Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 96

Archive 90

←

Archive 94

Archive 95

Archive 96

Archive 97

Archive 98

→

Archive 100

Anthroposophy#Religious nature

Anthroposophy could not be a revival of the Gnosis for example, as the Gnosis was strictly guarded in hidden and ancient mysteries. (emphasis mine). There is no evidence that the Gnosis was strictly guarded. There are Gnostic gospels which spell it all out, including passwords for passing by the Archons. The OP conflates Gnosticism with mystery religions. Very much not the same thing. Rudolf Steiner does not pass for a legitimate scholar of Gnosticism. He passes for a neognostic cult leader.

So, even if Steiner claimed that the Gnosis was strictly guarded, he is not a WP:RS for such claim, nor are Anthroposophists who take his claim at face value. Since he did claim that, he was either an ignoramus or a liar.

Version available at [1]. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes thank you this certainly is an interesting question - has the Gnosis ever truly been published though? For example, would it have ever been published on paper in the Gnostic gospels? As I understand, the Gnosis as it was known was generally only selectively passed on in ancient times in select private in-person ceremonies, with great penalties for transmitting it beyond those closed circles etc hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended content

Hi, SamwiseGSix. Provide evidence for your claim. Searching by gnosis great penalties secret at Google Books (without the quote marks) found nothing. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC) Yes it is an interesting question and I will be looking for additional sources here - perhaps you could also look for sources demonstrating where the Gnosis of ancient times has been publicly published? Seeking to find and publish such esoteric mysteries in the past did quite consistently result in real danger and persecution though right, found these so far for example: [i] Ambelain, Robert. "Modern Martinism." Martinism History and Doctrine. Trans. Piers Vaughan. Paris, 1946. [ii] Falasca, Sefania. "What I Would Have Said at the Consistory." 30Giorni. 1 Nov. 2007. Web. 30 Sept. 2015. SamwiseGSix (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC) Hi, SamwiseGSix. You conflate between Gnosticism and mystery religions. Don't beat around the bush, but do provide evidence for your claim. Your two sources do not amount to WP:SCHOLARSHIP. It is a claim made by Blavatsky, Steiner, and their believers. It is not a claim made by respectable scholars of religion. So, there are no WP:RS about it: if a source endorses such claim, it is not a reliable source. Where was Gnosis published? See List of Gnostic texts. Of course, Christian Orthodox heresy hunters were hunting down Gnostic books. But the Gnostics weren't hunting down Gnostic books, out of fear of revealing their secrets. The Orthodox were angry at those books being public, not the Gnostics. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC) Coming back to the purpose of FTN, I think whitewashing is going on at Anthroposophy. Or, if it isn't whitewashing, they are at least POV-pushing a non-mainstream POV. More eyes needed. Reason? Many of the sources employed by my opponent seem subpar (fail WP:FRIND). tgeorgescu (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC) ..it appears its just me rolling through - I had noticed some concerning NPOV issues on the article (some editors were asking if the founder was a Nazi for example, so I added an Independant.co.uk article demonstrating that Adolf Hitler himself personally commanded his Nazi followers to wage "war against Steiner") NPOV issues which I believe I've now gone ahead and fixed.. I am quite content with the article as it is now and don't feel the need to make further adjustments at this point, although it does appear someone may have just recently added 11 (yes, 11 lol) citations in the second sentence of the article (perhaps we could narrow this to a more reasonable 3-5, moving the others further down?) of some interesting scholars going out of their way to seek to tie the philosophical movement to neo-Gnosticism hehe which the source documents expressly deny, a scholarly and theological move somewhat reminiscent actually of the Italy of the late 1910's and early 1920's hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC) What I have shown: scholars from various POVs (mainstream academic, traditional Catholic, conservative Evangelical, and New Age) agree that Anthroposophy is Gnosticism or neognosticism. What you have shown: Steiner and his believers reject this label for spurious reasons. So, you have a sect which rejects this label for bogus reasons, I have WP:SCHOLARSHIP which shows that the label does apply. And, of course, there is a huge difference between emic and etic. Wikipedia takes an etic approach, not an emic approach. Fact is that the adjunct Fuhrer and many other high-placed Nazis were supporters of Anthroposophy. Nazism was not an ideologically monolithic party, but grouped many different factions. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Hm - according to the Independent.co.uk article and Walter Stein et al the Nazis actually saw the Anthroposophists as a chief enemy early on in their rise and quickly drove Steiner and friends out of Germany in the early 1920's to Switzerland, who never set foot in Germany again. Steiner soon died. Many years after his death, some Nazi officials attempted to leverage some of Steiner's works/insights including around farming; although the Swiss, British, French, and American branches etc of the Anthroposophical Society had long broken off in a significant schism with the small number of controlled/organized Anthroposophists remaining in Germany, from whose ranks a significant number had in the '30s and '40s been sent to the concentration camps - this information is quite handily retrievable from the significant number of books written on the subject.. Although a number of the scholars you cite seek to claim 'Anthroposophy is Gnosticism' as you put it - the original source texts for Anthroposophy do clearly state Anthroposophy cannot be a revival of 'the Gnosis', as the Gnosis was a closely guarded secret of ancient times.. Are you claiming that 'the Gnosis' of ancient times has indeed been published in one of your cited journals, or here on Wikipedia - please do prove this claim if so, as it appears there are a range of reasons to be quite skeptical of the assertion hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 02:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Not my task to prove anything. I simply WP:CITE WP:RS. Wikipedia is simply a website for churning WP:RS, according to an agreed methodology (WP:RULES). ... and you have violated WP:PSCI. WP:AE is just around the corner. According to Hitler (de:Aktion gegen Geheimlehren und sogenannte Geheimwissenschaften), all esotericists were manipulated by Jews, and their place was the concentration camp. From a Nazi POV, it would have seemed more "logical" to spare the Ariosophists and doom the Anthroposophists, but the opposite has happened. Yup, they were extremely lucky. Staudenmaier's book says that the Nazis were not quarreling among themselves if the philosophies of Nazism and Anthroposophy do overlap, but they were quarreling if such overlap is "good" or "bad". He also points out that the Anthroposophists from some cities were discretely investigated by the Gestapo, and their conclusion was that the Anthroposophists were trustworthy citizens of the Third Reich (i.e. neither leftists, nor controlled by Jews). You have offered absolutely no WP:RS which WP:V the claim "the Gnosis was strictly guarded in hidden and ancient mysteries." It is not my task to prove that such WP:CB does not appear in any WP:RS. You simply have to WP:CITE two or three WP:RS in order to prove me wrong; I don't have to prove a negative. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Tangent before I dive into this, @SamwiseGSix what does "hm" mean you insert it very often in text but I'm only familiar with its mean as "hmm", is there some other meaning being implied here? —DIYeditor (talk) 06:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Thank you @DIYeditor and helpful survey of sources below - they should be able to handily help outline the secret and esoteric nature of the early Gnostic groups, and by 'hm' I just mean 'hmm' heh yes The sources currently linked at the top of the Wikipedia page also quite rarely mention 'the Gnosis' and when doing so the term appears to be quite subjective. For example, would 'the Gnosis' of certain Theosophists in the 1880's be the same as 'the Gnosis' of earlier eras? It appears not - the Theosophists for example attempted to publicly present a young Jiddu Krishnamurti literally as the reincarnated Maitreya Buddha, which he himself promptly offered was obviously nonsense - also adding a few additional sources which I hope could help demonstrate the guarded and secretive nature of the early mysteries: https://books.google.com/books?id=SNbaDwAAQBAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_shttps://books.google.com/books?id=ZSMtAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttps://academic.oup.com/book/8519/chapter-abstract/154365661?redirectedFrom=fulltext Although some modern scholars may seek to tie Anthroposophy with labels of the common 'Gnosticism' and yet more common 'neo-Gnosticism' broadly washing around in circulation these days, the original source texts clearly state that Anthroposophy cannot be a revival of 'the Gnosis' as it was a guarded and hidden secret - is it then really so fair to have many links of scholars attempting to apply the 'neo-Gnosticism' label in the very first sentence of the Wikipedia article as it is now written? This seems somewhat unfair and heavy handed - if some scholars want to go out of their way to seek to make such connections and claims of 'neo-Gnosticism' etc based on some surface level similarities or appearances, and we in the community want to bring a truly Neutral Point of View here, then most of those links should arguably be featured in sentences and paragraphs at least somewhat further back in the article right, hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Adolf Hitler himself personally commanded By the same reasoning, Ernst Röhm was not a Nazi either. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC) My opponent recommended me Pagels' book. There are two quotes which remotely WP:V his claim: And that, Marcus adds, is how "the naked Truth" came to him in a woman's form, disclosing her secrets to him. Marcus expects, in turn, that everyone whom he initiates into gnosis will also receive such experiences. In the initiation ritual, after invoking the spirit, he commands the candidate to speak in prophecy,81 to demonstrate that the person has received direct contact with the divine. But much of gnostic teaching on spiritual discipline remained, on principle, unwritten. For anyone can read what is written down—even those who are not "mature." Gnostic teachers usually reserved their secret instruction, sharing it only verbally, to ensure each candidate's suitability to receive it. Such instruction required each teacher to take responsibility for highly select, individualized attention to each candidate. And it required the candidate, in turn, to devote energy and time—often years—to the process. Tertullian sarcastically compares Valentinian initiation to that of the Eleusinian mysteries, which 'first beset all access to their group with tormenting conditions; and they require a long initiation before they enroll their members, even instruction for five years for their adept students, so that they may educate their opinions by this suspension of full knowledge, and, apparently, raise the value of their mysteries in proportion to the longing for them which they have created. Then follows the duty of silence . . .'103 As you see, the link between Gnosticism and mystery religions is just sarcasm. If you ask me "secret teachings" played two roles: (i) sales pitch; (ii) heresy hunters were out there, so of course Gnostics had to keep their mouths shut. The confusion is due to the fact that "secret teachings" are mysteria in their language. In support of my view: Although secrecy is a rare practice in esotericism (for this reason Faivre excluded it from his analysis), as a “dialectic between the hidden and the revealed” it occupies an important position in esoteric discourses. From Haven, Alexander van der (2008). "Kocku Von Stuckrad, . Western Esotericism: A Brief History of Secret Knowledge. Translated by Nicholas Goodrick‐Clarke. London and Oakville, CT: Equinox, 2005. xii+167 pp. $115.00 (cloth); $34.95 (paper)". The Journal of Religion. 88 (1). University of Chicago Press: 133–134. doi:10.1086/526381. ISSN 0022-4189. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Yes, very good - and thank you dear Doctor G, I do like to think of folks not necessarily as opponents, but rather fellow travelers on the good 'spaceship earth' when possible hehe, frail as she may be in these turbulent times.. So I do wonder then, with these new additional insights, how we might go about adjusting the article accordingly? Might I draft up a new proposal for revision? If there are any remaining or further concerns, perhaps we could also continue this discussion directly on the 'talk' page of the article as well. Very curious to hear your thoughts on best possible ways forward, please do keep us updated here. Best, -GS SamwiseGSix (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Please see my reply in the section below. A. Parrot (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Survey of sources relating Anthroposophy and Gnosticism Starting from scratch, I found these which are widely cited and mention both anthroposophy and gnosticism (and "secret"): Rudolf Steiner. Anthroposophical Leading Thoughts. Gedaliahu A. Guy Stroumsa. Hidden Wisdom: Esoteric Traditions And The Roots Of Christian Mysticism. C. J. Jung. The Spiritual Problem of Modern Man. P. Bruce Uhrmacher. Uncommon Schooling: A Historical Look at Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy, and Waldorf Education. Erik Hornung. The Secret Lore of Egypt: Its Impact on the West. Dan Merkur. Gnosis: An Esoteric Tradition of Mystical Visions and Unions. Gedaliahu A. Guy Stroumsa. Another Seed: Studies in Gnostic Mythology. Peter Staudenmaier. Between Occultism and Nazism: Anthroposophy and the Politics of Race in the Fascist Era. Florian Ebeling. The Secret History of Hermes Trismegistus: Hermeticism from Ancient to Modern Times. Peter Staudenmaier. Race and Redemption: Racial and Ethnic Evolution in Rudolf Steiner's Anthroposophy. Stephan A. Hoeller. Jung and the Lost Gospels: Insights into the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Library. Does anyone care to go through these and say which are citable as scholarly opinions for this article and which might be fringe or irrelevant? —DIYeditor (talk) 06:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Steiner evidently wrote a letter titled "Gnosis and Anthroposophy". I haven't beenable to find an accessible copy online, but this page of this Anthroposophist book summarizes it. It seems like Steiner was describing a broader "Gnostic" tradition that he thought had existed for millennia, of which ancient Christian Gnosticism was a particular form. Jung calls Theosophy and Anthroposophy "pure Gnosticism in Hindu dress", but he is not an RS for present-day understandings of Gnosticism. Stroumsa only mentions Anthroposophy in passing on page 1: "Modern esotericism, however, has little to do with secret doctrines and practices in ancient religions. It refers, rather, to a pot-pourri of various elements in European trends since the early modern period, such as Renaissance Hermetism, Rosicrucians, 'Illuminés', Freemason, Tarot, the Theosophical Society, and the Anthroposophists." Hornung discusses Gnosticism and Anthroposophy in different chapters of the book, connecting them only once on page 148: "[Steiner's] doctrine of humankind's sinking ever more deeply into matter until a new ascent from it began with Christ sounds Gnostic, especially when Steiner stresses that humankind will be led back up into the spiritual realm…" Merkur is a difficult one because it uses "Gnosis" in a broad sense to refer to mysticism of many kinds. The book description says it "traces the use of powerful gnostic visionary techniques from Hellenistic Gnosticism and Jewish merkabah mysticism, through Muhammad, the Ismaeilis, and theosophical Sufism to medieval neoplatonism, and renaissance alchemy." The passages that actually discuss Anthroposophy are mostly not accessible to me via Google Books, and it's not clear if they actually connect Anthroposophy with ancient Gnosticism. Ebeling only mentions Anthroposophy once, without any reference to Gnosticism. The first Staudenmaier source only mentions Anthroposophy and Gnosticism together when quoting Hitler describing Steiner as a "Gnostic". The second Staudenmaier source doesn't actually mention Gnosticism at all, only "prognostications". Hoeller mentions Anthroposophy only once: "It was largely the result of the highest and most unbiased insight of modern depth psychology that many contemporary scholars began to recognize that these [ancient Gnostic] cosmic images, which reappear in kindred form in neo-Gnostic systems such as Theosophy and Anthroposophy, might in fact be primal patterns perceived as the result of direct visionary and intuitive experience." The major problem here is that "gnostic" is an ambiguous term. In the broadest sense, it can refer to any mystical, secret knowledge, and thus be a virtual synonym for esotericism. It's more usually used to refer to specific varieties of ancient Christianity, and sometimes to non-Christian schools of thought in the ancient world that seem to resemble the Christian Gnostics. But that narrower use of the term is itself very variable in its scope, and has often been used haphazardly by scholars of ancient religion. I know of two scholarly books arguing that the term should be disused entirely: Rethinking Gnosticism (1996) by Michael Williams and What Is Gnosticism? (2003) by Karen King. The strongest rebuttal of their arguments that I'm aware of is The Gnostics (2010) by David Brakke, which argues that the term should be restricted to the particular Christian group known as the Sethians. The upshot is that we can't simply apply the label "Gnostic" without explaining what exactly that means. As far as I can tell, Hornung is the only one of these sources to highlight a specific similarity between Anthroposophy and the ancient Christian sects that are generally labeled "Gnostic". So WP can mention that specific connection, but in the absence of further sources, I don't think it can do more than that. A. Parrot (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Again, the sources are: Robertson, David G. (2021). Gnosticism and the History of Religions. Scientific Studies of Religion: Inquiry and Explanation. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 57. ISBN 978-1-350-13770-7. Retrieved 3 January 2023. Theosophy, together with its continental sister, Anthroposophy... are pure Gnosticism in Hindu dress... Gilmer, Jane (2021). The Alchemical Actor. Consciousness, Literature and the Arts. Brill. p. 41. ISBN 978-90-04-44942-8. Retrieved 3 January 2023. Jung and Steiner were both versed in ancient gnosis and both envisioned a paradigmatic shift in the way it was delivered. Quispel, Gilles (1980). Layton, Bentley (ed.). The Rediscovery of Gnosticism: The school of Valentinus. Studies in the history of religions : Supplements to Numen. E.J. Brill. p. 123. ISBN 978-90-04-06176-7. Retrieved 3 January 2023. After all, Theosophy is a pagan, Anthroposophy a Christian form of modern Gnosis. Quispel, Gilles; van Oort, Johannes (2008). Gnostica, Judaica, Catholica. Collected Essays of Gilles Quispel. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies. Brill. p. 370. ISBN 978-90-474-4182-3. Retrieved 3 January 2023. Carlson, Maria (2018). "Petersburg and Modern Occultism". In Livak, Leonid (ed.). A Reader's Guide to Andrei Bely's "petersburg. University of Wisconsin Press. p. 58. ISBN 978-0-299-31930-4. Retrieved 3 January 2023. Theosophy and Anthroposophy are fundamentally Gnostic systems in that they posit the dualism of Spirit and Matter. McL. Wilson, Robert (1993). "Gnosticism". In Metzger, Burce M.; Coogan, Michael D. (eds.). The Oxford Companion to the Bible. Oxford Companions. Oxford University Press. p. 256. ISBN 978-0-19-974391-9. Retrieved 3 January 2023. Gnosticism has often been regarded as bizarre and outlandish, and certainly it is not easily understood until it is examined in its contemporary setting. It was, however, no mere playing with words and ideas, but a serious attempt to resolve real problems: the nature and destiny of the human race, the problem of *evil, the human predicament. To a gnostic it brought a release and joy and hope, as if awakening from a nightmare. One later offshoot, Manicheism, became for a time a world religion, reaching as far as China, and there are at least elements of gnosticism in such medieval movements as those of the Bogomiles and the Cathari. Gnostic influence has been seen in various works of modern literature, such as those of William Blake and W. B. Yeats, and is also to be found in the Theosophy of Madame Blavatsky and the Anthroposophy of Rudolph Steiner. Gnosticism was of lifelong interest to the psychologist C. G. *Jung, and one of the Nag Hammadi codices (the Jung Codex) was for a time in the Jung Institute in Zurich. Diener, Astrid; Hipolito, Jane (2013) [2002]. The Role of Imagination in Culture and Society: Owen Barfield's Early Work. Wipf and Stock Publishers. p. 77. ISBN 978-1-7252-3320-1. Retrieved 6 March 2023. a neognostic heresy Ellwood, Robert; Partin, Harry (2016) [1988, 1973]. Religious and Spiritual Groups in Modern America (2nd ed.). Taylor & Francis. p. unpaginated. ISBN 978-1-315-50723-1. Retrieved 6 March 2023. its recovery of the Gnostic and Hermetic heritage. [...] several Neo-Gnostic and Neo-Rosicrucian groups Winker, Eldon K. (1994). The New Age is Lying to You. Concordia scholarship today. Concordia Publishing House. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-570-04637-0. Retrieved 6 March 2023. The Christology of Cerinthus is notably similar to that of Rudolf Steiner (who founded the Anthroposophical Society in 1912) and contemporary New Age writers such as David Spangler and George Trevelyan. These individuals all say the Christ descended on the human Jesus at his baptism. But they differ with Cerinthus in that they do not believe the Christ departed from Jesus prior to the crucfixion.12 Rhodes, Ron (1990). The Counterfeit Christ of the New Age Movement. Christian Research Institute Series. Baker Book House. p. 19. ISBN 978-0-8010-7757-9. Retrieved 26 October 2023. Leijenhorst, Cees (2006b). "Antroposophy". In Hanegraaff, Wouter J. (ed.). Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism. Leiden / Boston: Brill. p. 84. Nevertheless, he made a distinction between the human person Jesus, and Christ as the divine Logos. Again, I'm not pleading that the Gnosis was secret, just that it was called "secret teachings". tgeorgescu (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC) I don't think these sources undermine my key point. The term "Gnostic" is too ambiguous to really be useful as a descriptor. Theosophy and Anthroposophy are both esoteric and thus "gnostic" in the broadest sense, but Anthroposophy had some beliefs that resembled specific beliefs of the ancient Christian Gnostics. So the article should explain the resemblance between Steiner's Christology and that of the ancient Gnostics, but it doesn't seem to be a simple copy of ancient Gnosticism. Leijenhorst's article says as much: "Though Steiner’s emphasis on Jesus Christ’s divine character could be called Gnostic, he avoided docetism by affirming that Jesus Christ had really died in human shape and had risen from the dead." So just slapping the label "Gnostic" or "neo-Gnostic" on Anthroposophy really isn't helpful. I think it would be better for the lead sentence to just call Anthroposophy "esoteric", which doesn't seem to be in dispute. A. Parrot (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC) You say there is a dispute. Which WP:RS (i.e. WP:FRIND) dispute this label? tgeorgescu (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Even if it's not disputed (disputed in the sense that there might be sources that explicitly do not consider Anthroposophy as "Gnostic" or "neo-Gnostic"), how many RS use "(neo-)Gnostic" as a primary descriptor for a defining opening sentence? While I am admitted completely disinterested in this topic (disinteresed as in *yawn*), I have spent a few seconds to look up entries for Anthroposophy in Oxford Reference: none of them even mentions a gnostic connection. Austronesier (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Yes exactly - leading with the Britannica citation (and/or Oxford sources) with some similar copy feels much more appropriate: https://www.britannica.com/topic/anthroposophy It does appear a range of scholars including Leijenhorst are pointing out important differences as well, which should be mentioned around any eventual potential label slapping attempts of "neo-Gnosticism" etc, if at all Perhaps additional work and defense will be found and/or published soon in addition. The impulse to seek to label the article as "neo-Gnosticism" right out of the gate (with 11 citations??) does feel highly inappropriate and quite reminiscent of Italy in the late 1910's and early 1920's during its governmental transition to full state authoritarianism, if one looks a bit more closely at the history and various similar labels applied at that time as well. There are plenty of reliable sources detailing their "neo-Gnosticism" edict in 1919, with Mussolini's rise just so happening to occur quite rapidly afterwards - and we all know what happened next.. SamwiseGSix (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC) I understand that "gnosticism" is not very specific. But I don't understand that the label is disputed in WP:FRIND. And I find that bringing in Mussolini is just ridiculous. Reductio ad Hitlerum. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Sometimes you have to use common sense. It's obvious that Steiner's Christology was influenced by ancient Christian Gnosticism, and the article should of course say that, but the word "Gnostic" is too ambiguous to be all that useful as a descriptor by itself. And, as Austronesier and Samwise just said, it's not necessarily the most prominent descriptor for Anthroposophy in the recent sources. I don't see why you're fixated on declaring Anthroposophy to be "Gnostic" in the lead sentence. A. Parrot (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC) It is articulating my WP:OR knowledge that Steiner spoke a lot about Ancient Gnosticism and Manicheism. And, indeed, many of his ideas are influenced by the 19th-century understanding of Gnosis. It's what every reader of many books by Steiner knows, but somehow it is too boring to get mentioned by scholars. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC) The influence of Gnosticism upon Steiner is clear and supported by sources. The label of "Gnostic" is unnecessary and potentially ambiguous. A. Parrot (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC) The influence of Gnosticism upon Steiner is clear and supported by sources.—okay, I'm prepared to settle at this. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Ok, an exploration of 'Gnostic influence' etc in the 'Religious Nature' section could make sense - but the attempt at ambiguous, unnecessary labeling and extensive citations therebouts in the intro paragraphs should be moved down to the 'Religious Nature' section as well, right.. SamwiseGSix (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC) The intro should also start with the Britannica citation and similar language.. SamwiseGSix (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Just for the record, according to de:Aktion gegen Geheimlehren und sogenannte Geheimwissenschaften Bormann and Goebbels hated Anthroposophy, while Hess and Himmler loved it. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Yes some Nazi elements there did appear to hold on to a small, leftover and controlled German remnant, long disavowed by the other country branches as discussed above (US/UK/FR etc), and then also crushed in '41 as the linked article shows.. I have prepared a modest draft for the intro paragraph and #Religious Nature section which I have posted over in the article's talk page, how about I go ahead and edit those subtle adjustments in then? They contain the points covered above and I could implement this first edit tonight or tomorrow, if there are no objections.. Certainly hoping to avoid any kind of arbitration issues here though too, maybe folks would want to offer advice as needed? Could also check in at the teahouse or help desk if that might be recommended here as well, thanks! SamwiseGSix (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC) First, I don't say that people should be blamed for preserving their own lives during a totalitarian regime. Second, most German Anthroposophists were not sent to concentration camps. It is true, SD purists wished they have been sent to concentration camps, but it simply did not happen. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Yes indeed, tragic circumstances they were. "Never Again" as the saying goes - I've added a reply over in the talk page, and looking forward to hearing your thoughts. Thank you for your consideration, and thank you all for your help and deep analysis here in addition. SamwiseGSix (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC) Agree that "esoteric" should be the label. It's not helpful to the general reader to throw "gnostic" in the lead, as opposed to other influences, and without explaining it. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC) More eyes needed See Talk:Anthroposophy#Epistemology, Ontology etc. My opponent thinks that gnomes, elves, fairies, and sylphs who are in control of natural phenomena is "an ontology" and talking to the spirits of dead Atlanteans is "an epistemology". I have told them the following: if you are here to deny atomic theory in the name of Goethean science: go away, don't waste our time with such nonsense. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC) There are over 3000 Waldorf schools in most major cities around the world and have they have been quite extensively published about positively in academic publications, also the Camphill movement and in environment/conservation (pls see history around Rachel Carson's famous 'Silent Spring' and more) - here are some initial sources: https://repository.arizona.edu/bitstream/handle/10150/621063/azu_etd_14891_sip1_m.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/1069 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1476718X211051184 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244013494861 The idea here is not to reverse the qualification that much of Anthroposophy is considered pseudoscientific by todays standards - the philosophy and application in education and environmental conservation for example however have demonstrated very measurable results published in academic articles, the article should thus approach a more balanced NPOV by also featuring some sources like these: https://pureportal.strath.ac.uk/en/publications/discovering-camphill-a-personal-narrativehttps://figshare.utas.edu.au/articles/journal_contribution/The_Rachel_Carson_letters_and_the_making_of_Silent_Spring/22907084/1 On metaphysics, the philosophy does draw a notable amount of influence from Thomas Aquinas and Ancient Greek philosophy. SamwiseGSix (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Never mind the Waldorf schools and Thomas Aquinas, are you seriously telling us that gnomes and fairies are real? Achar Sva (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Yup, suggesting that Wikipedia should endorse gnomes, sylphs, and talking to the spirits of dead Atlanteans makes a mockery of our encyclopedia. WP:RS: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/my-waldorf-student-son-believes-in-gnomes-and-thats-fine-with-me/274521/ tgeorgescu (talk) 01:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Personally I'd say they're not, though we do live in a democracy (for now) - the positive effects of Waldorf education have been measured in the journal articles above and have received some press: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/technology/at-waldorf-school-in-silicon-valley-technology-can-wait.html SamwiseGSix (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Not trying to make a mockery out of the Encyclopedia in any way here, rather simply trying to help add some of the scientific insight available in the many independent journal articles above to help facilitate neutral point of view, for the sake of a decent and humane future. Humanity faces existential risk https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/1069 SamwiseGSix (talk) 01:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC) And gnomes and sylphs will bail humanity out of this crisis? Yes, we live in a democracy, Wikipedia isn't a democracy. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Only we humans can bail out humanity :) If we follow the science and stick to a true NPOV, it appears we should be just fine.. SamwiseGSix (talk) 02:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Gnomes and sylphs are part and parcel of the ontology of Anthroposophy; talking to the spirit of dead Atlanteans is part and parcel of the epistemology of Anthroposophy. Correct me if I am wrong. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Well no I don't think so - the core approach starts more with a philosophy of freedom, so there really are no requirements for anything like that hehe However for humanity to survive the 'mechanization' of the economy etc (as was written in the 20's, perhaps in consideration of ai/nuclear etc these days) some sort of re-thinking of global society as a more unified human body might actually be needed, as the C&H piece explores hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 02:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Rudolf Steiner did claim to directly see gnomes and sylphs, he did claim he directly talked to the spirits of dead Atlanteans. He named that Spiritual Science. Was he a schizophrenic? tgeorgescu (talk) 02:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC) I did enjoy your Thomas Szasz quote from yesterday "If you talk to God, you are praying; If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia" etc hehe He appears to be drawing quite deeply on Freud Beck and co there right, default Existentialism of the 20s / 30s, with a dash of Stoicism added on in the 60s there perhaps ;) SamwiseGSix (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Treher, Wolfgang. Hitler, Steiner, Schreber – Gäste aus einer anderen Welt. Die seelischen Strukturen des schizophrenen Prophetenwahns, Oknos: Emmendingen, 1966 (newer edition: Oknos, 1990). ISBN 3-921031-00-1; Wolfgang Treher Archived 2005-02-12 at the Wayback Machine tgeorgescu (talk) 02:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC) An interesting (default existentialist? 'existence precedes essence'? some pretty big assumptions etc eh, hm) response - Hitler and Steiner really were very different though as even P. Staudenmeier points out, with Hitler personally telling his followers to "wage war on Steiner" as the Independent.co.uk article discussed further above also illustrates in further detail hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Steiner and many of his friends had to flee to Switzerland by the early 1920's, never to set foot in Germany again.. SamwiseGSix (talk) 02:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Treher's point is that both Hitler and Steiner were schizophrenics. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Hitler maybe yeah, plenty of scholars have considered psycopathy etc Re Steiner, Goldwater rule ha SamwiseGSix (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Treher was not bound by the Goldwater rule, and I am not a MD or psychologist. So I may speak freely: the case for someone claiming to have the Siddhis of Imagination and Inspiration (i.e. seeing things which are not there, and hearing voices talking in his head) is much stronger than the case for Hitler. The problem with Well no I don't think so is that you are not WP:RS about Anthroposophy. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Blom, Jan Dirk (2010). A Dictionary of Hallucinations. New York, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. p. 99. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1223-7. ISBN 978-1-4419-1222-0. Retrieved 2012-01-11. Clairvoyance Also known as lucidity, telesthesia, and cryptestesia. Clairvoyance is French for seeing clearly. The term is used in the parapsychological literature to denote a * visual or * compound hallucination attributable to a metaphysical source. It is therefore interpreted as * telepathic, * veridical or at least * coincidental hallucination. Reference Guily, R.E. (1991) Harper's encyclopedia of mystical and paranormal experience. New York, NY: Castle Books. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Well, you may seek to diagnose him from afar if you like hehe, though as you say, you're not an MD or psychologist hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Blom, Jan Dirk (2010). A Dictionary of Hallucinations. New York, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. p. 99. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1223-7. ISBN 978-1-4419-1222-0. Retrieved 2012-01-11. Clairaudience The term clairaudience comes from the French words for hearing clearly. The term is used in the parapsychological literature to denote a ∗verbal or ∗nonverbal auditory hallucination that is attributable to a metaphysical source, and is therefore interpreted as a ∗telepathic, ∗veridical, or at least ∗coincidental hallucination. Reference Guily, R.E. (1991). Harper's encyclopedia of mystical and paranormal experience. New York, NY: Castle Books. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Yes so to be precise though, we should qualify the intro of the article, as it appears relatively few folks in the article-related community believe in their ability to gain deeper insights etc through their meditations these days, especially as say in comparison with the Buddhists of old.. Much different time we live in these days (material progress makes life much better in so many ways!) although the environment and everything is much different now than in days gone by hm It is getting late here though too, and I should get to bed soon SamwiseGSix (talk) 03:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Price, John S; Stevens, Anthony (1998). "The Human Male Socialization Strategy Set". Evolution and Human Behavior. 19 (1). Elsevier BV: 57–70. doi:10.1016/s1090-5138(97)00105-0. ISSN 1090-5138. Many studies of cults and revitalization movements have noted that the leaders are susceptible both to auditory hallucinations and sudden changes in beliefs. The schizotype, we suggest, is someone who has the capacity to shed the commonly held and socially determined world view of his natal group, and to create a unique and arbitrary world view of his own, into which he may indoctrinate others and become a prophet, or fail to indoctrinate others and become a psychotic patient. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Perhaps you might take a look at this auther, who has been covered and published in academic research journals in addition: Robert Sardello, PhD, is cofounder (with Cheryl Sanders-Sardello, PhD, in 1992) of the School of Spiritual Psychology. At the University of Dallas, he served as chair of the Department of Psychology, head of the Institute of Philosophic Studies, and graduate dean. He is also cofounder and a faculty member of the Dallas Institute of Humanities and Culture, as well as author of more than 200 articles in scholarly journals and cultural publications, and is a former faculty member of the Chalice of Repose Project in Missoula, Montana. Having developed spiritual psychology based in archetypal psychology, phenomenology, and the spiritual science of (RS) from more than thirty-five years of research in this discipline, as well as holding positions in two universities, Dr. Sardello is now an independent teacher and scholar, teaching throughout the US, Canada, and the UK, as well as the Czech Republic, Philippines, and Australia. He is a consultant to many educational and cultural institutions..and is author of several books, including Facing the World with Soul (2003) and Love and the World (2001). SamwiseGSix (talk) 03:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC) It is getting late here though, going to need get some sleep SamwiseGSix (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC) you may seek to diagnose him from afar if you like hehe, though as you say, you're not an MD or psychologist—I'm not Treher: he diagnosed Steiner with schizophrenia, not me. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Hm just appears quite reductive yeah, to just say those two are clinically identical etc, when they really couldn't be much different looking at the Independent.co.uk article for example 'Existence precedes essence' etc, lots of deep assumptions there - one could perhaps look a bit more closely at Treher's philosophical / ontological approaches there as well hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Robert Sardello isn't WP:FRIND about Steiner. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Well he has been published in a range of mainstream journals etc right, feeling a bit dragged into the ring here though hehe and really need to get to sleep hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 03:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC) This isn't the place to whine about materialism or Existence precedes essence. Keep those remarks to yourself. WP:NOTAFORUM. And you seem to equivocate between "mystical delirium" and "religious belief". You claim that he was essentially wrong about "seeing" gnomes and sylphs, but "not a schizophrenic". This looks like a contradiction. Steiner considered himself a Great Initiate, he thought he could talk with God like Moses, and considered himself to be an universal genius, far superior to Leonardo da Vinci. That Sardello isn't WP:FRIND I learned it from your message. When a member of a new religious movement denies that his own guru is a schizophrenic, that member is not WP:FRIND in respect to his guru. I don't even have to claim that Sardello is wrong, but simply that he has an axe to grind against rational critics of his guru. Simply being a religious adept of his guru disqualifies him from WP:FRIND. Occultism is definitely religion if you want to know that. Wikipedia does not sell the patent nonsense that occultism isn't religion. Some people think I'm to blame for the WP:RULES of Wikipedia (which is dumb), or for the public availability of information published by third-parties (which is again dumb). I simply WP:CITE WP:RS according to WP:RULES, so don't blame me for the POV that Steiner was a schizophrenic. It is publicly known and actually quite a straightforward POV. On many occasions I have received irate attacks from cultists simply for citing stuff publicly known for decades. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Hm, well you are attempting to cite Treher who never met Steiner in person - APA and equivalent ethics rules internationally point out that it is irresponsible and unethical to attempt such a remote diagnosis without consent and without even having met the person hm The many mainstream articles from Sardello (including while chair at UDallas Psych Dept etc) establish his deep mainstream-recognized insights in the field and can help serve as a buffer for the very small smattering of material published in the 60's by Treher outside of modern ethics rules on Steiner (it appears he is the only one) seeking to diagnose him with serious clinical conditions hehe (stigmatizing and potentially discriminating, possibly even damaging the discipline of the time etc)  without ever even having met him, and without consent.. A range of court precedents establish that this specific approach as it relates to matters esoteric is not a 'religion' - as for analysis around existentialism and questions of whether 'existence precedes essence' etc, as discussed on the talk page previously this is all part of the notable branch of philosophy considered as ontology, which serves as an important cornerstone also in the development of our philosophy of science.. Because the existentialist stream does rely quite heavily on Marx's 'dialectic materialism' which at its core really is just an inversion of Hegel's dialectic into materialism, another very deep and arguably gaping set of assumptions; it would therefore be arguably quite deeply unscientific ontologically speaking to simply exclude views that do not fully conform with Marx's (somewhat dogmatic?) leaps of faith into materialism, based actually on a somewhat simple inversion of Hegel's spiritually understood and famous 'Hegelian dialectic' hm For example, how can you be so sure that a dogmatic focus materialism will at some point produce a truly comprehensive understanding of the big bang? There are plenty of famous and well respected academics that leave room for the possibility of at least some deeper mysteries in the universe, recognizing that their are some things which are actually somewhat difficult to measure simply from only a material perspective hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 13:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC) You are conflating psychiatry with existentialism, existentialism with Marxism and seeing Marx as the inventor of materialism. This is completely offtopic. WP:NOTAFORUM. I urge you to desist from offtopic rants about materialism, existentialism, future of mankind, and existential risk. Courts which decide that occultism isn't religion make a mockery of justice. As I said, I don't even claim that Sardello is wrong, but you told me that he is a disciple of Steiner. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Where did I say Sardello was anyone's disciple? He has published various works stating himself that he has studied a range of thinkers hm The philosophical ontology, and underlying philosophy of science are all arguably quite applicable here, especially to the somewhat wide-ranging counter claims / assertions shared above hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 14:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Having developed spiritual psychology based in archetypal psychology, phenomenology, and the spiritual science of (RS) from more than thirty-five years of research in this discipline, as well as holding positions in two universities (emphasis mine). Does it mean the spiritual science of the reliable source? That does not make sense. So, it must mean the Spiritual Science of Rudolf Steiner. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Yes he is saying he has developed his concepts based on the 35 year career in mainstream psychology, and also by leveraging insights by critically/analytically reading (though not through serving as a disciple of any kind) aspects of Steiner's body work hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Plato had many disciples who have never seen him alive. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Is there anything specific that WP:FTN needs to deal with in all of this, or is it just an exercise in space-filling? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC) @AndyTheGrump: Yup, SamwiseGSix suggested some edits which IMHO are filled with sources which fail WP:FRIND. I did not check them all, so I could be wrong, but my instinct tells me I'm not. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Here are a few of them again, they do seem quite independent and reliable to me hm https://repository.arizona.edu/bitstream/handle/10150/621063/azu_etd_14891_sip1_m.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/1069 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1476718X211051184 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244013494861 https://pureportal.strath.ac.uk/en/publications/discovering-camphill-a-personal-narrativehttps://figshare.utas.edu.au/articles/journal_contribution/The_Rachel_Carson_letters_and_the_making_of_Silent_Spring/22907084/1 SamwiseGSix (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC) @AndyTheGrump: Articles written by Steiner's believers and/or Waldorf teachers should be discarded for failing WP:FRIND. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC) In which case, I suggest you start a new thread at WP:RSN, asking whether a specific source can be cited for a specific statement. And stick to that. No off-topic tangents about whether it is possible to be a disciple of a dead philosopher. No debates about how many Anthroposophists were sent to concentration camps. Nothing about Atlantis. Just the source being cited, and what it is being cited for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC) tgeorgescu has tried to explain to SamwiseGSix why neither anthroposophic literature nor WP:FALSEBALANCE is acceptable on Talk:Anthroposophy for about a week now, and the discussion contains many excursions into WP:FORUM territory. The point of coming here is usually to lure people there to help. Instead, the "discussion" has metastasized to here. This is a noticeboard. It is for notices. Can we please stop it here, go over there and comment? I just did. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Robert M. Schoch‎

Latest changes need checking. At the very least I think he should be called a geologist in the infobox, not a scientist. The lead seems to maximise his credentials over his notability as promoting pseudo ideas. Doug Weller talk 16:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Schoch is arguably more notable for his historical paleontology work than geology. I've cited his work on the obscure mammal group Dinocerata, which is genuinely solid. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Shivapuri Baba

New article describing a Hindu mystic who allegedly lived 137 years without any good sourcing. David Wolfe (raw food advocate) was being cited a source, I have just removed that. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Gurdon light

Actual photo of a paranormal thing according to Wikipedia

• Gurdon Light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Low edit count users adding vague images without discussion. As I mentioned at Talk:Gurdon_Light, there is no way to WP:V verify a blob of light on a dark background is the Gurdon light. Most user-submitted images to Wikipedia are fairly conventional and it is reasonable to assume good faith and trust the uploader. However some images, like this one, are connected to topics that are sufficiently unusual that they cannot be taken at face value. Even modifying the image caption with a caveat ("Photo claimed to be of the Gurdon light in 1994") isn't sufficient. Platforming images that make unverifiable claims doesn't improve the article and isn't in the best interests of Wikipedia. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

OMG, it's a blurry blob! So blurry blobs do exist! --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I think perhaps the edit warring user doesn't know about their own talkpage. At any rate, I've posted a final warning there, but I won't be blocking anybody for some hours (just soon off to bed). Bishonen | tålk 22:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC).

Update: oh yes, they do know the way to their page; they just reverted my warning. Bishonen | tålk 23:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC).

Jeremy Griffith

• Jeremy Griffith (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Discussion on the Talk page about how fringey the guy is and about whether an IP's opinion is a hindrance. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Is the lab leak at all racist? (episode 94)

• Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#"informed by racist undercurrents" redux

Probably of interest to fringe-savvy editors. Bon courage (talk) 09:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Steve Fuller (sociologist)

• Steve Fuller (sociologist) (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Could use more NPOV and less FRINGE. But a WP:SPA thinks it needs less NPOV and more FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

That's a bizarre way to read my corrections to Fuller's entry. In fact, the entry in general suffers from a surfeit of criticism from variously (in)competent sources and a dearth of statements of Fuller's views. (Indeed, the entry is skewed very much towards the creationism debate, which is only part of what Fuller does -- though I realize that this seems to preoccupy Wikipedia editors.) I operate from the spirit of NPOV. If you're going to criticize the guy, at least allow him to state his position. It's as simple as that. Morgan Dorrell (talk) 10:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

at least allow him - WP:FRINGE says, Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement or deprecation.

Yes, Fuller seems to be an all-round anti-science activist but the sources concentrate on the creationism aspect. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

"There's a cabal"

Entertaining thread: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia project (GSoW) --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

It's a contentious topic, and some admin inteverion (eg a block) is needed there. There are ongoing aspersions cast against good-faith WIkipedians, edit wars involving several IPs, NOTHERE ADVOCACY behaviors, and possibly MEAT happening as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Richat Structure and Atlantis (again)

A student editor, who ironically appears to be part of a class of well known pseudoarchaeology critic John Hoopes, is insisting on adding a really undue 12,000 byte addition regarding the claim that the Richat Structure is Atlantis, which includes no reliable sources specifically about the claim itself, mostly cited to YouTube videos and the conspiracy streaming service Gaia. Other eyes on the page would be appreciated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I've added back a small section to the article mentioning the claims. I don't think 12,000 bytes of prose is due, but a single three sentence paragraph probably suffices. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I’ll tell John. Doug Weller talk 19:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Biomesotherapy

• Biomesotherapy (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Does not seem to conform to MEDRS or FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

"The most ancient settlements in Epirus date to the Middle Paleolithic"

A claim that The most ancient traces of human settlements in Epirus can be found in the late period of the Middle Paleolithic era (40,000-30,000 years ago) on the villages of Xarrë, Konispol (Kreçmoi Cave) and Shën Mari., sourced to [2] and [3] has been added tot he article on Epirus. Not only do I find the sources inadequate for such a claim, but it seems to be WP:FRINGE, as there were no human settlements in the Middle Paleolithic, the earliest human settlements dating to the much later Neolithic. This seems to be a typical Balkan nationalist protochronist fringe claim, all too common in Balkan articles. Any help with this would be greatly appreciated. Khirurg (talk) 05:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I do not think human settlement in this context would refer to permanent settlements. I’m pretty certain they mean evidence of human settlement in the area, not necessarily towns or fortifications, but just evidence of human habitation in the region, such as artefacts from caves and the like. That’s perfectly plausible. Although admittedly, quotes would be useful here because I don’t think it’s been translated properly. Botushali (talk) 09:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on merging content boards

There is a discussion about possibly merging this notice board on Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Etzel Cardeña

Etzel Cardeña (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is almost completely credulous and quotes a lot of argumentative claims that are fairly reproachable. Not sure what to do. jps (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

A WP:FRINGEBLP that requires criticism of his "expressed views", such as [4] and [5]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Right. Can I page someone for cleanup on aisle ten, then? jps (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Tried to clean up, but there is resistance [6]. Same editor deletes context in another article [7]. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Started a section on the Talk page so any upcoming consensus edits won't be a surprise. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I saw your work, Hob. Thing is, I think that Cardeña is actually right about this particular point. Much the same argument is made by no less a bigshot than Richard Wiseman, but Wiseman's conclusion from this observation is rather different than Cardeña's. Namely, Wiseman contends that the comparable level of evidence for certain parapyschology claims in contrast to more prosaic mainstream psychological claims demonstrates that critics should be worried that the evidence in favor of many standard claims of psychological phenomena is rather weak. See also replication crisis. It is actually true that parapsychologists have through tests of fire been forced to deal with their shoddy statistics to a greater degree than psychologists who have made claims that aren't as "out there". Wiseman points out that we shouldn't accept a psychologist's claim that, I don't know, people are motivated by some psychological mechanism on the basis of supposed effect seen in a small sample under dubious controls and with many confounding variables just because the mainstream psychologist is testing a prosaic claim and the parapsychologist ic testing a wild claim. If anything, the legit criticisms of parapsychology act as an object lesson for why many arguments in mainstream psychology are corrupt! jps (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Good point. On the other hand, he may be technically correct but he phrased it in a misleading way. Parapsychology is not "as good as parts of normal psychology", parts of normal psychology are as bad as parapsychology.

Even the word "psi" itself is misleading. It pretends to be a thing but actually it is a junk room. Parapsychologists cannot explain something? Then it's psi! The word should be replaced by "something parapsychologists cannot explain". That would diminish conflict a lot. Skeptics would agree with parapsychologists all the time:

• "Parapsychologists have proven the existence of psi" turns into "Parapsychologists have proven that there are things the cannot explain". Skeptic: "True dat."
• "During the course of an extensive experiment, psi tends to decrease over time" turns into "During the course of an extensive experiment, we are able to explain more and more of what happens." Skeptic: "Yeah. I knew that."
• "The presence of skeptics inhibits the presence of psi" turns into "The presence of skeptics helps parapsychologists explain stuff." Skeptic: "Thank you for noticing."

I maintain that the technically true sentence is still misleading and FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Mantell UFO incident

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

An old article obviously written by UFO believers. Gives primary weight to fringe explanations. Fixed the lead a bit, but article needs major overhaul. See Talk:Mantell_UFO_incident#NPOV_and_FRINGE_issues. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done Article overhauled, thanks Rjjiii. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I added a citation (ref no. 15) for the burial place and the location of marker. The source is NICAP. I also added the NICAP collection on Mantell under External Links. Understand it is an ufology source. Feel free to revert or let me know if the addition is inappropriate. Thank you. Path2space (talk) 06:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to you as well!

@Path2space: The publisher is the significant thing. In this case,[8] that was the official website of the Kentucky state government. I reformatted the citation,[9] and it could likely be pointed to a more neutral archive site. I would view this as a primary source for this article (Kentucky on Kentucky). The policy for that is at: WP:PRIMARY. If it was published by NICAP, it would not meet Wikipedia's standards. A discussion explaining why is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_358#NICAP_And_other_non-government_UFO_research_organizations Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 07:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Rick Alan Ross

• Rick Alan Ross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Past discussion: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_51#Rick_Alan_Ross_-_deprogrammer

The subject of the article is once again requesting changes to the article. Given the fringe nature around Deprogramming#Controversy_and_related_issues and Cult#Usage_of_the_term_'cult', it would be helpful to get more editors to look at the FRINGE issues that may be involved in the current state of the article and the edit requests being made. --Hipal (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposed changes. The article seems good as is. I think that this guy lost a lawsuit for false imprisonment is leadworthy information. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Kurds are ethnic Iranians

Kurds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article is "Kurds" and the introduction says that the Kurds are an "Iranian ethnic group". Considering that I have not come across any source which says that the Kurds are an "Iranian ethnic group", I wonder if this is a fringe theory. Thank you. Mikola22 (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

In the first place, this is a Wikipedia thing (not sure if we can call it fringe). In the POV of some WP editors, ethnic groups are by default classifiable based on the linguistic affiliation of the languages that they speak. As a result, the linguistic labelling of the language of a given ethnic group (based on comparative linguistic subgrouping criteria) is applied as a classifier for this ethnic group. This default assumption was popular in the 19th century, but is insular in the modern context and not found in reliable sources. An even more insular corrollary of this erroneous labelling convention is the claim that the collective of ethnic groups speaking languages belonging to one language family or subgroup make up "ethnolinguistic groups". This insular in-house usage is a misapplication of the term, which in real life refers to a single ethnic group thas is primarily defined by a shared language as the most significant token for ethnic self-idenitification. It becomes most horrid when we have spurious articles about "X peoples" (Cushitic peoples, Romance peoples etc.), that are just OR-concoctions derived from linguistic classifications.

Note that I'm talking about an erroneous default assumption. This does not preclude that we can label an ethnic group with the same term that also denotes its linguistic affiliation, but only when reliable sources commonly do so. Emphasis lies on commonly; you will always find one or two books that e.g. call Catalans a "Romance ethnic group", but more often, you will find in RS about Catalans that the label "Romance" only is applied to the Catalan language.

I'm too lazy atm to join the discussion in Talk:Kurds, but it all boils down to the question of how many reliable sources actually label Kurds as an Iranian ethnic group (and not just an Iranian-speaking ethnic group). –Austronesier (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I mostly agree with this perspective. That said, I do think the Iranian peoples article does have some merit discussing the cultural similarities between Iranian-speaking peoples as separate from the linguistics. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Iranian peoples are certainly a special case, and it's good to see that editors take up the challenge very seriously and produce exactly the kind of sources that are needed. –Austronesier (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there is a single source that refers the Kurds as ethnic Iranians. That's why I put this information up for discussion because fringe theories shouldn't be part of articles. Mikola22 (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The RfC is not about Kurds being "ethnic Iranians". Kurds are ethnic Kurds, just like Persians are ethnic Persians and Bachlochis are ethnic Bachlochis (grossly oversimplified, I know). But multiple RS label these ethnic groups as "Iranian" based on criteria that go beyond linguistic classification, hence "Iranian ethnic group". Whether there are sufficient reliable sources (and sufficiently modern ones) to jusitfy having this label in the opening sentence of the lede is a question of due weight, but not FTN matter. –Austronesier (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I did not ask the question in the context of the RfC, but in the context of the information from the article in which is mentioned ethnic in the context of Iranians(The Iranian peoples or Iranic peoples are a diverse grouping of peoples who are identified by their usage of the Iranian languages). "Kurdish people are an Iranian ethnic group", this context, as well as information does not exist in the sources. Is such information fringe in that context? As if we would say that some Slavic people are ethnic Slavs. Mikola22 (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, nobody says that Kurds are ethnic Iranians. Why you do parse "Iranian ethnic group" as "[[Iranian ethnic] group]", when it obivously is "[Iranian [ethnic group]", with "Iranian" modifiying the term "ethnic group"? The phrase "Iranian ethnic group" entails no "Iranian ethnicity", it just qualifies the ethnic group of the Kurds as "Iranian" in whatever sense (linguistic, cultural, whatnot). –Austronesier (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Austronesier You're right. I looked at the Wiki articles and there are informations for example the "South Slavic ethnic group" etc. But I don't know why there is not a single source in this sense? Mikola22 (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

You're last question brings us back to my first comment in this thread. You can't imagine how vehemently some editors contest the removal of contentious or spurious (usually language-related) labels for ethnic groups even when sources are lacking. Sometimes, it's just defending the walled-garden of inhouse conventions made up by Wikipedians (as you can spot in some comments in the RfC), but in the case of "Turkic" and "Slavic", you also run against 19th/20th century "Pan-" ideologies that are still deeply engrained with many. The RfC in Kurds at least helps not to take things for granted just because so many articles have this flaw. –Austronesier (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Disputes at Falun Gong

As usual, we've got a group of adherents over at Falun Gong attempting to whitewash the page to fit the group's preferred narrative and hide that the group is entirely centered around the words and whims of one ultra-conversative guy who now and then claims to levitate, Li Hongzhi, over at a big compound in Deer Park, New York. There's a whole propaganda media empire behind this guy, like the Epoch Times and Shen Yun, and his group here in the US and here in Germany. See this October 2023 article from NBC for example. They openly attempt to influence elections and law, and had a lot of success under the Trump administration.

The attempts by the Falun Gong to turn this article into a propaganda leaflet has also been the subject of academic discussion. Falun Gong adherents regularly attempt to rally and push through this or that.

Realizing they can't excise almost every non-Falun Gong-aligned (and by that, usually meaning coming directly from the Falun Gong) source on the topic from the past several years, the latest strategy seems to be to try to bury what they don't like in the article by cherry picking old sources, plastering huge sections of old material about the group as victims of China to bury everything else, and endlessly—and I mean endlessly—attempting to decry most WP:RS-complaint sources from the past several years, especially media reports.

Since these editors come out of the woodwork especially when they think they can move the needle, I highly recommend more eyes and ears on this article. The Falun Gong treats it as a straight up battleground—it is after all another potential propaganda arm from which the group could benefit—and closely monitors it with any number of single purpose accounts. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I would like to speak to what happened, as I have recently been extensively involved in the talk page discussions relating to Bloodofox's recent edits on the Falun Gong article. I have been less involved with editing the article itself (probably edited less than five times over the past 3 years), due to my relative unfamiliarity with this topic, compared to other regulars at this page.

• For those unacquainted with this topic, Falun Gong has attracted sustained, intense interest from certain parts of our community for almost two decades, in part due to its importance, and its various dimensions that spans human rights, religion and politics, which is what attracted me to this page in the first place.
• On November 8 22:44 (restored after reversion on Nov 10) Bloodofox deleted 5066 characters, essentially 3 entire paragraphs out of 5 paragraphs of the lede of this article. Most of the content deleted by Bloodofox has been stable on this page for months if not years, representing the consensus of many editors from both sides, over the course of a decade, debating almost every line and sometimes word.
• The content deleted by Bloodofox includes the following:
  • How Falun Gong emerged - Source: Freedom House 2017 report.
  • What Falun Gong is - “a meditation, slow moving exercises. Self-identifies as a practise of the Buddhist school. With moral psychologies/philosophies.” Source: Freedom House 2017 report.
  • What happened to Falun Gong - “Initially supported by the Chinese government. Later alleged to be a heretical organization by the Chinese government. Finally subject to "a nationwide crackdown", "a wide range of human rights abuse", with estimated "hundreds of thousands" to be "imprisoned extrajudicially", "torture". "As of 2009, human rights groups estimated that at least 2,000 Falun Gong practitioners had died within China as a result of abuse in custody."” Sources include: Amnesty International 2000, Freedom House 2014, New York Times 2009, China Quarterly 2015.
  • Subsequent developments in Falun Gong movement - “"Millions continued to practise Falun Gong there [in china] in spite of the persecution", and "practised in over 70 countries" with "40,000 to several hundreds of thousands" of adherents.” Source: Telegraph 2009, China Quarterly 2015,
• Bloodofox replaced all of the above content with essentially one statement (which is revised and "supplemented" from an existing sentence in the next paragraph):
  • Led by Li Hongzhi, who is viewed by adherents as a deity like figure, Falun Gong practitioners operated a variety of organizations in the US and elsewhere, known for opposing the CCP, feminism, modern medicine ,and being "ultra-conversative".
  • The last assertion is almost exclusively sourced from a single NBC piece, on Epoch Times, a competing media. The first description about "led by Li Hongzhi' and "viewed by adherents as a deity like figure" appears to be sourced from none other than Bloodofox himself.
• No one can reasonably argue that the sources deleted by Bloodofox are unreliable per WP:RS, no such arguments have been made. No one to date (except presumably the Chinese government) has suggested that all the content deleted by Bloodofox is not true, especially the part concerning the persecution of Falun Gong in China.
• A WP:Lede is intended to introduce the article, and summarize its most important content, including any prominent controversies. What was previously a summary of two decades of stable scholarship and journalism of this multidimensional topic has now become a summary of one or two online articles, cherry-picked amongst the sea of sources and information on this topic.
• Is there controversies to Falun Gong? There appears to be. But Falun Gong is not just a controversy. It's also a serious religious and human rights phenomenon.
• To delete all of the above context, background and history, distilled from two decades of journalism and scholarship on this serious topic, and confer exclusive limelight to a passage from a select media article, which is not even mainly about the beliefs of Falun Gong, strikes me as POV-pushing, in serious infringement of WP:Weight, WP:Lede, WP:DUE, WP:NPOV, WP:RECENTISM and WP:SOURCETYPE.
• After being challenged See here, here, and here, on the merits of his edits, Bloodofox engaged in further edits of the same pattern. His justifications for his edits is essentially that all those who challenged his edits are "Falun Gong adherents", and that he is preventing alleged adherents a platform for their views see here, here and [10]. He declares his belief of Falun Gong as an alleged totalitarian movement, out to essentially corrupt the world, his disdain for Falun Gong's alleged influence on conservative parties in different countries (example) and declares his motive as, I quote,
  • "And that's why we're not sweeping everything aside to smokescreen Falun Gong operations by emphasizing at every corner how evil the Chinese government is and how very persecuted Falun Gong is."
• Some editors and my attempt to restore the article to its stable version were quickly reverted by Mr. Ollie, who is also a regular on this page.

In light of all of the above. I believe that Bloodofox's edits are plainly indefensible and needs to be undone. The last version of this article that stood before Nov 8, should be restored, and I seek fellow editor's input on this discussion. Thank you all for reading this lengthy post. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 03:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

First, this user appears to have issued a vague threat of violence aimed at me recently ("external assistance will be inevitable") and did not deny that it was a threat when asked to clarify, preferring to again issue another vague statement. Note that I've experienced threats of violence stemming from editing this page before, and academics have also noted vague threats when studying the Falun Gong.

I believe this account gave its angle away by referring to NBC News as a "competing media" of Epoch Times in an attempt to dismiss the October 2023 report, lol. (Now what account have I heard that from before on the talk page?) Anyway, there's a mountain of this material from WP:RS from the past several years and a lot of the Freedom House stuff you're pushing often seems to just be Freedom House citing the Falun Gong. This is the equivalent of laundering a source. Such an approach ist unfortunately typical of the Falun Gong-aligned embedded accounts over at Falun Gong.

And none of this is coming from me, it's coming from a mountain of reporting from the past several years that the group has pushed to get off the article. For example, here's a quote from the NBC News report (bold added). Here's the quote I supposedly invented from the above:

"To his followers, Li is a God-like figure who can levitate, walk through walls and see into the future. His ultra-conservative and controversial teachings include a rejection of modern science, art and medicine, and a denunciation of homosexuality, feminism and general worldliness."

It is also quite well documented at this point that the Falun Gong propaganda arms include the now notorious Epoch Times, a major source for disinformation and backer of far-right politicians in both the US and here in Germany, and organizations like Shen Yun (whose false claims about folk tradition are what introduced me to the Falun Gong in the first place). The fact that this user is attempting to dance around these well-documented facts tells you a lot about what we're dealing with over at Falun Gong. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I've been editing Wikipedia for about 13 years off and on, and the topic of Falun Gong has always interested me from a human rights perspective as well from a contemporary religious perspective. I've stressed repeatedly to the editors involved in this current dispute that Falun Gong is a religious minority undergoing well-documented persecution in China. Within the western diaspora communities in the United States, Europe, and other countries, the group is largely an ethnic and religious minority group with a significant portion being refugees who had to leave China because of their beliefs.

The efforts of @bloodofox and @binksternet in recent days/weeks/months is an alarming attempt to take away the narrative sovereignty of this group. It is not correct at all to dismiss decades of ethnographic and religious scholarship on Falun Gong in favour of a recent article on NBC news, which takes an entirely American-centric view of the issue and focuses on the media outlets run by Falun Gong adherents rather than the religious practices. The viewpoints being pushed on the page right now come from a western hegemonic mindset that disregards the beliefs of indigenous groups (Falun Gong being an indigenous Chinese practice) in favour of arguments that align with a very specific mindset of specific westerners who don't like the way they think and act. That's called bigotry. And refusing to engage in dialogue while attacking editors as SPAs and promoting Fringe theories is disruptive to the entire encyclopedia.

Falun Gong is a sensitive and contentious subject, but we have to remember that this subject is about human beings who have human rights. It is inappropriate for a handful of WK editors who do not share their heritage and are generally unfamiliar with their beliefs to determine how the world should view them. —Zujine|talk 13:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

In reality, the Falun Gong is a US-based new religious movement centered around the words and whims of one guy, Li Hongzhi.

He lives at the Falun Gong compound in Dragon Springs in New York. As you know, the group intensely supported the Trump Administration and its media arm, The Epoch Times, gained special access to the Trump administration in particular. Let's not play games here: this is and has been a US-based topic since the Falun Gong leadership left China.

The NBC News article is just one of hundreds covering this topic, especially since the connection between Falun Gong, Shen Yun, and the notorious The Epoch Times became clear around 2016.:bloodofox: (talk) 13:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

If you have produced even a fraction of the alleged "hundreds" of articles covering this topic allegedly supporting your edit, I might have been inclined to agree with your edit. You did not. You cobbled your statement from two passing and casual descriptions of Falun Gong from two media articles, that are not even focused on this topic (they were mainly talking about EpochTimes, a media and a performing arts troupe). In so doing, you deleted perfectly credible and serious scholarship books and articles, and reports by well established human rights NGOs, some of which were published as recently as 2018 and 2019, on this topic. And in your defence of your edit, half the time you were WP:SOAPBOXing, and the other half, you were launching blatant WP:PA against other editors, discrediting their edits because of their perceived religious faith. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 14:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

"Epoch Times" + "Falun Gong" + any search engine = yes, hundreds of articles. No need to play games. They're indeed all over the Falun Gong talk page. We even have sources discussing Falun Gong's attempt to influence Wikipedia coverage. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Is "alarming attempt to take away the narrative sovereignty of this group" something like "not giving them the right to WP:OWN"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Editors are arguing that Freedom House isn't a reliable source because they interviewed Falun Gong adherents about their experiences. That's what I mean about narrative sovereignty. The view of some editors is that the beliefs of Falun Gong should only be represented by people who disagree with them. I don't think that Falun Gong adherents should own this page, and I don't think that is the issue at question here. @Bloodofox took action on this noticeboard after going on a long string of nonconstructive edits that represent his/her/their own POV. That POV is one of aggression towards a minority group. That's my point. All of the attacks on other editors have been about their POV and trying to "out" editors as Falun Gong sympathizers. It's perfectly fine for Christians to edit pages about Christianity and for Muslims to edits pages on Islam. It would be strange to prevent people from editing on topics related to their own religious beliefs. I am not a religious person, but I try to extend respect to religious groups, and I think that an article about a religious group should be approached as a tool to understand that group. I live in Belgium. I don't know anything about NBC News, but if you're telling me that it trumps the works of scholars and human rights organizations who have spent decades researching and reporting on the subject, I have to disagree. And if a handful of editors think they have the right to define a minority group themselves by excluding the participation of people on the basis of having a potentially positive relationship with that group, I have to disagree as well. It's a regressive Euro- (or in this case American-)centric interpretations of a culturally distinct group. —Zujine|talk 17:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

"to take away the narrative sovereignty of this group" no group on wikipedia should have narrative sovereignty, if one does then yes it should be taken away. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

"Editors are arguing that Freedom House isn't a reliable source because they interviewed Falun Gong adherents about their experiences" is false. Freedom House cites things like official Falun Gong websites for basic information like demographics and claims of crackdowns. We don't consider any website from the Falun Gong to be an WP:RS. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

To construe my phrase "external assistance will be inevitable", when I was plainly referring to administrator or arbitrator or other forms of external intervention, as a threat of physical violence, is an astounding distortion of the meaning of my words.

But it does show how Bloodofox tilts at windmills, in his unconcealed activism on this topic. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 13:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I invite anyone to take a look at this account's edit history, especially on the Falun Gong, and drawn their own conclusions. As for "unconcealed activism": one could say that I happen to be in the pocket of Big WP:RS, where I don't dance around this project's source requirements. And it's obvious that this topic, which I unfortunately fell into from the bread crumb trail around Shen Yun's manufactured "folk traditions", needs a big dose of Big WP:RS from contemporary WP:RS. And that'd be all that media coverage of the US-based empire around Li Hongzhi and crew you and a crew of 'new' editors here are keen on keeping off the article and/or burying. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

If you don't wish to "fance around wikipedia's source requirements", if you think you are above complying with Wikipedia's rules and policies on source, then frankly and respectfully, I think you should take a break from editing this topic. I appreciate your intense interest on this topic, but I think you are letting your activism get in the way of your editing. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

"Dancing around Wikipedia's source requirements" means "trying to circumvent Wikipedia's source requirements". Bloodofox does not do that. So, you think you are above complying with Wikipedia's rules and policies is wrong. Good luck for your next attempt at reading what people write. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I did not misread. Bloodofox changed his edit shortly after I made the above comment. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

You do understand that by filling up this thread with personal attacks on Bloodofox you're just proving the point, right? Somebody needs to move this mess to ANI or AE, we're going to need a few topic bans to be handed out I think. MrOllie (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Pointing out how Bloodofox's assertion, that whoever disagrees with his edits are Falun Gong adherents, are not arguments to support his deletion of two decades of journalism and scholarship on this topic is not a personal attack. And I think you should explain why you reverted other editors' attempts to restore these deleted sources on this article that has been stable for months, if not years. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

That is not what you are doing, both here and elsewhere. I note your attempt to change the subject, but I decline to help you with that. MrOllie (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• I've added the article to my watchlist and I agree that more input is needed. Further lengthy discussion from the main dispute participants here is not helpful. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

From the getgo I'm deeply uncomfortable with how this is being raised here. First and foremost: I don't want to wade into this topic for a multitude of reasons; while I have a strong interest in minority religions this topic is, uh, contentious, to say the least, and requires a lot of expertise.

That said, I don't think using the language you are here is appropriate. People of a religion are allowed to edit their own wikipedia article as long as they follow WP:RS, and referring to Falun Gong in the same way as one might refer to people who ardently believe in water memory ignores the fact that one is an outright religion, and the other has only has adherents in the way a religion does.

@Zujine was right to raise narrative sovereignty, though I think the word choices were poor. People belonging to a religion are typically the most educated on the topic of that religion. That doesn't mean an encyclopedia is the place for presenting ones theology as true, but this language which paints Falun Gong's members themselves as the problem, rather than a certain subset. You can't use as broad a brush as is being used here just because their religious beliefs themselves are controversial.

Religions are not fringe theories. I do not think that Falun Gong is an appropriate topic for FTN, but I may be alone in that. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 23:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The Falun Gong is a new religious movement focused on Li Hongzhi, who promotes all sorts of fringe theories about, for example, modern medicine. This is echoed by the group's media arms, like Epoch Times, one of the biggest spreaders of fringe theories in the United States, ranging from vaccines to climate change. It would be difficult to find a more suitable candidate for discussion here than the Falun Gong. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say I'm not familiar with it; I wouldn't be as opposed to wading into this situation if I was. :)

"Li Hongzhi, who promotes all sorts of fringe theories about, for example, modern medicine"

Address those on a case by case basis.

"This is echoed by the group's media arms, like Epoch Times"

Absolutely worth mentioning in both the main article and the article on the Epoch Times. The article on Falun Gong itself still needs to maintain an NPOV and just making the article a laundry list of their fringe sins won't fly.

"It would be difficult to find a more suitable candidate for discussion here than the Falun Gong."

Then I think you need to take a biiiiiig step back on this topic. A religion is not a fringe theory, even if it contains or supports fringe theory elements. You're may have a hard time sidestepping just naked prejudice in this process otherwise, it seems? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 00:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

A reminder: Wikipedia isn't censored. We have no shortage of WP:RS on this. New religious movements don't get special treatment on Wikipedia. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

See: WP:RNPOV

"In the case of beliefs and practices, Wikipedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from religion's sacred texts as primary sources and modern archaeological, historical, and scientific works as secondary and tertiary sources.

Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 00:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

That only works if practitioners haven't been instructed to mislead the public, as strong secondary sources tell us is the case here. MrOllie (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Falun Gong is absolutely a fringe topic that needs to be monitored for fringe promotion. The religious group has actively promoted pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, along with helping push such nonsense as Qanon, among many others. If it hadn't been for the decades of all of that, I would be more sympathetic to the claims regarding it as a religion above. But when the religious movement chose to be a mouthpiece for fringe quackery, it became a topic of concern for this noticeboard. Silverseren^C 23:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree that topics relating to Falun Gong need to be approached as fringe topics. Any beliefs which they harbour which are inherently fringe theories, which admittedly are abundant, should be handled on a case-by-case basis. We don't treat the obvious pseudolinguistics of speaking in tongues to be an excuse to bring Pentecostalism under the purview of FTN. Falun Gong itself is a religion, and we need to be careful not to just stomp on WP:NPOV and likely WP:SOAPBOX in addressing what does seem to be some NPOV edits on the other side of the spectrum. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 00:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Where have I heard this argument before? Scientologists?

Here we discuss fringe topics. The Falun Gong's Epoch Times and its many other propaganda arms (there's really no more neutral way to put it) are a major source for misinformation and promotion of fringe theories in the US. Wikipedia isn't censored. This topic is about as appropriate as it gets for this board. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

It is a religion that is much more on the level of a cult of personality around one person and it is that person who has purposefully used the religion they created to push the fringe nonsense. So, no, you can't deal with the religious part separate from the fringe part, as they are purposefully intertwined by the creator and adherents. It is an inherent aspect of the group as a whole. Silverseren^C 00:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

"It is a religion that is much more on the level of a cult of personality around one person and it is that person who has purposefully used the religion they created to push the fringe nonsense."

Well that's certainly one un-nuanced take. Not exactly certain why it belongs in an article on wikipedia since it's blatantly ignoring any pretence of an NPOV approach. A religion is more than its leadership, its also the lived experiences of its adherents. Plenty of religions have very strong central figureheads who abuse their position, that's not unique to Falun Gong.

Also, to re-quote this:

It is a religion that is much more on the level of a cult of personality

I'm beyond uncomfortable with a random member of FTN (or any part of wikipedia) attempting to arbitrate what is and isn't a legitimate religion for the purposes of whether or not it falls under FTN's watchful eye. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 00:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

This statement: I'm beyond uncomfortable with a random member of FTN (or any part of wikipedia) attempting to arbitrate what is and isn't a legitimate religion for the purposes of whether or not it falls under FTN's watchful eye. and this one: I do not think that Falun Gong is an appropriate topic for FTN do not appear to be compatible. MrOllie (talk) 00:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course it's compatible. "Religions are not fringe theories" is a perfectly coherent stance, one which actually made it to the serious level of policy suggestion (albeit a failed one) at Wikipedia. We shouldn't be trying to come up with criteria for what counts as a "real religion" here when even scholars of religious studies have generally done away with that value judgement and even the term "cult" in general. Religions just are what they are; both internally and externally diverse.

The point is we shouldn't be trying to ascribe degrees of legitimacy to religious topics to determine whether they're sociological/anthropological topics or fringe theores. We can absolutely tackle individual beliefs which are fringe theories, but we cannot extrapolate that back to calling a religion itself a fringe theory. Raelism is obviously inherently based on a fringe theory (UFOs!) but that doesn't mean it's not a serious religion. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 00:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see. No one can arbitrate what is and isn't a legitimate religion except for you. You will find that any number of religious topics are fringe theories. For example, some people believe that Jesus traveled to India and incorporated portions of that region's religions into Christianity. That some people fervently believe this does not mean it would be inappropriate to discuss it on this board. MrOllie (talk) 00:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe this is worth a read? I am making zero attempts to arbitrate what is and isn't a legitimate religion. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 00:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

And yet you're trying to police what people can say on this noticeboard. Please don't do that. MrOllie (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Is... this a Poe? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 00:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I've been wondering the same thing myself. MrOllie (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Cults of personality are still religions, just based around singular people. A lot of the new religious movement groups are organized as such. You seem to have a really strong POV trying to support Falun Gong for some reason. I'm just stating general well-known, and well cited in the article even, information about the group. Wikipedia is not meant to be a representation of what adherents of a religion think their group is or what it's about, Wikipedia is about what reliable sources and especially academic sources say about the subject, purposefully independent of anything connected to the religion in question. Silverseren^C 00:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

"Cults of personality are still religions, just based around singular people."

Not necessarily, they can be religions but not all cults of personality are, well, literal NRMs. I don't actually think we disagree here, though.

"You seem to have a really strong POV trying to support Falun Gong for some reason."

Mainly because I don't think it's appropriate for FTN to be treating an NRM as a fringe theory, and I think some of the discussion here is showing naked prejudice. This is extra problematic when this discussion is happening a) somewhere inappropriate and b) away from the article's talk page.

"Wikipedia is about what reliable sources and especially academic sources say about the subject, purposefully independent of anything connected to the religion in question."

I wholeheartedly agree, to the extent that I've also said the same here in one of the posts you replied to! Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 00:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, are you suggesting we not be allowed to discuss the Falun Gong and it's fringe superspreader arms like the Epoch Times on this board? :bloodofox: (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I do not think putting a religion on FTN's watchlist should be a thing that happens, no. It feels like a very high risk example of mission creep which has the potential to do some damage to the careful NPOV needed to tackle handling a religion who has been... very active in how they present their preferred image to the world.

I actually think the Epoch Times probably just needs to have a feed of recent changes piped to FTN regulars' inboxes, given its history.

I'm getting the impression from some of what you and what @Silver seren are saying that you think I'm one of the Falun Gong members/adjacents who is active on Wikipedia ("You seem to have a really strong POV trying to support Falun Gong for some reason."), which, y'know, either is all in my head in which case apologies, or it isn't and, y'know, knock it off. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 00:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure the Falun Gong and its many misinformation arms like the Epoch Times would be more than happy to hear that you think discussing them should be forbidden. And why not let this poor multi-billion dollar org spread anti-vaccine, anti-evolution, anti-climate change, and so on in peace to millions in the US, Canada, and Europe without troubling them with reporting on it?

Unfortunately, I think you're going to have a hard time convincing editors here that they shouldn't be allowed to discuss the group's role as a major superspreader of major misinformation in the US.

But maybe you should contact all the major media outlets in the US and tell them to stop bullying the Falun Gong with all their nasty coverage that doesn't parrot Li Hongzhi's talking points as well. Don't ya just hate it that they keep reporting on stuff like Falun Gong's connections to the GOP and US government policy?

Again, Wikipedia isn't censored, and we have no shortage of WP:RS covering it. So we cover it.:bloodofox: (talk) 01:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

"I'm sure the Falun Gong and its many misinformation arms like the Epoch Times would be more than happy to hear that you think discussing them should be forbidden."

You really need to read both WP:AGF and what you're replying to. I am very explicitly calling the Epoch Times an utter font of fringe that needs careful monitoring. Further, you really should consider knocking off casting aspersions at anyone who disagrees with how this is being handled here. For real, oblique and increasingly explicit implications that I'm a Falun Gong member for disagreeing here is not okay. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 01:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I have yet to see anyone here accuse you of being a Falun Gong member. However, I am sure our many embedded Falun Gong adherent editors are no doubt over the moon for your support in attempting to censor any discussion of the group here.

After all, it is much easier to promote misinformation when you can forbid discussion of its source. Even muddying the waters by having an editor fill this talk page with pleas to censor any discussion of the many media sources discussing the Falun Gong helps keep discussion off of Falun Gong misinformation activities, if just for a little bit. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

"I have yet to see anyone here accuse you of being a Falun Gong member."

Oh please:

"But maybe you should contact all the major media outlets in the US and tell them to stop bullying the Falun Gong with all their nasty coverage that doesn't parrot Li Hongzhi's talking points as well."

Yeah the rules around civility don't allow you plausible deniability here just by dint of not being extremely specific. I'd appreciate a strikethrough on those and an apology, it was beyond out of line. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 02:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Trust me, if I suspected you of being an adherent, I'd have no bones about telling you. I've called them out plenty of times before. And I was right.

But there's no denying that you're actively and aggressively lobbying here to attempt to censor and forbid any mention of Falun Gong on this page. You've said it over and over it. Now you can deal with the inevitable rejection. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Religion isn't a Fringe "get out of jail free card." If a religion gets involved with fringe stuff like election denial and January 6th (which FG did) that doesn't fall under any religious exemption... Even if its a religious belief (for example flat earth, ghosts, or immaculate conception). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Religions don't get special protection from WP:FRINGE due to WP:RNPOV. When a religious claim is made which is contradicted by basic facts and reliable sources from the relevant epistemic community, it is described as such. Marian apparitions do not get a pass just because they are Catholic beliefs. Likewise, Falun Gong/Falun Dafa's main claims and political messaging doesn't avoid the WP:FRINGE lens just because it is a religion. So let's stop with that argumentation.

Finally, it would be good for those who are here and at those pages defending Falun Gong to identify whether they are adherents. This is mainly because of bad taste we've had in the past with this sort of thing. Prem Rawat, scientology, transcendental meditation, Unification church, etc. have all gotten their hands dirty with Wikipedia content-skewing, so we are twice shy having been more than thrice bitten.

jps (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

"When a religious claim is made which is contradicted by basic facts and reliable sources from the relevant epistemic community, it is described as such."

Since I was the one raising the handling of a religion as a fringe theory and RNPOV, I'm just going to assume this is directed at me. I want to be clear I emphatically agree, and I even brought up speaking in tongues as an example of a fringe belief of a mainstream religion which should be treated as fringe while not making the religion fall under the purview of FTN. That's also just my perspective, I simply may be wrong.

"Likewise, Falun Gong/Falun Dafa's main claims and political messaging doesn't avoid the WP:FRINGE lens just because it is a religion. So let's stop with that argumentation."

I may be mistaken but I don't think anyone has made that claim here.

"Finally, it would be good for those who are here and at those pages defending Falun Gong to identify whether they are adherents"

WP:AGF. If there are problematic edits from an editor then handle that on a case-by-case basis. Asking members of a religion to out themselves gets sticky, though it does factor in to WP:EXTERNALREL without much clarification. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 01:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad we are in agreement on so much, and if no one disagrees with my points, then I'm happy that they can be left to stand. Sometimes providing a clear statement about norms is a way to make sure we are on the same page, and maybe we are. But I protest that it is not an assumption of bad faith to point out that people who are adherents ought to make their adherence known given the history of this sort of thing at Wikipedia. I'm not even saying that they have to stop editing, only that it would help provide context and would be a good faith practice on their part. jps (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't actually have too strong an opinion on people outing themselves, it clearly is mentioned in WP:EXTERNALREL but I think an equal point in favour of people not doing that is there are real, serious reasons for certain people to fear persecution/blowback. That's particularly pronounced for Falun Gong, though it's definitely a bit tricky to differentiate propaganda from the reality. I think the flipside here is that those most likely to out themselves are also those least likely to have issues with WP:RS and WP:NPOV.

There's absolutely been an issue in this very thread with people accusing others of being crypto-Falun Gong, so I think perhaps WP:AGF still is something that needs to be generally mentioned again. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 01:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Can everyone who's posted more than three times in this section please take 24 hours off from it? There's essentially no chance of additional input if this keeps ballooning, and is probably already at that point anyway. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I can do that. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing we can do to force people into self-identifying. Allowing them the excuse of "safety" is one that is a bit too convenient considering the context. Identifying discussions are buried on non-indexed pages that discuss the content of the indexed pages. As a general principle, adherents to a religious faith should be willing to share that information lest we run into problems that arose in the instances I outlined above. I also think that one person's "crypto-Falun Gong" is another person's useful idiot. Generally, we try to identify the outcomes of a particular advocacy and do not distinguish between motives for that reason. If a position results in WP:PROFRINGE, then that's what's happening whether the person who is pushing such a position is a true believer or whether they are just a concern troll/devil's advocate/accept-all-comers-mr-niceguy. jps (talk) 02:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:TPG is clear, Do not ask for another's personal details. It is inappropriate for a number of reasons, and adherents of a faith should in no way be expected to share that while editing. As you say, it is on the outcome of their editing where the focus should be. All of the personal commentary from many of those involved needs to stop. This includes both referring to normal editing as disruptive, and calling people adherents. This is a WP:CTOP, and that behavior is unnecessary and unacceptable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish I genuinely think there needs to be a wider discussion about the role of FTN on articles pertaining to religion (note: since I’ve been accused multiple times of trying to suppress all discussion of Falun Gong here: specific fringe-theory-overlap beliefs of those faiths are all fine fodder for FTN. Raelians having a thing for UFOs doesn’t make UFOs not fringe.) stemming from this. Or, perhaps, a revival of some previous protracted ANI discussions about the insularity and acceptance of deviation from behavioural norms at FTN, because some of this discussion was pretty gross, difference of opinions on the nuances aside. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 01:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

That's a discussion for the village pump. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan, I guess. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 01:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Y'all need to think about how to square your pollyanna circle of pretending that we can't ask for personal details as is argued on WP:TPG with the basic functioning of this website when it comes to things like WP:COI. The history of this site is that we have uncovered individuals and groups who were editing Wikipedia on behalf of their religious organization and sometimes were directed to do so. If you think we shouldn't be allowed to ask whether this is the case on talkpages, I think you are arguing in favor of a policy that is proscriptive rather than descriptive. As I said, there is no way to force people to disclose things, but the eye-rolling implications of saying that people aren't even allowed to ask is something I think does not align with what actually happens here and it is also in opposition to what best practices are, in my opinion. jps (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I do not think it is reasonable to highlight all members of a specific faith as having so significant a COI that they should be expected to out themselves on edits pertaining to their faith. I think it’s reasonable to expect people with a strong COI to highlight that themselves, but I don’t see how you can expect people who are making problematic COI edits to out themselves and expect a successful outcome. If they’re making bad COI edits they’re not exactly going to be committed to making their biases known.

And yes, I absolutely am proposing something a bit more proscriptive. As a FTN semi-regular this place has far too heavy a systematic issue with incivility to lead me to think that this is an appropriate venue for tackling a religion itself without further behavioural oversight. FTN routinely throws nuance to the wind, and a complex intermingling of faith, human rights, and, to be fair, a mountain of fringe theories requires more delicacy than I’ve seen here at practically any point.

Just look at how this thread has played out, at the pre-Admin-edit title that was used and the language used here to describe practitioners of a specific faith. It’s… not good. It reflects badly on Wikipedia, looks nakedly prejudiced, and any attempts at moderating the discussion around the entire faith specifically were met with aspersions and hostility. None of that is saying that FTN isn’t the appropriate place to handle specific fringe beliefs or topics like the Epoch Times, which is, of course, a great source of fringe. My attempt at conveying this were met with some fairly insultingly phrased accusations of trying to suppress any mention of Falun Gong at FTN. I’m not sure how you get from “we should closely monitor the Epoch Times and fringe topics which pertain to a faith, such as Speaking in Tongues” to “But there's no denying that you're actively and aggressively lobbying here to attempt to censor and forbid any mention of Falun Gong on this page.” without a profound assumption of bad faith.

We should be handling fringe topics as they arise, and PROFRINGE posters as they come. We should not presupposes the entire congregation of a minority faith is WP:NOTHERE just because it makes our jobs easier. I think the mission creep, implicit belief that WP:AGF doesn’t apply here, and what’s sort of looking a little like attempting to systematize religious discrimination in the name of fighting fringe content calls for a wider overview of the scope, behaviour, and membership (from the perspective of getting more eyes on FTN, not reviewing the members here, to be clear) of FTN to prevent this from metastasizing into something ugly.

Look, I’m not saying my perspective here is flawless or correct. But I equally don’t think the pool of FTN regulars, which isn’t exactly a huge number of us, are qualified to evaluate their own behaviour fully anymore. There’ve been admin discussions about issues caused by FTN and how it’s insularity has lead to it overvaluing the importance of specific fringe theories (an old discussion of Panspermia here come to mind).

If this perspective is simply mine, then I can accept that. I’m not going to accept that this is just my perspective because a small subset of hostile posters elect to be loud and I’m not just going to accept assumptions of bad faith, or being a useful idiot, as actually substantive. I want outside voices on this rather than than an internal debate among those of us whose overton window has potentially been skewed by burnout dealing with this topic. That’s not me saying “I want outside voices because I’m right”, but rather “I want outside voices because this situation has become so insular and cliquey and people so convinced of their correctness that meaningful meta-discussion has become impossible.” Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Concur. Sennalen (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

As below, disclosing a religious COI is not "outing". Outing is identifying a person (name, address, etc.). Eliding these two things is unhelpful. FTN is a Wikipedia noticeboard with over 1000 watchers. Religions with pretensions to reality (e.g. Falung Gong, anthroposophy, Sahaja Yoga, scientology, Christian Science) all fall under WP:FRINGE and are appropriately dealt with here. Bon courage (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

An admin has already weighed in on the topic of asking people to provide their religious affiliation as inappropriate. And "Outing themselves" ≠ WP:OUT but I could have used much more careful language than that.

"WP:TPG is clear, Do not ask for another's personal details. It is inappropriate for a number of reasons, and adherents of a faith should in no way be expected to share that while editing."

Further:

"Religions (e.g. Falung Gong, anthroposophy, Sahaja Yoga, scientology, Christian Science) all fall under WP:FRINGE and are appropriately dealt with here"

I think this is certainly one perspective, but I don't think it's a given that the religions themselves fall under the purview of FTN, rather than some of their specific beliefs and practices which should be handled as fringe topics. I would be sincerely curious if you can back up the idea that religions themselves are inherently WP:FRINGE from a policy perspective. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Here is the actual guidance from WP:COI: "Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI." However, to repeat, this is moot because problem editors won't do the decent thing and declare their religious COI. Hence the community can only look out for problem edits. WP:FT/N regulars have a wealth of specific experience in such problem areas. This is how the Project functions and standards are maintained in fringe areas. It is a feature, not a bug. Bon courage (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

(Add) More generally, religions in theselves are not WP:FRINGE except insofar as their statements obtrude into reality (so no, the earth is not 6000 years old, burying quartz crystals does not increase crop yield, and E-meters do not measure anyting usefully). There are also fringe theories within religious discourse (e.g. Christ myth stuff). But religions in general are not relevant here. Bon courage (talk) 07:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Nobody appears to be arguing that religions themselves are inherently fringe. Why would you ask them to back up an argument which nobody has made? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I have a feeling this straw man has been paraded here before. Bon courage (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The only argument I see being made is that certain religious beliefs are inherently fringe, but it would seemingly take willful ignorance to transform an argument about specific religious beliefs into an argument about religion writ large. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you don't see religious belief in general being discussed here. OTOH certain specific beliefs (like that Christian Science prayer can influence disease) are very relevant here. Bon courage (talk) 10:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

You should link Christian_Science because what an impressive and exemplary bit of work that was. fiveby(zero) 17:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, largely the work of much-missed SlimVirgin. It's also an interesting case from the religion/COI perspective: as the Talk archives show, during the article's genesis she had her hands full with church members concertedly trying to spin the text in certain directions. Bon courage (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• There a big difference between 'outing' and the kind of specific disclosures Wikipedia recommends/requires for COI editing. I think it is reasonable to expect Falun Gong members to disclose an affiliation if they get involved in that topic area. However, as with other difficult COI-tainted topic areas, ultimately it's futile to pursue suspected hidden COIs as a means to getting anything done on Wikipedia. It is by their edits ye shall know them. Bon courage (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
• I don't care whether a person offering an opinion about what is or is not appropriate has a mop and a bucket. My opinion is just as valid even though I don't have a mop and a bucket. jps (talk) 03:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  I just saw this discussion. I have long been interested in human rights in China. The main body of FG adherents is still in China. Most of their activism outside China also aimed at ending the persecution in China. Based on some media articles I read, Epoch Times pivoted to Trump after 2016 because they thought Trump could have destroyed the CCP–which didn't happen. The recent NBC article mentioned above noted, "The Epoch Times has yet to throw its weight behind a candidate for 2024."

  FG's activities in the U.S. could be featured more on the page "Falun Gong outside mainland China" but shouldn't carry undue weight on the main FG page, because China is where the movement originated and developed, the main body of adherents are, and the major conflict that the movement has been having for over two decades. Thank you. Path2space (talk) 03:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Falun Gong is headquarted in Dee Park, New York. The religion is centered around one man, Li Hongzhi. He lives in Deer Park, where he commands and leads the new religious movement. The Falun Gong's most visible arm, the Epoch Times, has not changed a bit since Falun Gong went all in with the Trump administration. In fact, they are now much bigger than they were then and are still pushing exactly the same conspiracy theories.

Persononally, I have yet to see any reliable numbers on the amount of adherents that exist in China. The Falun Gong's own numbers are obviously not reliable and they're frequently repeated with little scrutiny by NGOs. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Two things can be true simultaneously. The Chinese government soured on Li Hongzhi's movement and pivoted from supporting or, at least, toleration to banning at about the time he started commanding a bit too large a following and began flexing his own opinions about who should control whom. The crackdowns were real, but the claims of forced organ harvesting, systematic killing and imprisonment, etc. are a bit bewildering when it comes from a group as insular and immune to evidence as Falun Gong adherents. And their beliefs are pretty wild. They really hate biological evolution, for example. I never really understood exactly why that was except that it aligns with the bizarre predilections of Li Hongxi. jps (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

"The main body of FG adherents is still in China" do you have a source for that? Note that the sources we do have say that almost all of their current activities happen *outside* of China and we go by what gets coverage, not where they have adherents or history (that would be a NPOV violation). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The 2022 State Dept IRF report says: "Prior to the government’s 1999 ban on Falun Gong, the government estimated there were 70 million adherents.  Falun Gong sources estimate that tens of millions continue to practice privately, and Freedom House estimates there are seven to 20 million practitioners." WP:RECENT is something to be considered too. Thanks. Path2space (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

When citing figures from NGOs like Freedom House and Amnesty International, it's worth noting that these groups may be uncritically using Falun Gong as a source. The close NGO-Falun Gong relationships comes up a lot in scholarship around this topic and one can even find Freedom House citing Falun Gong websites for facts, figures, and claims. Yes, the very same group behind The Epoch Times. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Previously Uninvolved Comment

A case request was just filed at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard by one of the editors involved in this discussion. I declined it because this discussion is in progress here, and DRN does not handle a dispute that is also pending in any other content forum, such as FTN, or any conduct forum. If I were conducting moderated discussion at DRN, I would probably start by asking a content question. The purpose of content dispute resolution is to improve an article in the encyclopedia. So I am asking each editor here: What do you want to change in the article, or, what do you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change? Focusing on what an article or articles should say may make the discussion more productive. That might make a Request for Comments about one or more changes in an article be a feasible way to resolve the disagreements here. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

This appears to have been closed. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Bloodofox - Are you saying that the discussion of Falun Gong here at FTN has been closed, or that the discussion of Falun Gong at DRN was closed? If you are saying the latter, maybe I wasn't clear enough. Yes. I closed the discussion of Falun Gong at DRN because it is being discussed here at FTN. I am still asking the editors here to explain what they want to change or leave the same in the article. If there is a content dispute, the editors should be clear what they want the articles in the encyclopedia to say. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

AE

Note an arbitration enforcement request has been put in related to this:

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Bloodofox

Bon courage (talk) 06:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Gülen movement

The Gülen movement is accused of the Turkish government of being a terrorist organization. However, the Turkish government consistently fails to substantiate its claims and has rule of law issues that make its claims even more dubious.

Gülen movement#Criticism contains multiple subsections which uncritically lists the accusations of terrorist activity, giving undue weight to the government narrative. There are four specific incidents with their own pages mentioned, some of which have their own issues. Assassination of Andrei Karlov has a source reporting Russia pushing back against the Turkish government's accusation, but the infobox claims that a "Russian delegation" supported the government's accusation. The pushback is not mentioned in the subsection of the Gülen movement article. Assassination of Hrant Dink, in the same manner as its associated subsection, unequivocally describes the Gülen movement's involvement being "brought to public attention."

Despite qualifying most of the accusations as such, the deceptively loose threads tying shadowy actors to these events are framed in such a credulous manner that an unquestioning reader could mistake them as credible. For example, "Redesigning of Turkish political landscape" describes the movement's political machinations involving coercing multiple lawmakers with licentious tape recordings while assassinating clean ones and disguising their deaths as accidents.

Previous attempts to remove the offending subsections of Gülen movement have been reverted without substantial debate, and a previous suggestion to clean-up the article has gone nowhere after ten months. Meatius Pizzus (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The Gülen movement is a tricky one. While we can't take the Turkish government narrative about them being terrorists at face value, at the same time there are legitimate criticisms of the organisation that need to be included otherwise the article would be a hagiography of the movement. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

That's true. The rest of the section includes mentions of the movement's secrecy and censoriousness, which seem to be non-fringe criticisms of the movement. I'm specifically addressing the corruption and terrorist accusations, which at best include too much detail and not enough skepticism and at worst launder unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. Meatius Pizzus (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Maharishi Vastu Architecture

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maharishi Vastu Architecture

I am thinking of going through and beginning the difficult process of weeding the WP:Walled garden that is the Maharishi cult articles. Let's see what y'all think of this first start.

jps (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories (Again)

See this discussion on the talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

A television documentary is released on one of the streaming services claiming to provide important new revelations - which provokes people who feel Wikipedia should showcase such important new revelations. It's a scenario that is happening more frequently as streaming services compete to generate more content. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, if we are going to start treating these things as RS, there is also this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Alex Epstein climate change denial?

A new user has been editing to remove the label ‘climate change denier’ from the lead. Page edit history

This was discussed on the talk page 1 year ago.

I don’t think the source used (Slate) to qualify the ‘denier’ label is strong enough, but he is also described as a form of denier by other sources. Extra help on the article and talk page might be appreciated. At least, there could probably be some mention of the critique he has received in the lead. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be a WP:SPA at work. Outsellers (talk · contribs) has now been warned of CTOP. I think that Epstein's identity as someone who opposes the scientific consensus on climate change is fairly obvious from the sources. This is properly called "climate change denial". It seems Epstein objects to this label because he thinks that there is climate change, but the term actually refers to those who reject to scientific consensus on climate change and not climate change sui generis. As such, his opinion that this is not an appropriate label is not an adequate justification for not including the demarcator. Is there any other argument for why he shouldn't be identified as such? jps (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Good points. Yes, Outsellers looks like a single purpose account. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

==Neutrality and Verifiability (WP:NPOV & WP:VERIFY)==

• Wikipedia’s cornerstone is to provide a neutral point of view. The term “climate denier” is often perceived as pejorative and could violate the neutral standpoint required by Wikipedia.
• The primary source for labeling Epstein as a “climate denier” is an opinion piece, which may not meet the rigorous standards of verifiability and reliability required for a biographical article about a living person.
• The use of an opinion piece as the basis for such a label could be seen as synthesizing a point of view, which is against Wikipedia's policy.

==Due Weight (WP:DUE)==

• Wikipedia’s guidelines stipulate that content should reflect the balance of perspectives as they appear in reliable, published sources. If the majority of reliable sources do not prominently label Epstein as a “climate denier,” then it should not be given undue weight in the article, especially in the lead section.
• The lead of a Wikipedia article should summarize the most important aspects of the subject's notability. If Epstein’s primary notability is not centered around being a “climate denier,” but rather his work on fossil fuels, then emphasizing the “climate denier” aspect in the lead may not accurately represent the balance of his public persona.

==Representation of Controversy (WP:CONTROVERSY)==

• While it’s important to represent significant views, it’s equally important to avoid giving minority views more prominence than they deserve. If the view of Epstein as a “climate denier” is not a majority view among reliable sources, it should be contextualized appropriately.
• If Epstein has publicly rejected the “climate denier” label and provided counter-arguments, these should be included for balance, reflecting Wikipedia's commitment to neutral representation of disputed topics.

==Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLP)==

• Wikipedia’s policy on biographies of living persons is particularly strict. It requires high-quality sources, especially for contentious or potentially defamatory content. Given that the label “climate denier” could be considered contentious, extra caution is warranted.

In summary, while acknowledging the controversy surrounding Epstein's views on climate change, the emphasis should be on adhering to Wikipedia's core content policies, especially regarding neutrality, verifiability, and due weight, particularly in the context of a living person's biography. Outsellers (talk) 17:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

You have misunderstood the policies you are referencing. WP:NPOV does not mean WP:FALSEBALANCE. The sourcing is there and high enough quality to meet the bar set by WP:BLP. MrOllie (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Reading WP:MANDY might be worthwhile as well. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

There is no relevant scientific controversy, contrary to what uncertainty propagandists would like you to believe. Actually relevant here are WP:BLP, WP:GEVAL, WP:FRINGE, WP:PSCI, WP:MNA... It's also because practical environmental scientific assessments work that there's a desperate "wedge strategy" to block scientific practice, via corruption and authoritarian policy. —PaleoNeonate – 13:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that Alex Epstein is a climate change denier. However we still need the sources if we're going to say he is. Perhaps we do, but if we do, I don't quite understand why we're using sources like the Rolling Stone which per WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS, shouldn't scientific claims, nor for politics. Yes it can be used for culture, but it seems clear to me this fits much more in the wheelhouse of where we're not supposed to be using it rather than the areas we can. There is obviously the infamous A Rape on Campus article but that's maybe somewhat separate from what we have here. However if we can't trust a source not to spread COVID-19 misinformation, why on earth are we trusting them to assess whether Alex Epstein climate changer denier? We should never use a source we cannot trust to get the basics right, just because we happen to think they're right in this one instance. If they're really right and it's important, other sources we can trust surely have covered it. If we can't find other sources, than for whatever reason it isn't as important as it seems to us. Nil Einne (talk) 11:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree. The typical situation with conservatives who buy into the denialist disinformation is that they repeat some of the denialist tropes, agree with one of the denialist positions (no climate change, not human-caused, or not that bad) and that no reliable person calls them on it. And the best way to handle it is saying that they disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change without quoting the specific tropes (because that would be spreading misinformation without providing context) and without adding the refutations of the specific tropes (because the refutation does not mention the conservative person). --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I am agnostic to how the information is presented, but it is undeniable (ha!) that Alex Epstein is a member of the denialist caucus. Whether we want to call it the "denialist caucus" or not is a style argument, but I think a link out to climate change denial is essential -- even if it ends up piped. Here's a little quote: "Epstein’s argument that burning fossil fuels will not cause serious harm — he said last month that “there are huge positives” to rising temperatures — runs counter to conclusions of leading scientists, who say the world must rapidly phase out fossil fuels and slash greenhouse gas emissions to stave off worsening floods, heat waves and other climate disasters." It's straightforwardly oppositional to scientific consensus. There really is no arguing against that. [11] jps (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we could remove "climate change denier" from the first sentence, and instead shift this sentence: He rejects the scientific consensus on climate change, which is that climate changeis dangerous, progressing, and human caused, although he objects to being labeled as a climate change denier from the second paragraph, and make it the third sentence of the first paragraph. Then move his books to the second paragraph. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure his rejection of the denier label is lede-worthy. WP:MANDY, for one, but, for two, it doesn't really help the reader understand the contours of what is going on. Epstein is attempting to act as a spokesperson in the long line of "Greening of the world" camp of spokespeople for the fossil fuel industry who, rather than going full-bore into antiscience denial, just try to spin doctor their way to positive outcomes for dumping all that carbon dioxide into th atmosphere without any plans to bring the levels back down. His rejection of the "denialist" label is only the first step to his adoption of his political persona. That's the sense we need to get to in the lede so that the reader understands who this character is. jps (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah looks like other editors have put in similar opinions on the talk page and adjusted the article in this manner. I haven't made any edits myself. Cheers. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Conspiracy theories in Oklahoma City bombing

• Oklahoma City bombing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Does it really meet the WP:ONEWAY criteria? Parham wiki (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

ONEWAY regarding what? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

1. Oklahoma City bombing is about something real.
2. Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories is about fringe ideas.

ONEWAY can be interpreted as saying 2 can link to 1 but 1 cannot link to 2. Parham wiki is asking if it applies here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Oklahoma City bombing#Conspiracy theories is problematic.

• Regarding the ONEWAY issue: I think it could be OK to have a link to Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories. It is interesting to know that the bombing has been the focus of a variety of conspiracy theories. It might be a short section with a main article link, or maybe a simple paragraph that simply characterizes them. Something like: Conspiracy theories have grown up around the Oklahoma City bombing. Some falsely accuse the U.S. government of perpetrating the bombing in order to promote anti-terrorism legislation or to frame militia movements. Other conspiracy theories accuse foreign actors. These theories are contradicted by the documented history of the bombing and its aftermath.[refs]
• Regarding the WEIGHT issue: the current section gives far too much weight to the conspiracies. Text suggests there were mysterious other bombs persent, with citations to images from day-of-bombing reports. What actually happened with the other "bombs" is known, there is no such mystery. The citations at the end of the section, which supposedly would show the theories are false, are instead citations to random stuff suggesting investigations are necessary. I think this section was inserted by a believer.

-- M.boli (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The existing section is substantially over-weighted. Sennalen (talk) 07:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds, @Hob Gadling, @M.boli, @Sennalen, how much of it should be removed? Parham wiki (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

This really didn't require a ping.

Having looked over the section, I will say it's bigger than it needs to be. All it needs is a brief overview explanation that the conspiracy theory exists, with a couple citations to that effect, and then people can follow the link if they want to read more. M.boli has it right, the current version is a WP:DUE violation by giving too much weight to the CTs. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

This is exactly what I mean. Parham wiki (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I took a first crack at editing it down to its essentials. If other people have other versions, want to delete the section entirely, I won't be offended. -- M.boli (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems fine. The template of shame is now bigger than the section. Sennalen (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Nina Kulagina

• Nina Kulagina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Weird suggestions on the talk-page of this article. User is claiming the article is "one of the longest-running, most biased, defamatory biographies of a deceased person on Wikipedia" and Wikipedia is "unethical". This seems to stem from a reversion I made on the article when this user claimed (incorrectly) that Nina Kulagina won a paranormal side of a lawsuit. The lawsuit was actually about defamation, it did not rule about paranormal abilities. See talk-page. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

"Paranormal side of a lawsuit" 😂 I am absolutely suing any ghosts that try to haunt me. Sennalen (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I have notified the editor in question, 5Q5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), of this discussion. The talkpage diff Psychologist Guy is referencing is this one: [12]. jps (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I responded to the relevant above inaccuracies on the Nina [sic] Kulagina talk page. 5Q5|^✉ 13:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

A rather old article, long past due for review and improvement via WP:FRIND sourcing. The Bio section is entirely cited to credulous spiritualists, fringe, and parapsychology sources. Mainstream views of psychic powers are framed as a "Dispute". - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Seemingly reliable Wiley publication promoting archaeological nonsense concerning Gunung Padang

This is what I just posted to RSN:

Gunung Padang is a fairly recent megalithic site. However, geologist Danny Hilman Natawidjaja author of "Plato Never Lied: Atlantis Is In Indonesia" has claimed it to be much older and to be a buried pyramid. This is nonsense but he along with a number of other authors have had recent work published in a Wiley peer reviewed journal an article backing that claim.Geo-archaeological prospecting of Gunung Padang buried prehistoric pyramid in West Java, Indonesia concluding that "The oldest construction, Unit 4, likely originated as a natural lava hill before being sculpted and then architecturally enveloped during the last glacial period between 25 000 and 14 000 BCE" and buried 9,000 years ago. See also [13] which is not an RS itself but has good background material and sources. I expect attempts to add this to the article. We need to look at the author's BLP as well. Doug Weller talk 10:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, no, we aren't going to base article content on such wild primary-source claims from someone writing outside their field of specialist knowledge. As for Natawidjaja's biography, it currently says nothing about pyramids or Atlantis etc, and probably shouldn't until such claims are reported on by sources capable of reflecting how off-the-wall they are. Watchlisted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrumpl We list his "Plato Never Lied: Atlantis Is In Indonesia", perhaps that could be in the body of the article instead of just tucked away. Colavito is considered an RS and mentions him here.[14] Doug Weller talk 12:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Archaeologist Víctor Pérez described Natawidjaja's conclusions as pseudoarchaeology.

That's in the main Gunung Padang article. Which also says:

research.

Natawidjaja's analysis was questioned by other scientists. Vulcanologist Sutikno Bronto suggested that the carbon dating result was influenced by weathering and concluded that the elevation is the neck of an ancient volcano and not a man-made pyramid. Thirty-four Indonesian scientists signed a petition questioning the motives and methods of the Hilman-Arif team. Archaeologist Víctor Pérez described Natawidjaja's conclusions as pseudoarchaeology.

Natawidjaja's conclusions gained the attention of Indonesia's President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who set up a task force. An archaeologist who did not wish to be named due to the involvement of the country's president, stated:

In archaeology we usually find the 'culture' first … Then, after we find out the artefact's age we'll seek out historical references to any civilisation which existed around that period. Only then will we be able to explain the artefact historically. In this case, they 'found' something, carbon-dated it, then it looks like they created a civilisation around the period to explain their finding.

Plenty there about him. Doug Weller talk 12:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

As we mention his work on Gunung Padang, I think it's necessary to mention the criticism. Doug Weller talk 13:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

He did an episode of Graham Hancock's Netflix show about Atlantis, Ancient Apocalypse. There was a lot of response content that pushed back against the show, so that may aid in finding WP:FRIND sources. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Have you guys seen this? From Dyani Lewis on Nature. [15] VdSV9•♫ 05:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Now I see it has already been added to the article. Should have checked there first. VdSV9•♫ 05:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Lyndon Larouche publications used as references

See here. Unless the article is about Larouche, probably none of these are appropriate. If anyone is looking for something to do. Prezbo (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I removed it from Rationale for the Iraq War. I looked at several more pages, but they appeared to be just English translations of other cited sources in foreign languages, which is... kind of helpful I guess? Sennalen (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

NThis is an RS issue perhaps rather than a fringe theory issue, but I think they're unreliable even for translations etc. I'll take a look at a couple but it would be good to address them all. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Jewish lobby

• Jewish lobby (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Before this November, the article was about an antisemitic canard. Now it is about a real thing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

diff of November changes [16], I don't think the changes are as drastic as you make them out to be. That said, they do deserve scrutiny. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The ADL and so on are real organizations of course. This in the lede though makes me real uncomfortable: Jewish lobby is defined by its ethnic makeup, while the Israel lobby is defined by its political agenda. To me it sounds like "Israel lobby" is the right place for anything real. Sennalen (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Delete all. Parham wiki (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

This needs to be severely walked back. The subject of the article Israel lobby in the United States seems to be what a lot of the text in this article is referring to, but a merge would be entirely inappropriate. Almost no sourcing is dealing with the term as a term. It seems to rely on casual or careless use of the phrase cherrypicked for unclear purposes to stitch together something of a Frankenstein article. I wonder whether a WP:TNT WP:AFD is appropriate because the whole thing is such a mess. jps (talk) 12:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree it’s a bit of a Frankenstein article. Im working on a rewrite, bringing in sources that discuss the term independently and place them in the proper context.

It’s important we distinguish between it’s correct use referring to an ethnic interest group, similar to the Arab lobby, Armenian lobby, etc, that has advocated for civil rights, the fight against antisemitism, and Israel, and when it’s used as an antisemitic canard to imply undue perceived Jewish influence.

But the term is repeatedly discussed in scholarly material, and books by ethnographers of the Jewish community, and there’s enough RS to form the basis of a good article . Longhornsg (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The term has also been used as an antisemitic canard, so there are big FRINGE challenges in having an article on the term rather than the concept. I don't think that's going to work. It would be better to merge the civil rights aspect into Israel lobby, and move Jewish lobby to Jewish Lobby (canard) so there is no weasel room. Sennalen (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Ten Lost Tribes

Was brought to my attention when an IP kept inserting promotion for one guy’s theory. This article alternates between the tones of "most geneticists think this is bullshit" and weasel-word attempts to credit some theories; could use some cutting down by those who know more about this subject. Mach61 (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

DOs (again)

• Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Discussion at the Talk page, for the umpteenth time, on whether the osteopathic manipulative treatment component of DO training should be described as pseudoscientific. Bon courage (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Christopher Columbus

Information in the article which exists in the note after Italian in context of Christopher Columbus and his Italianness. "Although the modern state of Italy had yet to be established, the Latin equivalent of the term Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity;"

I'm interested if this information is fringe: "the Latin equivalent of the term Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity" I have not come across this fact anywhere. I was researching the English sources and I was looking for the Italian sources, I found this in the Italian source. "La parola italiano non è sempre esistita (il che è ovvio), né (il che è meno ovvio) è nata a poca distanza di tempo da quella su cui è foggiata, cioè l’antico nome Italia. La terra che Greci e Romani chiamavano così – riferendo il toponimo a un’entità geografica dai confini variabili – non era, in effetti, popolata da italiani (itali antichissimi e popoli italici non avrebbero potuto usurpare quel termine) come non lo era l’Italia alto-medievale in cui si ponevano le basi di quella moderna. Il termine che oggi usiamo per indicare i suoi abitanti sembra dunque sorgere assieme al patrimonio linguistico che, prima di qualsiasi altro, contribuì a delinearne l’identità culturale. Cioè il volgare, alla cui sintesi moderna si darà più tardi, e si dà tuttora, quello stesso nome: italiano Questo termine è alieno – per ragioni che difficilmente possono considerarsi casuali – dall’uso dei fondatori letterari: Dante e Petrarca non lo impiegano mai, e come vedremo quella che individua nel primo il padre della lingua italiana è una formula tanto consueta quanto paradossale....The word Italian has not always existed (which is obvious), nor (which is less obvious) was born a short time away from the one on which it is modeled, i.e. the ancient name Italy. The land that the Greeks and Romans called this way - referring the toponym to a geographical entity with variable borders - was not, in fact, populated by Italians (very ancient Italians and Italic peoples would not have been able to usurp that term) nor it was high-medieval Italy in which the foundations of the modern one were laid. The term we use today to indicate its inhabitants therefore seems to arise together with the linguistic heritage which, before any other, contributed to delineating its cultural identity. That is, the vulgar, to the whose modern synthesis will be given later, and still is, that same name: Italian. This term is alien - for reasons that can hardly be be considered casual – from the use of the literary founders: Dante and Petrarca they never employ it, and as we will see the one that identifies in the first the father of the Italian language is a formula as usual as it is paradoxical. (Lorenzo Tomasin Italiano Storia di una parola)[17]

• Is the information from note after Italian, formulated like this fringe information? Thank you. Mikola22 (talk) 08:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I found the same information in the note behind Italian in the article Dante Alighieri. The information is based on the letter of Pliny the Elder, Letters 9.23. [23] L To Maximus. [[18]] "He said that he was sitting by the side of a certain individual at the last Circensian games, and that, after they had had a long and learned talk on a variety of subjects, his acquaintance said to him: "Are you from Italy or the provinces?" Tacitus replied : "You know me quite well, and that from the books of mine you have read." "Then," said the man, "you are either Tacitus or Pliny."

I've been looking for confirmation of this information and fact for almost two days(in English or Italian) and I can't find anything specific or in a secondary source as confirmation. In fact, we only have this primary information from (AD 23/24 – AD 79). Mikola22 (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I think a better source should be used in that citation (that doesn't mention antiquity), but the "Italian" part should not be in dispute any more than with Leonardo da Vinci, etc. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Pyrrho the Skipper Ok, but still we have to look at the whole context of the information independently of Leonardo da Vinci and Christopher Columbus. First, because this information is not even part of the sources which talk about the mentioned persons. Second, this is very strong information in a historiographical context, for which there are no confirmations in secondary sources. Is the information finge in that context? Otherwise, for such information, there should be 2-3 sources for confirmation because it is very important historiographical information. "the Latin equivalent of the term Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity"

It means for the natives, which there were with various origins, languages, etc. The Goths come later, the Celts were there earlier. So the term Italians refers to all of them? It is unlikely in any case unprovable nor do the secondary sources prove it. Mikola22 (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mikola22 Are you saying that these people should not be called Italian on WP? We just follow the sources, and the sources about Columbus refer to him as Italian. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Pyrrho the Skipper I don't know what the sources which Columbus refer as Italian has to do with this information which is probably not part of any source? We are talking about concrete information, and is it or not fringe information? If you have an opinion in this sense, it would be good to hear it. Mikola22 (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mikola22 No, it is not fringe. In "antiquity", words such as Italia or Italics were used to refer to people within a geography associated with the peninsular region. The Pliny source supports it, but it isn't the only source. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Pyrrho the Skipper This information, if it is not fringe, must be part of several secondary sources. Feel free to provide sources so we can see them, or quotes from these sources. That's why we're here. Mikola22 (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mikola22 I did. See my last comment.

While the name Italia (and its Oscan correspondent Viteliu) only appears on coins in the course of the Social War, the existence of an “Italic community” was already known in the second century BC to the Greek historian Polybius ... Italikoi, the Italic people are thus represented by the entirety of the populations inhabiting the peninsula. The Italic people, i.e., the people living in the Italian peninsula who did not enjoy Roman citizenship... Source.

Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Pyrrho the Skipper This information you provide can be proof that the disputed information is not fringe, but again we do not know the wider context because your source does not tell us. We know about the context from the time of Polybius. On the other hand, in my opinion the same information can be fringe if it is placed in the context of the 4th BC, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 10th, 12th, 14th, 16th, 18th century. Because we do not know the context for that period, and the contested information simply states("the term Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity") without any additional explanation, whether it is about natives from 4th BC, 5th, 7th, 10th, 12th, etc. century, does this also apply to the groups of Cisalpine Gaul, Goths, Lombards, Heruli? Mikola22 (talk) 07:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Burrows Cave

User:Ali75295 is a new user making these good faith edits.[19] I'm a bit concerned about some of the changes/additions but would like others to comment as well. Some are fine. I disagree with removing the Phoenician bit and "Therefore, this represents the inconsistencies of Burrows' story based on the differing alleged discoveries." is not encyclopedic. The changes to what was the "Tomb" section seem wrong. There is already too much unsourced in this article and more had been added. Doug Weller talk 12:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Black Irish (folklore)

Black Irish (folklore) is (based on reliable secondary sources) a myth/obsolete historical race concept in the same manner as Aryan Race or other Category:Historical definitions of race articles. However, because it never received the widespread examination and denouncement that Aryan Race has, it is still a popular folk concept particularly amongst Irish-Americans.

Several editors who do not seem to have much in actual experience in editing Wikipedia have attempted to alter the Black Irish (folklore) to suggest it has a definitive factual basis, but most are not citing reliable academic sources to support that assertion.

I invited members of the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard to verify the existing sources in the article and confirm the article is an accurate reflection of them, as well as either confirm or reject the charge that the article is not neutral. Please also see Talk:Black Irish (folklore), Talk:Black people in Ireland and the disambiguation page Black Irish for further reference.

I'd very much appreciate your input, as otherwise it comes across as I'm a revert happy one-person guard over the article. I'm completely happy to co-operate with other editors, but at the same time, it would not be correct to allow pseudo-science or pseudo-history slide into Wikipedia for the sake of cooperation. I believe that the Fringe Theories board has particular expertise in dealing with this exact type of situation. Thanks, CeltBrowne (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Study: Why Wikipedia is the Last Good Website

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Rebecca Watson writes about Sverrir Steinsson writing about Wikipedia's handling of fringe subjects: [20] --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

What a joke! Her feel-good everything is okay no need to worry attitude is ill-informed. The rules are only in place until they are changed. Yes, Wikipedia may be the Last Good Website, and the reasons she mentions might be good ones, but it's people we need. Well-trained pro-science dedicated and fair people. Admins are overworked and at a low-time number, so acting as if they are plentiful and sitting around waiting for something to do is nonsense. She would do better to use her audience to actually ask for more people to train-up and help. This kind of nonsense hits a nerve with me. Sgerbic (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh and thank you Hob for posting the article, I don't follow her content normally. Sgerbic (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I tried to post a comment and the spam filter blocked me. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I was looking for comments on her blog, but still nothing. I assume she has to approve them. I am stunned with all the ads that are all over that blog. Says a lot about the blogger. Sgerbic (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I suspect that the spam filters are set to maximum since the Skepchick network is no more. jps (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The video in the article already has 15K views and 300+ comments. Everyone says they love Wikipedia and throws them donations. Nothing mentioned about needing more volunteers to help. Just feel-good everything is fine thanks for letting us know. Sgerbic (talk) 23:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

To be a bit overly fair, it is not really incumbent upon either Ms. Watson or the author of the paper to advocate for Wikipedia. It's possible to say "it's interesting how this thing works" while not supporting said thing in the optimal manner. Just another county heard from! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there a reason for your extremely toxic response to a general video about Wikipedia? You seem to have a personal issue with Watson. Silverseren^C 00:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

+1 This "Wikipedia is under attack" mentality of "us vs. them" can lead to problems in my view. Wikipedia's policies have stood the test of time and have generally resulted in accurate articles (more often than not). Those pillar policies will unlikely ever change at this point (at most they will get stronger such as WP:MEDRS). If "it is people we need" (I generally agree) we should work to make editing the encyclopaedia a less toxic experience for newcomers that maybe don't know all of the "rules". We need to Wikipedia:Encourage the newcomers, not "fight" contributors with "well-trained" people {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 01:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The trick is to encourage the right newcomers. After decades of work, many of us have finely tuned baloney detection kits that can identify problematic newcomers out the gate. Still, Wikipedia does have a culture of second chances and bending over backwards even as we've been burned over and over again. Good luck! jps (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

You mean you can predict future crimes a la minority report? That seems fringe to me! Jokes aside: I know that keeping content in check is not easy, but Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers is crucial or there won't be any editors to maintain Wikipedia one day. It's not like one day our work will be done. Someone must replace us all one day. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 01:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

There is a difference between biting newcomers and showing the WP:DOOR to problematic people. Heh, problematic kinda like the person who made those points in the first place. *smirk* jps (talk) 01:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The point is: most new editors are problematic in some way as editing Wikipedia becomes more sophisticated every day. (And even experienced users make mistakes!) {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 09:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that's true in a WP:FT/N context. A WP:PROFRINGE editor coming good is very rare (I can think of two or three), and in general WP:CGTW#3 applies. Bon courage (talk) 10:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a hot take in here but FTN is so fundamentally terrible at Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and WP:AGF that I genuinely think it needs either more constant admin oversight or needs to be merged with another noticeboard with less, shall we say entrenched, power users.

Yes, we need to come down on fringe content like a ton of bricks, but I’ve had luck getting people to actually discuss their fringe edits and working on improving them by engaging them civically on talk pages and it really feels like a huge amount of the regulars around here have an explicit goal of driving away newcomers who make bad edits. I know there’ve been admin discussions in ANI about FTN becoming a problem on this front but the longer I’m here the more it feels like this place has a huge WP:CABAL issue, despite its necessity to keep fringe content off of Wikipedia. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Did mention CABAL, that is me! ;-) IMHO every senior editor is trying to do their best. Sometimes people snap at repeated acts of edits that are not done correctly, people not listening, people trying to force in an edit and so on. The problem with editing Wikipedia is that it is not straight forward, the instructions are over complicated and there is very little mentoring and zero human training, no wonder new people are confused. We are volunteers and we are here because we believe in Wikipedia, what it is and what it can be. Please no more policies or watch groups trying to police well-meaning people who are only trying to do what they can with the limited time and resources we have. Deal with this one-on-one when you see the problem. Most interactions are good healthy ones, don't cherry pick out a few bad ones and call the whole a problem. Sgerbic (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

"Deal with this one-on-one when you see the problem"

I have attempted to, I get piled on for not being too burned out to be civil, pretty much explicitly in those terms. Like, the situation I'm referring to involves a multitude of editors *explicitly stating* that they don't intend to assume good faith on fringe edits due to burnout, which is a call for a wikibreak, not a WP:AGF-free zone at FTN.

Note that my main suggestion is simply to get more eyes on FTN to dilute the presence of power users, not policy the utility of it away. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 20:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I hear ya - more well-trained people not more policy. Sgerbic (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

It would also help to WP:AAGF. Some "power users" have experience with past conflicts that we would do well to pay attention to. I have seen some people assume that people are just being mean when, in fact, they are providing "Danger, Will Robinson!" indicators. jps (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with @Warrenmck. 100% right. I've seen trained doctors just trying to contribute on Wikipedia being laughed off the platform for not knowing the intricacies of WP:MEDRS. The culture of toxicity has taken hold on many editing areas on Wikipedia and some editors even think it is a good thing. FTN often doesn't help and even generates some of those problems by creating a "group think echo chamber" and incentivising piling on, with incivility being often tolerated "for the greater good". WP:CIVIL should apply to all. Even, and especially, the "well trained" editors. No exceptions. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 20:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto Yeah, a few months back I got into it with some of the other regulars here that the delineation used between panspermia and Pseudo-panspermia is mostly an artifice of Wikipedia, rather than one reflected in the scientific literature (it's occasionally used, but certainly not extremely consistent) and provided an ocean of literature referring to what Wikipedia calls pseudo-panspermia as simply “panspermia” and I’m a literal meteoriticist with zero overlap with the fringe theory side and got shouted down pretty heavily, evidence be damned. I’m not saying I should have gotten my way automatically by any stretch but there should never be a “well I see your plethora of peer-reviewed sources and that disagrees with my personal exposure to the term so you’re wrong” and that ended the discussion on improving the article. It’s still straight-up incorrect in the lede but I’m not brave enough to try to change it at this point, because a few people have got it into their heads that the term means one specific thing and one thing only and that cannot change.

FTN is too attuned to the fringe theories in some places to notice when something else is going on, which is exactly what I think is happening with trying to roll an entire religion under the watchful eye of FTN just because it’s believers harbour (or theologically necessitate) fringe and fringe adjacent beliefs (see the above Falun Gong discussion). I think it’s gotten to the point of being destructive. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 22:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

a few months back I got into it with some of the other regulars here I cannot find your user name in the histories of either Talk:Panspermia or Talk:Pseudo-panspermia, so I do not know what you are talking about... ah, one moment. Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 94#Panspermia (again) You only discussed here. You seem to misunderstand the purpose of this page. This is a noticeboard - look it up. People keep using it for discussions, and a bit of that is OK, but sometimes it gets out of hand.

trying to roll an entire religion under the watchful eye of FTN You seem to misunderstand the purpose of this page in this aspect too. When I see an article that has fringe aspects that could be improved, I put a link to it on this page. Then people can check that article and improve the fringe aspects. If that article happens to be about a religion, what am I supposed to do? Do I only have the choice between ignoring the problem and trying to improve it myself although it is outside my expertise? That is not a helpful limitation. A posting to FTN does not mean "That whole article is fringe! Diss it on this Noticeboard! And go destroy it!"

Your vague "oy vey! oy vey! this is such a cesspool of people behaving in another way than I would like them to!" does not improve anything. Looking at the Panspermia thread I linked to above, you are partly whining about 1. me telling you about a few mistakes you made, 2. me disagreeing with you. 1. Usually, when I tell people about their mistakes, or people tell me about my mistakes, the response is more positive. I am used to people who want to learn and improve. Telling somebody about a mistake they made is not an attack. It is one of the tools that improve fruitful discussions. And 2. disagreement is not an uncivility but you seem to view it as such. All that makes discussions with you unpleasant, and that - and you completely ignoring my suggestion about Panspermia (pseudoscience) and Panspermia (astrobiology) and instead focussing on how mean people are - is why I quit that Panspermia one.

I expect you to complain about this post too: I disagreed with you, pointed out misunderstandings, and criticized what you said. All of those seem to be no-nos for you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't actually intend on rehashing this or any particular topic with you. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 23:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I've seen trained doctors just trying to contribute on Wikipedia being laughed off the platform for not knowing the intricacies of WP:MEDRS ← that sound pretty serious, Gtoffoletto (even it it's unclear how FTN is relevant). Please provide a link. Bon courage (talk) 07:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The typical issue is that a content expert rolls in, tries to push their personal/professional knowledge into the article, and gets rebuffed with "please provide citations."

This usually breaks into one of three responses:

1. Some variant of "do you know who I am!?!?" and appeal to authority.

2. "I don't have time to find citations, do it yourself" followed by never editing again.

3. The rare individual who stops, learns our policies, and actually contributes meaningful help.

We aren't always the best at coaxing experts into being meaningful contributors... but in my nearly two decades of gnoming on Wikipedia, I've seen a lot of experts try the "bull in a china shop" method of forcing content into articles, and then storming off in a huff when we won't just take them at their word. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I definitely disagree, I have seen FTN reject sources because of preconceived conceptions more than once. There's a link to a thread I was involved in as a somewhat subject matter expert above, and at no level do I believe appeals to authority on Wikipedia are appropriate. FTN has issues where some people think they understand the nature of a topic as fringe, when the reality is they're more exposed to the fringe side of a topic than the mainstream perspective because the only thing. It's sort of like thinking that Young Earth Creationism is a mainstream Christian perspective because you dedicate a lot of time to countering YEC arguments.

This obviously isn't universal, but I think FTN is very, very slow to recognize any possibility that they may have misunderstood the nature of how mainstream a fringe perspective is on a given idea, and this was acknowledged by admins as an issue in the past. This is why I think FTN needs a wider pool of contributing users in general in addition to more consistent administrator oversight for behavioural issues from users with regards to WP:BITE and WP:AGF. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Some topics get bounced off this noticeboard because they're not subject to WP:FRINGE. OTOH, pretty much every proponent of something fringey argues that their particular topic is not WP:FRINGE. When was any problem of FTN slowness "acknowledged by admins as an issue in the past"? Link please! Bon courage (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

"OTOH, pretty much every proponent of something fringey argues that their particular topic is not WP:FRINGE."

Good thing I brought receipts. I harbour no fringe beliefs on this topic, I merely was stating that what wikipedia is calling "pseudo-panspermia" is frequently referred to as "panspermia" in the scientific literature and while "pseudo-panspermia" is occasionally used, it's far from consistent, therefore the introductory statement in the article

"Panspermia is a fringe theory with little support amongst mainstream scientists."

is fundementally incorrect. This isn't because the fringe theory has merit, but because "panspermia" does not exclusively refer to the fringe theory. The idea that the panspermia article should be about the fringe theory exclusively misses that the term is also used to refer to what is decidedly not a fringe theory and the delineation being as strong as it is is an artifice of wikipedia. But this discussion is starting to digress into a need for its own thread, though I'm not sure if there's much to gain from that happening here in particular again.

"When was any problem of FTN slowness "acknowledged by admins as an issue in the past"?"

Not slowness, but overweighting of a fringe theory next to a non-fringe version of that theory. Here's the old ANI post where there's an admin discussion on this topic. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 22:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The usual approach to words with several meanings would be disambiguation pages, like Panspermia (pseudoscience) and Panspermia (astrobiology). But that was suggested by one of the toxic FTN regulars that need to be avoided, who also said something you disagreed with (the much better known Hoyle/Wickramasinghe meaning), so you dismissed it with a handwave, a non-sequitur (The fringe theorists and the astrobiologists don't have a huge amount of overlap - that is obviously no requirement for disambiguation), and a lot of talk about how bad FTN is. You were adamant in your desire to eliminate the fringe meaning rom Wikipedia.

You cannot honestly use that case as a point in favor of your claim that FTN is toxic, and at the same time refuse to discuss the reasoning there. Your case is based on the assumption that you were right in every point back then, and that is just your opinion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, as an uninvolved editor I'm really not seeing what you're seeing. In that discussion Warrenmck suggests disambiguating between Panspermia and Panspermia (fringe theory), but then openly says I have zero issue at all with your suggestion, to be clear to the person who suggested disambiguating between Panspermia (astrobiology) and Panspermia (fringe theory). At no point do they even suggest we should eliminate the fringe meaning from Wikipedia. Loki (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

This is the second time in a week(-ish) someone has accused me of trying to remove all mention of a given fringe topic here for trying to inject a bit of nuance (see the Falun Gong discussion above where I’m objecting to a religion falling under FTNs purview, but not to practices and beliefs associated with a religion getting the FTN treatment). As a moderately regular contributor at FTN is definitely informing my concerns about FTNs insularity.

It’s not that I think I’m inherently correct and anything against my perspective is a WP:CABAL problem, but rather that any disagreement at all in here can get the worst faith possible interpretation on your argument treated as the only possible read and then get you treated as a WP:PROFRINGE editor or, as one editor put it, a useful idiot for fringe editors. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 02:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@Warrenmck: Do you want to improve those two articles? Ping me if so, and I'll help out with the non-expert stuff (refs, page moves, disambiguation, prose, templates, etc.) Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I’d definitely like to stay out of any and all issues relating to the main Falun Gong articles for a small mountain of reasons, but I genuinely do want to work on the Panspermia article more! I’ll probably try to start a discussion on both relevant articles about the suggestions which have been brought up for naming conventions, and I’ll reach out on your talk page. Thanks! Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 03:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, that ANI 'discussion' had just one admin with a perception (FWIW). Religions have never fallen under the "purview" of FTN as editors have said. It is difficult to have constructive exchanges if the matters being discussed are not stated accurately, and this can lead to discussion becoming contaminated by the straw man fallacy.

I don't know about panspermia but it is not uncommon for Wikipedia to have to manage its terminology in spaces where the real-world usage is messy, particularly where fringe elements are involved. Some fringe theories are parasitic on legitimate terminology to the extent the concepts become very confused. One case is Ketogenic diet (epilepsy treatment) vs Low-carbohydrate diet#Ketogenic diet (fad weight-loss diet). Another is Leaky gut vs Leaky gut syndrome. In Wikipedia the first topic is legitimate while the second is FRINGE, although sourcing on this is more confused than Wikipedia is. In such cases hat notes can help. (Add a look at the Science Direct overview page[21] seems to give a good overview of what 'panspermia' and 'soft panspermia' are understood to mean in a cross-section of recent scholarly publications.) Bon courage (talk) 06:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Religions have never fallen under the "purview" of FTN as editors have said.

I'm not trying to strawman anyone, but I do think it's a bit difficult to argue that's not somewhat what was going on above, because it did get quite explicit. I actually don't think we should continue this here, since it involves editors above and unless we ping them it's best to take it back up to that thread, but I'd encourage you to read the conversation again. You've definitely been one of the more moderate voices, so perhaps you're just doing better at WP:AGF here.

"In Wikipedia the first topic is legitimate while the second is FRINGE"

And in the case of Panspermia, it's flipped. Panspermia and Pseudo-panspermia are split using terminology that is not consistently used in the field with the baseline term being flagged as a fringe theory. This probably warrants a continuation on the talk page. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

"terminology that is not consistently used in the field " ← On the evidence of the ScienceDirect page, this is 180° incorrect. Bon courage (talk) 07:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I provided plenty of citations in the prior thread of “panspermia” being used in the scientific literature to refer to what Wikipedia is calling pseudo-panspermia. Pseudo-panspermia is also used and there are certainly some authors and likely journals with a preference, but to make the case it’s consistently a thing would be to ignore quite a lot of peer reviewed work coming out in meteoritics and astrobiology which have nothing to do with the fringe theory. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Right, so you've selected certain sources to advance a case. I have produced a non-partisan link giving a disinterested survey. At the very least, your assertion that Wikipedia has "flipped" the established real world use, seems wildly overstated, since your position now seems to be shifted to "it's complicated". (Add: I have added a hat note at panspermia which hopefully puts this question to bed,) Bon courage (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, to be clear the "flipped" statement is that we're giving the fringe theory the primary term and denoting the scientific theory with a term which is not exclusively used to represent it in the scientific literature. The Science Direct link you provided is certainly evidence that both terms are used, but it doesn't negate that there are plenty of publications using "panspermia" to refer to what wikipedia is saying is exclusively referred to as pseudo-panspermia. I think you've got a very strong case that pseudo-panspermia is used, but you're not providing any definitive evidence of the strong bifurcation of terminology Wikipedia uses, and I think that presents a WP:VERIFY problem.

"Right, so you've selected certain sources to advance a case."

I'm not trying to advance a case with those sources that panspermia = pseudo-panspermia, I'm trying to argue that the usage is inconsistent and Wikipedia should not pretend that it is. Neither of us will be able to produce evidence on the exclusivity of the term, and given that some people will encounter pseudo-panspermia through credible peer reviewed literature which simply calls it panspermia having a statement in the lede that "this is a fringe theory" misrepresents the nature of the term.

But I think this'll be my last post here on this, I'm happy to continue this either in its own thread or on the article's talk page. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 20:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I have zero issue at all with your suggestion, to be clear I just found that quote on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1136, in the later tail of a discussion in which I ad been active earlier. I don't think I ever saw it before. So I retract and strike the "adamant" statement. I still maintain that the basic fact is: someone tried to convince others, failed, and concluded that it was because of a toxic atmosphere, but had no actual evidence for that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I mostly stay away from FTN because I get the impression that this board is mostly used as a rallying point, to request reinforcements, et cetera, rather than a space for discussing improvements to the encyclopedia. While it's true that there are homeopathy guys, and they suck, and we shouldn't let them write all their own articles, it's not clear to me that the average article is really improved by being treated as a battlefield, or having "debunked,^[1] untrue,^[2] false,^[3] pseudoscientific,^{[4][5][6][7][8]} wrong,^[7] baseless,^[4][5][6] disproven,^[4][5][6] bad,^[6][7]" added to the first sentence, et cetera. jp×g🗯️ 03:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@JPxG exactly. I feel like most "average" editors are aware of this issue but a vocal minority has taken hold of this board. I think the fact that some users are organised to "fight the holy war" definitely contributes to this overall toxicity and emboldens uncivility. What started as a reasonable "We ARE biased for science" has now devolved into tribalism and a "if you are not with us you are against us" mentality. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I very much endorse what both of you are saying.

I have gotten into arguments on this noticeboard where people seem to think that a small handful of sources describing a treatment as pseudoscience overrules every major medical organization endorsing it and describing it as effective. I'm not even mentioning what it is, because I'm confident that if I do the same old argument will instantly be restarted. Loki (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Personally I don't have a clue what you are talking about and your statement is so vague I have no idea if I personally have caused this issue or not. Unless we can come up with specifics and possibly discuss on a thread meant for this topic, then what was the point of the statement? Sgerbic (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

It's EMDR, and has been discussed ad nauseam here and in other fora. Bon courage (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I assume they're trying to avoid what happened above when I mentioned an old dispute which proceeded to reignite the discussion. FTN is not a safe space to disagree with the regulars of FTN, even if you yourself aren't even slightly fringe-y. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 00:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

As BC said, it's EMDR and as far as I can tell you had no connection to this argument. I have no interest in re-litigating it here other than my comment above. Loki (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@JPxG

"rather than a space for discussing improvements to the encyclopedia."

There seem to be a lot of people here unwilling to admit that their perceptions may be wrong. Not on topics like "is water memory real?" but along the line of "Is my perception of this topic coloured by the fact that a: I'm completely steeped in countering fringe theories and b: have genuinely no deeper understanding of this topic?"

Like the degree of certitude from regulars on every possible topic which gets raised here is absurd, even if everyone here was a subject matter expert we couldn't begin to cover all the necessary bases. This board in the absence of some academic humility is honestly a threat to the quality of Wikipedia, as much as it otherwise does important work. I'm genuinely surprised there hasn't been a wider warning relating to civility and assumptions of good faith from the admins about FTN, especially considering how open people are with their disdain for those principles when it comes to fringe topics/editors. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 00:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Bad faith is seldom a problem with WP:PROFRINGE editors IME; they are convinced of the righteousness of their fringe view and are simply trying to modify the enyclopedia in a certain way in perfectly good faith. It's just that objective runs counter to Wikipedia's policies. As the guideline says: "Proponents of fringe theories have used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas". Bon courage (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

The issue I've seen over and over and over and over and over here is assuming anyone who makes WP:PROFRINGE edits at all needs to be run off the site. I'm accusing FTN regulars of engaging in bad faith by attempting to weaponize WP:DOOR, not the WP:PROFRINGE editors. I've engaged people making fringe edits before and worked with a few of them on developing an understanding of how Wikipedia works and what sources we accept. It's some extra mental effort, but it's been very clear from my interactions with a subset of WP:PROFRINGE editors that we should not be attempting to run off everyone who dares to post fringe content unless it's beyond clear that it's a WP:NOTHERE issue, which it feels like happens a lot less often than the regulars here would like to admit. Merely harbouring fringe beliefs and attempting to edit them into wikipedia doesn't mean someone is WP:NOTHERE, it can simply mean they don't really understand how WP:RS works, for example.

Basically I don't see an exception for civility in the rules for low-quality/fringe editors, and FTN needs to stop openly pretending there is one. If someone is clearly WP:NOTHERE then WP:DOOR applies. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 00:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that's true in general, and it's only when editors persist in "harbouring fringe beliefs and attempting to edit them into wikipedia" that they get run off the site, although there is a hair trigger for certain fringe views, and ways of expressing them, in certain areas (e.g. unsavoury race or sexuality WP:FRINGE views). Bon courage (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh yeah, someone with racist fringe view definitely needs the door.

it's only when editors persist in "harbouring fringe beliefs and attempting to edit them into wikipedia" that they get run off the site

This is not my personal experience, and from being around FTN a while this is not the explicitly stated perspective of several of the regulars here. FTN has a huge civility issue in general, both in dealing with people who make fringe edits and other and non-fringe editors who disagree with an FTN power user. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 01:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you can evidence that with an example or two of where somebody got 'run off the site' prematurely thanks to FTN. Looking at the current page I see a section (on Columbus) where an editor got sanctioned. How did FTN play a bad role there would you say? Bon courage (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm still not understanding what this is all about? Be specific so these things can be discussed and dealt with (on a different thread) or stop vague posting. I see you mentioned EMDR but that is one case and it is on another thread that I didn't participate in. What else? We can't make changes without knowing what the problem is. Sgerbic (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

This was quite a while ago, when I tried to be a regular here before the whole Panspermia debacle. It was on an article relating to on of the new age "visualizing your best life into existence" type topics, but I have engaged with multiple posters who've edited fringe content, since I tend to customize responses to reverts of fringe content from new users with an offer to help them rework content into a form it'll be accepted by Wikipedia (if possible).

@Sgerbic some people may elect to simply be vague and leave it alone in here rather than re-spark drama. That should be acceptable, especially given some of the strong personalities involved. I understand its frustrating lacking context, but mere mention of prior drama does seem to reignite it in some spectacular ways in here. Again, this is not a safe space to disagree with FTN. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 01:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed so much, and so many editors have said "there's definitely a civility/idontlikeit/tagteam problem in the fringe stuff that I think we're all aware of it, but it remains to be seen whether admins will ever take the leap from "here's a little warning for you, I hate to do it because we think you're sooo cool" to an actual disciplinary action. Wikipedia covers everything, which makes it an ideal place for people to choose whatever ideology they hate the most and then get the satisfaction of trying to exercise control over that space. But every time it's brought up you get this "show me the evidence!" sealioning every time, so that this broader concern gets reduced to splitting hairs in hundred different threads, when all you have to do is look at the patterns of editing, the warning template abuse, the explicitly coordinated editing, edit warring, and the contempt-filled summaries and comments. But I must be profringe because I'm saying this, right, Joe McCarthy? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 03:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Dare I say it, but the contention that there's something there but that it cannot be demonstrated with evidence is distinctly ... fringe. Hitchen's razor applies. There's been lots of talk about bad manners but maybe you need to look in the mirror: seeing Wikipedia as "an ideal place for people to choose whatever ideology they hate the most and then get the satisfaction of trying to exercise control over that space" reeks of assuming bad faith. Maybe editors just want, you know, to reflect accepted knowledge about fringe (and other) topics? I know I do. Bon courage (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I think this mostly speaks to the badness of the rest of the internet rather than Wikipedia being "good". Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

+1. Also, I think the main conclusions are right. The state of Wikipedia right now is downstream effects from some pretty yucky stuff that happened nearly 20 years ago. Y'all shoulda seen what it was like to fight Reddi. jps (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

And here I was thinking Conservapedia was the last good site. Hyperbolick (talk) 11:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

It's all thanks to a few smart, vigilant, persistent editors. Huge props to them. Time for a mea culpa, hopefully of interest to others: until recently, I thought we had to phrase debunkings in a subtle way, to avoid a counterproductive "backfire effect". Turns out that's wrong, the effect is either not real or highly overstated. So, we're doing great, and maybe not doing enough. DFlhb (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for posting Hob. I also like what you said DFlhb. I suspect that two things have kept Wikipedia better off than other sites (in addition to the quality of the folks involved): 1)thus far there has been a thumb on the scale helping anti-fringe edits. That is policy -- WP:PARITY and WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS are the fence that keeps the wolves out. Because in a truly even evidentiary playing field, the scientific consensus loses. 2) It takes a certain amount of effort and knowledge to make an edit. There is an "entrance fee". Unlike Twitter or Reddit, where you can just pop off with your opinion. I worry that AI will lower this entrance fee. DolyaIskrina (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

This comment on the video was interesting

"The only reason it reached level 5 and stayed there is because of Wikipedia's Arbcom ruling that all articles that are widely considered pseudoscience may be identified as such. That meant the article lead could be changed to specify it. Ironically, Larry Sanger who wrote the original core policies, and did a really very good job, was absolutely FURIOUS about this, and thought that the article should allow the readers to make their own mind up, which in theory is a good idea, but ever so greatly overestimates the capabilities of the median reader." DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Completely disagree, on a truly even evidentiary playing field the scientific consensus will in fact win every single time. Reality has an anti-fringe bias, if it did not then the entire concept of scientific consensus and fringe would be moot (consensus wouldn't be consensus and fringe wouldn't be fringe). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Our commitment should be to the truth (or, if you prefer, fealty to the most reliable sources) rather than to persuasion. While I am somewhat sympathetic to the point that we can write prose in a way that isn't clunky, often times clear declarations of what is actually going on is the best we can do given the sources on a subject. "Homeopathy is pseudoscience" is a clear statement, but it is also devoid of explanatory power until we explain demonstrate exactly why the most reliable sources declare it to be so. I remember trying to force statements like "There is a complete lack of solute in all common 30C homeopathic preparations. Thus, if their labels are to be believed, homeopathic preparations that claim to be of a certain substance contain none of the substance." in to the homeopathy article during the pseudoscience wars of the past and having good faith editors revert me and get super mad about how I was hitting people over the head. I also used to go around to articles on plants and remove all homeopathy information because there wasn't actually any bit of plants used in the products being discussed, and there was quite a bit of push back. Things are much better today. Reminds me that I haven't done a "what links here" --> Homeopathy check through botanicals for some time. jps (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

C.f. [22], [23]. Anyone know why the "Hide Transclusions" option doesn't seem to be working on the What Links Here search? I don't really need to check situations where homeopathy is linked due to transclusions of a template, but I would like to look for where it is used in the text of the article directly. jps (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd also like to know how to do that, because links in transcluded templates being shown in "What links here" has been stumping me for a while DFlhb (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we should ask at WP:VP. I couldn't figure it out, but I did go through the rest of the backlinks and found a bunch of instances that needed help including a few that confused homeopathy with traditional medicine. jps (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

"Hide transclusions" hides incoming links where the page itself is being transcluded, not where links to the page are transcluded. My workaround for this is to do an insource search for links: for this I think it'd be something like insource:/\[\[[Hh]omeopathy/ to see pages that were actually linking to it in their own source (rather than through a template). jp×g🗯️ 03:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Another scholar has commented on Sverrir Steinsson's research, and I wish the findings could become part of our guidelines. Syeda ShahBano Ijaz, an Assistant Professor of Global Political Economy in the department of Diplomacy & World Affairs at Occidental College, points out how the research teaches us that we can increase English Wikipedia's credibility very quickly by showing fringe editors the door.

• How Conflicts and Population Loss Led to the Rise of English Wikipedia’s Credibility

Steinsson traces the change in the content of English Wikipedia over time to suggest that the combination of ambiguous institutional rules and certain editors leaving the site helped Wikipedia transition from being a source that hosted pro-fringe discourse to one that gained credibility as an active fact-checker and anti-fringe. A close examination of the content of selected Wikipedia articles, their publicly available editing history, as well as the comments made by the editors, allows Steinsson to show that a change in the interpretation of Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) guideline affected the nature of content in its articles. As the interpretation favored by anti-fringe editors became popular, pro-fringe editors faced increasing challenges and began to leave Wikipedia. This shift in the balance between pro-fringe and anti-fringe editors, which was a result both of the way editorial disputes were resolved and the exit of pro-fringe editors, made Wikipedia gain credibility as a source that debunked myths and controversies and did not promote pseudoscience.[24]

There is nothing to gain by keeping them around. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Key takeaway: From an early understanding of the NPOV rule as entailing diverse points of views and staying away from pejorative labels, the later understanding moved towards only documenting facts (as opposed to points of view) and the acceptance to apply pejorative labels as needed. This reinforces the importance of WP:FALSEBALANCE, and suggests that we might want to be cautious about MOS:LABEL, and perhaps tone down its language or make it more clear that it's ultimately sourcing that decides what language we use - though as the source says, this is already true; policy, like WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE, trumps manual-of-style guidelines like MOS:LABEL, requiring that we describe fringe viewpoints and the like the same way the consensus of the best available sources does, even if some editors might strongly disagree with the language they use or the conclusions they reach. --Aquillion (talk) 08:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with much of what Warrenmck wrote above, with the exception of “com[ing] down on fringe content like a ton of bricks”--This runs a high risk of righting great wrongs. Wielding a ton of bricks is usually only reserved for vandals in my experience. Recently an admin had to assess and remove a bunch of content from the COVID-19 lab leak theory article as it was inadequately sourced. Even Rebecca Watson's BLP citations are 24% primary—I doubt this would be tolerated elsewhere—the Andrew Huberman article has a hard time even getting his academic contributions mentioned. A timely discussion paper [25] from Cory Clark and thirty seven of her colleagues including Steven Pinker observes that

”Popular narratives suggest that scientific censorship is driven by authoritarian officials with dark motives, such as dogmatism and intolerance. Our analysis suggests that scientific censorship is often driven by scientists, who are primarily motivated by self-protection, benevolence toward peer scholars, and prosocial concerns for the well-being of human social groups.”

And goes on to say that

“many criteria that influence scientific decision-making, including novelty, interest, “fit”, and even quality are often ambiguous and subjective, which enables scholars to exaggerate flaws or make unreasonable demands to justify rejection of unpalatable findings (42, 50, 51). Calls for censorship may include claims that the research is inept, false, fringe, or “pseudoscience.” Such claims are sometimes supported with counterevidence, but many scientific conclusions coexist with some counterevidence (52).”

Patting ourselves on the back is not a great look. Much of this is secondary disease from weakness emerging in our reliable sources, but what is and is not fringe is not nearly as binary as this board tends to suggest, and it's often 'nonjudgemental language' that can help demonstrate where NPOV is being followed. SmolBrane (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I've seen this argument before and it still reads to me like you're asking us to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS yourself. There are definitely a few scholars like Pinker who have strong opinions and who have loudly declared that they're being silenced by the scientific community when those opinions aren't reflected in its larger consensus; but that paper is, as you said, just a perspective one - an opinion piece. It's also in a psychology journal, which seems a bit odd for the topic matter. I assume that if I asked the authors they would say that they were unable to get something more authoritative published because they were censored by the establishment, but whether that's true or false, our mission as an encyclopedia is nonetheless to reflect what that scientific establishment says, not to put our thumb on the scale and try to adjust the balance because some editor thinks a particular fringe theory deserves to be treated with more credence than scientific establishment does, or believes that there is some implicit conspiracy or bias to all of science that needs correcting. We demonstrate that NPOV is being followed by hewing as closely to the sources as possible and summarizing them in a dispassionate tone; but dispassionate does not mean equivocal - it can sometimes, in fact, mean being completely unequivocal, including using decisive words, language, and descriptors that some editors might take objection to. Editors cannot simply decide on their own that a clear conclusion reflected in the sources is actually a bias that we must set right. If you think an article fails to summarize the sources in an NPOV way, you need to demonstrate that it's out of line with those sources or produce new ones; you can't just say "yes but are we being fair to this idea?" NPOV is not about some abstract sense of fairness; it is about accurately reflecting the best available coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not asking for anything; I do believe that wikipedia's collaborative dencentralized nature needs to be weighed against the severity of policy enforcements—especially in areas like this(as per Gtoffoletto). PNAS and psychology are apt for discussion here, certainly when compared to the skeptic's blog and the poli-sci paper. But the irony of Rebecca Watson's perceived reliability coupled with the three-year-old BLP primary source template is not lost on me! SmolBrane (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

"Places of knowledge production, like Wikipedia and Cofacts, have proved so far to be the most robust to misinformation campaigns." - Cornell Chronicle -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Though of course WP isn't a knowledge 'producer', more a knowledge collector. Bon courage (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course. I do find it encouraging that our PAG and dependence on proper sourcing have an effect and that it's noticed and measurable. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Floortime / Developmental, Individual-differences, Relationship-based (DIR) model

• Floortime (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

According to

• Fleury VP, Marks R (2020). "Public Perception of Autism Treatments: Science Versus Pseudoscience in the Age of Mass Media". In Volkmar F (ed.). Encyclopedia of Autism Spectrum Disorders. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-6435-8_102403-1.

This is a popular pseudoscience in the ASD treatment space, but according to Wikipedia it is "particularly effective". It is unlikely to be both – does anybody know more? Bon courage (talk) 10:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Thomson Jay Hudson

• Thomson Jay Hudson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bio of a parapsychologist whose book supposedly "found immense success overnight", however I can't find any WP:FRIND sources that discuss it (or him). I'm not sure this bio meets WP:BASIC. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if JSTOR can help in this matter. I found one 1986 journal article on JSTOR that has a paragraph or two that discusses Hudson on pages 186 and 187. And four of of his works are cited in the footnotes on these pages. Here is the perma-link: http://www.jstor.org/stable/44441992. PDF download is available.

This is not enough to indicate notability. Also, the references in the Wikipedia article do not seem to show this guy is notable. JSTOR may or may not have more available. And at this point, he fails BASIC, ANYBIO and FRIND. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

A Google search indicates his books are still being reprinted, sold, and reviewed 120 years after his death, thus indicating a lasting impact on his field. I'd vote to keep. 5Q5|^✉ 12:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

A link to independent reviews would help. All I see is booksellers overview sales descriptions and some anon reader reviews. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that independent reviews would be helpful to get a sense of what kind of impact and how much of an impact Hudson has had over the years. Similarly, independent reviews would be helpful for fulfilling FRIND criteria. Borrowing from Lucky Louie's comment: "Booksellers overview sales descriptions and some anon reader reviews" are not helpful for determining impact. Also user-generated reviews such as Goodreads and on Amazon are not useful for determining notability. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

J. Gordon Melton has an entry in Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology, that and a Dictionary of American Biography entry can be accessed thru WPLibrary Gale Biography. Can't find an ebook for Melton's New Thought: A Reader which would be borderline self-published anyway. fiveby(zero) 05:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I found an archive with 21 mainstream U.S. newspaper mentions of "Thomson Jay Hudson" the same one as in the Wiki bio. As time permits I will go through them and add any appropriate references to the article. 5Q5|^✉ 11:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Biofeedback

Editors may be interested in reviewing the Biofeedback article for fringe and/or MEDRS. I'm primarily aware of this as an alt med topic, but that isn't clear from reading the article (and I can't tell if there's an unrelated non-fringe concept involved as well). I also think a lot of the current content isn't relevant, but I'm not sure what the threshold should be. Sunrise (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Advice to get a "bone reading" at Amafufunyana?

Amafufunyana#Diagnosis

Amafufunyana is often diagnosed through a floor x-ray (bone reading) by a competent Traditional Health Practitioner.

Often Traditional Health Practitioners would also diagnose amafufunyana through African exorcism (ukufemba).

Note: it's important to vet your Traditional Health Practitioner before consultation to verify that they are indeed practitioners.

This is what the article says right now. Whuh? Huh??? Zuh??????? jp×g🗯️ 23:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I removed the section, as I couldn't find traditional diagnosis specifics. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 02:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

This feels like it's an oral lore thing to me — which doesn't help anything. Jondvdsn1 (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)