a restriction placed on a Wikipedia editor who is found not to subscribe to leftist thought and ideology Lightest (talk) 7:06 pm, 15 July 2022, " Doug Weller talk 12:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's cool. I mean, people can believe and argue whatever they want on the talkpages, I guess. What I think is a problem is when they become WP:WikiDragons who start to impose novel editorial philosophies in articlespace that contravene things like WP:ENC and WP:NOT. jps (talk) 12:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See this about Bigfoot investigator David Paulides[edit]

WP:RSN# Violation of Biography of a Living Person Guidelines. Doubt it’s going anywhere but a bit amusing. Doug Weller talk 19:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wonder whether this person is notable enough for a biography. There does not seem to be a whole lot of mainstream coverage of him. The fact that the best sources that seem to exist about his ideas are in the form of a podcast gives me pause as to whether Wikipedia is equipped to host a biography of this person. jps (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd suggest the best sources on the article are Vice, HuffPo, and Mercury News. Not sure on full deletion, but it does look like it has more coverage than his notability warrants. Though this is something of an issue with Fringe topics, hard to give enough context to be neutral without also having quantity of text. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vice is dodgy at best for BLPs, and that's probably the best here. The Huffpo article is a blog by a "UFO content producer", and the Mercury News piece is about an accusation with no resolution that wasn't covered anywhere else, so if those are the best we can do we probably can't produce a good article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair, all good catches. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Missing 411 might be a more notable topic and easier to write as an article. Could we perhaps write that one instead and redirect? jps (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's still pretty fringy. He implies that many of the disappearances are paranormal. Likely BigFoot. ApLundell (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Definitely fringe-y, but arguably the subject of more reliable sources that the person himself: [5]. I don't know, I'm just trying to think of alternatives here. jps (talk) 18:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was about to suggest that an article on "Missing 411" might be more warranted than an article on Paulides, given the comparative thinness of the biographical background material. XOR'easter (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I looked in NewspaperArchive (via Wikimedia Library) and found an additional source providing significant coverage of Paulides' involvement in Bigfoot investigations. I agree, however, that recasting the article about Missing 411 would be better than a biography, of which scant information is available. Most of the article is about Paulides' claims, not his life. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Roy Spencer (meteorologist)[edit]

IP is insistent that ID should not be called pseudoscience. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Frankly, given the complete lack of context, I'm not sure that the IP's objections are entirely invalid. Context-free sentences like "In TCS Daily, Spencer embraced the pseudoscience of intelligent design", sourced only to TSC Daily itself don't belong in a biography. If Spencer's views on Intelligent Design are relevant to his biography, demonstrate it through content cited to independent WP:RS.
Biographies are not galleries of shame. Even for people we don't like. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed that bibliographies are not properly galleries of shame, but in this case Roy Spencer is pretty well-known for his embrace of intelligent design. It's not just a private religious matter or anything like that. Take a quick Google search and you can find a few sources which show this. I think the thing to do here is improve the sourcing. jps (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Improve the sourcing, and then improve the writing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've tried to improve the sourcing and the writing in that section of the article. That section is now dominated by Spencer's own written statements on the topic, so I believe it is WP:DUE. Based on his writings it seems that none of this content would bring Spencer any "shame." Just the opposite. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And "the opposite of shame" is a good thing in a page about a fringe proponent? I think WP:FRINGE says it is not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, we should shame this monstrosity. All they've done is *checks notes* been the principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. What kind of scientist does he think he is?!?? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?" There are aspects of Roy Spencer's work that are mainstream and process science, no doubt. But to ignore his profound rejection of the conclusions of most of the scientific community in matters of global warming predictions, abiogenesis, and cosmology is to do a disservice to the reader: [6]. jps (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, which is why it's covered extensively in the article. Writing in a neutral manner, rather than aiming for "shame" isn't a bad thing, however. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are using a strawman here. I did not say we should shame him, I said we should not do the opposite, that is, not quote his opinions extensively. we should be trying to shame someone, as Hob Gadling said is thoroughly false. I really dislike strawmen and people who use them, and this is not the first time you are doing this. I don't expect you to retract this, because last time you didn't either. My opinion of you is steadily getting worse and worse. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That a 'card-carrying' scientist repeatedly self-identifies as a fringe proponent violates WP:FRINGE? Look, please remove the damn content if it is so egregious. I care insufficiently about this article and the article subject to edit war over it. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're doing good work, JoJo Anthrax. Don't let the caustic environment of this website get you down. jps (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Like I said below, your work is a definite improvement. What I'm objecting to is that we should be trying to shame someone, as Hob Gadling said. It looks like the climate change section covers that pretty well, although I'm a bit surprised there is nothing in the lead that covers his non-consensus hypothesis that it's cloud cover variation rather than human made co2 causing global warming, since that seems to be what most of the coverage about him deals with. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's certainly an improvement. Secondary sources would be nice, because I'm always uncomfortable picking out a bunch of a BLP subject's quotes, but if that's what we have, that's what we have. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it's not. Wikipedia should not give him a megaphone for his outsider views on biology or climatology. That's how we handle it with other fringe proponents: it's better to just say where he stands than help him proselytize.
WP:FRIND says, Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. What happened to this board? Did everybody get replaced by pod people? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we all agree that third-party sources are much preferred. jps (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But we do not seem to agree that Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. Some users here want to give them space. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And when it's brought up in multiple secondary sources ([7][8][9][10][11]) perhaps it's worth expanding a bit using WP:ABOUTSELF?. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Points that are not discussed in independent sources obviously means that we have to actually use those multiple secondary sources. If we just repeat the misinformation fringe proponents spout without adding any mainstream refutation, Wikipedia becomes a vehicle for fringe views.
See WP:PROFRINGE: The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. However, it also requires that they not be given undue weight. A conjecture that has not received critical review from the scientific community or that has been rejected may be included in an article about a scientific subject only if other high-quality reliable sources discuss it as an alternative position.
Some people here seem to think that claims may be included even if they have been rejected, in direct contradiction to that.
Regarding WP:ABOUTSELF, that page uses the conditions: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves [..] so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; [..] and the article is not based primarily on such sources.
Spencer's claims we quote are exceptional, starting with "evolution is a religion" and ending with "global warming is just hysteria". And although the article may not be based on questionable sources as a whole, the sections on Spencer's anti-science beliefs are just his own mouthpiece.
Usually, when I am swamped by users who want to include unrefuted fringe propaganda in Wikipedia articles, I come to this board. To me, this looks like WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY, yeah, let's spout creationist and denialist nonsense, it's fine as long as it's attributed, it's better than nothing. It would be really nice if someone agreed with me. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That he believes that intelligent design and evolution take the same amount of faith is not an exceptional claim. An exceptional claim would be using an ABOUTSELF source to say "Spencer can fly, and can also speak with animals." We're dealing with someone who is partially notable for, and often described as, their belief in intelligent design. The religion is as scientific as evolution quote is actually from a secondary source[12], which is already in the article. The other quotes provide context to his beliefs, and the article is making no exceptional claims, only using his words to describe his beliefs to provide context. Again, more secondary sources would be great, but as it stands ABOUTSELF covers what's in the article. I certainly wouldn't, for instance, go to evolution and add in "unfortunately for the evolution types, evolution takes as much faith to believe in as intelligent design. Checkmate, atheist evolution believers" citing him. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is a fringe idea and a standard anti-evolution trope. We should not repeat anti-science propaganda without mainstream refutation, and it does not matter where we copied it from. That it does not belong in articles about non-fringe subjects (even with refutation) is neither here nor there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hob Gadling, if you really think that context-free single-sentence paragraphs like In TCS Daily, Spencer embraced the pseudoscience of intelligent design are a way to refute anything, I can only suggest that you are going to find it difficult to find people to agree with you. That doesn't belong in a biography. Not remotely. Refute with (properly-sourced, on topic) evidence. Evidence directly concerning the subject of the biography. Not appeals to emotion and denunciations of heresy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know where you got the crazy idea that I think that, or that I "appeal to emotion" or "denounce heresy". Maybe you, as well as SFR, should actually read what people write instead of inventing stupid thoughts for them and refuting those. That is behaviour I am used to from discussions with creationists. Snap out of it, I have seen you do better. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Spencer's claims themselves are WP:ECREE-able, but the fact that he makes such claims and he has been given a platform to spout those claims in the anti-science/denialist/merchants-of-doubt media is something that is plainly true. The secondary sources we have that document these claims are doing so critically. That is what we should point out. Y'know, phrasing that captures ideas like "Spencer's claims that evolution is a religion and attribution of global warming to human causes is hysteria belie his ideological opposition to those scientific facts that have become politicized in the ongoing US culture wars." That is the sort of analysis which I see in secondary sources which will help readers. We can also mention that many of his claims which go well-beyond his expertise are simply and flatly contradicted by the experts who study those fields -- and they have done so in direct reference to things Spencer has said in various venues (such as in testimony before legislative bodies or on Rush Limbaugh's show). I guess the simplest way to say this is that if there are claims being made on the page which have not been noticed by WP:FRIND sources, by all means get rid of them. But I don't think that's what is happening here. jps (talk) 12:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, this seems to be the right threshold. Which of his beliefs are notable enough to get significant secondary coverage. The ID section is probably the one that needs the most scrutiny, with Spencer being brought up only in passing on a list of ID+Climate people, with the remaining two citations being Spencer himself. Without another relevant secondary source that demonstrates due notability, it feels like a WP:COATRACK.
The climate topic is certainly notable, both being directly related to his profession and due to his providing congressional testimony on the topic. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[13] In Huntsville, Christy began working with a NASA scientist, Roy Spencer. Spencer shared Christy’s religious orientation—he has written about rejecting the science of evolution in favor of the creationist theory known as intelligent design...
[14] Seriously, read that link to get quite a bit of background on Dr. Spencer. I was also surprised to find Spencer is a big supporter of Intelligent Design. I was initially reticent to mention that, since it seems like an ad hominem. But I think it's relevant: Intelligent Design has been shown repeatedly to be wrong, and is really just warmed-over creationism.
There are plenty of sources that provide secondary coverage, including a secondary source explaining why they think it is relevant information, just not in-depth enough to provide much in the way of context. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In general, if a fringe idea get aired in an article the framing mainstream context can come from any decent source, which need not be on-topic for the article's main subject. This is core in NPOV/PSCI: "The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included". It's counter-intuitive because it seems like a license-to-synth; but it's core policy. Alexbrn (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't even need other, unrelated sources, since we have rejecting the science of evolution in favor of the creationist theory known as intelligent design... But I think it's relevant: Intelligent Design has been shown repeatedly to be wrong, and is really just warmed-over creationism. We just need a bit of expansion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. Yes! That is something I expect to hear on this board. Not that I am "denouncing heresy". --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is the sort of analysis which I see in secondary sources which will help readers. Yes! That is something I expect to hear on this board. Not that spreading anti-science propaganda without accompanying refutation is "an improvement" from just stating which pseudoscience he is a fan of. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arithmancy[edit]

Not sure what to do about this one. I'm not sure that arithmancy needs a separate article to numerology, or whether it should be included in it. Either way though, it needs proper sourcing, and at least something to suggest that it lacks anything in the way of credible evidence regarding its efficacy for 'divination'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably merge and drop the tables. And are you telling me that themystica.com isn't a reliable source?! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arithmancy Sennalen (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alkaline diet[edit]

There is a new account editing the alkaline diet removing criticisms from the article and several talk-page discussions. Based I what I have seen so far, this user has confused papers mentioning the Potential Renal Acid Load (PRAL) score with the "alkaline diet". I can see why some might think they are related but there appears to be some original research and other POV issues here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've been playing along at home these last few days, and have now joined in. -Roxy the mindfulness dog 13:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There may also be competence issues involved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's one of the many topics in altmed (e.g. detoxification, chronic lyme disease, leaky gut syndrome) where the term describing the quackery-thing overlaps with terms describing topics in legitimate science. This has been a long-term problem with this article. Alexbrn (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You may want to review Dietary acid load. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The new account (if they are actually new) is now spamming links to 'Dietary acid load' across multiple articles - hijacking existing links to another article to do so. [15]. The new article is clearly a POV fork, and synthesis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think Wikipedia could benefit from an article on dietary acid load as good sources are available. But the current article which couches it as a kind of "diet" (with a modified version of the alkaline diet lede) is bizarre. It could be edited into shape. Alexbrn (talk) 04:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, at the moment it seems to be a WP:POVFORK. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In regard to the Dietary acid load article, I would like to re-write that and rename it the potential renal acid load (PRAL) but might be easier if it is deleted and I can start from scratch. The problem is that Maffty is confusing the PRAL score with the alkaline diet, the same user has also confused PRAL with acid ash hypothesis. It would probably be best if the dietary acid load article was deleted. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Psychologist Guy: Why not write the new version under the new name and we'll redirect dietary acid load there? If it should be deleted, it needs a nomination at WP:AFD. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Alexbrn: @Psychologist Guy: Maffty has been blocked, but three other IP addresses have appeared to edit that article, and two of them are blocked. The third one's contribution history has a comment admitting to block evasion for the second blocked IP address but asks who the first evasion block was supposed to be be for. I assume the first IP was blocked with an assumption that it's an evasion of Maffty's block, but I am not sure.

In any case, the IP address has been constructive and the edit requests look reasonable, but I'd like some more eyes on it. The article has been WP:PRODed for deletion, and I am not sure I agree with that given that the subject might be notable as Psychologist Guy suggested above. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The PRAL is notable an we need a Wikipedia article on it but the dietary acid load article is just a mess. The IP 109.119.212.245 is obviously just Maffty who is making fanatical comments and requests on the talk-page. The article needs to be deleted. I will submit it to afd later today. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that there may be more than one person operating the Mattfy/IP account, as the language cpmpetence is far better with this one than Mattfy, if indeed it is the same one. FWIW, I dont hihnk a PROD is going to do it, and it'll need an RfC, but I'm often wrong about many things. - Roxy the English speaking dog 11:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Barbro Karlén[edit]

This is about [16]. Another editor cites some stories about Barbro Karlén, but none of their sources seems reliable. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This page is about Reincarnation. The section is on children remembering their past lives. The story of Barbro Karlén is one of the major ones along with James Leininger. Barbro is at least a prolific author who recounted her experiences remembering past-life memories of Anne Frank and visiting the Anne Frank House and recognizing it, and I cited her book, along with two websites not affiliated with her. The sources are reliable given what the subject is and I think tgeorgescu is letting the subject of the material misguide them on whether it counts as a reliable source or not. LightProof1995 (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's okay to write about people who believe outre things such as Karlén. It is not okay to do so uncritically in WP's voice. Her claims of past memories are on her say-so only and we would only accept sources for such claims that were to independent sources given WP:FRIND. Do you know of any independent, reliable sources (mysteriousuniverse.com does not count). jps (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am pretty sure that this story is notable enough for inclusion, but it's going to require someone dedicated to go through and really dig into references. For example, it seems that Chapter 11 of Remembering and Imagining the Holocaust: The Chain of Memory by Christopher Bigsby deals substantially with this claim. But I can't be bothered to dig up access to the text. Two texts that I could read on Google scholar I've now added to the article. jps (talk) 10:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kevin Knuth[edit]

New article about a physics prof/UFO hunter. I took out a couple of obviously unreliable sources, could probably do with some eyes on it. Girth Summit (blether) 13:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just culled some promotional language from the lead that was supported by a google result and a bunch of primary sources. I'm looking through and seeing that the rest of it is not much better, e.g. a paper he wrote on a specific discipline being used to state that his specialty is in that discipline. Happy (Slap me) 15:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[17] - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the source, which has now been added to the article. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He does have an opinion piece in Newsweek where, among other things, he blames skeptics and the media for lack of UFO research. His ideas are often reported uncritically in tabloid and other media, and so far there's not been any serious response to his claims. I've added some critique from Jason Colavito per WP:PARITY. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You know someone's worth taking seriously when they write an opinion piece in Newsweek... ;) Bakkster Man (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That seems par for the course. Few, if any, reliable, independent secondary sources critically cover Knuth and his fringe beliefs because those beliefs simply aren't taken seriously. Even Sheaffer hasn't, as near as I can tell, written anything about Knuth. Or...maybe Knuth's ideas are taken seriously, but those outlets are being suppressed by the government as part of the cover-up conspiracy? Wait...who is that outside my window? A man in dark glasses hhhhmmmmphhhph. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's some pushback with critique being removed from the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I note here that the pushback referred to by LuckyLouie is from a SPA. More eyes would be welcome. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 01:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have pared down the article a lot. I think he just passed the line for WP:GNG, but it was a pretty bloated biography. jps (talk) 11:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:FRINGEBLP is not an unreasonable application when you consider the guy is featured speaker at events such as Phenomecon: Utah's Paranormal Conference "We Believe". - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately, there is now edit warring at the article and WP:BLUDGEONing of the AfD by two SPAs dedicated to the UAPx organization. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Diagalon[edit]

I was redricted here for my draft page Diagalon, it uses reliable sources from seperate independent organisations such as the Canadian Anti-Hate Network. However user Curbon7 suggested isn't enough to warrant a standalone article? "To quote from WP:FRINGE, "Because Wikipedia aims to summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence, a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is", my question is is this, i have specified Diagalon is a far-right extremist group.[1][2], formed in Ottowa during the Canada convoy protests to protest COVID-19 restrictions and mandates[3][4]. It consists of over one hundred “ex-military members"[5] does this make it clear that this fringe group doesnt appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. my second question is does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Diagalon warrant a standalone article? This group while obviously fringe has a wide array of media coverage and is its own concept completley seperate from the canadian trucker protests (while it is mentioned briefly in the candian protest articles) i belive it deserves its own page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thingsomyipisntvisable (talkcontribs) 12:08, July 26, 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like giving them a standalone article would absolutely make the group "appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is". — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wasn't this country first proposed by JK Rowling? -Roxy the English speaking dog 13:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Norman Fenton[edit]

Got new accounts and IPs taking issue with Wikipedia relaying the COVID-19 activities of Fenton. Could use more eyes (maybe from an admin?) Alexbrn (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's almost AIV worthy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And now it is AIV worthy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The edit-warring account has been blocked, but is saying this Times article has been amended to remove Fenton's name. I don't have access to The Times at the moment so can't check (until morning anyway). Does anybody else have access? Alexbrn (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Unfortunately I don't, and I can't bypass their protection by copying all of the text before the "please subscribe" banner pops up like I can with most other sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I do. It says "Among the 41 academics named in its foreword, several of whom subsequently promoted it on social media, are [...] Norman Fenton, professor of risk information management, Queen Mary University of London". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The text removed from the BLP said "Fenton was one of several academics who put their name to a document from the Health Advisory and Recovery Team". There is no doubt that Fenton has been a spokesperson for the Health Advisory and Recovery Team. However, being mentioned in a forward is not the same as "put their name to a document" which is kind of awkward wording that implies a co-author role. Cullen328 (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Firefangledfeathers: Okay, that was the text that I saw too in my version from 18 March 2022. Wikipedia is not saying Fenton is "an author" of, or "contributor" to the document, just that he put his name to it (source: "Academics from large British universities have put their names to an “extremely irresponsible” document ..."). Fenton is a member of the HART Group after all.[18] So when the blocked user claims that WP:V is not satisfied they would seem to be in error. Wondering if there's LTA here. Alexbrn (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So you're not seeing Tom Whipple's article now Fenton's name is removed and it has an emendation at the bottom saying Tom removed it.? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm doing some original research, and looking on the HART site to see what he's signed. This doesn't show anything around March 2021. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does the article name the report? Can someone supply a link to the report itself. It would be helpful to see the actual document referred to. What does being "named in the forward" mean? Does it mean the scientist supports the report or does it mean that a paper by the scientist was mentioned in the forward? StarryGrandma (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this is the report. The names appear on page 2. Alexbrn (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is the report. Fenton is simply listed as a member, not mentioned in the forward. Directly above the list of names is Disclaimer: each contribution in this booklet reflects the author’s viewpoint alone, and not the position of the entire group ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here in California, I cannot read that PDF for some reason. Maybe only people in the UK can read it. If the document only mentions him as a member of the group but not as an author or endorser of the publication, then I do not think that it should be mentioned in Fenton's biography. Cullen328 (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish, thanks for reading it and giving the relevant content. I can't access a readable version of the pdf either. The actual published report does not support including the disputed material in the article. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. Seeing the original report it seems the Times wording is a bit of a stretch. Probably best to leave this out. Alexbrn (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good call. I’ve heard this guy has excellent lawyers, so we definitely wouldn’t wanna impute anything defamatous. :-) –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 05:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed not. Incidentally, I just now checked the article in the Times online and there is no indication it has been changed, and no "emendation at the bottom". The pertinent text now, as then, is:

Among the 41 academics named in its foreword, several of whom subsequently promoted it on social media, are Ellen Townsend, professor of psychology at Nottingham University, and the group’s spokeswoman, Marilyn James, professor of health economics at the University of Nottingham, and Norman Fenton, professor of risk information management, Queen Mary University of London.

Alexbrn (talk) 05:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After Disclaimer: each contribution in this booklet reflects the author’s viewpoint alone, and not the position of the entire group, the report gives an executive summary and then a table of contents listing each section by its author (sorry for loss of formatting):
Contents 1. COVID policies and harm to children - Professor Ellen Townsend; Dr Karen Neil 2. COVID-19 vaccination in children - major ethical concerns - Dr Ros Jones 3. Vaccine passports - an ethical minefield - Dr Malcolm Kendrick 4. Asymptomatic spread - who can really spread COVID-19? Dr John Lee 5. Economic impacts - the true cost of lockdowns - Professor David Paton; Professor Marilyn James 6. Mutant variants and the futility of border closures - Dr Gerry Quinn 7. ‘ Zero Covid’ - an impossible dream - Professor David Livermore 8. Masks - do the benefits outweigh the harms? Dr Gary Sidley 9. Psychological impact of the Government’s communication style and restrictive measures - Dr Damian Wilde 10. Lockdowns - do they work? - Professor Marilyn James 11. Mortality data & COVID-19 - Joel Smalley 12. The ONS Infection Survey: a reevaluation of the data -Dr Clare Craig; Dr Paul Cuddon 13. Promising treatment options - Dr Ros Jones; Dr Edmund Fordham 14. Care homes - we must do better for the most vulnerable in society - Dr Ali Haggett 15. Ethical considerations of the COVID-19 response - Professor David Seedhouse
So Fenton is not listed as the author of any of the sections. Unless Fenton actually promoted the report in social media, I think the Times screwed up. The other two people they named actually authored sections. I don't know why they picked his name out of the foreword, and I can see why he'd be annoyed at the implication that he was more involved than he actually was. Valereee (talk) 10:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Valereee: it's quite hard to tease out what happened, but I note the original version of the report[19] apparently contains no disclaimer, which only appears in the PDF which is "updated" (according to its filename). It seems Whipple's concern in his Times piece was that apparently major academics were "putting their name" to a document which contained antivax "nonsense". Alexbrn (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very interesting about the addition of the disclaimer. I'm thinking Dr. Fenton's lawyer insisted. :) Valereee (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

<redacted>

Congratulations, Alexbrn, on your promotion to "gatekeeper of all medical knowledge". jps (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There should be a barnstar for that Face-smile.svg Alexbrn (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rather shitty stuff on twitter there, the sort of behaviour that wouldn't be acceptable by our rules I think. - Roxy the English speaking dog 12:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's eminence-based medicine. I guess that for someone who uses "professor" as a sort of first name, lack of medical credentials is a really important criterion, and lack of evidence is of no consequence. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aftermath

Well Fenton's hit-piece has now landed.[20] At least one of the follow-up tweets about "defamatous" material[21] bears interestingly on who Holomatrix might have[22] been. Alexbrn (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given what I've read from Fenton and others who have interacted with him, he seems very pugnacious, rude and disrespectful to people who disagree with him. He's also defending known COVID fringe theorists like Malone and McCollough. It's hard to be sympathetic to him here, given his previous actions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ScottishFinnishRadio??!!!? What the hell!? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Careful, I'll report you to Jimmy Swayles. Alexbrn (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia:Changing username if you'd like to make it official. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I assume that's a station that plays nothing but black metal on bagpipes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Holy shit, They are working together. JBW and ScottishFinnishRadish have the same IP address, same timestamp and are listed on other pages Alexbrn has edited. ScottishFinnishRadish makes the threats against users who make changes he/she and Alexbrn do not like, and JBW swoops in to block the person. Alexbrn and myself are known for being thick as thieves, and generally agreeing 100% on content issues. Also, I am JBW's deep cover sock. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I dont care. Deepak Chopra once made a whole video in response to something I said. -Roxy the English speaking dog 18:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The most I've gotten was a what appears to be an automated tweet asking people if they know as much as I do about coffee[23], and Brittany Spears and Victoria Asher fans trying to figure out if I had some sort of agenda (they decided I didn't). Although, because of that, Victoria Asher typed out "ScottishFinnishRadish" to someone, and she's not quite notable enough for a Wikipedia article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yay, I'm famous! Just not quite as famous as you. :(
This blog is definitely going to make me reconsider that he's actually a victim here of my checks notes defamatory new material, and not merely a blowhard upset that the internet isn't as complimentary to him as he deserves. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The thing is there is actually some respectable material about the guy[24][25] which yet falls below the high bar that WP:BLP requires. So from reading Wikipedia one would have no idea anything is amiss. It a problem I think, but I have no idea what the solution could be. Alexbrn (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, but it's not going to be me who maintains or cleans up his article after getting called out for nothing more that tidying up language for encyclopedic tone, without any real content changes. Not impressed. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think per WP:NACADEMIC he passes -- guy's got an h-index of 62 and his most-cited work has 6800 citations. That's a lot. Valereee (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a note, while it seems correct that Fenton's name was not removed or the part on him clarified, there have been some changes to the Times article post publication which don't seem to have been clearly indicated. If we compare this version: [26] from the day of publication with this version from 2 days ago [27] we can see changes.

In particular a paragraph was added (after the part about Brady saying it was “grim but important reading”.') which gives a response from Brady

Brady told The Times that his comments, which appeared in a press release issued by the group that produced the report, referred to other parts of the report, and he had always been a vocal supporter of vaccinations.

Also the section on the document was changed from beginning with 'The 50-page document argues that the rollout of the Pfizer vaccine coincided' to instead say 'Among arguments about the harms caused by lockdown the 50-page document also states that the rollout of the Pfizer vaccine coincided' making it clearer it's only one thing the document was about. (Note that this paragraph always mentioned it was written by Joel Smalley.) It also adds a comment from Smalley 'He suggested the Pfizer vaccine had not been tested sufficiently on older people.'

It looks like links have been added for Sumption and Toby Young although I'm not sure if that is just some randomness about when links are shown. Finally a response from Hart was added to the end

A spokesperson for Hart said, “In Hart’s recently published overview of Covid-19 evidence, we noted that the January peak in Covid cases and deaths correlated both in time and geographically with the mass roll-out of the novel vaccines. However, Hart is mindful that correlation does not always equal causation and we are not asserting that vaccines are the cause.”

I guess the newer version is perhaps better for Fenton since while it doesn't specifically say this unlike the disclaimer which was added to the PDF, it does make it clearer the document is about multiple things, so it's possible someone in the foreword or promoting it on social media isn't endorsing everything in it such as the contentious vaccine part.

Also, I don't know if there was some earlier version although that archive isn't that long after publication, and I also don't know if there was some intermediate version that did say something different about Fenton which was removed.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Esteemed reputation as a credible scientist?[edit]

More COVID-related recent editing could use eyes Alexbrn (talk) 11:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Brand new editor"[edit]

Just a heads up that a "brand new editor" [28] has been actively wikilawyering and edit warring this past week across a range of race-and-intelligence adjacent pages. I don't have time to counter their nonsense on my own, so more eyes on these pages would be helpful. See especially Dysgenics and Spearman's hypothesis. Thanks all, Generalrelative (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I were feeling cynical, I'd link to WP:CATW#3. Alexbrn (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That isn't a brand new editor, that's a highly experienced editor with a brand-new account. I hesitate to call it sockpuppetry, more likely someone starting a new account after abandoning an old one (or maybe an experienced editor from another wiki coming here). ~Anachronist (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm very skeptical that this could be a valid alt, given how often we see secondary accounts in these areas used for avoiding scrutiny, block evasion and/or creating the illusion of support. Sure this could theoretically be that rare case, but looking at the level of commitment they are willing to throw into their wikilawyering (look at their most recent post on my talk page as just one example), I am dubious. Generalrelative (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure why, but I get Mikemikev vibes EvergreenFir (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also recent activity at Biosocial criminology and the reappearance of Ferahgo the Assassin once again challenging the consensus on race and intelligence at Talk:Heritability of IQ after being pinged by this "new user" elsewhere [29]. I'm not going to have time to engage substantively on all these fronts right now so more eyes would be helpful. Generalrelative (talk) 19:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bringing like-minded editors into a dispute is generally not constructive. BooleanQuackery (talk) 04:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was suspicious when they directly joined in on a content dispute with no prior history on any similar pages in conjunction with them being a new account. See the start of their history editing debt-trap diplomacy, going to talk first and related users in the content dispute, versus prior history. This was a few hours after another user edit warred over the same content on another page and was reported and eventually indeffed. They both used similar language in their edit summaries. I reported the two users as possible sock and master but the CU was Unrelated. Qiushufang (talk) 05:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your effort, Qiushufang. I see that this account continues to taunt the community both with their username ("quackery" = WP:DUCK allusion, coupled with perhaps an attempt to poke anti-fringe editors) and now on their talk page. If anyone has insight into whom this might be, feel free to let me know. I'll be happy to do a bit of digging and put together the SPI myself. Generalrelative (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It actually just refers to Quackery. BooleanQuackery (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Same old same old[edit]

Again, the editorial board did not do what reliable sources say they did. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The only problem I can really see with the lede is that it's a bit sparse compared to the length of the article and could probably be expanded. XOR'easter (talk) 04:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is this with regards to this edit? [30] — Shibbolethink ( ) 01:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is about attempts to remove parts of the climate change denial part, specifically Talk:The_Wall_Street_Journal#Editorial_Board_in_Body. Sorry I was not specific enough. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hate wading back into that Talk page, but I did anyway, at least this once. XOR'easter (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been going on a Nexis binge... There's more on climate denial than there is on pesticides, and more on pesticides than asbestos, but enough I'd say to warrant including them all. XOR'easter (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I think I've burnt myself out on this for a while. But I did notice a few ancillary matters that someone might like to address (see the inline maintenance tags). XOR'easter (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am sorry for having left you alone on this for a while. There are some unpleasant people there. I don't like to endure them either, and I understand anybody who wants to avoid the page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pumapunku needs eyes now[edit]

IP inserting fringe, reverted at least twice. Doug Weller talk 18:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clearly the same person that was behind 79.7.112.133 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) a year ago, sigh. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Lost Gospel (Jacobovici and Wilson book)[edit]

Far too much of this is self-sourced, apparently by one author who has written 29% of it.[31] And is this sort of comment ok? "For a summary of the manuscript tradition and interpretive scan, see researchgate.net, Barrie Wilson." A similar comment was also added to the unsourced BLP of Barrie Wilson. Doug Weller talk 10:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tom-foolery over at WT:NPOV re: WP:FALSEBALANCE and "minority views"[edit]

There's a lil discussion over at the NPOV policy talk page about changing WP:FALSEBALANCE to no longer apply to minority viewpoints. Several editors over there are arguing that the policy falsely equates FRINGE and minority views, and that we shouldn't treat a minority of relevant expert scholars as less valid just for being a numerical minority. [32]

And, furthermore, that If the majority and minority views come from sources of similar stature, even if the minority is due less space, they should be treated as equally valid. [33]

Truly truly fascinating the many angles that this argument often comes from. And the absolute inability to hear/see any negative effects such a change would have. — Shibbolethink ( ) 18:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Russell Gmirkin (Biblical scholar)[edit]

Publishes with Bloomsbury and Routledge, gets reviewed by serious academics, but apart from some support from one scholar (Philippe Wajdenbaum), his theories seem to be universally rejected at this point.

I found no good secondary sourcing on him, so nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russell Gmirkin. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 12:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fascinatingly, his son was active at WP years ago when there was considerable conflict over plasma cosmology. That's unrelated from this matter, however. jps (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arithmancy[edit]

This discussion may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It started here Sennalen (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Johann Dzierzon section Scientific career[edit]

Hi, I have a problem with editor Richard Keatinge. Since July 6, I have been trying to tell him that scientific work/edition cannot use unfounded assumptions. For a discussion with him, see Dzierzon vs. ul Prokopowycza on the talk page of the article Johan Dzierzon. Please help. Kind regards, Andrew— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aserafin (talkcontribs) 13:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Judge Maya Guerra Gamble[edit]

"Just because you claim to think something is true does not make it true. It does not protect you. It is not allowed."

WaPo via Twitter: [34].

I like it when WP:PAG shows up in a court of law.

jps (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for this. Most enjoyable. - Roxy the English speaking dog 21:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Race and intelligence: "no evidence"[edit]

Revival of ye olde dead horse over at Talk:Heritability of IQ, now spilling over to Talk:Intelligence quotient. Generalrelative (talk) 20:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alcoholics Anonymous[edit]

The Talk page thread "The Irrationality of Alcoholics Anonymous" peaked my interest. I learned that AA's main opponent is a psychoanalyst, Lance Dodes. Huh. Freudies against goddies - who will science support? Since 2020, AA has a Cochrane review agreeing with it...

I guess more science-knowledgeable people could be useful. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Congress Set to Approve Endless Make-Work Paranormal Program for UFO Grifters"[edit]

See [35]. Doug Weller talk 16:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there an issue on Wikipedia? Sennalen (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there a problem with my posting this? It seems pretty relevant to UFO Report (U.S. Intelligence), maybe other articles. Doug Weller talk 18:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Linking a page is a good start. You should understand the FRINGE noticeboard doesn't do mind reading 😄 Sennalen (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pretty sure Doug understands how to use a noticeboard. Generalrelative (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems clear enough to me, the linked page is a fringe skeptic who for some reason is used on a number of wikipedia pages. The linked article is batshit crazy analysis which puts such a heavy spin on the legislation thats its unrecognizable, clearly not a source we should be using. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Horse Eye's Back -- Do not go on a source removal rampage like that again or I will ask for a topic ban for disruptive editing. You have not made your case at all that Colavito is unreliable, and that you think the linked article is "batshit crazy" is prima facie evidence in my book that you probably should not be touching WP:FRINGE articles here at all. Consider yourself warned. jps (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Its a fringe blog, of course I can remove it. You really think the linked blog post is a reliable source? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jason Colavito is an expert skeptical debunker. In every case where you removed it, his blog was being used in appropriate regards to WP:PARITY. I have no idea why you think that's a problem, but it was settled a long time ago that when sourcing for WP:FRINGE ideas that do not have a lot of coverage in more traditional publications, the way to handle such things as debunking and identifying WP:MAINSTREAM approaches is to use reliable experts in the subject. Colavito is certainly an expert in these sorts of matters. I have no idea why you decided he was fringe. I see no indication of that. jps (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He doesn't appear to have the academic qualifications to be a subject matter expert, he appears to be a pop-science personality who appears on television programs and publishes popular press books not journal articles. You also didn't answer the question: is the linked blog post a reliable source? Could I use to to refer to living people as "pro-UFO loons"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sennalen you're replying to a thread from one of the most well-read and well-versed admins in this area. Do you not look at others user profiles before accusing them of not knowing what they're doing? If not, it would be a good idea to do so. If so, I have no idea why you would say it this way. — Shibbolethink ( ) 12:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I never accused Doug of anything, but do you think this thread is producing the results he was hoping for? Even if Jimbo or the ghost of Carl Sagan himself dropped by the noticeboard, it would be more productive for him to explain what the problem is and what page its on. Sennalen (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jason Colavito is not an expert. His highest academic qualfication is a BA in anthropology and journalism, and AFAIK has not authored any academic papers. His type of journalism is invaluable, because it explains information in words that ordinary people understand. SPS says, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Even if he were an expert, there is an issue of the weight of any opinion published on a person's website. TFD (talk) 01:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Subject matter experts in Ancient Aliens can absolutely be those with BAs in anthropology. Odd that you think that's not the case. jps (talk) 01:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
jps, I get into the same argument who think that Joe Rogan is an expert on coronavirus. If you don't know the difference between an expert and a journalist, I can't persuade you. You should read about the Dunning–Kruger effect. People who have little understanding of a subject don't appreciate its complexity. Incidentally, UFOs today are not ancient aliens. TFD (talk) 03:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure how you can judge based on a degree whether a source has "little understanding of a subject". Normally, we would look to external citations to determine that this is the case, not whether or not someone has a graduate degree. In fact, the level of education of a source is not something I see referenced in our WP:PAGs. It seems pretty straightforward to me to distinguish between an expert who has been lauded by other experts for their analyses (Colavito) and a charlatan who is subject to scathing critique from experts (Rogan). Dunning-Kruger effect, to be clear is about a person's own evaluation of their abilities -- not the evaluation of others. Also, belief in the ETH is strongly correlated with acceptance of the premises of Ancient Aliens. Colavito actually shows this quite well in a number of places. jps (talk) 11:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I appreciate that experts do not require degrees, although usually they have PhDs and academic posts. They do have to have written about the topic in expert publications, such as academic journals. You set the bar so low that any journalist becomes an expert, hence most opinion pieces in news media would be reliable sources, because they are mostly written by journalists. In fact anyone who writes an opinion piece is a journalist by definition. But RS says that opinion pieces are "rarely reliable." TFD (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A journalist can be an expert in some scenarios. Expert is not limited to PhDs and scientists. I just don't know that this particular case the expertise has been established. Andre🚐 17:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think a lot of the issues we have with misinformation are because media are attributing expertise to people who are not experts, extending authority to levels of education and experience that are not merited. E.g. news articles calling Ocean Ramsey a "marine biologist" when she only has a bachelor's, has never done research let alone published an article, and her "work" has been called out as actively harmful by actual marine biologists. If you look at the talk history of COVID-origin-adjacent articles like Wuhan Institute of Virology you'll see pages of editors trying to introduce those BioEssays articles due to "genome engineering experts" who in reality are utterly unqualified lab leak proponents. And in the very article in question here (Jess Phoenix), there are references quoting her opinion as a "volcanologist", even though she only has a master's, AFAICT has no papers, and hasn't even been involved in research in a decade.
If we want to combat propagation of FRINGE junk we need to have a high standard for what we consider "expert", and this must be consistent across all SPS-exempted publications. Whether Colavito or anyone else who isn't a clear-cut case (e.g. research professor in relevant field) is an "expert" should therefore be determined by consensus. JoelleJay (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree broadly. Jess Phoenix is an entertainment personality. Her scientific credibility is on the order of a Bill Nye. She's not entirely a kook, but she also isn't authoritative, she's primarily an entertainer presenting unscientific stuff like the Atlantis documentary. To the extent that we have someone saying she's unscientific, that should be included in her article to counter any whiff of FRINGE. That doesn't mean though that Colavito is an expert debunker whose self-published blog can be used. The article already cited real scientists in reliable pubs doubting her and her "research." Andre🚐 21:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Joe Rogan is recognized as being immersed in coronavirus misinformation and "coronavirus" is not a fringe topic (and there is an abundance of sourcing) so the comparison seems odd. Space aliens (ancient or not) and UFOs are however fringe central so WP:PARITY could be useful. This Calvito guy seems to have been reputably published and cited by other reputable sources, without any countervailing doubts in RS. I'm not getting what the big issue is? Alexbrn (talk) 03:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you are saying that if a journalist is reliable, their personal websites are reliable sources, but if they are unreliable, they are not. That begs the question of how you know that they are reliable in the first place. Do you just assume they are reliable until they attract so much attention that rs call them out? Why do you think someone with a BA in journalism and anthropology with no academic papers has the competence to evaluate research by physics professors? TFD (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I appreciate that experts do not require degrees, although usually they have PhDs and academic posts. They do have to have written about the topic in expert publications, such as academic journals. You set the bar so low that any journalist becomes an expert, hence most opinion pieces in news media would be reliable sources, because they are mostly written by journalists. In fact anyone who writes an opinion piece is a journalist by definition. But RS says that opinion pieces are "rarely reliable."
Several years ago, news media reported that CERN had discovered particles travelling faster than the speed of light. This was obviously false, but science journalists had reported it so editors said it should be taken seriously.
TFD (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reliable source it is. You cannot use it to refer to living people as "pro-UFO loons" except as in-text attribution just as I might attribute to you the opinion that the article is "batshit crazy analysis" as evidence of a certain lack of competence. He has the qualifications that anyone might have in WP:FRINGE areas. After all, he is critiquing people who similarly lack credentials owing, mostly, to the fact that it's nearly impossible to get credentials in WP:FRINGE areas because they are fringe. That is what parity is all about. jps (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Being a skeptic doesn't make someone an expert and it doesn't make them any more reliable. We don't have lower standards in the fringe space, we have higher ones. Also I was wrong, most of his books aren't published in the popular press... They're self published. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
most of his books. Are you sure about that? jps (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you include the ones he's the editor or translator of yeah, clearly. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was counting the ones where he is listed as an author. jps (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then its just a lot of them not most, not sure if you're familiar but Lulu.com and CreateSpace are both self-publishing services. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sure you're familiar with University of Oklahoma Press and Prometheus Books besides. jps (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not familiar with Prometheus Books, its a minor publisher so not sure why I would be (although reviewing their publishing list I have read one of their books). I see only one book published by the University of Oklahoma Press and I'm not seeing *any* contributions to academic journals. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are no academic journals dedicated to debunking WP:FRINGE claims that Colavito dismantles. That's rather the point of WP:PARITY. jps (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fail to see where in WP:PARITY it says you can have a lower standard for sources if they're debunking claims, we clearly are still bound by WP:RS even if we don't need to use academic sources, see "In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal. For example, the Moon landing conspiracy theories article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer reviewed... Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, only reliable sources should be used; Wikipedia's verifiability and biographies of living persons policies are not suspended simply because the topic is a fringe theory." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I have said a few times, if you have reason to suspect Colavito is in someway unreliable for describing the WP:MAINSTREAM understanding of these topics which he is debunking, go right ahead and make the case. I think he has established a name for himself as an expert skeptic and debunker as identified by other experts in the field. You can look through all the criticism of his work and you will find essentially praise from the mainstream and criticism from the WP:FRINGE which is exactly the standard by which we might identify who is able to do effective criticism of the fringe. That you quote the guideline that basically argues that work like this should be used at Wikipedia and then argue that it actually excludes such work is pretty remarkable to me. jps (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He's a self-published non-expert, you must agree thats highly compelling or you wouldn't have nuked the bib on his page immediately after I pointed that out[36] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I nuked the bibliography because I think bibliographies are insipid and, y'know, WP:RESUME. But if you think it is worth including, you can put it back. jps (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your nuke left untouched unsourced contentious information on a BLP, was that accidental or by design? You've repeatedly cited WP:CRYBLP but there actually are BLP issues here and WP:CRYCRYBLP doesn't change that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, if you want to change the subject, I guess we can have this conversation. What do you find so contentious in Colavito's article? You seemed to be upset that we cite an opinion piece in the Washington Post to show that he was cited in the Washington Post. Do you really think that is contentious? jps (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are multiple entirely unsourced sentences... Its a WP:BLP. Whats hard to understand here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you really so pedantic as to think that every sentence needs a citation at the end? It's not good style to repeat footnotes over and over again. You can find the citations for all the points in the article after the points are made. That there is a period put down does not mean the sentence is "unsourced". jps (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The BLPvio looks like it was the Jess Phoenix article.[37] Andre🚐 01:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Opinion pieces wherever they are published are not reliable sources unless written by experts. I disagree with you incidentally that anyone with a BA is an expert. TFD (talk) 03:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I never said "anyone with a BA is an expert". This is such a misreading of my position, it almost seems like a willful misunderstanding. jps (talk) 12:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can't use a blog, even one by a recognized expert, to cite information about living people. JoelleJay (talk) 23:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed. I reverted the re-addition of the reference to Jess Phoenix (and removed another blog while I was at it). Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Meh. There is an active discussion about the tension between WP:BLPSPS and WP:COAT at WP:BLPN. That said, the situation is pretty fine right now at Jess Phoenix. jps (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm very skeptical of accepting anyone as an expert in "debunking" across all fields. Besides, I'm sure there are many actual experts in aerospace engineering and air situational awareness. Sennalen (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, who said "across all fields"? jps (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You did, you said "Jason Colavito is an expert skeptical debunker." without qualification. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I stand by that considering that I haven't seen him debunk something that wasn't in his expertise. He sticks to the fields he knows. jps (talk) 00:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regardless of how great he is, you understand he's not an outlet, he's just a guy with a website. Andre🚐 00:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know Wikipedia isn't an RS, but it looks like he knows anthropology, and that's where his expertise lies. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, if we gave his article any of this weather eye we're giving others, we'd remove huge parts of it because there's no secondary sourcing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tried, was reverted by jps/ජපස [38] with the WILD edit summary "Rv. This user has some weird sort of vendetta. This is essentially WP:DE" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is that what you were trying to do? Because it looks like you removed some secondary sources to me. jps (talk) 01:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dude... It was mostly unsourced and the sources that were there were being used for SYNTH... For example "His work has been cited in The Washington Post" sourced to the WaPo opinion piece which cited it. Thats both misleading and undue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, are you now saying that being cited in an opinion piece in the Washington Post doesn't count as being cited in the Washington Post? jps (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not a secondary source, so there's no weight and it's not noteworthy. That's generally my understanding anyway. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no particular reason to include every single time someone is mentioned everywhere in their article. I don't see this as a WP:NPOV issue at all, so WP:UNDUE WEIGHT seems a bit of a stretch here. But I have no particular objection to making an article succinct and focused rather than sprawling and WP:RESUME-like. jps (talk) 02:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jps: Being cited in a piece of journalism means that the journalist/s and their organization are putting some level of trust in the source. Being cited in an opinion piece means absolutely nothing. Are you just completely going to ignore the unsourced claims? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What unsourced claims? Also, I'm fascinated by your attempts to read into the plain text of the article. I guess by implication, you think that an opinion piece is less than straight journalism. Fair. But an argument that Colavito was a source for a straight journalism piece is not even close to what is actually written in the text. jps (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These unsourced claims[39]. Of course an opinion piece is less than straight journalism. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those claims aren't "unsourced". They contain the sources in the sentences themselves. And you missed my point about what you are reading into with respect to the article text. jps (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:BLP: "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's pretty absurd to claim that a program that someone appeared on is a material that is "likely to be challenged". It's only "likely to be challenged" because of your wikidragoning. Go ahead and ask around if anyone thinks that material is particularly "challenging". ::eyeroll:: jps (talk) 01:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It doesn't even say what season or episode this occurred in, how does one satisfy WP:V? Wikidragoning (WP:NPA) or not it *was* challenged therefore it needs an inline citation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry that the reference isn't up to your exacting standards. If you think WP:Wikidragon is a personal attack, I don't know what to say here. WP:SOFIXIT? jps (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't call someone who doesn't self identify as a Wikidragon a Wikidragon or accuse them of wikidragoning, there was nothing humorous about the way you used it. Its not my standard its policy, if you have an issue with WP:BLP this is not the venue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry your feelings were hurt. I think this noticeboard is a perfectly fine venue for discussion of the issue I outlined. jps (talk) 02:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A "guy with a website" is more-or-less the equivalent to the nonsensical baloney he is taking down with his website. That's the entire point. jps (talk) 00:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending fringe sources, but this guy seems to have made a cottage industry about being a fringe-debunker which doesn't inherently make him reliable. He might (barely?) be notable but that is a different question. Andre🚐 00:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reliability of the source is judged by his demonstrated expertise and the plaudits he has received from other mainstream sources for using that expertise in service of debunking. The debunking is just what we report in Wikipedia. That's all. jps (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Inasmuch as he's had bylines in New Republic, Esquire, Slate, etc., we could report it, but it wouldn't be a reliable source to use his personal website. Andre🚐 01:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes it would. We are talking about a published expert in various subjects which he is commenting on from his website. That's exactly what WP:PARITY is for. jps (talk) 01:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Self published BA in anthropology. That's hardly a self published expert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even if, for the sake of argument, he is a self-published expert, that PARITY policy says: material from reliable websites ... that are not peer reviewed ...for any viewpoint..., only reliable sources should be used; Wikipedia's verifiability and biographies of living persons policies are not suspended simply because the topic is a fringe theory. Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics... the lack of peer-reviewed criticism... should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science... Sorry to quote extensive text, but it seems not to quite be so extensive as to allow personal blog posts? Andre🚐 01:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course it allows personal blog posts. The entire point of this is that if in Wikipedia there are certain WP:FRINGE claims whose provenance is the equivalent of some proponent shooting their mouth off, there is no problem with quoting someone who explains what might be wrong with that argument. To boot, the uses of Colavito in these contexts was in a WP:ITA fashion. So we're essentially saying, as Wikipedia, that here is a response from a source. It's a response that the source said, but, per WP:PARITY, this is basically in response to an argument that was argued in a similar venue. jps (talk) 01:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this really the policy? Shouldn't it be that the sources still have to be reliable, they just don't need to be peer-reviewed to a scientific standard? I don't see anywhere it says personal blog posts should be used, whether fringe, or debunking-fringe. Andre🚐 01:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Parity means you look at the venue and compare the sources for the fringe theory to those that are independent of it and commenting upon it. We wouldn't normally accept a personal blog post to explain WP:MAINSTREAM ideas because they are published in mainstream outlets. In the case of fringe theories, they are typically unpublished say-so or published in unreliable outlets. To the extent that we use such sources to explain fringe theories we use a parity of sources for critique as well. The alternative is to remove the idea completely. That's a valid approach as well. But as long as you admit self-attested quotes and arguments to explain a fringe theory, WP:PARITY says the commentary by an expert in an interview, blog, or shouted at a conference is basically the equivalent sourcing standard. jps (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That doesn't allow you to do this BLP vio edit: [40] Andre🚐 01:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it does. Otherwise you would end up with WP:COATracks. See the discussion referenced above. In any case, I'm fine with the current version of that article. Are you? jps (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:BLPSPS "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources." When a policy (WP:BLP) conflicts with an essay (WP:COAT) there isn't really a question of which wins out (just to be clear I don't actually think theres a contradiction IRL). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:BLPSPS is in tension with WP:COAT. There is a whole discussion about it at WP:BLPN. I'm find with taking out all WP:FRIND-noncompliant sources which would solve the problem. But I don't know that we have consensus on that. Also, I am appalled that you think it is okay for a BLP to act as a WP:COATrack just so that we don't include a self-published source in it. That's a pretty shitty editorial philosophy, if you ask me. jps (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's no tension. BLPSPS takes precedence in this situation and probably all situations. COAT is about thinly sourced articles that are just jumping-off points to other stuff. Jess Phoenix is notable. Andre🚐 01:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jess Phoenix's fringe beliefs about Atlantis are WP:FRINGE. But, again, I am happy with the current state of the article. Are you? jps (talk) 01:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not saying her beliefs are good or bad, she's a living person so you need to abide by BLPSPS. The article at present I guess is fine. But you must take care to follow BLP, you don't get to put anything on a BLP just because they might have fringe beliefs. Andre🚐 01:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)]Reply[reply]
I disagree categorically in the context of WP:FRINGE. I have seen to many BLPs be used as coatracks for fringe theories. Either these ideas are properly contextualized or they are removed outright. They don't get to sit in a BLP as though they have never been challenged just because we don't like the way a third-party has challenged them. As I see it, there are two editorially responsible alternatives. Either the fringe material is excised for being unnoticed or it is contextualized. That we might arrive at situations where this is impossible is rather the point that BLP is not the sacred cow of all things WP. jps (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But in this case it wasn't a fringe theory, it was critical statements attacking the person's credibility and sourced to a personal blog. Andre🚐 01:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was in reference to Atlantis fringe theories, absolutely. jps (talk) 02:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jess Phoenix is a notable entertainment personality and amateur political candidate. There are already statements in the article from her critics and critical of her. The statement was removed correctly due to being sourced to a personal blog per BLPSPS. Being a reference to fringe theories doesn't make it OK. Andre🚐 02:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a position I cannot get behind. If someone is criticised for a fringe position, we can't just excise it and let their fringe position be promoted on WP. jps (talk) 02:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can include it if the source is reliable. There should be plenty of reliable sources criticizing her and her show that are not from self-published blogs. The PARITY doesn't apply anyhow - parity implies a binary, and the "fringe source" you are claiming parity to, is not another self-publish blog or equivalent, even if that were ever allowed (I don't think it is). PARITY speaks about allowing less scientific, not peer reviewed, or some self-published books, to counter others of that same ilk. None applies in this case. The article is not a COATRACK. It's a legit article, not a thinly sourced jumping-off point for fringe views about Atlantis. Andre🚐 02:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree. The article by virtue of its subject matter has the potential to be a thinly sourced jumping-off point for fringe views about Atlantis if it started quoting her. It doesn't right now. But if it did, that's where WP:PARITY would normally kick in and where WP:BLPSPS would prevent it from doing so. All this is hypothetical, in any case, because, as I've emphasized before, I'm fine with the current state of the article. jps (talk) 02:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hypothetically, if her claims were from unreliable self-published blogs, they should be removed from the article. Andre🚐 02:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I think I've been saying, the problem is that there are people who will argue that WP:BLPSPS makes an exception when the blogs are written by the subject of the article and everyone agrees that she has the opinions that are being sourced to it. jps (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

COAT is a WP:ESSAY, BLPSPS is WP:POLICY. Again, there is no tension but if there was BLPSPS would either have to prevail or be modified. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm arguing that there is a tension and, yes, BLPSPS might need to be modified. I've made the point pretty clearly over at WP:BLPN. jps (talk) 01:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Consensus at WP:BLPN appears to be a rejection of your point. What am I missing? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think that's the case. I rather like the last comment by Zaereth. I also think that more than a few people agreed that I had a point. jps (talk) 01:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm just pointing out you don't get a blank check to use self-published blogs to attack people just because they've been associated with fringe theories. You could use that PARITY exception to attack a specific fringe theory that was itself published in a less scientific source. It doesn't mean you can just use a blog on someone's biographical article to say their theories were bad, and it definitely isn't parity that Jess Phoenix's material in some cases was actually published in mainstream sources. It wouldn't be usable to cite scientific claims, but how is it parity to say the Discovery or Science TV channel has parity to a self-published blog? Andre🚐 01:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure. And I'm pointing out that you don't get a blank check to promote fringe theories just because the article is a WP:BLP. If a fringe theory proponent is shown as a talking head on the Discovery Channel, we could absolutely use the blog of some expert who criticized that segment as a WP:PARITY source. jps (talk) 01:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't even edit the article let alone promote a fringe theory Andre🚐 01:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I never said you did. I'm just pointing out that some of your positions could easily have that outcome and have been used by others hoping to effect such an outcome. jps (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Especially Hypothetically, if her claims were from unreliable self-published blogs, they should be removed from the article, which implies that when someone spreads FRINGE propaganda in a reliable source, we can help spreading that fringe propaganda without contextualizing it.
We had this discussion several times recently, with the result that climate change deniers and creationists do not get to spout off nonsense in their Wikipedia articles uncontextualized (regardless of the reliability of the source that reported the nonsense), which would violate WP:FRINGE, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. See for example Talk:Benny Peiser. Of course, this also applies to Atlantis proponents. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But that's not what's going on. We're talking about a self-published blog saying that the documentary is bad and poorly produced, in no way is it rebutting a claim, nor are any claims made. Andre🚐 06:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is one of the themes of this thread. Another theme is what to do if there is no such blog or if the blog is not to be used. In such cases, the fringe material has to be deleted. Hypothetically, if her claims were from unreliable self-published blogs, they should be removed from the article seems to say it should only be deleted in some cases. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If fringe material can't be sensibly contextualized it's omitted per NPOV/GEVAL. There's no "except in biographies" exemption - in fact NPOV is explicitly non-negotiable (uniquely among our policies). Alexbrn (talk) 07:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The blogs, and the fringe material, should both be deleted. However just writing that someone produced a documentary on a topic isn't giving credence to fringe material if it's cited to a reliable source. Andre🚐 07:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It depends on how that's done. Even calling something a documentary when it is a film that seeks to propagandize a fringe claim (What the Bleep Do We Know comes to mind) can lend credence to an idea. jps (talk) 12:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would agree that a BA in anthropology is a start, but it's not sufficient on its own. The WP:SPS requirements are a lot more stringent than people realize. He needs to be an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications - bolded like that in the policy itself. Unless I'm misunderstanding something he fails the bolded part; he may have a degree in anthropology, but he has no RS publications that can reasonably be called relevant to the subject at hand. And even beyond that he obviously can't be used for statements about living third parties, which WP:SPS strictly bans under all circumstances. I don't think WP:PARITY can overcome this - if you're worried that removing him may leave fringe statements unopposed, I would just remove those fringe statements, since if he's the only person who has commented on them it's unlikely they're notable or due anyway. We're not required to include every time some kook is interviewed on the Discovery Channel. --Aquillion (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He does not fail the bolded part. He has published well-regarded books from reputable publishing houses about the topics in question. jps (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where and which? I'm going by what you have presented in defense of using him as a source, above, which is just that he has a BA in anthropology. That alone is obviously insufficient. --Aquillion (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You didn't do your due diligence. I pointed out which publishing houses he has published with in this very discussion. WP:RTA, please. jps (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here you go, Aquillion: Colavito has written books published by McFarland, Prometheus Books, and the University of Oklahoma Press; he has written articles published by The New Republic, Salon, and Slate. That is much more than "just [having] a BA in anthropology," and IMO establishes him as an established subject-matter expert who has written material published by reliable, independent publications. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that [41] removed material sources to The New Republic's "Soapbox" section. The design company Pentagram says "As part of the redesign, TNR launched four new editorial verticals that each feature a specialized focus and in-depth reporting: The Soapbox, on politics; Apocalypse Soon, on climate change; Sold Short, on inequality; and Critical Mass, on culture."[42] TNR calls it their "politics vertical".[43] There's no indication that's an opinion sections although Horse Eye's Back continues to claim it's opinion or editorial. Doug Weller talk 16:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"TNR launched four new editorial verticals" Thats not an indication, its a source (which you provided and stand by) stating in black and white that its editorial. Now an indication would be for instance that its named Soapbox. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That’s original research and only your opinion. Doug Weller talk 17:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You provided the source and pulled the quote, not me. If theres any OR here you've also done it (to be clear, there isn't). Thats not my opinion its Pentagram's which is primary but should be accurate in context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, the New Republic piece should be usable as an WP:RSOPINION attributed, it is not the same as a self-published personal blog post. Andre🚐 17:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The second half doesn't work for WP:RSOPINION, "He joined up with Puthoff and Team Space Ghost at their new entertainment company" is a statement of fact about a living person not an opinion I agree that the editorial can be used with attribution, just not in the way it was. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's obviously an opinion editorial, but I would consider it to have WP:PARITY enough to still cite it for the opinion that was removed from Luis Elizondo. Sennalen (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes I agree with this. Andre🚐 17:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not an oped. [44] They also have "Apocalypse Soon, our vertical dedicated to climate change, science, and the environment." See this on "Sold Short"[45] which clearly says "Anything you don’t want? Anything best described as an op-ed." Doug Weller talk 19:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Either way, I agree the New Republic piece should be used, so disagree with Horse Eye on diff 41. Andre🚐 19:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]