Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

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

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

There's an IP at the talk page complaining about lack of sources. It looks as though it needs more and may be slightly tilted towards his views. Doug Weller talk 17:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that his assertions about how the pyramids were built might be discussed by other sources in the article. I think the question is, does the mention or discussion in the sources amount to significant coverage? I started a discussion on the talk page if anyone is interested in helping to analyze the sources. Also, is there evidence that Davidovits received the Ordre national du Mérite? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed that. Doug Weller talk 13:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been looking at what publications exist in terms of reliable, third-party, sources that review the idea that the pyramids / great pyramids of Egypt consisting of blocks of casts geopolymer. So far, I have found a deafening lack of recent third-party reviews. The main peer-reviewed sources consists of parts of a "pro" and "con" discussion that was published during 1992 and 1993 in the Journal of Geological Education. Subsequently, there is a 2007 conference paper and a report by Dipayan Jana that dispute this concept. On the "pro" side, there are several conference papers; a few papers in ceramic / material engineering journals; and numerous self-published articles and books all by a very small handful of supporters of this idea.

After 1992 and 1993, I have so far been able to find very few publications by a third-party archeologist, geoarchaeologist, or geologist who have recently published anything about this idea. The publications citing the publications of the "pro" side of use of polymers in building the pyramids, seem to be in the introduction to ceramic and material engineering papers that only state so-and-so proposed that the pyramids are constructed by blocks of geopolymers and go on to discuss other unrelated aspects of geopolymers. Outside of the proponents of fringe ideas, it seems after 2012-2013, the only people interested in this concept have been a small group of its supporters. Finding reliable, third-party, commentary and reviews of the pyramid - geopolymers connection might be problem as there seems to be a lack of interest in this topic by third-party archeologists, geoarchaeologists, and geologists. Paul H. (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul H.@Johnprovis@Steve Quinn Thanks to Paul for finding this which looks like a brilliant source which discusses Davidovits... [1] Dietrich Klemm, Rosemarie Klemm THE STONES OF THE PYRAMIDS Provenance of the Building Stones of the Old Kingdom Pyramids of Egypt/ Doug Weller talk 13:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Paul. The dearth of discussion in sources probably means that this hypothesis has gained no traction in the mainstream scientific community. It most likely a hypothesis or a theory with a potpourri of shortcomings. And of course the theory has a certain aura about it because it connects with the pyramids of Gaza. And that kind of aura often leads to unsound and even irrational ideas outside the scientific community, if you get my meaning.---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geopolymer[edit]

Who wrote that? returns "JDavidovits (talk | contribs) added this on 18 January 2013 10:36 AM. I have replace the old content with a new one that is an actual update and represents the wishes of the geopolymer scientists community.+27,571 They have written 61.0% of the page. Found that at Talk:Joseph Davidovits#Adding details on my scientific career — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 13:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where can we post this to get people who know about geopolymer? Doug Weller talk 16:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller. Offhand I am thinking of the WikiProject Engineering talk page. But I am wondering if it would be OK to post at the Village Pump for more visibility. What do you think about the Village Pump? Too over the top? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know,which one? Doug Weller talk 17:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me take a look over at the Village Pump and see if this fits into a section over there. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else who has a suggestion, please chime in. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller:, I think this will be OK in the Village Pump Miscellaneous section. Do you want to open the thread there because you know what you are asking? Or do you want me to open the thread? If I do then you will have let me know what you want to ask, because I am not entirely sure. It seems you are concerned that JDavidovits wrote 61.0 percent of that page. So you want editors who know about geopolymers to judge the accuracy of the page or to edit or something else? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Steve Quinn judge the accuracy, sources, pov. If you could do it that would be great, I’m off to sleep. Thanks very much. Doug Weller talk 20:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: - I don't mind doing it. But it will be in about a day or so. I want to take a closer look at this article and the Joseph Davidovits biography. In the meantime please rest as much as you need. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller:. Sorry to ping you again. Just want to let you know I might have found someone to help out. I haven't tried the Village Pump yet, but I discovered this editor who may be able to help. I left a message on his talk page. Here is the link: [2]. If they don't respond in a few days I will send them an email. And we still have the Village Pump option if this doesn't pan out. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you have more to add over at their talk page feel free to do so.----Steve Quinn (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just tagged the article for factual accuracy based on the talk page discussions and the fact that Davidovits edited 61 per cent of the article. He was indefinitely blocked in 2016. However, while he was editing on that article he had some serious WP:OWNership issues, among other issues. That's what I gather from the talk page discussions. I am tempted to simply stubify it and start over. If I knew about Geopolymers I certainly would do that. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He also edited with a sock. Subbing may be necessary or maybe a merge with Geopolymer cement. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I will look at stubifying or a merge. Either of these may be the best solution at this time.---Steve Quinn (talk)

I am linking to the sock investigation for reference: JDavidovits sock investigation results. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article really does need a lot of work (it's got some major scientific flaws as well as some more broadly misleading or weird content), but there was a huge bunfight last time I tried to do anything about it - I'm a researcher who works on these materials (and have done so for 20 years or so - https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=1mwmcwYAAAAJ&hl=en), which someone last time around said was too much of a conflict of interest for me to be doing much editing on the article?

I'm happy to put some time into it if it's appropriate, though - please let me know.

Either way, I think merging is definitely worth doing. Johnprovis (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnprovis:, @Doug Weller:, I changed the article back to its February 13, 2016 version. In that edit summary Joheprovis Undid revision 704588689 by JDavidovits and wrote: "You can't just revert a year's editing by all sorts of people (not just me) - needs to go through appropriate dispute resolution." Here is the diff for that: [3]. And here is the diff for today's revert: [4]. I am guessing this is the most accurate version available at this time.

John, if you think a merge is the best option then I agree with you. Doug also suggested a merge as an option. So this what I recommend. John, do you remember who told you that editing that article would be a conflict of interest? We may need to have a discussion about that before the merge. I don't want you to get into trouble. And yet, you are the most capable of doing the merge. So let's just take it one step at a time. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnprovis@Steve Quinn A merge makes sense. I've just deleted more material, eg from something called the "Australian Geopolymer Alliance" that doesn't even exist any more. John, being an expert definitely does not give you a conflict of interest. Repeatedly adding your own articles might, or something that you get paid to do, but not just expertise. Doug Weller talk 14:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: - John, I agree with Doug. I don't think you have a conflict of interest. Being an expert does not mean you have a COI. I believe that is a misunderstanding on someone else's part. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I'll start bashing at it then - this is actually quite a major class of cements and needs a proper Wikipedia article. As a starting point, I've run through the Geopolymer Cement article and retrieved the text of the one section there that wasn't already a duplicate of stuff that's here (on "Workability issues"), and pasted that in - which is fairly painless as far as a merge goes.... I think the Geopolymer Cement article can safely be deleted now by someone who knows properly how to do this? (I'm not really up to speed on that side of things, so sorry if there's any lack of Wikipedia etiquette/process/acronyms/etc. that come up here).

And it's been long enough that I can't even remember who commented on the conflict of interest thing, but if you don't think it's an issue then I'll happily start progressing a few edits. It won't happen overnight, but hopefully some helpful improvements will be visible before long... and if it's possible to enlist other interested folks as you mentioned about the Village Pump, that would also be handy, I think. Johnprovis (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Doug, see John's post just above. @Johnprovis: Thanks very much, John. This is much appreciated. I will post something over at the Village Pump in a day or so. Also, if you have any problems, please feel free to let me or Doug know so that, hopefully, we can smooth things out if necessary. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnprovis@Steve Quinn Thanks. I think just turning it into a redirect might be ok? Not sure we need to go to the VP. Doug Weller talk 17:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: I agree that a redirect will do. I also agree that maybe we don't need to go to the VP. Let's see how things go from here. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller:, @Johnprovis:. I just want to let you know I made the article a stub plus the recently merged material [5]. I got tired of trying to ferret out the POV and blatant self promotion. For edits regarding the removal of self promotion, prior to creating this stub - see the article history. I also removed more material from the lead as too technical and so on. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Steve Quinn Much appreciated. Sorry I've been too busy to do much recently. Doug Weller talk 14:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: This is not a problem. The issues here are straightforward. I don't mind doing this. Self-promoting-sock editing is worth removing from this project space. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Steve Quinn Could you post to the talk page saying where you merged the material from? Normally that would be in an edit summary. It's necessary to be able to trace attribution. Thanks Doug Weller talk 14:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: The merge was accomplished by John a couple of days ago, and it is in the edit summary. Here is the diff [6]. I did not merge the material. And the diff says where it was merged from. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just wandered by to have a look at things to make a start on editing, and it looks like almost the whole article has been removed except for the section I shifted across from "geopolymer cement" - which wasn't my intention in grabbing that, I was just copying it across because it was the only part of that article that wasn't already in the main Geopolymer one. If the original text has been deemed unsalvageable and a full rewrite is needed, that's ok and I can try to rebuild something, but it would be easier to do this by working from the (admittedly not very good) old version than from a blank page, if it's possible to restore the text to edit please? I suspect I could probably figure out how to do this, but also suspect that the chance of me messing up the entire thing via a fat-finger error is higher than I'm keen to risk... thanks! Johnprovis (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnprovis: I have restored the old version as you have requested. It's not that it was unsalvageable. It was just a question of what was tainted with violations of WP:NPOV and self-promotion. From an overview of the whole article it was hard to tell. Anyway, I am glad to restore to this version so you can work on the old version rather than a blank page. And, again, your efforts are very much appreciated. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Johnprovis (talk) 08:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Andrew Huberman (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

is a very hot topic[7] at the moment, especially with recent published material referring to his podcast as containing pseudoscience/ More wise eyes could help. Bon courage (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the usefulness of including David Berson's input on this guy's podcast in the end there. Reconrabbit 18:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but it's in the WP:RS and the Huberman fans go rabid if you only cite the negatives from a source. It's better to throw them a bone than encourage edit warring. A few additional watchers on the article are good though. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If 'you only cite the negatives from a source', you are engaged in cherry-picking, and all Wikipedians with a good-faith understanding of WP:NPOV should oppose such. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a misreading of NPOV. We are not required to balance "positive" and "negative" parts of a source. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Untick of interest here with Weilins warring in health claims sourced to primary research, even including Huberman's stuff about 'deep relaxation states' cited to a preprint. Bon courage (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  None of the sources in the paragraph on yoga nidra warrant the "enhanced neuroplasticity" claims. We need to wait for a review, not a preprint and an article from The Times. Also concerned about how often that Stanford Magazine article is cited; the author Deni Ellis Béchard is not an authority on medical subjects. Reconrabbit 21:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Gokhale Method (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• Previous FTN discussion: [8]

An interesting one this, maybe one of those cases where it's not possible to write a neutral article on a (probably) FRINGE subject as there is no neutral/mainstream sourcing.

An editor has raised concerns that the scientific sourcing cited in this article is not relevant to the subject, and they may well be right. Removing it would leave no independent assessment of the method's claims. What to do? Bon courage (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dearth of scientific literature to refute her claims of back pain not existing in industrialized societies, mainly because ergonomic studies try to identify the source of injuries when they are occuring. E.g., drivers in Bangladesh, factory workers in Taiwan. Nothing especially professional has been written in the literature I can find about Gokhale (though there is an embarrassingly promotional article in Biofeedback). The best I think we can do right now is to try and steer the article towards a neutral POV and pointedly attribute the various claims. Reconrabbit 20:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Havana syndrome (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Just taken a look at this after a while, and ...

My view

... am troubled to see what appears to me to be a rambling mess, including a huge "chronology" section which seems to be a collection of every possible WP:NEWSPRIMARY source airing speculation. Needless to say there's a now a clamour to include the latest "it's the Ruksies!" news tidbit that's doing the rounds. Meanwhile the most authoriative sources haven't switched from their position of Havana Syndrome probably not being a real thing caused by external factors outside the imagination of those who have it. More eyes probably could help. (Update: Now the article says "The March 2024 60 Minutes installment [sic] offered the first direct proof of the Russians' culpability ...") Bon courage (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC); 18:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it seems some editors are taking the 60 Minutes report [9] as ultimate vindication for their own long held beliefs. The fact that the show made claims appears to be well sourced and deserves a mention, but representing its conclusions as compelling, authoritative, or the new mainstream position...is not justified. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone tell those journalists that a weak correlation is not necessarily indicative of causation? It all seems very circumstantial. Simonm223 (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct to revert edits alleging the 60 minutes report is definitive but you shouldn't keep reverting edits that simply quote the claims in the report and the responses from a WP:NPOV using WP:SECONDARY. The development clearly belongs in the article given that it was significant enough that both the Director of National Intelligence and the Russian Government responded to it. ChaseK (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 23:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My edit never made out the 60 Minutes report to be absolute truth, I detailed that it contained allegations by fairly reliable sources, but did not claim it as authoritative or the mainstream position. The article already contained content of similar substance and it wasn't challenged. — THORNFIELD HALL ^(Talk) 22:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a long article about something I've never heard of. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just glancing at the reports in question, asserting a cause of a medical condition would definitely need secondary WP:MEDRS sources. I'm seeing a lot of common misconceptions trying to zero on on the news reports being secondary sources and entirely missing that point. Definitely good to hold back attempts to insert those sources from a weight perspective, and especially WP:NOTNEWS policy. KoA (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News reports as secondary sources for attributed claims, in the absence of high quality medical sources is entirely acceptable. No causes for this disputed medical condition were "asserted" as fact. FailedMusician (talk) 08:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News reports as secondary sources for attributed claims ← huh? primary sources do not magically become secondary (or usable) by attribution. The last editor who tried this line of argument (about another fringe subject: lab leak) ended up blocked. We can't allow fringe material into Wikipedia just by trick of putting "Dr X says ..." in front of it. Bon courage (talk) 08:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not claim primary sources become secondary sources. Only that they are usable for attributed claims, in the absence of high quality medical sources, in which is a part medical and political subject. FailedMusician (talk) 08:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They may be useful for occasional careful use to touch in details, but the basis of the article must be secondary sourcing, particularly to establish any themes which are discussed. Bon courage (talk) 08:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that, through a combination of recency and the involvement of the notoriously non-forthcoming US intelligence apparatus, there is a dearth of WP:MEDRS compliant secondary sources. I'm increasingly of the opinion that the best solution is likely to stubify the article. Because right now a lot of people are calling for one standard for journalists stories of magic Russian guns and another standard for people saying, "the subjects of this condition don't appear to have any sort of injuries." Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What magic guns? I don't remember either magic or guns from any of the reporting on this. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The alleged radio frequency weapons that don't exist. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radio frequency and microwave weapons do exist, lets not get ahead of ourselves and exaggerate here. To use a different example I see on that page there is a difference between saying that crickets likely weren't the cause and that crickets are fictional creatures. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source that radio frequency weapons have been used to cause nonlethal Havana Syndrome like effects? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either you are responding to someone else or you are being disruptive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reliable source to suggest that radio frequency weapons have been seen to cause a symptom cluster that matches Havana Syndrome. That's what makes this science fiction. Just like Quantum Teleportation being a thing doesn't mean that Transporter (Star Trek) is a real technology. Simonm223 (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If its existing or close to existing technology isn't that just fiction? Why isn't saying its fiction enough? Why is using hyperbole like magic or science fiction appropriate? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't close to existing technology. Microwave/radio weapons are vehicle mounted affairs that have large power requirements and don't cause effects that are anything like the symptoms being reported here. Not just in terms of scale and range (neither of which fit) but in terms of the type of effect. MrOllie (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that anyone has alleged hand-held gun like weapons to exist but perhaps I missed something, where was this reported? My understanding is that the idea is more that this was just a modern version of the Moscow Signal (complete with a lack of real medical conclusions because those human studies just can't be performed effectively in an ethical manner). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Moscow Signal was very low power. That is not what is being alleged here. And I think that the embassy workers would have noticed a big truck parked nearby running a diesel generator with a large dish antenna pointed at them, or even such a thing installed on a nearby building. MrOllie (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there allegation that there is a handheld weapon, an allegation that there is a truck mounted weapon, or are these some sort of hypothetical or thought experiment? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's all a thought experiment. There's no evidence of any weapon. Which is the whole point. Simonm223 (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't care about evidence, we don't do original research. We do care about allegations or unknowns which have been reported extensively in reliable sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A number of sources have commented on the physics involved and how much power would be required (a few are already cited in the article). The main point of those sources was that doing such a thing covertly is impossible. What's currently going on on the article is that claims in lower-quality media sources are being placed in false equivalence with these scientific sources. (as well as the medical sourcing about plausibility of the symptoms being caused by RF at all). MrOllie (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The claim being discussed here is Simon223's claim that there are magic guns involved. They have presented no sources which suggest that this is a theory, fringe or otherwise, held by anyone. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'magic guns' is a fair summary of what has been showing up in the lower-quality media sources. MrOllie (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies then, I had not (and still have not) seen that reporting in lower-quality media sources. It is not part of the 60 Minutes piece. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how MEDRS works at all. News sources are generally unreliable for medical topics. You might use a news sources as a supplement lay description when secondary medical sources are already used for a specific piece of content. It's a common misconception that news sources satisfy the secondary source requirement for MEDRS content. KoA (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally agree with you. My concern is what has emerged at the article talk is to treat WP:MEDRS as strictly enforced for medical claims but as irrelevant for political / espionage related claims. This is creating an undue focus on journalistic speculation as to possible causes excluding what academics and doctors might have to say about them. For instance: the recent collaboration between three media outlets that led to increased attention on this page includes claims that Russian assassins! are responsible for Havana Syndrome on the basis, largely, of flight logs, and the speculation that a microwave weapon might be possible. The general consensus of the studies of people who have suffered Havana Syndrome is that any microwave weapon that would be sufficiently powerful to cause the indicated symptoms would also cause other symptons but because these are primary sources they're being disregarded for medical evidence while the other story is being highlighted as non-medical / political content. I simply want consistent standards for the article. Simonm223 (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's why I suggested leading with a draft of just a MEDRS summary of the subject at the article talk page. Hopefully that would ground and anything that would come in from the political aspect. If something from those news sources contradicted or wasn't covered by MEDRS sources, it wouldn't matter if they also had a political angle because it's still (usually) focusing on claims about a medical condition. There could be brief mention of those latter aspects, but MEDRS would be determining weight for that periphery as well. Basically, develop a MEDRS core, then let that anchor all other content discussion, and you wouldn't need to stubify for that either.

Edit warring is part of the issue there too though. I'm seeing a lot of restoring content in violation of WP:ONUS policy that's hampering content development. I would have been a bit more prone to help out there more when I have some spare time, but it looks like it would take significant effort to get the article improved with that compounding factor. KoA (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The general consensus of the studies of people who have suffered Havana Syndrome is that any microwave weapon that would be sufficiently powerful to cause the indicated symptoms would also cause other symptons but because these are primary sources they're being disregarded for medical evidence while the other story is being highlighted as non-medical / political content. I think that this is a situation where WP:PARITY would apply, allowing us to cite sources we usually wouldn't use for medical claims (but which are still better than the news sources in question) in order to establish that the perspective in the news sources is medically fringe. --Aquillion (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That would be a good case-by-case approach for parity, though I'd be wary about feeling the need to debunk something through parity (not necessarily commenting on microwave weapons here) compared to just not mentioning the subject at all from a weight perspective. The latter is often a better option to avoid some rabbit holes when possible. I think that's why the focus there needs to be shifted to the MEDRS sources that grounds conversations to determine where cases like you mention should be included. That's opposed to including something just because a lot of news agencies picked up stories and trying to weight that without letting the MEDRS content lead development instead. Obviously easier said than done, but doable with time at least. KoA (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it as a MEDRS issue if all theories about causes are properly attributed. The problem only arises when editors latch onto one theory and start claiming in wikivoice that the problem has been solved. This can be addressed by editing properly, with every claim that isn't accepted by expert consensus being attributed to whoever is making the claim. Zero^talk 13:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This presents another problem though as such an action would be giving equal weight to the primary-source medical reports put out by a variety of neurologists, epidemiologists, specialists and even the CDC and... journalists who don't know that correlation != causation. Because this is the thing. WP:MEDRS prefers secondary academic sources, not journalism. And what we have is a preponderance of primary academic sources, which are still more reliable than newsmedia. Simonm223 (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If something isn't covered in MEDRS sources or is covered differently in non-MEDRS sources, then that becomes a WP:WEIGHT issue. In cases like you mention, that's a likely case for not including the content at all. KoA (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How's this for a start? Proposed draft Simonm223 (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In general I would leave specific discussion on the article content to the article page. No point in separately discussing it here. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree as it raises wider questions about WP:MEDRS and interpretation/inclusion of media theories that require acceptance of fringe medical theories. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those points are fine but already well established (although not all editors are aware). This noticeboard can’t and shouldn’t modify WP:MEDRS. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 04:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If any editor is having qualms about MEDRS they can raise a query at WT:MED. I won't as I am confident enough in its application and don't want to waste their time. I get the impression from some of the discussion (like incredulous questions about how NYT can possibly be called unreliable) that some of the editors taking issue with MEDRS have not actually read it. Bon courage (talk) 08:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• some editors are taking the 60 Minutes report as ultimate vindication for their own long held beliefs is not a policy-based argument to remove sourced content. The "syndrome" here does not mean any real (scientifically proven) medical condition; one can not even properly describe what that condition is. This is not really a medical subject, but rather a political controversy. Yes, there were also some scientific studies that did not convincingly prove anything, and they can or should also be cited on the page per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We should not be weighting journalists the same as doctors on a page about a purported medical condition. Simonm223 (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems like the same situation as COVID-19 lab leak theory. Top medical sources say one thing, but there's a vocal minority or even majority of journalists saying another thing. That really confuses Wikipedians that don't specialize in MEDRS or FRINGE. We of course need to write the article around the medical sources, and not give UNDUE weight to circumstantial evidence and non-expert medical opinions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really surprising that most journalists, especially in the US, prefer the conspiracy theories about the Havana Syndrome to what MEDRS sources say. Over 2500 years ago Aeschylus said, "In war, truth is the first casualty". That was certainly true in the Cold War as well. Now we have a new Cold War, with the same enemies (Russia and China). So the fringe theories about the origins of Covid and the Havana Syndrome make good copy in the US press. NightHeron (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

gotta get those clicks! LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After reading about it, I have no doubts that many people became sick. If this is a specific disease with specific cause(s) was not scientifically established. I do not see any theory, even "fringe" behind it. This is just something that needs to be studied more to clarify the issue, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 02:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are several medical condition (like Electromagnetic hypersensitivity) which are "real", but aren't caused by what proponents say. In this case the fringe notion is a new kind of exotic energy weapon with a hitherto unknown biological mechanism/effect. Bon courage (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The report in 60 Minutes is significant to the topic and should be covered. It was obvious from the start that Havana Syndrome wasn't real but its significance lay in the fact some people believed it to be true and it was used as political propaganda. Many of the claims that have driven world events have turned out to be false but are significant because of their consequences. There were for example no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but we don't remove the claim from the history of the war just because the claims failed MEDRS. TFD (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WMDs in Iraq had nothing to do with medical claims - we also explicitly note that the claim was erroneous in the WMD/Iraq article, as should be done here. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The report in 60 minutes should not be used as a source to establish a cause of Havana Syndrome. And the information put up on government responses seemed rote and mundane. But I'm not opposed to its mention; so long as the mention focuses on the social significance of the report rather than the factual significance of it. Simonm223 (talk) 12:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody knows the factual significance of it. Just stick to the reliable sources and report what they say. We don’t need to figure it out ourselves WP:OR. At the moment: nobody knows what is going on. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If no one knows what going on, over reporting potential misinformation is WP:UNDUE. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. And also reliability isn't a blanket Yes / No switch. This is part of the problem with a lot of the discussion on that page. There is a small group of editors who think that if the 60 minutes source is due any inclusion at all then we have to go into exhaustive detail about their claims. But the journalists who wrote that report are not reliable sources to speak to the cause of an illness. We should not be using the report as a reliable source for discussing the cause of the illness. Which means we should not be discussing Russian radio blasters from the basis of the 60 minutes report. However it's pretty clear it was a notable report in that it stirred up a bunch of controversy and, apparently (pending provision of a reliable source for this) got a bunch of gullible US senators all riled up. That's how we should be positioning this report. Simonm223 (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Nano-ayurvedic medicine (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Full of dubious claim. Author reverted redirecting to a better article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"This combination allows for targeted delivery of herbal remedies at the cellular level," Oh boy. So they strongly dilute something to make it more efficent? Isn't it difficult to get a herb into a cell? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the herb is around the size of a protein molecule it shouldn't be hard. That's how homeopathy works, right? By making the herb so dilute it fits through the channels in the cell membrane? Seriously though, if an ayurvedic remedy had an appreciable effect on any specific part of the body, this could be a decent method of delivery. All that needs doing is the secondary sources. Reconrabbit 13:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong about homeopathy. That works with dilutions so extreme that not a single molecule of the active ingredient remains. The solvent is supposed to "remember" it. Magic, in other words. Zero^talk 13:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use of nanoparticles for drug delivery is mainstream, but this combination with herbal medicine is fringe and only seems to be promoted by its True Believers. The article, if it is notable enough to be kept at all, needs a WP:TNT. Zero^talk 11:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been moved to Draft:Nano-ayurvedic medicine.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had BLARred and have now draftified. Many (maybe all) of the sources do not meet WP:MEDRS, and there are entirely unsourced sections, including §Potential Benefits. If there are strong sources out there about nano-Ayurvedic medicine, I would hope to see them summarized at Ayurveda. If we end up with too much about it, we can then split. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft just seems like incomprehensible word salad to me. It is not likely to be ready for articlespace any time soon. Partofthemachine (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A merge seems the obvious solution. Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a bait-and-switch. Only one of the sources uses the term "nano-Ayurvedic", and even that is just talking about using chemicals from herbs that are used in Ayurveda rather than "the principles of Ayurveda", and the others are just talking about phytochemicals delivered by nanotechnology. I really don't think there's an article here at present, and possibly nothing much to merge without indulging in WP:SYN. Brunton (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's contributions seem to be full of attempts at rewriting history of Volga Finns, with the most fringe idea being that Judaism was widespread among medieval Mokshas and other Volga Finns (the logic behind that seems to be as follows: Judaism was practiced at least to some extent in the Khazar Kaghanate, the Burtas had something to do with Khazars, the Mokshas had something to do with Burtas, therefore all those peoples were Jewish). In many cases, they use Russian-language sources that don't actually support their claims, perhaps in hope that no one on English Wikipedia is going to check those sources thoroughly. Most of their articles already are deleted (i.e. Mordva (slur), Mordvins (term for Jews), Mokshan logographic script), and I have removed the most obvious extraordinary claims (like "Torah Judaism" as a religion of people like Narchat or Puresh), but I still need someone to help checking their contributions for less obviously fringe claims. In particular, I'm not sure that names like "Ancient Mokshaland" ever were used in English-language historiography, or if there ever was an entity called Erzya-Moksha Autonomy (AFAIK it always was called "Mordvin Okrug"). Finstergeist (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I share this concern. I don't speak Russian, but I looked into some sources in these articles using machine translation, and they seldom seem to verify the statements. The user has been quite industrious, and to go through all the articles he created or significantly expanded will take a long time. Many of the sources are also not available online. As the first step, perhaps we could tag all these articles with {{OR?}} templates? Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I can read Russian sources, the amount of needed work is indeed too big for me alone. Tagging the questionable statements (not nesessarily the whole articles) as WP:OR would be a good start. Finstergeist (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth mentioning that various fringe claims (i.e. fake flags, fake writing systems etc. along with typical pseudohistory like claiming "Aryans"/"Hyperboreans" etc. as ancestors of some ethnic group), often combined with radical nationalism, are very common on Finno-Ugric themed forums. Since the topic isn't very popular, some of those claims may look believable to many non-specialists. Finstergeist (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• John C. Sanford (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

ID proponent. "Intelligent design" does not sound like a pseudoscience to people unfamiliar with it, which is why we usually (correctly) mention that it is. Some people do not like that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The Saturn Myth (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Just noticed this. Completely unsourced since 2018. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Anatoly Fomenko (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

IP edit-warring WP:FALSEBALANCE stuff in. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had been editing and improving this page and another editor recently made a bold edit to improve neutrality to remove the NPOV banner that had been there for over 10 years and it was a massive improvement.

There is false balance being pushed on that page now by someone who has reverted all the edits and is pushing irrelevant citations in talk. Science denial by saying false memories are not a valid psych concept when this is a well-established concept and has been for years.

Moreover, this page is about the foundation, not a well-established phenomenon.← 𝐋𝐞𝐟𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 13:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to the noticeboard's attention @Lefthandedlion. I was the one that rewrote the article a few days ago. We need to remember that this article is about the Foundation not the discussion of FMS is pseudoscience or not. That will have to wait for a rewrite of the FMS article. I see that you and Donna have been having some good discussions while I was sleeping, just waking up now and reading it over. I'm hopeful that we can get that taken care of quickly, all the gossip needs to go IMHO. Sgerbic (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Uri Geller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article being rewritten with false balance such as this. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an example of false balance. False balance would be to give Geller's supporters equal space in defending him. The overwhelming opinion of qualified people is that his stunts are only magic tricks, so it is fine for the balance of the article to lean heavily in that direction. However, merely reporting that Geller himself denies he is a fraud is different, and arguably required by WP:BLP. Zero^talk 12:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the diff you link is WP:FALSEBALANCE as the only thing it does is add the fact that Uri Geller denies the accusations of fraud, which doesn't exactly present a fringe view as if it has equal validity to the mainstream one. _WADroughtOfVowels^P 09:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was imprecise? Magicians say he's a fraud but Geller says they are wrong and he's a genuine psychic. The WP:MANDY protestations picked from Geller's autobio in the lead are WP:UNDUE and have been removed. The edit war on the page has ceased. Good job everyone. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Naftalan oil (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

After User:Naftalan Products edits the article, Naftalan oil stops being pseudoscience and helps against ailments. Maybe medical experts know if that is justified. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• And now the socking's started. Is there an admin watching who could take a look? Bon courage (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Naftalan oil again (or just scroll down three sections). --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Young blood transfusion (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

New Talk section: Pseudoscience or not?

Is anybody still watching this? Main contributors on the Talk page seem to have been Jytdog and Roxy the dog, both of which are indeffed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allais effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This obscure alleged physics phenomenon seems to give the concept more credit then the academic literature gives it. Lots of poor sourcing to conference abstracts, etc, though there doesn't seem to be much better out there on this topic. Could do with a substantial reworking/trim Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

Our article at Naftalan oil pushes the decidedly fringe view that sitting up to your neck in crude oil and thus breathing in high concentrations of naphthalene fumes is beneficial to your health. The reality is that exposure to large amounts of naphthalene vapor is very dangerous, which the current article does not make clear.

The last time I looked into this (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naftalan oil and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 346#Croatian source for for claims about the medical effects of bathing in high-naphthalene-content crude oil), I determined that a lot of money was being made selling these crude-oil baths, and that local sources (and possibly editors who have edited this page and few others) are likely to have a conflict of interest.

From the New York Times:[10]

"Naftalan crude contains about 50 percent naphthalene, a hydrocarbon best known as the stuff of mothballs. It is also an active ingredient in coal tar soap."

From our article on mothballs:

"Exposure to naphthalene mothballs can cause acute hemolysis (anemia) in people with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency. IARC classifies naphthalene as possibly carcinogenic to humans and other animals (see also Group 2B). IARC points out that acute exposure causes cataracts in humans, rats, rabbits, and mice. Chronic exposure to naphthalene vapors is reported to also cause cataracts and retinal hemorrhage... In addition to their cancer risks, mothballs are known to cause liver and kidney damage... Mothballs containing naphthalene have been banned within the EU since 2008."

--Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, you seem to have ignored all the comments Mike Turnbull left in Talk:Naftalan oil. Apparently the reason why these weird things don't kill people en masse is documented in scientific articles - those baths do not actually contain that much carcinogenic matter. We continue to document the newspaper articles saying they do, as well as some of those scientific articles. Please take some time to try to read the updates at the Talk page. --Joy (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't confuse "I read the comments on the talk page and still think bathing in crude oil is harmful" with "I ignored/didn't bother to read the comments". I assure you that I have read all of the comments and all of the references, and that we are all trying to improve the article even if we disagree, so please dial down the agression and casting of aspersions a bit, OK?

Of course bathing in crude oil doesn't result in immediate mass deaths. They would never have opened the petroleum spas in the city of Naftalan if that were true (you don't see spas anywhere where the customers bath in lava, for example). That says nothing either way about any long term health effects. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 02:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Um, there is no aggression to dial down, or aspersions. I find these accusations very troubling as you're the one who stopped engaging on the talk page and instead went to this noticeboard immediately.

Yes, it's a legitimate risk to tell readers that there's something out there which could be harmful and not explain the full extent of the harm. At the same time, having the article say something apparently completely untrue is likewise legitimately wrong. How about we try to actually find some pertinent information about those long-term health effects and document them, as opposed to all this scaremongering?

You literally used the previous noticeboard discussion as pretext to censor the inclusion of a scientific article that said they did a 10-year study on health effects. At the same time, the unsubstantiated one-sentence claim about 50% napththalene from the NYT article was allowed to stand, which another person now says it's utterly false. I don't see how this behavior is helpful to our readers. --Joy (talk) 06:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do think for Wikipedia to say something is/is not/might be cancer-causing, strong WP:MEDRS is necessary. Bon courage (talk) 07:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and let's try to focus on finding those. In the meantime I noticed Guy posted on the article talk page, which is helpful. There's a few sentences in the linked naphthenic acids article that are cause for concern, and now we need to get to the bottom of how exactly they relate to this topic.

As advised by the WP:MEDRS guideline, we should try to compose a health effects section with current and accurate biomedical information. Right now all we have is a bunch of weird novelty in the lead, and a very cautious history section that mentions information from 700, 100, 50 and 15 years ago. All of this seems reasonably well sourced as general information, but it still might give the average reader the impression of "this is pretty old so therefore maybe it's just fine". Instead of making them have to deduce anything of the sort, we should find current high-quality references that support or refute that. --Joy (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick look there doesn't seem to be anything. It may be best just to omit anything about health effects in that case. Bon courage (talk) 08:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

have you tried looking at the effects of contact with oil in general? the biochemistry should be almost identical (though I suspect most of those studies will be about long term contact in small doses rather than a big dose all at once) --Licks-rocks (talk) 08:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(noting here that yes, this means what guy says above is perfectly useable in my eyes, provided we have MEDRS to support the claim about mothballs) --Licks-rocks (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Several journalists seem to have confused napthalene with naphthene long before the Wikipedia article was created in 2014. If editors would give me a couple of more days to work on the article, we can return here about its "fringeness" then. There are lots of interesting things to say about naftalan oil without Wikipedia needing to include anything requiring WP:MEDRS sources. Meanwhile those who think that medications can't be made out of the chemical mixtures found in oil products should read coal tar. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the mothballs claims is that it was never clear that they fully apply, because the other 'Naftalan' hospital in Croatia has been functioning under the auspices of an EU member country for over a decade now, so either we in Wikipedia have accidentally uncovered a huge medical scandal, or we aren't operating with the full set of information. --Joy (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

either we in Wikipedia have accidentally uncovered a huge medical scandal Pff. Pseudomedicine is rampant everywhere, and most people ignore it. Propaganda for all sorts of quackery is everywhere, homeopathy is still paid for by health insurance in parts of Europe, India has its own pro-quackery ministry, the US NIH has a pro-quackery institute (NCCIH), and so on. Medicine that does not work should be a scandal, but it is not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Let's then just make that we uphold our own standards and apply the appropriate amount of rigor based on the available information, as opposed to us acting on newspaper hearsay, which hasn't worked out great so far. There's been a steady stream of some sort of scientific-looking research done on this topic for decades now, we should examine to which level it satisfies quality guidelines like WP:MEDASSESS and at least be able explain to the readers if e.g. these are all just primary studies. It would also probably be beneficial for someone with knowledge of Russian biomedical science to assess the status of those works, as one of the Croatian articles cited mentions a large volume of that but doesn't delve deeper. --Joy (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article states as fact in lead and infobox that he lived to be 969 years old. Doug Weller talk 08:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many biblical figures and possibly non-biblical figures have infobox "facts" like that, David, Solomon, etc. I'm not saying they should, but it's common. Per Talk:Moses/Archive_6#Infobox_is_a_violation_of_NPOV, there's no easy general solution, but I'd like to see some sort of consensus on these infoboxes. Perhaps a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion is a way to start an attempt. "People will get it's just Biblical stuff." is of course one way to look at it, but I'd like it if we can do better. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meh… we frequently present “in universe” facts about fictional characters this way. For example, our article on the Tolkien character Aragorn states as fact that he “reigned for 122 years”. Blueboar (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Aragorn article starts, "Aragorn is a fictional character...". I don't see any similar declaration about Methuselah. Brunton (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"biblical patriarch". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And that article states "Scholars have taken a mixed view as to the Patriarchs's historicity, with archaeology so far supposedly producing no evidence for their existence, although this claim is disputed." This may not be WP:s best work. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Aragorn infobox also states "Tolkien character". It's like having an article section titled "Biblical narrative." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This entire info box is fictional, and embarrasses Wikipedia as a serious source of information. I wouldn't disagree with replacing it with some more appropriate template if one exists. It should be clear that this is only a folk tale/mythological claim. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 05:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMO "fictional" and "scriptural" are not necessarily the same thing. The genres are somewhat different. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Mythical" would be closer. Brunton (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if an infobox specifically for OT/Hebrew Bible figures could be useful. It's a bit narrow, but it seems to me these are the ones that tend to be complained about, and I don't think there's many of them where a historian would go further than "unknowable" on the "facts". The specific case Methuselah use Infobox person, and that's not good enough. It also makes no mention where in the Bible he appears, which I think is pretty central info. The infobox should have some sort heading/"warning", like at Will Riker. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An infobox with some headers would be better IMO. However I'm not sure if this problem is unique to that area, or even cases where we do have more specific infoboxes we've avoided it. For example, we have Template:Infobox deity. But this can include details like parents, consorts etc. Take a look at Hercules as an example. Yes some of the fields might be a bit weird for an actual person like equivalents and adobe, but I'd note these are optional and also taking them as informing the reader that this is fictional or mythological or whatever depend on how these terms are understood. IMO the only clear indication in the infobox this is bullshit is the header which says "god of" but even this is an optional parameter so there might be some examples without it. Nil Einne (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aron has Template:Infobox religious biography and Abraham has Template:Infobox religious person, neither of those seem ideal. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Heracles/Hercules was a god in Greek or Roman mythology. I thought he was the mortal son of a god rather than a god. There seems to be some confusion around religion and mythology. Brunton (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to [11] he had shrines, festivals and a cult. That's pretty god-ish. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He was deified after his death. Pretty common back then. But "infobox deity" won't work with Biblical people.

Agamemnon also has the deity infobox, and he was not a deity. He belongs in the same sack as Methuselah. See Talk:Abraham/Archive_9#Infobox character for a similar discussion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox character states "for a fictional character of any type." IMO, that doesn't quite fit the likes of Agamemnon, Methuselah, Saul, David etc. A "Template:Infobox mythological character" would fit better, perhaps with a synonym instead of "character", like "individual" or something like that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: I linked that discussion which happens to start from "infobox character" but I am not saying that Infobox character is the correct choice. I agree that "Template:Infobox mythological character" would be good. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what the point even is then... All mythological characters are also fictional characters, one set is contained within the other set. They aren't the same as a historical figure who has been mythologized (for example Jesus, Elvis, or Alexander the Great). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point would be to have a better and more obvious/consensus-ish choice of infobox than Template:Infobox religious biography ("It is not intended to be used for mythological figures") for Moses and Aaron, Template:Infobox person for Methuselah, Template:Infobox deity for Agamemnon and Template:Infobox royalty for Saul. I don't think it's necessarily helpful for WP-articles/WP-readers to consider mythological = fictional. Different genres. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't different genres... Mythology is a subgenera of fiction. For example mythical/legendary creatures are fictional entities. If we wouldn't have this debate over Unicorn why are we having it over Methuselah? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's necessarily that simple, Myth/mythological. I think a common understanding of fiction is something written/told for the purpose of being fiction, and I don't think that fits the article-subjects I just mentioned. Anyway, based on your reasoning, how would you "solve" the OP Methuselah issue? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are two general definition of fiction: "literature in the form of prose that describes imaginary events and people." and "something that is invented or untrue." both of which would appear to apply here... The Hebrew Bible is "literature in the form of prose that describes imaginary events and people." and Methuselah is one of those imaginary/made up people. To solve the OP Methuselah issue I would use no infobox at all (for example like at Romulus and Remus). As a secondary solution the creation of a dedicated mythical person infobox would be ok. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No infobox, you say? I wonder if... Oh yeah: Talk:Romulus_and_Remus#Restored_dates_and_infobox and the following thread. May have been stable on that point since then though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of no infobox would be Satan. There are also some which use a generic infobox like Fuxi. In other cases we seem to just use diety even if it doesn't really fit (example Haosi Namoinu). With the Christian figures we tend to jam the saint infobox in there even if its meant for people and not for mythical creatures like Michael (archangel). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look at it the more I think perhaps others are right and a dedicated mythical person infobox is the way to go here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought it was only a mater of time before this notice board brings its war of anti-fringe- fanaticism into religion articles. Should we also add the word "false" every time we mention a deity or religion, lest some poor reader come away with the notion that gods might be real? I say leave it be, quit handwringing. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought that you disagree with what this board is doing in principle and that the noise you add to it is your problem and not that of this board. If you want WP:FRINGE revoked, Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories is thataway. Until you succeed, we will follow the current rules. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m an FTN regular who also takes issue with FTN trying to roll religion into what constitutes a fringe theory. It’s entirely possible to moderate fringe content (i.e. a statement that the earth is 6,000 years old) without viewing a religious practice as inherently fringe in and of themselves. This isn’t the first time it’s come up on FTN and it won’t be the last. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 22:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its a complicated relationship. Not everything religious is fringe, but much of fringe is religious. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I agree, I just have seen FTN treat things of a religious nature as inherently fringe without that religious nature. If it's outside one of the major world religions, and especially if it's associated with New Age, then things get handled a bit indelicately sometimes. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 23:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is fair... There are some regulars here who conflate dealing with fringe issues and promoting a certain brand of atheistic skepticism (often going as far as to pretend that skeptics are the mainstream and not a weird community of their own). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is helpful to talk in general terms about passionate topics. The matter at hand is quite clear cut: the idea that Methuselah was in fact 969 years old is fringe and thus on-topic here. Tercer (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The matter at hand is quite clear cut: the idea that Methuselah was in fact 969 years old is fringe and thus on-topic here."

I don't agree it's fringe, it's just clearly not encyclopedic. I think fringe would be more an attempt to explain that type of long lifespan using a naturalistic approach of some kind. Just mere religious belief is religious belief. The big difference, I think, is in how it's handled. But obviously that's just my take here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 23:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No no, this is not a normal religious belief. It's difficult to find Christians that take the age of Methuselah seriously, this is just a throwaway passage without any significance. It's not like the miracles of Moses of Jesus, that are key plot elements. Tercer (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was mentally mapping it to Young Earth beliefs, since those tend to require the very long lifetimes to arrive at a number that'd give the Sumerians cause for concern. Those aren't major within Christianity, but YEC is still a current through much of protestantism. Christian theology is broadly outside my wheelhouse, though. That said, I'm uncomfortable with FTN determining what is and isn't a "normal religious belief". Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 00:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even within Christianity YEC is fringe, let alone in the society in general. Tercer (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see there is a discussion, so won't start a new one. His purported age is not a throwaway thing. I just tweaked the sentence to "He is claimed to have lived the longest life, dying at 969 years of age." The use of "claimed" is appropriate in this situation. His claimed age is quite notable in the Biblical scheme of things, as he is considered, by those who believe, to be the oldest human to have ever lived. We do describe things with the "in-universe" terms, while also connecting it to reality, in this case by noting it's a claim. We don't state it as fact. The infobox needs to be tweaked accordingly. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have tweaked the infobox. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zero issue with that. I've just seen anti-theism brought in here in bursts and while it's not my faith, FTN is perfectly capable of acting dogmatically and sometimes that mixes with peoples' desire to take a religious group down a peg, which is where my discomfort with FTN's declaration of a part of religiosity as fringe rubbed me the wrong way. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 02:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All people are saying is that dubious claims like "this guy died at the age of 900+" should not be treated as facts by Wikipedia. We know when Abraham Lincoln was born and when he died, but we do not know those things about Abraham. There are people who are convinced that they do know because the Bible says it, but their POV is just a POV, not NPOV. If you want to change that, you should go to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. This noticeboard is just applying that, and it will continue applying it no matter how much people whine. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just further to what Hob said above (with which I agree)--the unspoken converse is that there are claims in religious works which absolutely are not fringe. Was there a Cyrus the Great? No doubt, and the fact that he makes a cameo in the Hebrew Bible makes no difference. Some claims are what I would call uncertain, but not fringe. Was there a historical King David? The evidence is out for me, but I do not think the position that there was is fringe for our purposes. There are then claims, especially as they exist in incidental details completely unnecessary to the wider theology that strike me as easily classified as fringe. Methuselah's age being one. A literal Tower of Babel is another. I agree that we should not paint religion with a broad "fringe brush," but I think it is equally unreasonable to throw our hands up and say that it is all beyond human understanding. Just a Monday morning thought. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both of you. My point is that, regardless of whether his purported age is a fringe claim or not, we still document that the Bible says it. That is a fact, and we are required to include the in-universe description, whether it's true or not. OTOH, the age is a claim, not a proven fact, and our wording should not leave the claim there as if it is a proven fact. Therefore, in this instance, "claim" (or something similar) is perfectly acceptable wording. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it is, for example, in a section called "Biblical narrative" or "In the Bible", that can be a solution. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would help. I'm wondering if it would be allowable and helpful if we had some form of disclaimer statement visible in the heading/infobox/timeline that clearly says something like: "Wikipedia documents the existence of Biblical/pseudoscience/alternative medicine/conspiratorial (whichever word applies to the type of page) opinions and includes what reliable sources say about the accuracy of those opinions." We need to alert readers to the fact that there can be a disconnect between claims and facts. That's one of the functions of this FT/N board! We deal with that disconnect, but readers aren't always aware of it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If such an infobox was headed something like "Hebrew Bible figure"/"Mythological figure", that might be enough. Then again, maybe not. Otherwise, it seems the infobox could use a section titled "According to scripture" or something like that, with data like for example Methuselah's age in it. "Disclaimer" is generally avoided here outside the main ones. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting the word "disclaimer" be used. It should be presented as information. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest "person" not "figure" to avoid overlap with the already existing mythical creature template (where to put a non-human, non-deity, sentient figure is going to be headache otherwise). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing no matter the choice, figure/person/character etc, someone will not like it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not advocating that we take theological statements at face value because they’re theological, I’m saying that an attitude of “well of course this is fringe” is probably indelicate. I think that most of the people involved in this conversation are honestly doing pretty great on not behaving indelicately and most of the proposals I’ve seen here on how to address it seem really good. My concern more mirrors what @Horse Eye's Back said about FTN becoming a vehicle for a certain brand of atheistic skepticism, veering into a POV push. Of course we don’t need to present back-calculated ages of mythological figures as encyclopedic fact, but that doesn’t make that religious belief a “fringe theory.”

FTN does a really good job of tackling when ideologues come in and start trying to treat their theology as fact, and that seems to be a great use of FTN in this context. That said, there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion, and once the pro-fringe content is removed and the article looks more encyclopedic we should probably make sure we have a more open dialogue with people there.

I do think there’s a contingent here openly engaging in bad faith on religious topics (“whining” about them, as it were) and I’ve dealt with this from users here before where they basically scare away new people as a matter of policy. There have been plenty of situations where I (and others here!) have had luck actually engaging with people and getting them to help engage in developing actually encyclopedic pages on their own theology, because at the end of the day very few people have as much insight on beliefs and practices as people who engage with beliefs and practices, as long as they can understand WP:RS. Just for reference, the extreme example jumping out at me is a bunch of FTN calling on Falun Gong members to openly put their affiliation as a prerequisite for editing Falun Gong related articles per WP:POV, or on connected contributor grounds, which got very heated until an admin came in and said something along the lines of “asking people to out their religious affiliation as a prerequisite for editing is not reasonable”. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

calling on Falun Gong members to openly put their affiliation as a prerequisite for editing Falun Gong related articles Big commendation from me for actually saying what you are talking about, instead of the previous aggressive but vague handwaving above about promoting a certain brand of atheistic skepticism and anti-fringe- fanaticism.

With the "promoting a brand" and "anti-fringe fanaticism" accusations, pretty much everybody here will ask themselves "are they talking about me rejecting the edit X in article Y?"

With your precise statement about a specific thing, we know exactly what to avoid if we want to heed your criticism. It's like the difference between "this article is biased!" and "The sentence X in the section Y does not represent what the cited source Z says." --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know I didn't actually say the "anti-fringe- fanaticism" part, right? That was @Animalparty. Can we have a mutual informal WP:IBAN, please?

Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 06:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cornelius Benedictus is unhappy with my revert here and User:Firefangledfeathers here. It doesn't help that it was me who warned them and didn't mention I didn't do both reverts. My bad. Doug Weller talk 15:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I mistakenly assumed both the warning received and the NPOV issue were all about the the second mentioned edition, which was not the case, since the second one was only about the sources' verifiability issue. Even though my edition does not fall short of the policy stated at Wikipedia: Verifiability: Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves at the second edition, and this is not the issue of the first edition, I apologise for the misunderstanding and thank User:Doug Weller. Cornelius Benedictus (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another info-box issue. Not really fringe, more a WP:FALSEBALANCE issue. Your view is welcome at the linked discussion, if you have one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With very rare exceptions, religion is outside the purview of this noticeboard. FTN deals with fringe theories which contradict generally accepted medical/scientific/historical facts. Religion, which primarily deals with a belief in the supernatural and matters of faith, cannot be examined in the same way we address pseudoscientific claims or fringe conspiracy theories that have been widely debunked. I would encourage experienced editors and patrolling admins to close discussions that are not within the intended purpose of this noticeboard, and direct the OP and any involved parties to the correct forum. Very often that would be the article talk page, WP:RSN. or WP:NPOVN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There ARE religious (Theological) fringe topics. Fringe beliefs within broader religions. As an example, the Arian heresy is fringe within modern Christianity. Blueboar (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly true, within Christianity. But this is not a religious noticeboard. We deal with objective facts, recognizable and provable within the framework of science, history and current events. This is not a forum for dealing with the supernatural or debates over fictional topics such as The Lord of the Rings. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously this needs to be brought up elsewhere, but I think we need a firm guideline on how to handle this at this point. Removing in-universe statements presented as fact? Sure, absolutely put FTN on the case and maybe ping the religion wikiproject so we bring in some expertise, but more than once I’ve seen statements from “editors belonging to ______ faith will always lie to misrepresent their faith and put it in a better light” (Falun Gong) to “this entire religious belief is a fringe theory we should excise from Wikipedia except in the most mocking of tones” (much of New Age). Also MASSIVE WP:BITE issues. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's probably time to clarify this issue. I've considered putting up an edit notice but would prefer some consensus on wording. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, my take, which I cannot imagine will go over well here, is we need to hard-limit chatting by having somewhat constant oversight and threads locked as soon as the fringe issue is dealt with, and an iron fist on WP:BITE behaviour. FTN is both extremely valuable and is one of the most WP:CABAL-esque places I'm aware of on Wikipedia, and the easiest way I can think of to address this is to not allow it to become a forum as it has. FTN also has historically had issues with either overweighting fringe topic or understandings of topics as somehow more important than they are, or mission creep (see: theology). There was an ANI about 8 or so months ago with a lot of admins chiming in that they've noticed some of these issues as well, so it's perhaps well past time that we get some admin input or oversight outside of when things get extra, well, spicy. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am posting a few requests for input on relevant wiki-project talk pages. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to simply reiterate that I have, too, noticed the cabal (I hate that word, but it's wikiparlance) behavior that often originates or magnifies through posts to FTN. It sometimes seems to function as an expedient workaround to canvassing in certain subject areas. I believe that the issue has become so acute in terms of canvassing and biting that sanctions should be more readily administered. I've been involved in recent discussions unreasonably escalated by FTN-posting, namely at Talk:Massacre of the Innocents (which ultimately saw at least one behavioral block). ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there have been extensive documented cases of Falun Gong attempting to manipulate Wikipedia articles about them (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong), and that New Age movements are not infrequently referred to as fringe in peer-reviewed literature, the choice of examples here does not suggest to me that there's much of a problem. If there's an issue of actual BITE behavior (including behavior that excessively promotes we should excise [coverage of a given belief] from Wikipedia except in the most mocking of tones) that's valid to criticize, but the general complaint that these topics are out of scope for FTN seems off the mark. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that there have been instances of obviously inappropriate editing going on. To my mind the issue is whether they belong here or at another forum. Someone trying to hijack an article or pushing POV edits based on obviously bad sourcing would belong either at ANI or RSN. Religion is not, per se, a fringe subject as we customarily understand the term. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'"the choice of examples here does not suggest to me that there's much of a problem."'

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm well aware that Falun Gong and New Age are frequent sources of explicit POV editing and have caused problems in the past, and I've done my fair share of cleaning up New Age articles. My concern here, and what was brought up by admins last time, was this fairly vocal demand that Falun Gong editors writ large, regardless of individual behaviour, be banned from editing FG articles without disclosing their religious affiliation. When I said "hey, this seems not very okay" I was accused of being crypto-Falun Gong bu some of the other regulars here which... considering I'm a regular here as well feels quite odd. With New Age, it's mainly WP:BITE issues where an editor doesn't really understand the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. I've seen power users here openly talk about driving those people away on the basis of one or two bad edits, rather than attempting to engage with them on how to edit appropriately. I'm not saying that the end result may not actually be the same, but rather it seems much of FTN has decided to shortcut the usual routes to address bad edits and assume a single WP:PROFRINGE edit instantly equals WP:NOTHERE and act accordingly to drive people away as fast as they can. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 20:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, until it makes claims in those areas. Slatersteven (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which all religions do, which is what makes all religions fringe, within the meaning of WP:FRINGE: an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. Levivich (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of what makes the Falun Gong, in specific, a sore spot is the number of times many long term editors who haunt this board have had to deal with tedious, sometimes paid, pro-FLG editors. And as FLG is a new religious movement that actively spreads misinformation on politics, biology, history and medicine it is very much an org that runs afoul of the Fringe noticeboard almost as often as it does the people who do WP:NONAZI cleanup. That said I do agree that these edge cases do lead to the risk of mission creep once people start getting into questions of wiki-voice representation of biography of biblical figures and such - which is not the same thing as dealing with the pseudoscience and political extremism of a contemporary new religious movement. Simonm223 (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To borrow the words of another editor, Warrenmck, fringe would be more an attempt to explain that type of long lifespan using a naturalistic approach of some kind. Just mere religious belief is religious belief. Editors summarizing that in the plot of the Bible Joshua miraculously makes Jericho's walls fall, or even summarizing reliable scholarship that assesses the meaning and reception of this story for the book as a text or for believers as religion, even if editors disagree about how best to summarize it or what elements are due or how to represent or not divergent academic assessments/interpretations of narrative/philosophical/literary/religious meaning, doesn't seem WP:FRINGE in the Wikipedia sense. Meanwhile, editors trying to make wikivoice say that archaeology has definitely found the ruins of Jericho and proven the story scientifically true (which archaeology hasn't), that would be a matter of circulating WP:FRINGE. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Religions are the cause of a lot of fringe views, so it isn't unusual to see them here. Ayurvedic medicine, intelligent design, UFO religions, lost tribes of Israel populating random places, etc all overlap with our understanding of history and the natural world. Some articles are clear and objective, others have been written by true believers in various types of woo.

Big Money Threepwood (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Religion, which primarily deals with a belief in the supernatural and matters of faith, cannot be examined in the same way we address pseudoscientific claims or fringe conspiracy theories that have been widely debunked".

I believe I am 234 foot tall leprechaun that was birthed in the core of Jupiter and traveled to Earth through my leprechauncy powers. This is at once a supernatural claim and a core matter of faith of all Headbomb-Leprechaunists.

But it is also clearly a claim that can be examined and debunked. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If and when your religion reaches the point of being notable, we can discuss this. Until then I am not seeing the relevance of your comment, unless it was intended to ridicule persons of religious faith. In which case, I would advise you to tread carefully. There is no shortage of places on the internet where you are free to do that. Wikipedia, is not one of them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Far be it from me to speak on behalf of another, but I read this as standing for the proposition that we do not privilege ideas or claims merely because they proceed from a religious context. That said, I also agree with you below that belief in the resurrection is not a fringe belief. I honestly think this is fairly easy conceptually: the resurrection is not fringe because it is believed by just about every Christian in the world. That said, Methuselah's age probably is fringe, in my experience (though I am certainly open to evidence to the contrary), because to the extent people think about it at all, few of them seem to take it literally. All subject to sourcing, of course, but thought I would briefly chime in. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Far be it from me to speak on behalf of another, but I read this as standing for the proposition that we do not privilege ideas or claims merely because they proceed from a religious context."

I'm not the person in question so I can't speak to their intent, but I do think this is what I and @Horse Eye's Back were talking about with a certain brand of (r/)atheism being present here at times. I don't want to speak for either them or @Headbomb, but it's worth pointing out to Headbomb that several of us are perceiving it this way, even if your read here is accurate. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 00:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument appears internally inconsistent to me... If we don't privilege ideas or claims merely because they proceed from a religious context how do we arrive at Lazarus or Jesus's resurrections being literal and not figurative events not being fringe? I know this sounds like the users I was just criticizing... But why don't we treat them the same as the other zombies? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Religions aren't inherently fringe, but that doesn't mean they can't be presented in a way that is fringe. Saying in wikivoice that Jesus rose from the dead would be fringe, it would need to be made clear that Christians believe that Jesus rose from the dead (and in fact this is exactly what the article on Jesus says). For this specific question saying someone lived for more than 900 years is an exceptional claim, and to say it in wikivoice would require exceptional sources not just biblical sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Really the problem here is that infoboxes are poor at presenting details that are not easily simplified. As with other such situations the best way to deal with the issue would be to leave it out of the infobox and correctly contextualised in the text. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Presenting the Resurrection as a fact in wiki-voice would not be fringe insofar as the term applies to this board. It is neither provable nor disprovable. Again, we are dealing with the supernatural as a subject matter. That said, it would unquestionably be a serious breach of NPOV and should be addressed on that basis. Claims that someone lived for 900 years would fall under the heading WP:REDFLAG. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. I can't imagine something like that being presentable as an undisputed claim of fact in wiki-voice. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This discussion seems to have stemmed from the one above (#Methuselah), giving his age as 962 in the infobox with nonother context is stating tbe fact in wikivoice. That an individual can live for 900+ years is definitely fringe. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This feels like begging the question... Are there are so many religious topics here or is the amount proportionate? Note that matters of faith do not belong here, but anything which purports to deal with the supernatural does. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Until fairly recently, religion was not a subject that popped up here with any frequency. I'd say it was rare. On those occasions when I saw one, assuming it wasn't too far along, I usually closed it with a polite note pointing all concerned to the correct forum. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And what was done when this was the correct forum? For example for anything involving the supernatural whether part of a major religion or not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There can definitely be an undercurrent of r/atheism here, the board definitely turns into a forum on occasion (see the UFO threads from earlier this year...), posts can definitely operate as canvassing, regulars are definitely BITIER here than at the other noticeboards due at least in part to some degree of righteousness and the (often accurate) assumption that any newcomers with not-rabidly-anti-fringe opinions are socks... Those are a few of the problems I see with this page; a small number of posts addressing religious topics is not among them. Like others have said, religion can easily swerve into fringe territory, and I think the recent uptick in that content here just reflects the discovery of several walled gardens in the area that strongly resemble the pseudoscience walled gardens we're all familiar with re: in-universe descriptions and over-reliance on sources from adherents. JoelleJay (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I just want to briefly appreciate the fact that two of us now have explicitly called this behaviour "r/atheism"-esque Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 02:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  With the "r" standing for Reddit? Doug Weller talk 07:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In this case, yes, the subreddit. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

religion is outside the purview of this noticeboard My fact-checking instinct kicked in, and I checked the first 10 archives and this page for the percentage of religious topics (including creationism and theosophy, excluding channeling and New Age as well as this thread. Yes, that is a subjective borderline).

1 14%

2 3%

3 19%

4 19%

5 17%

6 23%

7 14%

8 26%

9 13%

10 20%

Current 19% --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there so many religious topics here? Asked and answered. Because lots of religious topics are fringe. Biblical literalism is religion and is fringe. Creationism, by any of its names, is religion and is fringe. As well the Flat Earth. Ghosts, seances, mediumship, remembering past lives etc., all have been claimed by believers to have been "scientifically proven", so refuting those pseudoscientific claims falls withing the purview of this noticeboard, even if they are religious beliefs. Same goes for rotating tables, haunted houses and every other spiritualist superstition. Any particular claim by believers of divine intervention is fringe, and investigation made by people who actually try to understand whatever happened in Fatima, for example, falls within the purview of this noticeboard. Transcendent meditators claiming that their humming and chanting prevented world war III, or whatever, is fringe. The statement With very rare exceptions, religion is outside the purview of this noticeboard. is simply false. Some separate issues have been brought up here, but they are beside the point. This sounds, to me, like just one more case of people standing up for fringe topics. VdSV9•♫ 14:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The statement With very rare exceptions, religion is outside the purview of this noticeboard does not hold up in practical terms. It just amounts to saying that "Religion is outside the purview of this noticeboard except when it isn't". FTN deals with fringe theories which contradict generally accepted medical/scientific/historical facts. And some of the topics within the broad and fuzzily-bounded area called "religion" do involve empirically testable claims that contradict medicine, science, and/or history. Religion, which primarily deals with a belief in the supernatural and matters of faith, cannot be examined in the same way we address pseudoscientific claims or fringe conspiracy theories that have been widely debunked. Turn that around: when religion does not deal with matters purely of faith, it can be examined in the same way we address pseudoscientific claims or fringe conspiracy theories. By and large, those are the cases that show up at FTN. XOR'easter (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe: STEM Vs Humanities?[edit]

I tried to read good number of initial comments in the main section above but with WP:TLDR so I couldn't read them all. Here I would like to extend umbrella to cover all humanities topics and compare with STEM: Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics. Additionally may be we would need to discuss where to put topics like Law.

The thumb rule to my understanding is what mainstream academic STEM Reliable sources say in majority voice is not fringe and rest may be need to be cross verified for fringe-ness.

I am asking this question in Humanities side since I had seen approach by few editors to literally count number academic sources and define what is majority is mainstream and refute as many minority academic views as possible with help of WP:Fringe.

How far it is accurate to apply what is applicable to STEM area as is to Humanities topic areas? i.e. whether WP needs to have same level of rigidity as of STEM areas in Humanities topics too? whether Humanities can have a little more scope for accommodation for more views if academic RS is available? or Any scope to discuss WP:Fringe separately for Humanities topics than STEM?

Bookku (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The same, as humanities is an academic topic area, and we would go by what the majority of scholars say. As wp:undue also comes into it, if an expert does not say it why do we even care? Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You get fringe in humanities too (e.g. Shakespeare authorship 'theories'), and the same 'rules' apply as set out in core policy: WP:FRINGESUBJECTS. For different discipline the types of WP:BESTSOURCES will be different. Bon courage (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drawing the line between the two can be hard... For example is reincarnation a STEM claim, a humanities claim, or both? (thats actually a trick question, depending on the tradition it can be any of those three) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean my participation is principally social sciences and humanities related topics. I would concur with Slatersteven - there is an academic mainstream in the academy for social sciences and humanities just like for STEM fields and things outside of that (an easy example being the Shakespeare authorship 'theories') falls within this. Simonm223 (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of fringe would be things like eugenicist applications of utilitarianism. They are generally rejected within the humanities and, as such, go against an academic consensus to the extent of being fringe. Simonm223 (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For religion and academia in particular I would say that religious studies is the mainstream while theology is the fringe. Theology does not operate by the same rules or standards as the other humanities, even if ironically they are all descended from theology. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I think this is a misapplication of WP:FRINGE. To quote: the term fringe theory is used in a broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. When I read that, it strikes me that theology is a field unto itself. To compare theology to other more objective endeavours is, I think, a category error, just as we would not say poetry is a fringe application of statistics. Millions of people believe or claim to believe in theology (even if I am not one of them) and it has, as you note, an incredibly long intellectual history. There are certainly fringe theories within theology (historically Christians tended to call them 'heresies'). In short, I think for purposes of assessing 'fringeness' (fringeality? fringitude?), I think we have to consider theology as a theologian would, not as a physicist would. As ever, just some idle thoughts and reasonable minds can definitely differ on this one! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We've never had such a narrow reading of field, otherwise cryptozoology wouldn't be fringe as its not fringe within its own narrowly defined field but is within the broadly defined field. For a specific example within LDS theology the idea that some Native Americans are descendants of the lost tribes of Israel is not fringe, within religious studies, archaeology and genetics etc it is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair, and we're definitely dealing with malleable levels of abstraction here, so I take your point--but I think theology is more susceptible to being a field than is cryptozoology, which by its very name is an offshoot of an existing field. There are definitely fringe ideas within theology, and especially where theology makes testable claims. My contention is that we cannot label all of theology 'fringe,' else you wind up with things like Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin being fringe theorists, which feels very wrong to me (again, despite the fact that I don't buy much of what either was selling). Dumuzid (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theology is basically just a form of religious studies where you suspend objective truth and the scientific method. Not really seeing how thats different from zoology vs cryptozoology. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is where CONTEXT comes in. The idea that a god (or the gods) created the earth is not a fringe view in Theology… but it is a fringe view in Astro-Physics. It is appropriate to outline and discuss the various creation stories in articles focused on religious belief, it is not appropriate to mention them in an article focused on modern scientific understanding of the cosmos. Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People aren't WP:FRINGE; ideas are WP:FRINGE. Levivich (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I feel like I am still not doing a good job conveying my thoughts. I absolutely agree that there are places where religion and other fields intersect where it is entirely appropriate to use the fringe label. But imagine I were to say "the trinity is not a fringe concept!" To back up this proposition, I point out that it is a belief (nominally) endorsed by over 2 billion people, and it is regularly discussed in academic journals from esteemed institutions of higher education. The argument that it is fringe would be....'religion,' I guess? Dumuzid (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confusing fringe with something that few people believe... If you take LGBTQ issues for example the medical consensus (and therefore the mainstream within the field) is not held by way more than 2 billion people. What non-experts believe has no bearing at all on whether something is fringe or not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So would you consider the trinity to be a fringe concept? Dumuzid (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In what sense? That it exists as a belief or that a triune deity exists? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The latter. Dumuzid (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a fringe theory. The theory that any such thing (triune deity, unitary deity, minor deity, demigod, angel, unicorn, dragon, giant, bigfoot, etc is fringe) actually exists or existed as a real being is fringe. It falls completely outside of mainstream academia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's stick to theism writ broadly. Where can you point me to back up that theism is a fringe concept? Dumuzid (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is kind of getting into WP:NOTFORUM territory here folks. I would suggest the Fringe Theory noticeboard shouldn't be commenting on the Trinity until somebody tries to market holy ghost boner pills. Or suggests that Jesus wants people to inbreed because he is his own father and it worked great for him. Simonm223 (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly enough google says that both of those things have happened... Its just not on wikipedia. I broadly agree though, this is not the place for broad speculation about the compatibility of modern academic science and theism (oceans of ink have already been spilled on the topic by generations). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I would suggest the Fringe Theory noticeboard shouldn't be commenting on the Trinity...." this is a better summation of my position than I have managed! Dumuzid (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "stick to" we haven't talked about theism writ broadly at all before now and when nobody but you is talking about concepts... Everyone else seems to be talking about theories, lets limit any discussion on this noticeboard to theories. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, by "stick to" I meant to sort of de-sectarianize my point. And I was responding to your claim that "The theory that any such thing (triune deity, unitary deity, minor deity, demigod, angel, unicorn, dragon, giant, bigfoot, etc is fringe) actually exists or existed as a real being is fringe." Ontologically I agree with you entirely. But I am also a fan of epistemic humility, and I see no actual backup for that position in terms of Wikipedia usage. But I will let it go with that. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I can sneak a last word in here I think its largely a non-issue, we don't have a ton of problems with long term users pushing theism or similar issues into wiki voice... Almost everyone seems to understand that whatever they personally believe (whether it be about the Kennedy assasination or the immaculate conception) they need to take a NPOV approach. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theism -- that there exists a God -- is WP:FRINGE because it's "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." Open up any kind of science book and none of them will say there exists a God. Hence, it's an idea that departs significantly from mainstream views in any scientific field. Similarly, the idea that God created the universe is WP:FRINGE, because it departs significantly from the mainstream views of all scientific fields. The idea that there exists three Gods, also WP:FRINGE. The idea that there is an afterlife: WP:FRINGE. The idea that somebody was resurrected, WP:FRINGE, and that's true whether that idea comes from Frankenstein or World War Z or Gospel of Matthew. Levivich (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many science books will say affirmatively either that there is no god or that a god could not exist? Dumuzid (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works, though. In order for a view to be fringe, it doesn't mean that the negation of that view needs to be the mainstream view.

For example, "Levivich is God" is clearly not the mainstream view, it's fringe. That doesn't mean that the mainstream view affirmatively says "Levivich is not God," it just means that the mainstream view is not that "Levivich is God."

For any idea X, either X is the mainstream view (consensus of sources), or it's a significant minority view (not the consensus of all sources but a significant minority), or it's fringe (insignificant minority). In order for X to be fringe, it doesn't mean that not-X must be the mainstream view, it just means that X is not the mainstream view or a significant minority view.

If zero science books say X, then X is not the mainstream view or a significant minority view. If zero science books say God exists, then "God exists" is not the mainstream view or a significant minority view, and hence it's fringe.

I hope that makes sense (or better sense than my first reverted attempt)? Levivich (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, as far as I know, zero science books say that Harold Godwinson's victory at the Battle of Stamford Bridge so soon before Hastings was a significant disadvantage in the latter. It must therefore be a fringe view? Dumuzid (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest trying a history book? History is after all a science... A social science. See Branches of science (note that you will not find theology within science). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History is a humanity. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, what does that have to do with whether or not its a social science? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are there non-science ideas that are not fringe? Dumuzid (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely yes. And making sure to remind STEM types that academic consensus exists in the humanities is critical to keep this whole page on-mission lest somebody decide that ancient alien hypotheses aren't fringe because History is a humanity rather than a science and thus fringe doesn't apply. Simonm223 (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dumuzid, I kinda thought you wanted to have a real discussion, and took my time to engage in it. But if you want to f around and talk about looking in a science book about a history thing, well, I'm sorry I wasted my time. Levivich (talk) 03:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to make a point (though a bit snarkily, I admit) that there are fields which do not entirely overlap, and you're assuming that science and ontology have a 1-to-1 match, with which I would certainly disagree. If you and HEB replaced your mentions of "fringe" earlier with "nonsense" or "woo," then I would agree entirely. But not all bad ideas are fringe and not all fringe ideas are bad. I think that is a distinction worth preserving. Dumuzid (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK sorry I missed that point entirely. And I agree with you that not all fringe is bad. In fact, a lot of mainstream views started out as fringe, a famous example is heliocentrism.

But whether God exists is a matter of science not ontology. And I mean whether God actually exists, not "what if God existed" or "what might God be" but is there, in fact, a God. That's what separates science (as in "hard science") from philosophy, right? Science deals with reality, philosophy deals with ideas, like the idea of reality.

So the idea of a God is not WP:FRINGE, of course. The idea that, to take one example, God might be a single God, or God might be omniscient, or might be omnipotent... none of those are WP:FRINGE.

But the claim that God does, in fact, exist, is WP:FRINGE, by virtue of it not being the view of mainstream reliable sources.

Or to pick maybe a better example: the idea that God, or a God, created the universe, is WP:FRINGE because it's not the mainstream view or a significant minority view of the reliable sources in the particular fields (astronomy, cosmology). I agree that doesn't make it a bad idea, or even an untrue idea -- and I agree with everyone else about how Wikipedia can get too "r/Atheism" in persecuting or even ridiculing fringe ideas -- but God-created-the-universe is still, by definition, WP:FRINGE, and will be until such time as some significant minority of scientists say that God created the universe.

So to bring it back to the OP, if there is a concern at some article about editors trying to have Wikipedia say in its own voice that God created the universe, that would be a proper matter for this noticeboard. Levivich (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But this is where I get my hackles up. Most science--in fact I would say the vast majority thereof--does not concern itself with whether or not there is a god. And why should it? It's basically entirely irrelevant to scientific inquiry. The works with which I am familiar tend to be appropriately cautious in their conclusions--like Dawkins in The God Delusion. The works that do go there represent (to me) where science ceases being about classification of observable phenomena and becomes philosophy. Again, let's take "theism" as entirely bland and, admittedly, favorable to my argument. There are billions of theists in the world, philosophers and scientists among them. There are academic journals that take theism as axiomatic. Theology is taught at any number of respected institutions, and not only sectarian institutions. None of this is to say 'theism' is a good or persuasive argument, and it is not one I personally endorse. But to say the entire concept is fringe strikes me as just obviously wrong. Everyone points out cases where there are religious ideas that are clearly fringe, and that is fair enough. But when you get down to the more philosophical/axiomatic inquiries (for me, theism, or even creation ex nihilo), I just don't think they are as susceptible to the same sort of classification. Are there lots of fringe ideas in religion? Oh god yes (pun intended). But again, I think there is value in applying the term rigorously as written, which means that some woo is not actually fringe. I am not overly concerned about this as a practical matter, but intellectually curious. As ever, I am happy to go wherever consensus leads. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So is mathematics a philosophy or a science? Simonm223 (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At its purest, it's a communal world-building game where participants try to invent or extend rules that "work" within their system. So you can prove something to be true within that particular world-game, with the potential that it may also be generalizable or relevant to other world-games that have rules based on empirical real-life data (more applied math) -- though doing the latter isn't necessary and may even be disappointing to some. Meanwhile philosophy I believe is still concerned with discussing questions originating from, or contextualized by, the real world, just not necessarily in ways that are applicable to the real world. But I do think it is a spectrum in that abstract philosophical arguments can be reduced to what amounts to arbitrary rules-creation, resembling pure math. JoelleJay (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking largely about a lot of work of people like Badiou, Deleuze or Meillassoux that, while largely metaphysical, is heavily informed by mathematics. I find a weakness of the Fringe Theory noticeboard is to treat philsophy as non-real in some way. Meanwhile, notwithstanding these abstract metaphysics, things like epistemology are rather critical for understanding even what science does and why. Simonm223 (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"But not all bad ideas are fringe and not all fringe ideas are bad." we don't care whether an idea is bad or not, it literally doesn't matter. That is not a distinction that currently exists so it can not be preserved. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my point exactly. But I fear sometimes the line gets blurred. Dumuzid (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, with the caveat the those lines get blurred a lot of places (MEDRS, BLP, RS, etc) and that I think in general those doing the blurring have good intentions and are largely unaware that they are doing it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) Worse… I was just reviewing the academic scholarship about those battles… not one discusses Einstein’s theory of relativity. Must be Fringe to have so many eminent historians ignore it. Blueboar (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As others say, for different topics there are different WP:BESTSOURCES. While I can see why someone might "count" sources, I'm not entirely sure that's the best way to assess, or at least it shouldn't be the only way; there are cases in which WP:AGEMATTERS would be relevant. That said, I'm not entirely sure "fringe" is the right language to use to talk about this except in narrow, conspiratorial contexts. For instance, WP:FRINGE gives as an example of a "fringe" theory in the humanities something like conspiracy theories contending that [John Wilkes] Booth eluded his pursuers and escaped. Wikipedia parlance might call that a "fringe" view in history since it's very decidedly outside the mainstream consensus that John Wilkes Booth died.

Where I think WP:FRINGE gets misapplied is when I've seen it used to undermine the citation of textual humanities scholarship. e. g. Wikipedia does not say in Wikivoice that Jesus was resurrected because that entails a biological claim about human bodies and there's no consensus in biology for human resurrection via a deity's magical divine powers. However, citing (as a hypothetical example) a Journal of Biblical Literature paper to have Gospel of John, for instance, say that the raising of Lazarus foreshadows the resurrection of Jesus in the plot of the Gospel of John—that shouldn't, I think, be considered "fringe". The raising of Lazarus and resurrection of Jesus in history are unverifiable claims that contradict mainstream consensus about biology and anatomy; the raising of Lazarus and the resurrection of Jesus as plot points in the New Testament are verifiable (other scholars can read the New Testament and confirm whether or not those are part of the plot), and the former foreshadowing the latter is an academic interpretive claim that can be cited and attributed.

Personal anecdotal evidence isn't robust enough to make any sweeping claim, of course, so I'll leave it at saying I've been party/witness talk page interactions where citations to sources about the plot content of religious texts have been called "fringe" in what I think was a misapplication of the term and policy. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGE was indeed mis-invoked, used to argue that the Resurrection, or raising of Lazarus, are not "plot points" in the NT. Where did this happen? Bon courage (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The resurrection/Lazarus/New Testament scenario was a hypothetical example in my comment; pardon if that hypotheticalness got muddled nearer the end. My experience was with with a different topic, though the scenario was similar: an editor at Talk:Ammonihah characterized descriptions of a religious text's plot content as "fringe"/"fringe sourcing" and on that basis removed descriptions and citations en masse. Concerns about level of detail and due inclusion might have had some place in the discussion, but I didn't and don't think it's in our guideline to apply "fringe" to plot summaries or textual studies that don't impinge on reality. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 09:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In context it might have been as if we (in effect) say it is a fact and not (for example) a religious belief it might violate fringe, after all people can't walk across water. Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the page's revision history and searched the talk page. I see a lot of removal of unsourced content, but I cannot see any denial of "plot points". Where are the diffs of these removals or denials? I know the editor concerned can't answer back so this makes it especially important the case is clear. Bon courage (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of removal of unsourced content: Before the editor removed sources that he called fringe sourcing, there were in-line citations at the end of every paragraph (and at the end of nearly every sentence as well). As for diffs, see the difference here: every edit in that span except for one was by the same editor, JPS. Only one edit in that span was made by a different editor, when I removed JPS's addition of "???" into the body text. Compare this result to the version of the article that passed reviews at Did You Know). On the talk page, JPS called the article WP:PROFRINGE advocacy and accused editors of using fringe sourcing to support pet theories. These "fringe" claims and "pet theories" seemingly included that religious studies scholars say a book produced by Christians to spread a Christian religion depicts Christian characters (non-Mormon academics cited to verify that summarization of the book's plot were implied, and then confirmed, to be considered lunatic charlatans by JPS; see the thread that ends Whachagonnado), or that one of the characters says his god forbids him from invoking a miracle to rescue suffering people (the "Suffering" section that is gone), or that stories written to be set in the past can be set in the past; and the "fringe sourcing" seemingly included an article published by the European Mormon Studies Association that treated the Book of Mormon as a product of the nineteenth century (Stott's "Martyrdoms at Ammonihah") and another article published in the journal Dialogue that was cited to state that the story about a city kicking a bunch of people out and making them refugees has a plot beat about people getting kicked out of a city and becoming refugees (Kim, Warnick, & Johnson, "Hospitality in the Book of Mormon").

The points about clarity of word choice land well enough; discussion about excessive details and due inclusion in the plot summary from a different editor were good points. But the impression and effect of the talk page comments went beyond 'this is phrased oddly' or 'is this claim due?' and well into a territory that seemed to result in most claims about the book and its contents being "fringe" unless they matched JPS's personal research agenda and his apparent interest in Nephite ecclesiology, a background element of the setting (see his What is the Nephite Christian Church? on the talk page and his addition to the article of an unsourced section about that). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 12:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article body text had been written specifically to never describe the contents of the relevant religious text as if they were external factual reality. It's the difference between, to use your example:

• Jesus walked across water circa 30 C. E. (This is "fringe", in Wikipedia's parlance, as there's no consensus in the fields of physics or fluid dynamics for a person walking on water via divine magic)
• Many Christians believe that Jesus walked across water circa 30 C. E. (This is not "fringe", as it's a consensus in the field of religious studies that there are lots of Christians who believe the miracles attributed to a person named Jesus happened)
• In the sixth chapter of the Gospel of Mark, Jesus walks on water. (This is not "fringe", as it's consensus in the field of New Testament scholarship that the plot of this chapter involves Jesus walking on water)

On the last example, the difference between Jesus as a consensus historical person versus the consensus of how the New Testament describes Jesus (effectively a character in the text) matters. It's like how it wouldn't do to say in Wikivoice that FDR met and got along with an orphan named Annie, but it's entirely accurate to say that in the musical Annie, FDR meets Annie, and they get along well. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 12:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)