Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

• COVID-19 zoonosis theories (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

has just warped in, entire. Apart from being a synthetic topic (does any source talk about such 'theories'?), from a quick look, it somehow manages to avoid saying that zoonosis is the hypothesis most supported by scientists. Might need eyes from fringe-savvy editors. Bon courage (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It says that in the second sentence of the lede, right after defining the topic. A zoonotic spillover event is the possible origin of COVID-19 that is considered most plausible by the scientific community. Sennalen (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you posted something here, though. As I said on the talk page, this article should be useful as a positive example for good practices in applying FRINGE and MEDRS. Sennalen (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it's the most accepted theory about the Origin of COVID-19, shouldn't it be treated as a spin-off of that article, specifically Origin of COVID-19#Direct zoonotic transmission in a natural setting? Otherwise, it risks being a POVFORK. TFD (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I consider it a WP:DETAIL companion to Origin of COVID-19. I didn't want to be hasty in creating links myself. Sennalen (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first declaration is manifestly incorrect. COVID-19 zoonosis theories are scientific hypotheses proposing that SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19, was first introduced to humans through zoonosis.... I can find no source which matches the term "COVID-19 zoonosis theories" with such a definition. jps (talk) 14:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The entire concept of zoonosis "theories" (whatever that is supposed to mean) seems like editorial innovation. Then saying that "theories" == "hypotheses" seems ... huh? Bon courage (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of an article is an idea rather than a phrase. I followed the MOS in making the first sentence a definition, with the subject of the sentence matching the article title. Suggestions for a better title are welcome. Sennalen (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What source does this "definition" come from? Bon courage (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Origin of COVID-19" is a better title. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like Origin of COVID-19? The current article's curious contortions about "theories" has the unfortunate effect of making it seem like "the other side" to COVID-19 lab leak theory, which is not a great way to frame things - a kind of macro-level WP:GEVAL. The Zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2 is is a fact and shouldn't really be presented like this. Bon courage (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A zoonotic origin is a likely but unproven theory, and the many proposals about how, when, where, why, and involving which animals are all unproven theories. This is exactly the right way to present it. Sennalen (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zoonosis is fact as asserted by RS (even if details are as-yet to be determined). Even the lab-leakers are into some kind of 'zoonosis in the lab' scenario, with the bio-engineering notion being firmly in the conspiracy theory camp. Bon courage (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CRINGE*... yeah, this is not a good start. The idea that "theories" can be "proven" is not the approach that is taken with articles about medicine and science. There are the facts of the matter and the explanations that comport with the facts. To the extent that there are no alternative explanations that align with the evidence, we say that an explanation is true. To the extent that there are multiple possible explanations, we say they are and offer the relative weight for each. There is no "proof". This is the right way to present it. jps (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zoonosis is the default hypothesis by strong inference, because it's also the case for all known coronaviruses in the wild as well as previous epidemics and pandemics, even if all mutation details for a particular strand may be never be known. Anything else is an extraordinary claim needing strong evidence. It's not for no reason that early promoters are political disinformation sources, that there was misrepresentation, fear mongering based on standard virus features relying on public ignorance, misleading arguments collection to see what sticks, advocacy groups promoting it, etc. The propaganda method, not the scientific method. —PaleoNeonate – 04:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like Origin of COVID-19? Yes, that is what I meant. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bon courage "The Zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2 is is a fact". Please, do share reliable sources after 2021 that back this statement. Better if it is a meta-analysis. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You could do worse than refer to Wikipedia's own article on SARS-CoV-2, where in the lede it is stated

The virus is of zoonotic origin and has close genetic similarity to bat coronaviruses, suggesting it emerged from a bat-borne virus.

sourced to PMID:33116300, which is impeccable WP:MEDRS. Alternatively, Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 (although a litle rough still) explains all about it. Bon courage (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That source (PMID:33116300) is from March 2021. According to a letter published in the Lancet on September 2021,

there is no direct support for the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2, and a laboratory-related accident is plausible.^[1]

As of October 2023, according to researchers there is

a likely natural origin for the virus with a yet-to-be-identified wild-caught or farmed animal,^[2]

but the exact origins of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

are still unknown and subject to intense scientific and political dispute. Although the virus was believed to have most likely spread from a marine food market in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, there is currently no convincing evidence to support this, and controversies still exist.^[2]

Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 07:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You were insisting on quality sourcing yet now you offer what? a letter and something in a dodgy journal? Bon courage (talk) 07:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read the lead of the Cureus article and thought it was ok. Also, the date of the publication. Regarding the letter:

Per WP:RS,

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.

Per WP:REPUTABLE,

Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors.

Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 04:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what information do you object about the text I quoted from Cureus? Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 04:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of the three possibilities — natural, accidental, or deliberate — the most scientific evidence yet identified supports natural emergence. More than half of the earliest Covid-19 cases were connected to the Huanan market, and epidemiologic mapping revealed that the concentration of cases was centered there.

Proponents of the accidental laboratory leak theory stress the geographic location of the WIV in the city where the pandemic began. [...] Most scientists refute this theory because there is considerable evolutionary distance between the two viruses. However, the possibility that the laboratory held a different progenitor strain to SARS-CoV-2 that led to a laboratory leak cannot be unequivocally ruled out.^[3]

On the one hand, it seems evident that the transmission originated in the Huanan market. But, on the other hand, three fundamental questions remain that have not been definitively answered. First, where did the virus come from? Second, what was the intermediate animal host? And third, why has the virus genome not been reproduced 100% in any of the coronaviruses found in bats?^[4]

Thinker78 (talk) 05:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We simply don't use junk sources like Cureus on Wikipedia, and for this area in particular there is a large amount of high-quality sourcing from quality/respectable sources. See WP:CITEWATCH for a fuller list of dodgy journals. Bon courage (talk) 05:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm it looks like Cureus uses crowdsourcing, a strategy used by Wikipedia. Interesting. Also, Wikipedia faced a lot of harsh criticism in its inception. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 05:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course: Wikipedia is not a reliable source, nor is it a place you can find any novel knowledge. All Wikipedia is meant to be is a handy summary of the knowledge found in (external) reliable sources. It has quite a good reputation on that, particularly in some areas (e.g. COVID-related misinformation). Most people outside the Wikipedia editing corps (and quite a few within) don't understand what Wikipedia is. Bon courage (talk) 05:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Reliable" is really a subjective concept and an epistemologic dilemma. But I guess that's a discussion to have at RS. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 03:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, we have rules about what is considered reliable. Essentially, it means you rely on it. Details are discussed in borderline cases, but the stuff you linked above is clearly not in the running. You cannot rely on some letter somebody wrote, and neither on crowdsourced sites. In this situation, there is even less reason for relativism than usual, which is little enough. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cureus you have a point but the letter seems to be a reliable source per the WP:RS guidance I shared. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what you mean by the WP:RS guidance I shared. If you mean the opinions of reliable authors above, you are missing the based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy part. Letters to the editor are not fact-checked by the editor - when you write one, you obviously want them to be published as they are - so they can be as inaccurate as the writer wants them to be, and the reputation of the editor is irrelevant. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability on Wikipedia isn't really that subjective. It's a fairly precise term. Please see WP:RSPSOURCES and User:Novem Linguae/Essays/MEDRS simple explanation for more info. Please note that "letters" fall under the fail section, bullet point number four. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your interpretation regarding researchers letters but unless you back it up with a quote from a guideline or policy, I don't necessarily share your opinion in your essay, per WP:REPUTABLE. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are different ways to rank level of evidence in medicine, but they similarly put high-level reviews and practice guidelines at the top.
Left: Procter & Gamble.^[5] Right: Canadian Association of Pharmacy in Oncology.^[6]

You have a point regarding the expert opinion letter, per WP:MEDASSESS,

Low-level evidence (such as case reports or series) or non-evidence (such as anecdotes or conventional wisdom) are avoided.

Thinker78 (talk) 20:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to spend all your time talking about the zoonotic origin of COVID-19, you could write an article called Zoonotic origin of COVID-19. No need to invoke "theories" or "hypothesis" or other vaguewaves to manifest uncertainty where that just muddies the waters into WP:FALSEBALANCE territory. jps (talk) 15:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a MOS:AVOIDBOLD problem, not a verifiability problem, though questions about WP:COMMONNAME or false balance are fair.

It bothers me that Origin of COVID-19 is almost entirely about investigations, and not about the titular topic. DFlhb (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. An article on Studies of COVID-19 origins would be a closer match to the content of that page. An entire reorganization of this stuff may be in order. jps (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Usurping the former article with my own would be too forward of me, but I don't think it would necessarily be a bad idea to do just that - focusing the old article on the political processes of investigation it already spends much of its time on. Sennalen (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"It bothers me that Origin of COVID-19 is almost entirely about investigations" ← I think jps's proposed merge could actualy help with that. Bon courage (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In an attempt to remove some of the problems of the page, I began an early round of edits and changed the title of the page to Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 (allowing for the plural since more than one sense of "origin" is discussed in the sources and the current editorial approach). I'm still not convinced that this page is worth keeping as-is rather than just having the relevant content shunted back to Origin of COVID-19, but my hope is that savvy editors can come together to make the choice more obvious. I do believe the article as written is suffering a bit from bloat and is WP:UNDUE. There is little in the way of organizing the best sources with the most attention paid while marginalizing less important sources. I see some papers that have hundreds of citations with the same amount of attention as papers with fewer than ten citations. Not a good look. jps (talk) 12:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Now at WP:AE. jps (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Sanat Kumara (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

See recent Talk section. Last summer, the article had a short section "Skeptical view" which seemed to contain a skeptical view. Now the whole article looks like a homogenous pap, including the "Skeptical view" part. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tried restoring to an at least semi-encyclopedic version, but it was reverted without explanation. (The articles on Theosophy seem pretty bad, overall.) XOR'easter (talk) 15:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just this article. Multiple articles relating to Theosophy have been expanded over the last year (mostly by the same user who reverted the edit above), a lot of which tagged for sourcing, neutrality, etc. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An initial search for better sources for Sanat Kumara has turned up ... not very much. It's possible that there isn't enough in (for want of a better word) secular scholarship to have a whole article on the topic. XOR'easter (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The rewrites by that user are clearly detrimental. For example, they added In the Bible, Sanat Kumara is called as the ageless, "the Ancient of Days" cited to a theosophist. This is clearly an "in-universe" view that shouldn't be stated in wikivoice. Then again, I don't think the original version before they started editing is much better honestly. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Sanat Kumara should go to AfD. It sounds like there's a WP:TNT argument, on top of the case for meriting a stand-alone article being rather weak. XOR'easter (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanat Kumara Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I've now escalated this to ANI, as this is a fundamental problem with this users editing: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#RayofLightning_and_Theosophy-related_articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Roswell incident (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

After many years of stability, there is currently a move to walk Wikipedia back from stating as fact that it was an airforce balloon which crashed near Roswell in 1947. More eyes could help. Bon courage (talk) 13:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SPADE, this is a bad-faith submission. No one at Talk:Roswell incident is pro-FRINGE. Bon invoked FT/N in a clear "brigand threat", and then made good on the threat along with making personal attacks. Feoffer (talk) 14:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Roswell incident is likely to be of interest to volunteers at this noticeboard. It's important to get the article right with respect to the fringe guideline. It's possible for a dispute to move the article away from that goal even if none of the participants are pro-fringe. No personal attacks are apparent here, and here is not the place to discuss conduct issues. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that, FFT. If you look back at the precise wording Bon uses, it was very "I'm gonna tell my big brothers on you", as if he sorta 'had a posse', pardon my saying so. It's a huge escalation that really poisons and otherwise positive editing process that was ongoing. The real "fly in the ointmemt" is posting here in a way that suggests its a dispute between flying saucer nuts and historians -- that's "fookin offsides, Bon". It's not, and Bon's FT/N meatpuppets will be accorded their appropriate weight in discussion. Feoffer (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, but there is a dispute. You are arguing that Wikipedia can no longer assert as fact that a US military balloon crashed near Roswell in 1947, despite the fact that quality RS asserts that it did without contradiction (it was a MOGUL ballon of flight 4, launched June 4, 1947, from Alamogordo Army Air Field, to be precise). In resolving disputes, posting to an appropriate noticeboard is good practice. Yes, it is regrettable this extra process is necessary given that this seems, to me anyway, a fairly straightforward matter of WP:YESPOV from the WP:BESTSOURCES. But we are where we are. Bon courage (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You falsely claim claim that article's language has recently been changed after years of stability. Attribution of the conclusion to scholars has been the stable version for many years. Bon, let's never forget you are the reason the articles language has recently been changed, because we're trying to incorporate your feedback in good faith. It's exceptionally disruptive when you falsely imply we're pro-FRINGE or anti-statusquo when in fact neither is factual Feoffer (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The change to assert balloon crash as fact happened in 2014 when Olmsted was first introduced as a source, I believe in this[1] discussion. It had been stable for many years, yes (save for the occasional drive-by attempt to undo it). Bon courage (talk) 15:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CCC -- no one's on a pro-FRINGE crusade just because we're attributing conclusions to RSes. Feoffer (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is helpful to invoke "pro-FRINGE"; the matter at hand is a quite specific wording question and the applicable WP:PAGs. Bon courage (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think it was helpful to invoke FRINGE until you threatened, and the proceeded, to make a misleading post on FT/N -- now my comments have to rebut meatpuppets who have been misled to thinking someone is promoting aliens rather than insisting on sourcing. Feoffer (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• OK to state as fact. Pop culture sources may stir up clicks by hinting that this is ambiguous but the conclusions of our best academic expert sources are very clear. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Louie! Knew I'd see you as soon as Bon made good on his promise to recruit from FT/N. The actual content dispute isn't as you've been led to believe by the misleading summary. We're looking to establish whether a single unsourced sentence in a scholar narrative is sufficient for Wikipedia to assert it, rather that an attribute it to scholars. I'd love to assert it as fact -- only problem: it ain't quite fact according to the RS. Almost certain conclusion, yes. But oversell it beyond WP:V, we lose. Feoffer (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You are assuming bad faith. The header here says, We can help determine whether the topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately and impartially.. It does not say "Post here only if you have a problem with profringe editors". It is your personal conclusion that, if someone posts here after discussing you, they must regard you as a profringe user. Also, someone is not a "meatpuppet" of someone else just because they disagree with you and the someone else also disagrees with you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have spent years fighting fringe here. If a editor accuses me of being "pro-fringe" for insisting on sourcing to meet WP:V, much less makes posts that misrepresent a WP:V compliance issues as "pro-FRINGE", I know they are no longer acting in good faith. Simple as that. Feoffer (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Your latest text is

  Scholarly consensus conclude [sic] that the military decided to conceal the true purpose of the crashed device

  Yet there is no source in the known universe which WP:Verifies this. Bon courage (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No one has accused you of being "pro-fringe". That is the point. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop talking about users. Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course it is fact that it was a Project Mogul balloon. I don't see any reliable source which disputes the fact. Do you? jps (talk) 15:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cow urine (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

"Diesel-cow urine emulsion" seems dubious to me. Anybody familiar with the science of fuels? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think that an experiment that replaced water for cow urine in standard diesel emulsions was more than trivia, but I was reverted. :shrug:. I don't feel like I know more about cow urine with that added. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A startling section in our Marburg virus article describes how the Soviet Union had weaponized it. Similarly, at Soviet biological weapons program we have stated as fact that "A production line to manufacture smallpox on an industrial scale was launched in the Vector Institute in 1990". The common theme to these assertions (and many others[2] throughout Wikipedia) is that they are sourced to books by

• Ken Alibek (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

a fêted Soviet defector who, our Wikipedia article tells us, also offers telemedicine service to treat autism and sells "Dr. Ken Alibek's Immune System Support Formula".[3]

Other RS is a bit less accepting. The LA Times says[4]

And, as Alibek raised fear of bioterrorism in the United States, he also has sought to profit from that fear. By his count, Alibek has won about $28 million in federal grants or contracts for himself or entities that hired him.

How should Wikipedia be using Alibek as a source for these claims? Should the source be used at all? Bon courage (talk) 08:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Leitenberg, Milton; Zilinskas, Raymond A; Kuhn, Jens H. (2012). The Soviet Biological Weapons Program: A History. Harvard University Press.
• Hart, John (2006). "The Soviet Biological Weapons Program". In Wheelis, Mark; Rozsa, Lajos; Dando, Malcolm (eds.). Deadly Cultures: Biological Weapons since 1945. Harvard University Press.

Looks like careful use? The preface and introduction in the first source have some help: ...portions of his testimony and narrative regarding Soviet BW activities carried out by the MOD are considered less authoritative. Should probably find each allegation in a better source and see what is "according to Alibek" or stated with more confidence. For instance the industrial scale production of smallpox is p. 224, chapter 8's discussion of Vector and weaponization of Marburg seems much more assertive. fiveby(zero) 14:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a WP policy answer tho, with it's overly permissive idea of reliable, "How should Wikipedia be using Alibek as a source" is never, but maybe occasional cited as warranted. fiveby(zero) 16:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a dispute regarding use of a Piers Corbyn view regarding the Hamas October 7 attack, in which - inter alia - he calls it a false flag Israeli operation. The discussion is here. SPECIFICO talk 18:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is ongoing discussion at Talk:Coriantumr_(son_of_Omer) regarding independence of LDS-adherent publications on LDS topics and how this integrates with N, NPOV, and FRINGE. Namely, can we have a page on a narrow religious topic sourced exclusively to adherents who treat the topic as if it is historically plausible (or is at least derived from ancient testimony rather than recent invention) when the consensus among scientists and historians is that no part of the broader topic is accurate? JoelleJay (talk) 20:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Realistically, the Book of Mormon needs to be treated in the exact same way as the Old Testament/Tanakh, as a mythological account largely without historical basis. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a primary source more importantly. And that's not quite how we treat the Tanakh or the other Biblical and apocryphal works, per se, to my understanding, but it's nitpicking perhaps. I think the standard line in scholarship is that parts, presumably the more recent bits, do have at least a historical basis but obviously should not be relied on or treated as a work of history, since they contain mythologizations and other material that is religious, and not historical in nature. The Book of Mormon is obviously a lot more recent though, but again more importantly a primary source, and should only be used when interpreted by secondary sources. Andre🚐 01:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are similar issues at Cunning folk traditions and the Latter Day Saint movement, where "Cunning folk traditions" is just a BYU-supported euphemism for folk magic. We need to bear in mind that BYU historians aren't RSes in the same sense as, say, Georgetown or Brandeis historians -- It's violation of their their honor code to contradict Church teachings. Feoffer (talk) 03:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting case that might be suitable for WP:RSN. I see it's citing a bunch of BYU folks. I know that BYU is affiliated with the LDS church, but I did not realize that they are in a Liberty University type category. I assumed they were otherwise a pretty reputable academic institution. Andre🚐 03:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's tricky -- in basically every field EXCEPT church history, they're RS. But on that one topic, they're Liberty. Feoffer (talk) 03:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there's the potential for a more targeted appraisal of LDS scholarship DUEness and how it relates to NPOV, FRINGE, and notability in a new section. I've outlined some of my concerns there. JoelleJay (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• George Knapp (television journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bio of a writer-reporter specializing in UFO fringe conspiracy theories rewritten by an WP:SPA seems to blur the line between fringe and mainstream. Cites text to WP:PRIMARY and WP:SELFPUB sources, infers old awards for non-UFO journalism apply to UFO-related work, and introduces a number of WP:TONE problems. Could use a copyedit and WP:FRIND sourcing, but may take a WP:BLOWITUP to sort out which sources actually support a jumble of claims. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

There is a new thread on WP:NPOVN about this, and it is relevant to this board too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it's just been heavily edited by a member with major unsourced changes, some contradicting sources I believe. If it isn't fringe, please ignore this. I've given the editor several warnings. Thanks. Note that the changes have been reverted, so I'm only asking for eyes. Doug Weller talk 10:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned with a paragraph stating that "in an open letter to WSAVA, an Australian pet owner and long-time consumer advocate has created a detailed critique of these guidelines, with numerous scholarly citations, arguing that the 3-year booster or re-vaccination recommendations are either arbitrary or influenced by vaccine manufacturers". The paragraph is cited to nothing but the self-published "open letter" itself, and the "Australian pet owner and long-time consumer advocate" appears to have no kind of medical (or even veterinary) credentials. BD2412 T 13:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Service: Adverse vaccine reactions in pets (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Related: Vaccine-associated sarcoma (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The citation of the letter was absurd. I've removed the paragraph in question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. The article was clearly a WP:COATrack. I have tried to work on getting it into shape, but a lot more work is needed. There was some appalling language being used and source misrepresentation. Adverse reactions to vaccines in pets is exceedingly rare (0.19% by the latest study). That should be front-and-center with the most common adverse reactions listed (which are generally very mild reactions to say the least). jps (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the rarity. I had a cat that was diagnosed with a vaccine-associated sarcoma. The vet said they saw it all the time and the surgery was quite a simple procedure. This was in 1996, mind you, so perhaps they have solved that problem with newer vaccine formulations. Viriditas (talk) 07:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ratio quoted in the updated study I added to the article is 19 adverse reactions per 10,000 injections. Most vet staff see ~40 pets per 8 hour day, so an office with two staff members would be giving out more than 20,000 injections over the course of a year. That would imply seeing an adverse reaction once every two weeks (don't know what "all the time" necessarily means). jps (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the author of this has not been active since 2017, but still a search through their contributions to check for other problems that have been festering for years may be worthwhile: [5]. jps (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If a non-MEDRS source is ever needed to contextualize (DUE) coverage of antivax claims, SkeptVet is a great expert vet blog I pull out when arguing with proponents of pet chiropractic or whatever on thecatsite forums. JoelleJay (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is becoming a wikibook of original research with no secondary sources to be found. I suggested a TNT, but the article author added more of their research. Additional eyes would be appreciated Big Money Threepwood (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this even Wikipedia-notable? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article should be deleted, no independent reliable sources. Psychologist Guy (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Round (Theosophy), Manu (Theosophy), Sanat Kumara (now at afd), Maitreya (Theosophy). All should be put to afd. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed about 25kb of wp:or from Ascended master of similar quality and substance Big Money Threepwood (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard, someone else reverted my removal of Rays original research at that article. Further eyes may be needed their Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the evidence-free claim that there was consensus for Ray's OR, I've started a new thread on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Big Money Threepwood

I have submitted multiple unreliable Theosophy articles to afd:

• Manu (Theosophy)
• Round (Theosophy)
• Serapis Bey
• Devachan
• Art as a factor in the soul's evolution
• Coulomb Affair
• Masters of the Ancient Wisdom
• Theosophy in Scandinavia

This is an on-going issue that I have noticed has plagued Wikipedia for a long time. A lot of throwaway accounts have been editing these articles over the years adding unreliable Theosophical sources. These articles are doing a great disservice to Wikipedia, they are poorly sourced violate WP:Fringe and WP:RS and contain no academic historical coverage. We shouldn't be creating articles that are not neutral or have no reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through these and did some searching, and I agree that all seem to suffer from a lack of independent sources. Maybe one day someone will write a book about these topics, but I've added my delete vote until then Big Money Threepwood (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PG, BMT -- I appreciate your zeal in removing inadequately sourced material, but I think these deletion nominations risk throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Several of these articles cover topics which clearly have received the attention of scholars, particularly historians of religion. BMT, based on your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devachan (2nd nomination), it appears you went through the nominations and added your !votes without even a cursory check on the article contents, because you referred to devachan -- a Theosophical concept roughly akin to heaven -- as a "character". Please slow down, both of you, and take note of WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD. Jfire (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jfire the sources you have found are indeed reliable for example on the Coulomb Affair however 1 or 2 sources is not enough to establish notability for an entire article about the topic. You may be correct about that article but the rest are beyond saving as no decent sourcing exists. These articles have been in a bad way for nearly 20 years, this is a very serious matter hence why I put them up for afd. It seems every event no matter how small in Theosophy somehow has found its own Wikipedia article and when you look into the matter the same old accounts were involved in editing them, this is abuse of article process because they are not neutral articles. We have ended up with some very biased pro Theosophical articles that are poorly sourced. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is we are asked to trust various editor's interpretation of primary sources. People frequently disagree about what a "Prophet" means to say. So which editor's interpretation of these "mystical revelations" should we trust? I'd vote against trusting any editor to find the "true" meaning of these "revelations". We need good secondary sources that we can summarize. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 02:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also related, Mental body and Astral body seem to be very fringe and not NPOV, with the normal set of Theosophical only sources. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last year about 5 of those body and metaphysical planes articles were deleted, I noticed there are some others that were missed as well Causal body, Causal plane. It's worth taking these to afd at some point. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A user is trying to add Aseem Malhotra and many other unreliable sources into the lead. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will take a look. Bon courage (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Kombucha (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch – previous discussions[6][7]

A user has declared on the talk page that "Kombucha is fermented tea. Nothing more, nothing less" and is tagging content around its potential benefits and harms in a way I am finding it difficult to comprehend/deal with on Talk. More eyes could help. Bon courage (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would love some oversight on this. This feels crazy to me. TlonicChronic (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Giorgio Antonucci (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Follower of Thomas Szasz. Article has hagiographic elements. -Hob Gadling (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Effective accelerationism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Effective accelerationism is up for DYK, so I took a quick look at it. The only problem that I can see is in terms of framing. This is very much a fringe theory that is being deliberately framed as mainstream, but only because it has received a lot of attention, not because mainstream researchers and academics support it. This is a problem for me. We only see minor criticism, which is corralled in a "Reception" section, giving it the appearance that the concept is not fringe at all but just has some detractors. To me, this is a form of bias. If we had similar articles about related ideas calling for the removal and bypassing of regulation in other sectors, whether it was in building codes, medical testing and drug analysis, air and water quality, or just food inspection, we would automatically recognize it as a fringe theory. Yet somehow, this kind of free market fundamentalism gets a free pass because it is talking about AI. Please, can someone take a look at this. What's disturbing to me the most, is that the source they are using to say it is no longer fringe, says the opposite ("the idea is still fairly fringe").[8] Viriditas (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to look at the article. As I nominated it for DYK I think I should answer (but I am only a contributor to it and not the article's creator).

The idea that e/acc falls in the WP:FRINGE category is probably true. It is, however, a bit of an unusual case because e/acc does not describe a science at all but a philosophical (or ideological) stance or movement. Therefore questions concerning its "truth" cannot really arise.

I take issue with the statement that the article is "'deliberately' framed as mainstream. This is a charge which is not WP:AGF and (at least in my case) not true. Describing a philosophical stance like e/acc, even one which many people find objectionable, does not absolve one of taking a close look at the many reliable (but not academic) sources which describe it and distill its ideas from it. I think the article mostly does quite a good job on this difficult task. Describing the ideas of (and behind) e/acc makes it necessary to engage with the view and lay out its content. Describing the content of a (very) new view or movement according to its treatment in reliable sources does not constitute bias.

A bit baffling for me is the statement that the criticism is "corralled in a 'Reception' section". The article has one supportive and four critical views in its reception area. How does this constitute bias for e/acc? If you can find more views on it I would be very happy if you add them to the article. That the article contains a criticism section at all is (in my view) in line with policy because WP:NOCRIT advises us that "politics, religion and philosophy topics" can contain such a section. Your view that e/acc "gets a free pass because it is talking about AI" is in my opinion also not reflected in the content of the article because exactly the points on its radical deregulatory content are made in the first two paragraphs of the criticism subsection.

I take your point concerning the sentence "What's disturbing to me the most, is that the source they are using to say it is no longer fringe, says the opposite". The sourcing here was quite unfortunate and it slipped my review before I nominated the article for DYK. Still, the article never said that e/acc was not fringe or went mainstream. It said (and says) that it gained "mainstream visibility" - this holds true because it was discussed in stand-alone articles in the NYT, the Economist, the Süddeutsche Zeitung (a very well known German newspaper), Bloomberg News, The Sydney Morning Herald etc. So I think the only issue here is this one sentence which should be better sourced and formulated which you begun. WatkynBassett (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WatkynBassett: The most glaring problem at the moment is the statement "Originally considered a fringe movement". As you said above, this was intended to refer to mainstream visibility, but it confuses this usage with a tertiary one: "a group with marginal or extremist views". If you simply remove this sentence entirely, that would be a good start. The problem is that "effective accelerationism" is very much still a fringe view, yet that sentence strangely contradicts that view by using a primary or secondary usage that conflicts with the tertiary one. This is the reason I originally said it was "deliberately framed as mainstream", when I should have said it was unintentional instead. Apologies. Viriditas (talk) 07:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calling e/acc a "philosophical movement" is highly suspect. That is typically reserved for movements within academic philosophy, not social media, parochially funded startup companies, or various weblogs. It looks to me more like an internet fad. We have sources in the article to that effect as well! This isn't so much a WP:FRINGE issue as it is WP:NPOV. jps (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first thing that has to be said is that artificial intelligence is fringe. A program that can run on a normal desktop computer answer questions and solve complex problems in natural language is a bizarre artifact that I don't think there is a "normal" way of philosophically approaching. Most people tend to make bizarre overly-confident (and sometimes objectively false) statements about artificial intelligence on a regular basis. If saying goofy untrue stuff about AI made you fringe, more or less every pundit would be in the stocks for saying many provably false things over the course of the last couple years. But cringe is not fringe.

.

This article is not stunningly great. There are a couple things that are rather bold and need citations ("Central to effective accelerationism is the belief that propelling technological progress at any cost is the only ethically justifiable course of action", for example). I don't think Yann LeCun believes that lol. Like, he doesn't really say that, and he doesn't really agree when other people say it. The article could certainly benefit from some rewriting and some closer attention to sourcing, as well as some closer attention to what actually makes sense (arbitrary sentences can be assembled from reliable sources to say just about anything, writing an article requires having at least some idea in your head about what is true and what is false, and writing a good one requires this idea to be somewhat accurate).

.

As for the rest of your post, I don't really know what it's got to do with fringe theories. Political views that favor free markets are not a fringe view, any more than political views that favor regulated markets, or socialism, or anarchism, or for that matter Juche-feudalist Evolaism with Posadist characteristics. If people make concrete claims about reality that are false (i.e. "true feudalism has never been tried and the history books are lying about it"), those can be fringe theories, but political opinions themselves are not really fringe. Cringe is not fringe. jp×g🗯️ 21:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I strongly disagree. Free-market fundamentalism is not a political view that favors free markets. It's a fringe view that favors little to no regulation, a position that the majority of experts in their respective fields do not support and are in solid agreement noting that it has a negative value upon society. It is not the mainstream view, it is fringe. I realize that we've had forty years of Powell memo-inspired, Koch-financed, industry-promoted "think tanks" and fake academic literature saying otherwise, but I'm afraid all of those are just as much fringe as well. I don't want to get into the specifics of the claimants, but there is a known, notable pattern of those who promote "effective accelerationism" and their belief in other fringe ideas, which they have also expressed. You're not the first person to deny these ideas are fringe merely because they have acceptance in corporate media and institutions. These fringe ideas have saturated American society making people erroneously think they are mainstream when they are not, a phenomenon Oreskes addressed in The New Republic back in March 2023: "If you say something enough times, and you say it in enough different ways, and you recruit spokespeople who seem credible or likable, you can get people to believe things, even when they're not true...people are susceptible to the power of suggestion, and propaganda takes advantage of that". And that's what's going on here. There is no consensus by recognized experts in their fields that "effective accelerationism" is a mainstream view. It is a fringe theory. Anyone who reads the statement "technological progress at any cost is the only ethically justifiable course of action" knows that this is a fringe theory. Contrast this with the mainstream reality: "AI experts agree that it needs regulation".[9] What Oreskes said above is happening right here. Spokespeople who seem credible or likable, repeat false ideas over and over again, leading some people to believe it. Viriditas (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I do not really want to have a long discussion about the Koch brothers or whatever on the fringe theory noticeboard, so excuse me if I disregard most of this comment.

If I understand correctly, your argument is that this article needs to describe these people as crackpots, because they say all this crazy stuff about how "technological progress at any cost is the only ethically justifiable course of action" [sic], a phrase you have put in quotes.

Where is this a quotation from? There's literally zero Google results for that phrase, in quotes, except for our own article on effective accelerationism... where it is completely unsourced, and has a citation needed tag on it. Yes, I agree that if some hypothetical person were to say this, it would be stupid. Do you have a source for Yann LeCun saying this? Do you have a source for anyone saying this, ever? jp×g🗯️ 07:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "Notes on e/acc principles and tenets" post offered as an external link is a goulash of speculation, misunderstood basic concepts, and wishful thinking. If no one has called it fringe physics yet, that can only be because nobody who actually knows physics has bothered to comment upon it. It's like Ray Kurzweil and Ayn Rand had a baby who graduated from microdosing acid to doing lines of coke off the bones of Nikolai Fyodorov. XOR'easter (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you spent a lot of time in COVID-related or other articles tagged by WPMED during 2023, please consider signing up at https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Wikipedia/WikiProject_Medicine_reference_campaign_2023?enroll=qyoufwds We're tracking both most (net) sources added and most (bad) sources removed, and I'm hoping that some of you can give @Bon courage some proper competition in that latter category. (If you can't figure out the interface, then ping me, and I can add you directly.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see "The course has ended." prominently displayed when I click on that link. Is that correct? jps (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's "over", in the sense that it tracks only edits made during the last calendar year. But you might still be able to join, and I can still add editors. (I just added you – check back tomorrow to see what your numbers are.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! jps (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Conversion therapy about whether it should include "gender exploratory therapy" and if so, whether it should be defined as conversion therapy. The relevant text being debated is the last two paragraphs of Conversion therapy#Gender identity change efforts (GICE) and the relevant discussion is Talk:Conversion therapy#GET sourcing problems. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that one of the big debates is over whether/how to include a statement by the UK Council on Psychotherapy which states conclusively that exploratory therapy isn't conversion therapy. I'm not in the UK and not particularly familiar with the UK Council on Psychotherapy, but a quick google finds its led by this guy, whose entire Twitter presence seems to be criticizing vaccines and covid public health measures, retweeting the likes of Peter Hitchens, etc. That's... not what I would expect to see coming from the person leading a reputable medical organization. Anyone know more? (figured I'd put the question here rather than the talk page since I'm primarily curious about the org, not its position). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UKCP is a registered charity, with a board, trustees, an elected chair, published accounts, minutes of its board meetings, maintains a respected national register of psychotherapists in the UK, and is accredited by the UK Professional Standards Authority. This is not a WP:FRINGE organisation by any stretch of the imagination. Void if removed (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being a registered charity doesn't make you not WP:FRINGE. You can register a charity for anything. Similarly, being well-organized doesn't make it not WP:FRINGE either. Loki (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, Loki, you can’t register a charity for anything. See [10] .Sweet6970 (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what the UK Professional Standards Authority is? Void if removed (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UKCP and BPC are both prominent signatories to the BACP MOU on conversion therapy, and both have released statements explicitly saying exploratory therapy is not conversion therapy. So is NHS England, which is in the process of enacting the interim Cass Review and placing less emphasis on affirmative approaches. MIND released a statement that it is possible to achieve a ban on conversion practices that protects the trans, non-binary and intersex communities, without limiting exploratory therapy.

None of this is WP:FRINGE. Void if removed (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cass Review interim report is a top tier independent multidisciplinary assessment of the available evidence which considers affirmation and exploration approaches to be part of a spectrum of therapeutic options with no consensus on best practice, in what sense is that a fringe point of view? Void if removed (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me correct that for you. The Cass Review interim report is a progress update on an incomplete top tier independent multidisciplinary assessment of the available evidence. It explicitly says It is important to note that the references cited in this report do not constitute a comprehensive literature review. It defines GET once, in a glossary which says it is important to emphasise that the language used is not an indication of a position being taken by the Review, and doesn't comment on it at all anywhere else except to say GIDS doesn't use it, and some people quit over that. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that in the thread you incorrectly referred to The Cass Review as "1 person's review", incorrectly stated it is of "1 clinic", incorrectly called it outdated and incorrectly interpreted a line that GIDS clinicians "predominantly" took an affirmative approach as meaning "GIDS doesn't use" exploratory approaches (and even that exploratory therapy is "fringe") - now again here for the fourth time - I consider your assessment of the review here to be equally inaccurate.

The 2019 paper laying out the difference between the exploratory model, affirmation model and conversion therapy was authored by a practicing GIDS clinician explaining their clinical approach as an undirected one with no fixed or preferred outcome. In a panel review conducted in 2021, the Cass Review made clear there is a spectrum of opinion and that there is no consensus on best practice (although I note from the actual engagement report, the majority were in favour of exploratory approaches and establishing a differential diagnosis to prevent diagnostic overshadowing, making this far from a "fringe" position). Given that the exploratory model is bog-standard undirected psychotherapy with no fixed outcome in mind, the Cass Review also notes that clinicians outside the service felt under pressure to adopt an unquestioning affirmative approach and that this is at odds with the standard process of clinical assessment and diagnosis that they have been trained to undertake in all other clinical encounters to the extent that they would simply refer cases direct to GIDS. These problems have all been well-documented in Time To Think.

The scope of the review covers these services also - the whole pathway into what was then GIDS and what will become its replacement. The review is wide ranging, extensive, and ongoing, but the interim report represents initial findings, service recommendations that led to immediate changes, and an explanation of further avenues of investigation, not some incomplete and meaningless draft. It is a milestone in a massive undertaking. The current assessment is that evidence on the appropriate management of children and young people with gender incongruence and dysphoria is inconclusive both nationally and internationally., and this is something I believe we should cautious of deviating from in wikivoice.

The Cass Interim report came out in March 2022, and in April 2022, when proposed bans on gender identity conversion therapy were a hot political topic in the UK, BPC released a statement saying that there was no risk of exploratory therapy being confused with conversion therapy. In October 2022, the Association of Clinical Psychologists released a statement accepting the interim findings of the Cass Review and the issues at GIDS. As recently as November 2023, UKCP released a statement - citing the Cass Review - specifically stating exploratory therapy should never be conflated with conversion therapy.

In October 2023, The Observer noted that while NHS England was moving away from affirmation to exploratory approaches, it warned that campaigners are seeking to make the provision of exploratory therapy effectively impossible by ensnaring it in an ill-defined criminal ban on trans “conversion therapy”. This is the nature of this controversy: a political battle over what does or does not count as "conversion therapy", with experts outside the US insisting that exploratory therapy is not conversion, and the NHS moving more in that direction, guided by the interim findings of The Cass Review.

None of this is WP:FRINGE. There's no need whatsoever to have brought this here.

While there is a divergence between the US and Europe over the preferred model (with some European countries favouring more cautious psychotherapeutic interventions and AAP endorsing the affirmative model, while committing to an actual systematic review) it is only really in the last 18 months or so that these sources have appeared which outright call exploratory therapy "conversion therapy". This is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim and I think needs better evidence for wikivoice than an article in slate or xtra. I think the strongest independent WP:RSOPINION source is this November 2022 statement from WPATH attacking the Cass Review, which still only goes so far as to call it "tantamount" to conversion therapy.

And I repeat that all I've stated is that this be portrayed as the ongoing political controversy it is, with attributed statements, not making any of this a definitive claim in wikivoice. What's there right now is overtly WP:POV in a highly contentious area, and this attempt to make out that a standard psychotherapeutic approach is WP:FRINGE with non-independent, non-WP:MEDRS, WP:PARTISAN sources - while excluding contrary statements from respected psychotherapeutic bodies and even the Cass Review - is unsupportable. Void if removed (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This wall of text says very little and your continued insistence it's "controversial" is getting to WP:RGW territory

• It's not a review. It explicitly says "this is not a review", so you insisting it has the weight of one is silly
• That 2019 paper is from Spiliadis, who says on his website he created the term in 2018[11]. Spiliadis is a member of the IATDD[12], which is known for spreading pseudoscience[13] and who's membership overlaps about 90% with WP:FRINGE pro-conversion therapy groups SEGM and Genspect.[14]
• The BPC statement says the government is dropping protection against trans conversion therapy because some people claim it will impact their ability to practice GET. The BPC says it shouldn't drop protections since ethical exploratory therapy would never be covered by a ban. As is already noted in Gender exploratory therapy, supporters of GET oppose trans conversion therapy bans.
• The UKCP is not the best source, as Rhododentrites alluded to above
• An editorial in the observer is not a RS. FFS it says The ban has been linked to parallel proposals to ban gay conversion therapy; yet the fluidity of gender dysphoria makes it a completely different phenomenon to sexual orientation in young people. Our article on Conversion therapy is clear: conversion therapy includes T, not just LGB.
• WPATH is not WP:RSOPINION by any stretch of the imagination, it is a statement from the world's leading body on transgender healthcare (and the strongest WP:MEDRS sourcing we have) that the denial of gender-affirming treatment under the guise of “exploratory therapy” has caused enormous harm to the transgender and gender diverse community and is tantamount to “conversion” or “reparative” therapy under another name.

The main thing you seem to misunderstand is this, absolutely nobody is saying "all exploration is bad". Gender-affirming care includes exploration, It's a few fringe groups who argue trans kids shouldn't transition or be affirmed and must go through "gender exploratory therapy" instead. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly it is still not clear why you've brought this to the fringe board, or what it is you actually think is fringe. I'm operating on the understanding that you think that the statement "exploratory therapy must not be conflated with conversion therapy" is WP:FRINGE, seeing as that is what you took issue with, and to exclude that balancing statement you've made (and continue to make) multiple incorrect statements about both UKCP and The Cass Review.

I noted Spiliadis in passing in this discussion, to point out that the distinction between exploration and conversion was noted by a practicing GIDS clinician, and what that distinction actually was (ie, undirected exploration vs directed with a specific outcome in mind). Why you felt it necessary to launch into a reputational attack I don't know, but Health Liberation Now, as you know from past discussions, are a tiny group of WP:PARTISAN activists and not a reliable source. Using Health Liberation Now and the recent SPLC report they co-authored to personally disparage individuals they differ with in this way is both circular, inappropriate and unnecessary.

UKCP is not the best source I'm sorry, but you don't establish whether an uncontroversial, commonplace therapeutic viewpoint advanced by a regulated charity with a board, trustees, and a well-respected CEO who is the former CEO of the Ethics Committee, is WP:FRINGE by trawling the social media of the chair to see if he's retweeted Peter Hitchens.

absolutely nobody is saying "all exploration is bad" The WPATH statement is criticising the Cass Review for favouring exploratory interventions, criticising the “psychotherapeutic” approach, and calling "exploratory therapy" tantamount to conversion. Are WPATH a strong source or not? You can't apply this selectively. Either what both WPATH and Cass describe as "exploratory therapy" is conversion therapy (as your sources argue) or it isn't.

The sources you are providing state that exploration that considers other possible causes of gender distress in youth in particular - even if there is no fixed outcome in mind - is pathologising, gatekeeping and "tantamount" or "similar" to conversion therapy. This is the view of Ashley (2022). This is WPATH's revised view in SOC8, which is less than 18 months old, and which has been received with some scepticism. This is why WPATH were critical of the Cass Review (with its concerns about diagnostic overshadowing), of NHS England's new service specification, and why you have brought this whole issue here, to argue that The Cass Review and NHS England's resulting service specification (which is all completely in line with SOC7) don't just hold a legitimately different viewpoint but are actually WP:FRINGE!

All I have ever said is there is a disagreement here (because there plainly is), with evolving professional viewpoints and no definitive consensus, and it should be presented as such.

Yet you have made the WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim that the widespread and previously uncontroversial views of mainstream psychotherapeutic bodies are now actually WP:FRINGE and rather than discuss the genuine disagreement between respectable sources reasonably on the article itself you have wrongly and needlessly brought this controversy to this board. Given this, I'd prefer you didn't accuse me of WP:RGW. Void if removed (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Westall UFO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sensational cruft cited to search engine results, blogs, Facebook groups, and Youtube videos being justified because "Wikipedia has no firm rules". - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh are you trying to coax me into another Wikipedia page on UFO's Lucky! I'm busy with the magic world right now, don't tempt me! Sgerbic (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you caught me! I am also busy IRL at the moment so Wikipedia will just have to get along without us. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That reminds me of the time my sister told me I was the best in the house at peeling potatoes, no one did it better. And it worked, I shined with pride for a few weeks till I caught on. Sgerbic (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is now at Wikipedia Third Opinion when it is very clear from the Talk page that WP:FRINGE is at issue. An editor with about two months experience is tendentiously edit warring to remove skeptical sources from the article and add credulous interpretations from primary sources, justified by massive WP:WALLSOFTEXT on the Talk page. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "walls of text" as a strategy of war or subversion, I thought you could read the text as it is my response. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC) In neither reversion I returned the same content I tried to adapt to the expectations of Rjjiii (ii) Talk:Westall_UFO#4_January_2023 "Thank you for taking my concerns seriously and using inline citations" 00:07, 7 January 2024. With LuckyLouie reversion I haven't added any more disagreeable information and limited my response to only that which is proven obviously, also removing those parts which the sources don't show which suprising is quite a few informations as shown at Talk:Westall_UFO#7_January_2024 "23:49, 7 January 2024", to stabilize the content to the expected standard of reference to content being a true representation. I didn't provide a sceptical position because the sources don't provide that position. I'm not an advocate I just obeyed the sources. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC) The article as it is now is stable as far as I am concerned; the sources to content have representation so this allows all involved editors to discuss the reality of the article instead of being deceived and proceeding from a false position. I don't intend to make any more changes unless with discussion, I thought this could proceed as to how LuckyLouie thinks the sources can't be used to represent the statements of the involved individuals. Whether or not someone should believe their statements it is interesting to see what they stated, and to allow people to decide for themselves the reality, instead of judging that they are wrong as FRINGE would indicate. Obviously no proof is available but by stating isn't proven is fringe or extrordinary does not prove it is not the reality. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC) WP:FRNG "a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is.". Obviously the sources of the supposed incidents don't have a sceptical view so ignoring their views is simply to discount the evidence from the sources as if the "Explanations" argue away the possibility of the things they state being true. The explanations part of the artilce is not satisfactory as a explanation against the details of the statements. It is a false representation to provide the sceptical position if the statements of the sources of the incidents aren't obviously currently disproven. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Simpul skitsofreeneea: It is a false representation to provide the sceptical position if the statements of the sources of the incidents aren't obviously currently disproven. Ignoring its problematic logic, this statement indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the policies and guidelines that underlie what content is, and is not, included in Wikipedia articles. I strongly suggest that you read about Wikipedia's policy of sourcing requirements here, and also the guideline here that describes how fringe material is handled. Wikipedia articles do not necessarily include The Truth, only material that is verifiable in reliable, secondary, independent sources. The Wikipedia policy of WP:CONSENSUS, which I note is not in your favor at the article Talk page, should also be read because it describes the basic model of how editors, through collaborative discussion, determine article content. Lastly, regarding such discussions, please read the Wikipedia policy here about how to engage with other editors. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 09:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is kind of a daunting mess. Given the nature of the WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims, the lack of analysis and critique published by independent secondary expert sources is surprising. Most newspaper coverage seems to be WP:SENSATIONAL mystery-monging and jumping on the "Australia's Roswell" bandwagon. The "Further information" section at the bottom is loaded with conspiracy junk, non-notable YouTube videos, and other WP:ELNO - all formatted as citations. This could take some work. ( @User:SGerbic, yup, still trying!) - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Consipiracy junk" is nonsense you haven't looked at the sources to state that. "non-notable YouTube videos" isn't very probable as it is possible to corroborate the contents of the Kible video as I showed at 03:12, 6 January 2024 Princeton corroborates source 4 "brother-in-law" which is to state that although kirk (which is the Princton source) merely copied from Basterfiald and Clarke he didn't determine that Basterfiald and Clarke were a worthless source as you seem to be implying, which matters since "kirk" is Professor Emeritus Experimental High-Energy Physics Department of Physics Princeton University as I indicated at Talk:Westall UFO#7 January 2024 14:07, 8 January 2024. And why would you state non-notable, since obviously the Youtube video of JE McDonald in which he is interviewed stating "I've investigated about 50 or 60 cases since I came down to New Zealand and Australia extremely interesting UFO sightings", as shown here ref.16 plus the absolutely certain same voice of the interviewer in the Youtube video at 16 couldn't be classed as the apparent non-notable evidently by "James E. McDonald". You comments have a perplexing lack of observation of the actual reality of the sources, your dispariging comments are a presumed reality.

Correct my mis-apprehension of your meaning: "mystery-monging", so you have the proof that the entire accounts of the sources are absolutely and covincingly discredited: where are the sources for me and other editors to be similarly convinced: if you would like to show the counter argument to how their extrordinary claims are so obviously extraordinarily false then show how this is proven, beause I didn't find such a proof just your suspicion and persuasve use of language to attempt to discredit the sources, unless you have a contrary proof.

I requested someone review the edits I made 23:49, 7 January 2024 & 14:35, 8 January 2024, for the purposes of peer-review, which no-one has so far done. I tried to begin a discussion of the sources, you seem to think policy discounts my using the sources so state where in policy it is the sources shouldn't be used.

Dunn, Matthew (6 January 2016). "The Westall 'UFO' incident still remains a mystery 50 years after it occurred"

Lucadou-Wells, Cam (7 April 2016). "Westall sighting remains a mystery"

Sharpe, Matthew (3 April 2016). "Westall '66: 50 years on, still stranger than fiction"

Natarsha Belling, Terry Peck (21 January 2016). Melbourne UFO Mystery: 50 Years On, Shane Ryan (investigator)

Paul Smith (22 March 2022). Phenom Westall '66 - A Suburban UFO Mystery

are the sources: please share with me and any other interested editors how the accounts are so obviously disproven, since you obviously know how they are by mentioning "The Roswell incident is a collection of events and myths surrounding the 1947 crash of a United States Army Air Forces balloon, near Roswell, New Mexico.". I didn't use the sources to confirm anything extraterrestrial or secret military simply to restate the claims of the sources as rerepresentation of their realities since I didn't find obvious indications of deluded, conspiracy theory or any other charge or claim against the sources. Unless I see the evidence that these sources shouldn't think mystery then your claims are just slander against the reputation of legitaimately employed journalists and an investigator currently employed by Australian parliament Canberra. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't indicate the exact relevant part of WP:ELNO so I had to presume that "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting." is the expeccted reference (although I don't know); which isn't applicable as I didn't use the sources to state or imply anything more than the sources themselves state, which is the subject of the article not: if the sources of the article Westall state something which is extraordinarily improbable in known reality, the laws of physics, the current ctate of physics. The subject matter is ufology not physics. ‎The videos which show interviews with the soures look authentic to me: so they can't be "factually inaccurate material" as they are the facts of the acounts of the sources. If ELNO applied I would be: seeing a different version of the sources which distorted their accounts, but I didn't find that, obviously, as the sources give videos which are convincing. As to whether the sources are "unverifiable research", the sources give accounts of what happened either in typeface or video and names of individuals are given in video interviews.

Your argument excludes WP:ELNO: "except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting" even if your position with regards were true, the position of the article is to represent the information, whatever is available in sources, on the supposed events of the day which is Westall. Your criticisms amount to Original research here that you make a variety of claims as to the no-value state of the sources but that is all you do, make claims without showing exactly how those claims could be easily supported by the evidence. Please show exactly how your position is agreeable then this argument could be ended immediately by the obvious reality which I so obviously have no evidence to prove to myself of (unless I should be convinced by your "loaded" and offensive response which you so obviously execute on this page to the expected conclusion of ceasing any further inclusion to the article), regards Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will try this one more time, Simpul skitsofreeneea: you really need to read WP:RS and WP:NPA. Your comments immediately above ("Consipiracy junk" is nonsense you haven't looked at the sources and You comments have a perplexing lack of observation of the actual reality and your claims are just slander and your "loaded" and offensive response) are not only unhelpful, they could lead to you being blocked. You are also displaying WP:IDHT and WP:BLUDGEON behavior, which could also get you blocked. As has already been explained to you, Wikipedia policies determine what is and isn't included in Wikipedia articles. There are no Wikipedia policies that obligate editors to provide "proof," to you or anyone else, that something WP:SENSATIONAL didn't happen. Our chosen avocation here - and by "our" I mean you, me, and all editors - starts with populating articles with reliably sourced content. Experienced editors in good standing are balking at your desired content because it is apparently not reliably sourced. You should be trying to better understand their positions, rather than engaging in personal attacks. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You, Rjjiii and I have done the best we could. But I think we have reached editor exhaustion in trying to deal with WP:IDHT, WP:EDITWAR disruption and WP:COMPETENCE problems, e.g. lack of English language skills, not knowing how to use diffs, not understanding editorial policies, etc. Resolving this will likely require admin assistance. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MGTOW folks have their knickers in a twist about the article, posting things like "What are the implications about the prevailing conditions if Wikipedia's MGTOW entry is more dramatic than Encyclopedia Dramatica's MGTOW entry?" on the Quora Q&A forum. Apparently we are biased by relying on mainstream journalism and other reliable sources instead of accepting their self-descriptions. The complaints on the talk page have already begun. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that one user has been page-banned from the article for a week for edit warring, and further sanctions are being discussed at WP:AE. Bishonen | tålk 22:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

On the Joe Rogan Experience podcast, Grusch revealed himself to be a full fledged UFO mythicist, from referring to "the phenomenon" to "experiencers" having psychic contact with non human entities to the phenomenon being a "bipedal hominid" and higher dimensional beings to Operation Stargate being a successful remote viewing program which turns a part of the brain into a transceiver. He's a fan of Jacques Vallée and he's forming a company with Garry Nolan (though oddly he calls himself a founder while not appearing anywhere on the company's webpage.)

Anyhoo, the mainstream media, as well as the politicians who threw their lot in with him, are all avoiding the embarrassment of admitting that they believed someone who is so obviously a cook. Consequently there is minimal coverage of his headlong dive down the rabbit hole. But having taken his mask off on the most popular podcast in the world, Grusch does not have a right of privacy about his WP:ABOUTSELF statements. The guiding principle here is WP:PARITY. But as usual, those who want to pretend they are protecting WP:PRIMARY refuse to recognize to keep embarrassing things off the page. The exact same tactic was used to keep D. Gary Young's worst medical malpractices off his page. It's a frustratingly cynical ploy that smacks of bad faith. DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gets into WP:RGW territory. If decent sources don't pay attention to his nonsenses, neither can Wikipedia. That principle protects Wikipedia from fringe POV so it would be unwise to relax it even if it seemed expedient. Bon courage (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what principle you are referencing. Have you read WP:PARITY? What the "we don't pay attention to nonsense" policy you seem to think exists actually does is create a loophole that protects fringe points of view. DolyaIskrina (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with all of WP:FRINGE, and note that WP:FRIND is part of it (particularly "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles"). WP:PARITY would only be relevant if counter-sources were needed for fringe content admitted to Wikipedia in the normal way. Bon courage (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Bon courage. As discussed exhaustively here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Podcasts are a weird format -- people can go into all sort of personal beliefs, from the God of Abraham to the Book of Mormon to the beliefs in Astrology or Telepathy. If mainstream RSes aren't connecting his "mega-fringe" faith-based beliefs to his "debunkable" claims, neither should we. Feoffer (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be like quoting a trashy New Age book with a title like "The Prophecies of Nostradamus" or "The Healing Power of Breathing", or like quoting stupid anti-evolutionist crap from a creationist website, or like quoting a backbencher's QAnon rant, instead of waiting until there are critical secondary sources. To do that would be to turn Wikipedia into the crackpots' megaphone. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If someone who was notable wrote the book "The Prophecies of Nastrodamus" or if the book itself were notable, once it is in wikipedia we actually have a responsibility, according to FRINGE, to explain what the book contains and that the book is considered fringe. Similarly, the page about Grusch's claims automatically encompasses all of his claims, not just the ones we like. We include under ABOUTSELF, all sorts of information about people that isn't covered in secondary sources, like the high school they went to or hobbies they have. So to suddenly decide just because some thing is fringy it should be excluded is to make up a policy that does not exist. DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this can be saved. I can find American Indian Rock Art. Monograph series of the American Rock Art Research Association (ARARA). Edited by DAVID A. KAISER and JAMES D. KEYSER. The most recent issue features these papers: Volume 44 (2018): . HILBISH, J. F.: Dating western message petroglyphs with Aztec and Maya glyphs. This is by the author of the self-published book. And of course a paper at a conference isn't enough either. But maybe there's a place for some of it? Doug Weller talk 12:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New user adding 29,154 bytes of text, most of which do not mention Yusuf (WP:OR) or are unreliable, claiming the consensus on saturated fat has been overturned. The usual sources being cited including Gary Taubes and paleo diet advocate Steven Hamley. We had similar issues to this recently at the Ancel Keys talk-page where scientific consensus is being ignored. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]