Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

"WP:FTN" redirects here. For nominations of featured topics, see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates.

Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
Before posting, make sure you understand this short summary of relevant policies and advice and particularly the guideline on treating fringe theories. Also, check the archives for similar discussions. We can help determine whether the topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately and impartially. Our purpose is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but to describe them properly. Never present fringe theories as fact. If you mention specific editors, you should notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so. Deploy {{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion. Please also notify any relevant Wikiprojects to encourage an increased visibility for the discussion.
Search this noticeboard & archives Lowercase sigmabot III will archive sections older than 20 days Additional notes: Discussion of fringe theories will only depend on coverage in reliable sources. Medicine-related claims must comply with more stringent sourcing requirements, but we also generally prefer academic sources. We are not a forum to discuss fringe theories as such. Our goal is to improve articles about them, or create new ones if needed. For concerns about neutrality in articles not about fringe theories, use the neutral point of view noticeboard. Report article content that appears to violate the no original research rule at this noticeboard. Paste {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section when your concern was addressed.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Article alerts

Did you know

• 18 Oct 2024 – Tyromancy (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Jonathan Deamer (t · c); see discussion

Articles for deletion

• 04 Nov 2024 – Sonoran University of Health Sciences (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Jdcooper (t · c); see discussion (2 participants)

Redirects for discussion

• 03 Nov 2024 – Handwriting expert (talk · edit · hist) →Graphology was RfDed by BD2412 (t · c); see discussion
• 26 Oct 2024 – Picric acid (homeopathic remedy) (talk · edit · hist) →List of homeopathic preparations was RfDed by Trovatore (t · c); see discussion

Featured article candidates

• 02 Oct 2024 – Roswell incident (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Feoffer (t · c); see discussion

Good article nominees

• 23 Aug 2024 – Epistemology (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Phlsph7 (t · c); start discussion

Requests for comments

• 29 Oct 2024 – List of common misconceptions (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by WhatamIdoing (t · c); see discussion

Articles to be merged

• 05 Oct 2024 – White lighter myth (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to 27 Club by HadesTTW (t · c); see discussion
• 13 Jul 2024 – Peter A. Levine (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Somatic experiencing by Klbrain (t · c); see discussion

Articles to be split

• 08 Jul 2024 – List of common misconceptions (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by WhatamIdoing (t · c); see discussion

Book of Daniel

This is about [1]. My own take is that Proveallthings is watering down the article. Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Please note that tgeorgescu has repeatedly accused me of pseudohistory and POV-pushing for this particular edit, and has not substantiated the accusation. Proveallthings (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

It is incontestable that you removed the fact that it was written in the 2nd century BCE. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Because it's not a fact. It's the mainstream opinion. I didn't remove it, either. I rephrased it as "Ostensibly written in the 6th century, modern academic scholarship usually places its final redaction shortly after the Maccabean Revolt, the main phase of which lasted from 167–160 BC." Which is the 2nd century BC, and is perfectly acceptable and accurate.

Ostensibly means purportedly. Redaction means a final editing and compilation. There's literally nothing wrong with the sentence, nothing inaccurate, nothing "fringe" and nothing that has anything to do with pseudohistory.

Since the Aramaic elements, comprising roughly half the work, predate the second century, it should be stated accurately, which the word "redaction" allows us to do. Mainstream consensus is that the Aramaic sections belong to Imperial Aramaic and were not composed in the second century. Proveallthings (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

There are i think some issues to consider here, and was going to raise them with tgeorgescu last time: divisions in Daniel not being clear throughout the article, and i like reading about the history of the scholarship. But that is a great deal of work and this is completely unacceptable. fiveby(zero) 18:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm a team player, but honestly I'm not getting anything in the way of anything constructive here. If there is a suggestion about an alternative wording, I'm all for it. And I'm not trying to frame the book in the way you have said it. What do you feel is unacceptable about it?

I was trying to draw a distinction between the elements of the work itself and the final redaction, which even you yourself say is not clear in the article. I actually had all the sources prepared to lay it out. But I think simply reverting everything we don't immediately agree with doesn't allow anything to develop. Proveallthings (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually, you edits in the article were hours apart from each other, so it did not look like you were in any haste of editing the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I was many hours into the edit. I had to add all the bibliographical references for the sfn footnotes, which I'm slow at, and the core of everything was already written. I couldn't post the update because it would have overwritten you. Proveallthings (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a mind reader. There was no way to know that you were editing that article. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I only see you ever to revert. I rarely see you contributing. Reverting is easy. Research is laborious. Simply reverting turns off editors and promotes stagnation in the articles. They may have spent five hours but you spent two minutes and undid all their work. You could have proposed an alternative wording or compromise. Instead, you reverted and went straight into attack mode. After spending that much time, then being at zero progress, do you think it's now worth it for me to go back in and try to contribute? It isn't. I have better things to do with my time. Proveallthings (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I have strict conditions for reverting someone's edits, these conditions are explained at my own talk page.

If you would not revert some edits, fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals would maim all historical articles they find inconvenient to their own religion. But, surely, I am not alone in doing this. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I've seen your talk page. Even though I don't edit much at all in the last fifteen or so years on WP, I've seen you in talk, too when I pop in. You simply hurl whatever rules you can at various editors and it just stymies discussion. Someone could provide 20 sources, and it's still not good enough. So as I say, I don't see you contribute. I see you revert. A lot.

In my opinion you've missed the spirit of the rules, and just use them for the letter in many instances where your personal opinion is clear. To be clear, I agree with some of your reversions. But you can also realize that, with history, there are very often two sides and they can both be presented. Traditional proponents hold this. Modern scholars say that. The consensus is this. You'll spend far less time trying to control everything that way because at least it's treated fairly. And why revert 200 characters when you disagree with a word? You can edit after the fact. Someone spent fifteen, twenty, thirty minutes. Two hours. Five hours. You could have worked with me on a compromise. Instead, you generated animosity. Proveallthings (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I am a wiki-conservative. I believe in Conservata veritate. But these being said, the wikipedic truth is the WP:CHOPSY truth, i.e. the Ivy League truth, for everything else use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

CHOPSY is an essay you wrote. It's very self-serving to cite it. Just what bias are you talking about?

If mainstream academia says Daniel was most likely compiled in the 2nd century, and I actually state that in writing, there's no opposite view being presented.

This is literally absurd. Proveallthings (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

You were watering down the article. Dumuzid agrees with me hereupon. fiveby told you to be attentive when editing something looking like WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

He may agree with you, but at least he addressed it constructively and in a way that it could be talked out and come up with a solution. You went straight conspiracy and accusations, and that's what I find so bizarre.

Maybe I didn't realize it would be interpreted in a way I didn't intend. Hearing constructive feedback helps me think about how to say things better and more clearly.

I'm saying it again, that this is getting ridiculous. Normal human discourse and collaberation doesn't rely on WP:THISRULE and WP:THATRULE every other sentence in constructive conversation. Proveallthings (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Again? IIRC the last time editors bringing in 6th century were confused over the tales vs. the prophecies? Using the legitimate uncertainty of the one to imply uncertainty in the other? fiveby(zero) 17:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The article starts with "Daniel is a 2nd century BC apocalypse." The consensus of mainstream opinion is that the final redaction of the work occurred during that period but it is comprised substantially of older works written prior to the 2nd century. My understanding is that depsite it being the consensus of mainstream opinion, it still should not be stated as a fact in Wikipedia's voice. Particularly in that there are a substantial number of scholars that disagree with it. But I didn't want to get into that debate. All I did was soften the wording from presenting it as a fact to presenting it as the consensus of mainstream scholarship, so that the proper distinction could be made by the reader.

I didn't push any alternative view, nor did I propose any other POV. So the accusations immediately hurled at me took me by surprise, and I believe were unwarranted. Proveallthings (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

You are seeking to re-frame "Daniel is a 2nd century BC apocalypse" into "everything contained therein was originally created in the 2nd century BC". Anyway, seen what Fiveby and Dumuzid wrote, this is looking more and more like you are in a case of WP:1AM. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

No. I was trying to lay out an accurate picture of the books composition. A casual reader will enter the article and think precisely what you wrote above is the case: "everything contained therein was originally created in the 2nd century BC" Proveallthings (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

That's your reading, not our reading. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

When you write, you assume what the audience will take out of it. I'm pretty sure if I asked anyone uninitiated to read that synopsis, they would come away with the idea that the book is wholly written in the 2nd century. My problem is that is not an accurate presentation. I don't care if it conforms to my opinion or not. I think you do. Proveallthings (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

In other words, lay out the facts and sides correctly and let the reader make up their own mind. How many sources are on that page that have qualifying information that is not presented in the article? I know, because I've been through them. Proveallthings (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

According to WP:YESPOV, we do not twist facts belonging to mainstream history. If one denies that the book was written in the 2nd century BCE, they are not a mainstream Bible scholar. There is a definition by Shaye J. D. Cohen at my user page of what "mainstream Bible scholars" mean. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't twist any facts. You're not giving examples of me doing that. You can state a mainstream opinion as fact. It's still an opinion. You're basically saying that I'm twisting a fact by not allowing an opinion to be stated as a fact. Proveallthings (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

A legitimate point that 'apocalypse' might not be clear to some readers, but the talk page archives are full of editors taking a similar approach as you seem to be with the same arguments. The text in the article will not imply any doubt in the dating of the prophesies. The sources are very clear here, and anyone changing the text needs to know where it belongs on the fringe spectrum and be prepared for a lot of work and consultation with other editors. Please, at least slow down a little bit. fiveby(zero) 18:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm being misunderstood here. It had nothing to do with dating the prophecies, just distinguishing the various elements of the book. I think I'm being viewed through a lens of past disagreements I wasn't even involved with. I don't have a lot of time to keep trying to explain. I'll leave the article alone.

I'm not convinced a lot of editors have actually read the source material they cite. Proveallthings (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Ostensibly means apparently or purportedly, but perhaps not actually. Proveallthings (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no indisputable evidence that any part of Isaiah was written after the prophets lifetime—I mean: how would such evidence conceivably look like? There can be no such empirical text disclosing it for a fact. It is all a matter of epistemology, not one of finding a magical manuscript which would prove the claim.

Mainstream historians do not accept real predictive prophecy, so the view I have reverted is WP:PROFRINGE. The historical method razes predictive prophecies with Occam's razor. The existence of predictive prophecies is a matter of metaphysics or theology, not one of epistemology (there are no such things as supernatural prophecies in epistemology).

There is no proof that the book of Daniel was re-written to align with times of the Maccabees—quite correct: in ancient history and archaeology there are no proofs like in mathematics and physics. But the unanimous verdict of historians and Bible scholars from the Ivy League is that the Book of Daniel was written in the 160s BCE.

Stated otherwise: proof is for math and whisky. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Are you just regurgitating prefabricated responses like a bot? Like I said above, you both are looking at me through the lens of past agreements with others and not listening to what I'm saying.

I have no idea where all this is going, and it's getting weird. I'm talking, but you're not listening.

I didn't edit the article to show anything to the contrary concerning the authorship or date of composition to what was written according to mainstream academia. If I had, we could have this discussion. But to me, you sound ridiculous, and this is all going way over the top and is a complete waste of time.

"Ostensibly written in the 6th century" means "Though it has the appearance of being written in the sixth century." It doesn't mean, "though written in the sixth century." Again, had I said that, we could have this discussion and we could hash it out. Because all I see here is someone arguing with me over semantics. Proveallthings (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to teach me English. It is now clear that you are in a WP:1AM situation. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not one man against many. It's really just you here right now. I simply don't understand where all the nonsense you're spitting out is coming from, because it's not actually addressing the position I took up at all. It's addressing a position someone else took up that you conversed with sometime here or there.

Normally, you respond to what people write for what they write. You seem to be writing against someone else entirely. Proveallthings (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, you misconstrue the article that all that book was written in the 2nd century BCE (i.e. the older tales). And you seem to lack WP:CIR to understand that you misconstrue the article.

Every mainstream Bible scholar agrees that the book includes older tales. But citing that as an argument for your POV is a non sequitur. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm finding this logic fuzzy.

All this is a lot of saying, "What you said is technically correct, but I don't like how you said it." Then suggest something better and we can talk about it. What didn't you like? "Ostensibly"? Do you not like stating opinions as opinions and facts as facts?

WP:NPOV: "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc." I made an edit based upon a literal understanding of this simple rule. Proveallthings (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you ignore the extent to which the 2nd century BCE dating is for mainstream historians the only option on the table, or the only game in town, simply because the historical method does not allow for any alternative to it. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

What about the historical method doesn't allow it? We look for the earliest attestation and testimony and form a picture from there.

By the first century, the Jews had already identified prophecies of Daniel with Rome and were anticipating an prophetic conflict with the Romans based upon them. When the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple, they wrote about it as fulfillment of Daniel 9 and 12 after the fact. See for example Josephus, Antiquities, 10.11.7, "And indeed it so came to pass, that our nation suffered these things under Antiochus Epiphanes, according to Daniel’s vision; and what he wrote many years before they came to pass. In the very same manner Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government; and that our countrey should be made desolate by them." This is a fact you can find this in their extant literature. So should we now try and date the whole book to AD 70? We can't, since we have copies older than that, and it is attested before that. Some trace the prophecies all the way up to the fall of the Western Empire and its dissolution by the barbarians. Should we put it at 476?

I'm being absurd to make a point. Interpretation is only one element. A document written in an eastern dialect of Imperial Aramaic would not be expected to be found written in a region where the spoken language is a western dialect of post-Achaemenid (Biblical) Aramaic. In the historic method, we call that an anachronism.

The book was canonical in Qumran, canonical among Jews and Christians, and still canonical until it was removed to the writings in about the 4th century by the Masorites. That requires a process of rapid canonization.

So no, it isn't the only interpretation in town, and it isn't the only game in town. They can date it based on their view of the prophecies, but that interpretation is not infallible. Scholars say the prophecies failed at Antiochus, the ancient Jews and Christians said the prophecies continued to be fulfilled under the Romans. Proveallthings (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, you make the mistake of thinking that for us there is in this matter any other authority than mainstream, present-day historians. They judge the arguments, they evaluate the evidence, not us (Wikipedians). And you make the mistake of thinking that WP:CHOPSY makes partisan demands, instead of merely describing what is reality of Wikipedia almost since its inception. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I am a historian, so I'll speak to you as a historian rather than an editor. Having read the broad scope of literature I am aware of many counterarguments and differences of opinions over the authorship in this case. It's certainly not as wholesale and unanimous as you express. The Maccabean Thesis took a huge blow from the redating of the Aramaic, and now there's a new paradigm of opinions emerging that is trending toward distinguishing the sections of the book. There are a LOT of different views.

The methodology used to connect the dots to the Maccabean era is very thin. Very little is devoted to the actual circumstances of 2nd century Judea in the book and many of the associations are forced and unconvincing. Most importantly, Antiochus IV is consistently addressed in Daniel 11 as "the king of the north," i.e., Seleucia. The prophecy that supposedly foretells his death, which scholars say failed, is not written about him. In Daniel, it's actually a different king: "And the king shall do according to his will . . . And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and *the king of the north* shall come against him like a whirlwind" (Daniel 11:36, 40). He doesn't fight against himself. Historically, it's the Romans who stepped onto the scene. It means the terminus ad quem is based upon a flawed reading of the text.

This is an important issue that needs to be addressed. Historically also, we have a problem. The reconstruction holds that the Jews wrote the work against Seleucus. But the earliest evidence from Jewish and Christian sources contradicts this reconstruction. The Jews and early Christians saw it as the Romans. However, this leaves us with a dating problem that we are entering an era where we have extant copies and extant historic quotations. So we can't date it any later. We have to look at other means. A huge part of that is the language in which it was written, of which we know more for more than we did a hundred years ago. Josephus also remarks on its existence going back at least as far as Alexander the Great. So according to the historical method, there are legitimate objections and we are not confined to one view. We rarely are, since history is messy.

Am I going to put my opinion on WP? No. To be clear, I'm specifically addressing *your* objection, as distinguished with how things are presented in Wikipedia, since you brought up the Historical Method. FYI, we can't follow the Historical Method in WP, because that method requires the presence and usage of primary sources. We deal in secondary and tertiary sources, meaning we are wholly reliant on the opinions of others. So I am not in disagreement with you over how WP should be approached.

As I recall, you're the one who devised the CHOPSY test from the essay and again it's a self-serving reference here. As it relies purely on what you feel would be accepted by them, it has no real value in the discussion. It's subjective. If you want to discuss things, we can do it without the WP:KITCHENSINK. Proveallthings (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Arguments such as this will not influence editors or lead to changes in the text. A Wikipedia argument goes something like this: Collins, John J. (2002). The book of Daniel : composition and reception. pp. 1–2. fiveby(zero) 17:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, here is the deal: WP:CITE any book published in the past 25 years by Cambridge University Press, Harvard University Press, Oxford University Press, or Yale University Press which contradicts that there is a solid WP:RS/AC upon the 2nd century BCE dating.

And, yup, interpreting the Book of Daniel or the Revelation of John as meaning "our own time" is a cottage industry, since thousands of years ago. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

You're again reverting back to your own essay, which is highly self serving. There is no standard of WP:RS/AC that demands all our sources be published within the last quarter of a century by Cambridge, Harvard, Oxford, or Yale. And yet I don't exactly see you clearing out 25+ year old "stale" books from Yale, Cambridge, Oxford and Harvard. Nor do I see you clearing out non-Yale, non-Cambridge, non-Oxford and non-Harvard sources. By your standards, you can say goodbye to Collins' two works on Daniel and a number of other sources. But you're not going after them. I DO see you using your CHOPSY test to stifle communication throughout a wide spectrum of Bible related pages, demanding that editors you disagree with conform to WP:CHOPSY. It's a very disingenuous approach.

I recall some time ago I produced about twenty some sources regarding various issues in Daniel in another place. I never touched the actual article itself at that time. They're still there, you can go back and look. Among them I quoted Assyriologist Beaulieu, who wrote the current standard on Nabonidus and Belshazzar, from Yale, and who is used in rather extensively in Nabonidus and Belshazzar related pages, and you treated it as though the book had gone stale by age. And Kutscher holds consensus on the Aramaic of Daniel, which again to you is too old (it's still consensus). Collins, who dissents, even notes that. I even quoted him to you. After some length, and summarily dismissing everything, you resorted to this attempt: "You have never pledged to obey our WP:RULES. The moment to do it is now. Anyway, all your edits are performed under the legal obligation to comply with WP:RULES." [2]. I hadn't broken any rules, you just kept trying to frame it up that way. Just like you did recently on my talk page making accusations and then not making them up.

As for sources, if you're really so concerned about getting things correct you should check these article sources sometime and address how misleadingly they are utilized on the pages related to Daniel. I think a lot of them are simply quote mined, because I know all the qualifying information that's omitted. Especially Seow. He's cited on Belshazzar for a historical inaccuracy regarding Belshazzar's father, which he goes on in the work to demonstrate really isn't a problem, see pp. 76,77: "one should keep in mind that in the Semitic languages, 'father' is not limited to that of a biological or even adoptive parent . . . by the same token, the term 'son' is used of a descendant, a successor, or simply a member of the group or class." The Assyrian and Babylonian kings always referred to their royal predecessors as their ex-officio father, "kings my fathers," and their biological father as "the father my begetter" (as with Nebuchadnezzar). It wasn't even an uncommon convention overall in Aramaic or Hebrew, thus "sons of the prophets" simply referred to their successors, not their kids. Seow notes this also. I could go on at length about it from the cuneiform literature, or the Hebrew Old Testament, or inscriptions, and cite examples from Dougherty, Na'aman, Brinkman, Gadd, Grayson, Harper but by WP guidelines I can't quote sources that aren't speaking directly on the matter of the article.

You made a comment to me about "fundamentalists," and seem to be coming at me as a "fundamentalist" with pre-rehearsed rhetoric, which makes me think you have an axe to grind. Your talk page is public, and so are your footnotes, and so is your Romanian page. At one point you had a meme posted showing a Bible with a warning, "Warning . . . exposure to contents for extended periods of time or during formative years in children may cause delusions, hallucinations, decreased cognitive and objective reasoning abilities, and, in extreme cases, pathological disorders." [3] And currently, recommending a program Kurzweil 3000, an assistant learning technology for people with learning disabilities, for Christians in your footnotes (#14). And then on your Romanian page: A nu putea pricepe ca teologia creștină este o credință subiectivă este un handicap mental grav, "To not understand that Christian theology is a subjective belief is a serious mental disability." [4] Did I translate that correctly? And again, Nu vreau să fiu asociat cu absurditățile din Biblie, "I don't want to be associated with the absurdities of the Bible." But you sure spend a lot of time on Bible related pages, when you appear to have an axe to grind.

I don't know where the book of Revelation is coming from since it's not part of the discussion. You're undermining your own point with the "cottage industry" comment. My point is exactly that the historical method has far more tools in it's arsenal than just, "I think this refers to this or that at this time or that, therefore it must have been written after." A captious university scholar might find that criteria enough, but it's not. It's the wrong dialect from the wrong geographical region and the wrong time period compared to the Aramaic of 2nd century Judea. Somebody didn't just concoct it in the Maccabean era. Josephus records that the book was much older, and gives an account of it dating back at least as far as the time of Alexander the great. None of the writers of the first or second centuries AD give any hint that it was a recent work, nor do they produce interpretations that support the Maccabean Theses. The Hebrew itself isn't even Mishnaic Hebrew, which circulated beginning around AD 200. At that time there's a marked shift from verb-subject-object to subject-verb-object, etc. Proveallthings (talk) 04:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think either you or tgeorgescu are likely to be swayed, so I would respectfully suggest perhaps trying to build consensus elsewhere. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks fiveby and Dumuzid. I'm just addressing what tgeorgescu is saying. I'm not a terribly huge fan of the sort of methodology behind writing an essay and demanding everyone follow it. If he wants to mention the historic method, which we technically can't employ on Wikipedia articles (since we can only cite the opinions of others), I can address it in talk. If I want to build a consensus around an article, I have a bibliography of about 179 articles and books so it wouldn't be difficult to cite. But with tgeorgescu, I think it's a fruitless endeavor. I believe I went through about 26 reliable sources for on issue and all that resulted was a bunch of wikilawyering--sometimes as many as 9 rules cited in a single paragraph and most of them either violating the spirit of the rule or just simply scraping the bottom of the barrel. Proveallthings (talk) 05:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

tgeorgescu would an article FAQ help, or maybe even a contentious topics consensus required from WP:AE for the page if that's possible? fiveby(zero) 18:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@Fiveby: I asked the arbitrators if pseudohistory falls under the remit of WP:ARBPS, and the answer was that generally speaking it doesn't (unless specific pseudoscientific methods are employed for it). tgeorgescu (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, because I don't want to keep getting inundated by tgeorgescu here, and on my talk page, and in the Book of Daniel talk page, with a lot of nonsense, I'll state it one more time: I didn't dispute the academic consensus of the book in my edit. At all. And I didn't present an alternative viewpoint. And I didn't advocate for (as tgeorgescu seems to be hinting at) a "fundamentalist" position.

The word "ostensibly" has a very specific meaning that something looks one way but may not be so. Daniel, on its face, is written as though it occurred in the sixth century. But scholars dispute that and believe it was written in the mid-2nd century. It's all I said. If I wanted to dispute the actual date, I would have started that topic in talk. As it is, all I basically do on WP is correct occasional inaccuracies and misrepresentations of sources. In fourteen years, I've never witnessed this same level of nonsense over an edit made earlier in the day. I've never had an issue at all, in fact. Proveallthings (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Proveallthings - I do apologize if the discussion has been more vituperative than you expected, but all topics regarding religion have a tendency to trend toward tendentiousness, and it can wear on those of us who regularly contribute. Suffice it to say that I don't see a current consensus for your changes, but if you'd like to try other changes (preferably one at a time or suggesting them on talk), that is of course always welcome. Happy Friday to one and all. Dumuzid (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

About So as I say, I don't see you contribute. I see you revert. A lot.: while I do revert vandalism and fundamentalist POV-pushing, I have positive contributions to Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy, Grail Movement, Abd-ru-shin, Sun Myung Moon, Ellen G. White, Gregorian Bivolaru, Judith Reisman, Onan, Abraham, and other religious WP:FRINGE subjects, including the intersection between religious propaganda and sexuality, such as Blessing ceremony of the Unification Church, NoFap, religious views on masturbation, effects of pornography, pornography, God and Sex, sexual addiction, effects of pornography on young people, and pornography addiction. I think I am the most important contributor to masturbation (I wrote over 22% of the article, including many footnotes which are not even counted to that extent). And articles about some Romanian extreme right people. Some years ago, I was deeply into citing Bart Ehrman for his views upon the academic consensus in Bible scholarship.

So, your claim that I only revert other people, but I do not contribute myself anything is an incorrect claim. And the reason why you don't see me contributing is that I believe in many little incremental changes rather than major edits, e.g. while editing the Romanian Constitutional Bar in Romanian Wikipedia: there are no big edits by me, but I've slowly grown the article to what it is. I do not regard editing Wikipedia as a sprint (running), but as a long marathon, running for many years. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

And even if you did nothing else but revert and voice reasoned opinions, that would not be a valid reason to reject your reasoning. It's simply ad hominem. Different users have different editing styles, and someone who regularly reverts vandalism or corrects typos deserves to be heard as much as someone who writes several articles every week. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

New book by Mauro Biglino being promoted by Hancock

[5] Doug Weller talk 20:17, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

It might be worth some people watchlisting Mauro Biglino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as the next day IP swept in to make a coatrack. I reverted today. This is a biography that my be worth a WP:CLEANUP beyond its stubby non-information approach right now. Or, alternatively, a merge to some other article that can handle this sort of thing? jps (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Bill Warner (writer) and a statistical approach to Islam

Bringing this here because I think his approach makes him fringe, ie he uses statistics to prove that Islam is really a political ideology. I seem to be the only editor involved in this article who isn't promoting him, and as some of you know I won't be around much longer. His organisation claims that “Statistics show that Islamic politics is what brought Islam success, not religion”.

A new editor added this[6] with a misleading edit summary. The edit is based on Linkedin, an article in Junge Freiheit and a book by Moorthy Muthuswamy, the latter two right-wing anti-Muslim sources, also changing his being against Islam to him being against political Islam although his critics state that he is against Islam as a religion.

An editor who has been involved for a long time added [7], which is an interview by an editor of JungeFreiheit and purely self-serving. Warner/French was involved in another attempt to hold an anti-Islam protest in 2018.[8]

The article also discusses his organisation, and see this news article discussing a claim by a member of his organisation[9] I found something debunking this but it's from an anonymous author (clearly not the real August Landmesser in an unreliable source, still interesting at least to me).[10] In any case, I think the article needs more eyes and hopefully someone new editors. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I would edit but it is full protected for some strange reason. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Jeffrey Steinberg

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

There are currently only four sources for this article: #1 is laroucheplanet.info, #2 is a primary source from the CIA published by MuckRock, #3 is larouchepub.com, and #4 is a reliable secondary source, but only a footnote. More problematic is that this article appears to be WP:COATRACK for LaRouche movement in that it seems to exist only to showcase the subject's "Selected publications" on a variety of fringe topics in Executive Intelligence Review. Should this one be passed along to Afd? (FWIW: There has been a lot discussion regarding LaRouche-related topics in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests.) -Location (talk) 06:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

And the laroucheplanet.info link is dead. Oh, and I have two FBI reports totalling over 200 pages with my name in them, but that does not make me notable. Donald Albury 14:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I can't see this coming within 100 miles of WP:GNG, especially with the more stringent sourcing requirements for a WP:BLP article. Yes, sent it to AFD. --Jayron32 14:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I have taken this to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Steinberg. -Location (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at RSN

There is a discussion at RSN that relates to fringe theories; see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Can sources that state that religious miracles actually occurred be reliable sources? BilledMammal (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Magical alphabets

• Magical alphabets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Brand new article, still tagged as under construction, maybe not FTN material precisely, but I think there's a good bit of overlap in interests with the folks here at least. I wouldn't be surprised if this is a valid topic, but it's in pretty rough shape, despite still being under construction (needs a move to the singular as well, but that's minor). Might be worth keeping an eye on. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

It is definitely like, a thing, but yeah the article is definitely in rough shape and could use some CE. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

RFC on how to describe DRASTIC over at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory§ RfC: How should we describe DRASTIC?. Thanks! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The Chinese developed a COVID-19 vaccine before the COVID-19 pandemic?

• COVID-19 lab leak theory (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

This latest whackiness from certain US politicians being uncritically relayed.[11] Usual WP:PROFRINGE impetus. More eyes could help ... Bon courage (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

It's amazing to see the United States Congress being lauded as trustworthy.

"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress." —Mark Twain

XOR'easter (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Melanesia and Melanesians

Both pages have been constantly targeted by IPs pushing for a terminological revisionism that is partly based on racializing arguments. Things like "dark skin pigmentation, "curly hair" are brought into play to redefine the well-established scope of a geographical region (see Talk:Melanesia; note that historically, the term "Melanesia" was indeed coined with racial undertones, but this has long been discarded; the term continues to be used in scholarship and geopolitics, but entirely without the racialist baggage). Austronesier (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Noah’s Ark

could use a few more eyes as it seems to be a target. Doug Weller talk 20:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Please, let's avoid constructions like, "most scientists agree" when talking about things that are so implausible as the misapprehension of this myth as some sort of fact of natural history. jps (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

• Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Since RFKJ announced he was running for president, the article is inundated by people who do not understand Wikipedia, NPOV, RS, medicine, conspiracy theories, and several other subjects. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Not to mention there is undisclosed paid editing going on. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like people are making a WP:BIGMISTAKE. Seriously though, the extent to which (basically) newbie fuckwits are allowed to run riot with the expectation that clueful editors will clear up, is beginning to cause strain in my view. Especially in anything which touches US politics. Bon courage (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Is there evidence of more paid editing than that which got reverted? XOR'easter (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

None that I'm aware of. So I don't object to the decision to remove the warning template I added. But we need to keep an eye out given that we know that a firm was retained to make edits. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. XOR'easter (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Given that new IPs are helping to clog up Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr. with the same complaints, I wonder if it would be possible to request that the talk page be protected for a short time per WP:ATPROT. -Location (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: some of the same issues have occurred at Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 2024 presidential campaign, primarily with respect to whether Kennedy should be described (as is well-sourced) as an "anti-vaccine activist". BD2412 T 18:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

RfC in Talk:October Surprise conspiracy theory

Please see: Talk:October Surprise conspiracy theory#RfC about the article title. -Location (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The Tunnel Thru the Air; Or, Looking Back from 1940

• The Tunnel Thru the Air; Or, Looking Back from 1940 (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Suggestion on Talk page: Delete everything after the Plot section. Sounds reasonable, but maybe people want to watch the article from now on... --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah whoa, that's nuts. Honestly, I'd vote for it to be deleted on AFD. Loki (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Ooof! Watching. Donald Albury 13:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Reads a bit like a fan wiki. A quick scan of the article left me wondering if the many paragraphs of analysis, commentary, lists, etc. are WP:DUE and can be cited to independent reliable sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

AfD it. No evidence of notability through significant coverage in non-lunatic sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

That was bad. I went ahead and deleted everything after the Plot section. It desperately needs some solid sourcing. I will note that the author's article is not much better. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Gotta love that graph of rhye prices plotted against the heliocentric longitude of pluto --Licks-rocks (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I've nuked most of the author's article, leaving only the section that had its own article, the part on his writing style, the biography, and the bibliography. I've salvaged the image to my userpage because it made me laugh. --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

And I deleted a source, an unpublished lecture. Looks like all his books are self-published. Doug Weller talk 10:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

His article is dreadful. Full of self-published stuff or articles from self-publishing houses, eg [12] Created by a user call GANNMAN and then highly edited[13] who seems to have never found a self-publisher he didn't like. Eg[14] This editor created Neville Lancelot Goddard. I nuked a bit with virtually no sources but one self-published book. Doug Weller talk 10:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

• Crosthwaite, P.; Knight, P.; Marsh, N. (Winter 2019). "The Economic Humanities and the History of Financial Advice". American Literary History. 31 (4): 661–686. WP Library link
• Elder, Alexander (1993). Trading for a living. p. 23. cited by above for wealth, and saw cited elsewhere, but maybe not too useful
• maybe Wansleben, Leon (2012). "Financial Analysts". In Karin Knorr Cetina; Alex Preda (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of the Sociology of Finance. but WP Library Oxford Academic link not working right now
• Crosthwaite P.; Knight P.; Marsh N.; Paul H. J.; Taylor J. (2022). "Chartists and Fundamentalists (1910–1950)". Invested : how three centuries of stock market advice reshaped our money, markets, and minds.

Just following citations and going by the title "Finance Fiction" in The Routledge Handbook of Critical Finance Studies might be useful, but can't find access anywhere. fiveby(zero) 15:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water

• Aquatic ape hypothesis (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Recent edits could benefit from more views/eyes. Bon courage (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Took a look at the article and noticed that, while it's definitely WP:FRINGE science in the sense that almost no scientists endorse it, the two citations listed in the lead as saying that it's pseudoscience did not in fact say that, or even mention the word "pseudoscience". In fact, one of them implied it was an important step in the advancement of the actual mainstream science, even though it's widely considered to be false. Loki (talk) 09:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

It's such an obvious and "classic" pseudoscience it could probably be called that without a source, but for belt and braces I've added a recent academic book chapter that goes into this in detail.[15] Wikipedia can't be sweeping this under the carpet. Bon courage (talk) 10:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't really object to the description per se, especially since it's definitely WP:FRINGE whether or not it's pseudoscience. It's just that "pseudoscience" is a WP:LABEL that we need pretty strong sourcing for. Loki (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Eh, looking at your edits I am not a fan of them. The article as a whole with its current sourcing pretty clearly positions the AAH as WP:FRINGE/QS, not as an unambiguous pseudoscience. We should therefore be attributing the pseudoscience label here unless we can find a lot more and better sources that say it's pseudoscience. Loki (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Rubbish. We have a super strong source saying it's pseudoscience, and none saying it's not. So WP:YESPOV, WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGESUBJECTS all apply: NPOV in other words. I hope this is not going to be a reprise of the EMDR fiasco. Bon courage (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with loki here. You have a propensity to grab for the heavy artillery quite rapidly when in many cases and I don't think that's necessarily the best solution. Particularly this sentence, which I just removed, was a bit too flippant to my liking. Saying definitively that the adherents are in an echo chamber in wiki-voice is something I would prefer to reserve for the rare occasions where it is actually verifiably true. --Licks-rocks (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

It is verifiable per the (excellent) source which details this at length. And there's more to add right, about the nature of the adherents and their attacks on scientists?. BTW, your edit summary was wrong so I reverted is. WP:PSCI is policy, and not up for negotation. Bon courage (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

you do not have consensus for that change, so trying to edit war with me is not going to be very productive. I also don't see where in WP:PSCI it says that your version of calling a spade a spade is superior to mine. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

It says pseudoscience has to be prominently identified as such. You have just removed that very identification from the body of the article and emboldened a WP:PROFRINGE editor into the bargain, based on an incorrect statement in your edit summary. How can you possibly think this is not justified by the extensive wording in the source? Bon courage (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

You removed this sentence, but it was properly supported by the source as written when it was added: Is the Aquatic Ape Theory fairly described as pseudoscience?... I think that the Aquatic Ape Theory in 2009 fits the description. He also tagged his post with "pseudoscience".

The current version also doesn't describe AAH as an "important step in the advancement of the actual mainstream science" at all. Rather, that's how it describes a certain "feminist strain of anthropology", specifically one that re-theorized women's social roles and mating strategies (which the AAH has nothing to do with). The current version also says that by the time she jumped on the AAH, the evidence was already pretty clearly against it. DFlhb (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that if an author has updated their article to remove a claim, we should not deliberately use an out of date version of their article just to include that claim.

I also still read how that article portrays the history differently than you do, in that I feel it positions the AAH as a part of this tradition, but that's not really relevant. Loki (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Anneliese Michel

• Anneliese Michel (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Traditional meetingplace of IPs believing in exorcism and demons. Higher activity than usual at the moment. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

added to my watchlist --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The most recent IP person seems to have access to a wide range, so I've semiprotected for a few months. Bishonen | tålk 15:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC).

Varginha UFO incident‎

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

Brian Dunning good or bad? Edit-warring IP says bad. Well, it is a blog, so I am not sure. But the reasons the IP is giving are sure crap. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• 73.88.147.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Werkentagen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They are branching out. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The targeted anti-Dunning edits from both of these users raise WP:BLP concerns and the edits themselves, plus the edit-warring behavior, seem too similar to be a coincidence. In the meantime, Dunning is an established authority on scientific skepticism, and their published comments on the Varginha incident are IMO valid for inclusion. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Werkentagen appears to be on a campaign against Dunning, inserting the same attacks in Ariel School UFO incident and Westall UFO. I have given them a CT alert for BLPs, and also warned them, which was not well received. Bishonen | tålk 09:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC).

Gee, if we're all so corrupt I do hope I'll be getting my check in the mail soon. It appears to be a tad delayed. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Just give User:Bishzilla your banking details and passwords and she'll take care of it. Bishonen | tålk 12:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC).

Thanks! I will do so forthwith! --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

But why quote and attribute in the content? Does WP:PARITY's WP:ITA really require that? Quoting seems to be the least useful thing for the reader here. If WP:OR and WP:ITA force the content to always be along the lines of "according to skeptic X ..." then it seems to me the reader would be better served by just telling them to go elsewhere for something more informative than WP. Something in External Links along the lines of: "Brazil's Roswell: The Varginha UFO" a Skeptoid post and podcast which discusses how a completely normal event has been embellished over the years by UFOlogists"; seems would be more prominent and useful than burying the link in a citation. fiveby(zero) 16:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)