Misplaced Pages

:Fringe theories/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:59, 8 September 2021 view sourceThe Four Deuces (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers50,526 edits →Organic farming – "health" benefits?← Previous edit Revision as of 07:14, 8 September 2021 view source Hob Gadling (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,496 edits →PolygraphNext edit →
Line 269: Line 269:
::::All this is true. I don't see why any of that, however, indicates that we should look askance at sources produced by skeptics. ] is the guiding light. ] (]) 17:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC) ::::All this is true. I don't see why any of that, however, indicates that we should look askance at sources produced by skeptics. ] is the guiding light. ] (]) 17:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
::::: Because pseudoscience is nearly always added to the lead of those articles, with the argument that the "scientific community" has called it so. But as you've said the scientific community "ignores" the work of debunking of pseudoscience. So by definition, the "debunkers" are operating on the fringe of science, not speaking for the scientific community. ] (]) 18:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC) ::::: Because pseudoscience is nearly always added to the lead of those articles, with the argument that the "scientific community" has called it so. But as you've said the scientific community "ignores" the work of debunking of pseudoscience. So by definition, the "debunkers" are operating on the fringe of science, not speaking for the scientific community. ] (]) 18:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
::::::Your attempt to cram skeptics into the fringe-pusher pigeonhole is pretty transparent. It will not work. Skeptics are on the side of science. They agree with the scientific "mainstream" or "orthodoxy", as you would probably call it, on every subject. They propagate the scientific POV.
::::::]nic skeptics, on the other hand, are useless nowadays. They are history. All they know is that that they don't know anything, and all they can propagate is their belief that nobody else does either. Their POV is that of ] and of postmodern know-nothingism. You will convince nobody here that skeptic sources should not be used. --] (]) 07:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


== National League for Liberty in Vaccination == == National League for Liberty in Vaccination ==

Revision as of 07:14, 8 September 2021

Noticeboard to discuss fringe theories "WP:FTN" redirects here. For nominations of featured topics, see Misplaced Pages:Featured topic candidates.
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
    ShortcutsBefore 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:

    To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    Article alerts


    Did you know

    Articles for deletion

    Proposed deletions

    Categories for discussion

    Good article nominees

    Requests for comments

    Requested moves

    Articles to be merged

    Archiving icon
    Archives

    1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
    11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
    21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
    31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
    41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
    51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
    61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
    71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
    81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
    91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
    101, 102, 103


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


    Science-Based Medicine

    There is now a discussion about the above at WP:RSN#Science-Based Medicine. Your participation is welcome. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

    Discussion is heating up at the moment. I do not know enough about the intricacies of self-published sources to contribute. If SBM is categorized as an SPS, lots of critical stuff needs to be removed from articles about quacks, which means that the FRINGE stuff it was critical of also needs to be deleted if there is no counter to it anymore. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
    I suspect that if SBM goes, we won't just have to remove content from articles, but in some cases, delete them entirely. (Also, it seems like more and more of what I do here is trying to keep total nonsense out of the encyclopedia, a task that grows more important as it becomes less enjoyable. Anyone else have that "I could have sworn I used to write articles" feeling?) XOR'easter (talk) 02:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
    I think it's worth remembering, RSN is about the general nature of the source, rather than an exclusionary or automatic evaluation of the reliability across the project. It can be generally reliable but unreliable for some uses, and generally unreliable but reliable for other uses.
    Most of the time I've seen SBM used, it was as a WP:PARITY source critiquing fringe ideas that more reliable sources wouldn't touch. When used for that purpose, even a 'generally unreliable' SBM that couldn't be used as a standalone claim, would still likely be usable to provide the skeptical view opposite a fringe source that's similarly unreliable. Specifically, if SBM is considered self-pub, then it can still be used to debunk self-pub nonsense. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
    If it were designated self-published, there would be a drive to remove it from BLPs, leaving biographies of fringe figures either light on criticism or potentially without enough reliable sources to warrant existing. XOR'easter (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
    The discussion still seems to be going on, but I won't have time to say much, it looks like. XOR'easter (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

    Malone redux

    Came across this piece on Robert W. Malone and Michael Yeadon, which seems knowledge-ful. I've not come across logically.ai before and and first glance it looks reputable, and possible useful for fringe topics. Anybody know more about them? Alexbrn (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

    New piece on Malone in The Atlantic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

    Is Devra Davis a "conspiracy theorist"?

    Editors may wish to weigh in on whether Devra Davis, is a "Conspiracy Theorist"? We are struggling to find an appropriate category. Do we have a category for people who promote fringe theories? Please join in the discussion on the talk page.

    This scientist was once an epidemiologist employed by the US Government. She is now known for entirely unrelated achievements. She is the founder of a think tank that promotes the idea that Wifi, 5G and other radio systems are a major cause of diseases as diverse as infertility and cancer. There's no doubt that these are her views, the question is whether these views amount to a conspiracy theory or not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Salimfadhley (talk • contribs) 20:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

    The 5G and related claims are blatantly false, and should be put in that context, rather than that they are "disputed". No opinion on the conspiracy theorist, label, though to be called that reliable sources should have labelled her as such. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
    Is there a more appropriate category that "conspiracy theorist" which means "fringe theory promoter"? This could be somebody whose belief flirts with conspiracism but doesn't quite reach that level? --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
    I would limit its use to people like David Icke and Alex Jones who hold and promote a conspiratorial view of the society in general. Since categories are navigation devices, inclusion of Davis is unhelpful to readers. They are not likely to be looking for articles about people like Jones after reading the Davis article and vice versa. TFD (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you, yes I'm convinced that the previous categories were incorrect. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

    Post-rationalist cognitive therapy

    This is a new article that looks like it needs attention. XOR'easter (talk) 22:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

    I'm not sure whether it is 'fringe' or not, but whatever it is that the article is attempting to describe to doesn't seem to be 'therapy' by any reasonable definition of the word. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, it seems like a poorly-refined extension of schizoanalysis, which is more theoretical than practical (only one practice ever had it, IIRC, by Guattari), and so also isn't therapy. Urve (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
    Like "post-truth" and "post-modern", it sounds like undoing a good thing. Post-smartness, post-science, post-thinking, post-wisdom will probably be next. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
    I just draftified Post-rationalist cognitive psychology, which appeared to be a recreation of the recently draftified Post-rationalist cognitive therapy with minor modifications. XOR'easter (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

    Adrian David Cheok

    Adrian David Cheok (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

    Adrian David Cheok seems to be the latest article affected by COVID-19 lab leak pre-print-itis. It's an article which has had problems with a persistent sock for a long while so I fear it may continue. Especially since it was co-written with Li-Meng Yan. Nil Einne (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

    If there is no secondary coverage then it's undue. Plenty of people have made their punt on this topic and for most of them it's not a notable enough fact to include in their biography. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
    (EC) BTW as a heads up, it looks like the article could be due for publication in the Global Journal of Computer Science and Technology. Although I have no idea what an early view is with that journal and not interested in researching, it seems to suggest the paper could still be removed, so who knows? So perhaps reasonable chance this may make it to the Li-Meng Yan article eventually and maybe other less direct articles. I assume even if someone tries to add it to one of the main articles it'll quickly be reverted, so they probably aren't so much of a problem. Nil Einne (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
    Me, checking his credentials: Yup, this is peak COVID-pre-print-itis. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
    "Global Journals" looks to be a predatory publisher . We can pretty safely assume that no meaningful review goes on over there. XOR'easter (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

    Martinus Thomsen achieved permanent "cosmic consciousness"

    At least that's what Misplaced Pages claimed until a minute ago. The article Martinus Thomsen has been rewritten and expanded by a single user in the last two months, and several claims of Martinus are treated as facts. I fixed that statement in the lead but I wonder if the old article version was better. --mfb (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

    I've reverted to the old version. Too much text is uncited for it to be useful, it may as well have been half WP:OR, and half cited to things Martinus wrote himself, rather than secondary analysis. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
    For anyone who actually wants to write a proper article on Martinus, theres an entire chapter on him in Western Esotericism in Scandinavia, without having to rely on primary sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
    I've RX'ed that and another chapter on Martinus. The problem with that users edits is he was relying on primary religious documents and books by religious believers, when for new religious figures like Martinus we should be relying on secondary academic studes by scholars of new religions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
    Made some effort to expand the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

    Chantern15

    Chantern15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    A new user is forum-shopping ideas from predatory journals regarding ufology and ancient astronauts. They were only contacted with a welcome while I was writing this notice. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

    FYI, Chantern15 is continuing this behavior as 106.215.127.75 (e.g., here and here). JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
    Can't blame them for thinking Project Grudge was a conspiracy to cover up The Truth, since our article takes that point of view and is cited entirely to ufologists and fringers. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
    Except for Rtd. Captain Ruppelt?Chantern15 (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15
    Retired military people can be a mixed bag in terms of reliability. They might be considered RS for one thing but not another. In any case, Misplaced Pages never wants to be in the position of sourcing an entire article to one chapter in one person's memoirs. Regarding the improvement of the Project Grudge article, I would look for secondary sources that are independent of the POV that ET is the only reasonable explanation for UFOs and the government is hiding the evidence, and who comment specifically on Ruppelt's narrative. Helping improve this article is on my list of to-do's, but it may be some time before I get to it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
    That's fairChantern15 (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15

    Physicians for Patient Protection

    What is going on here? Grassroots, but founded by an AAPS member? Sounds unlikely. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

    There's a mass of infrequently used and brand new accounts, likely WP:MEAT. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
    If you believe the AANP, it exists specifically to oppose "full practice authority" for nurse practitioners . It's hard to see that it's notable in itself as an organization, but perhaps it could be mentioned in the NP article. Mangoe (talk) 00:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
    I was going to say, "physicians aren't health care providers, because Nazis" is quite the view to have. I lean more towards the group being notable enough in itself, but the article needs to be neutral rather than an advert for the group. The AANP critique would make sense to include. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
    I've opened a COIN discussion to look into possible COI or off-wiki notification/coordination, see Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Physicians_for_Patient_Protection. One person has said that they were notified by newsletter. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Derivation of E=mc^(2n+2) from Einstein's E=mc^2

    This discussion may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

    Justice, Awareness and Basic Support

    JABS, the group that hired Andrew Wakefield to do his fraud thing, back then. New article, can probably use more eyes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

    Ah JABS, an old adversary, from before my time here!! -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 12:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

    History of the Jews in Egypt

    More eyes needed upon History of the Jews in Egypt: several IPs, some now blocked, delete this statement: .

    If you wonder, it is from the handbook of a course taught at Harvard by a full professor, a conservative Jew, published by Beardsley Ruml under a copyleft license. It is published at https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/hebrew-bible/free-hebrew-bible-course-with-shaye-cohen/ tgeorgescu (talk) 10:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

    I am not the person to decide the facts of the statement; offhand I do not know and do not care. However, what source is it that they are saying is unreliable? Because it is copy left? Copyright can’t be a concern? Asking for History of the Jews in Spain, where I did not review for reliable sources. Elinruby (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

    Superstition

    Our superstition article is currently seeing a lot of activity from a few users. Unfortunately, this isn't for the better: I'm noticing a lot of poor quality sources being introduced into the article and a heavy POV slant that makes it read like a diatribe from the early 20th century rather than something one would expect from folklorists on a folklore studies topic (and where superstition is often referred to as folk belief). I've tagged it for a rewrite from scratch. It's needed it for a while. This page could use a lot of eyes. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

    Due for an overhaul, if the first sentence is any indication: A superstition is any belief or practice considered by non-practitioners to be irrational - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
    @LuckyLouie: :) The part of sentence you are pointing out seems to have been restored by Bloodofox themselves. Already Inputs requested: @ Talk:Superstition#Update synopsis of Superstition#Definitions in the lead to find consensus about synopsis of Superstition#Definitions for the article lead. Through out the article history some how most users do not seem to adhere to sourced content.
    The second strange amusing contradiction is in the 21st century fringe theories in the so called folk beliefs are being justified @ Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. For taking care of folk belief side article folk belief already exists. The matter of fact is topic of superstition is supposed to be in the domain of Skepticism and science, isn't it?
    Now users are deleting even mention of word science in the 21st century and inadvertently claiming ownership over topic of superstition for religious and folk belief point of views?
    One can use one source or other, fundamental question is whether Skepticism and Scientific point of views deserve better weightage in the article superstition or opposite unscientific point of views to defeat purpose of the article superstition?
    For example, when a child gets discriminated (or even killed) for being unlucky third child (in some community) or a woman faces literal witch hunting does it just remain domain of folk belief and religion or domains of Skepticism, rationality, Human rights and science supposed have any say in the topic of superstition?
    What is supposed to be role of an encyclopedia? calling Skepticism, rationality, Human rights and science as fringe theory and undermining their weightage in the article superstition? Not intriguing one?
    Pl. do think, Rgds.
    Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

    If I'm not mistaken, "superstition" is a term that inhabits a particularly Western and Christian concept about what faith-based ideas are "serious" and which are not. As such, it's a term that is generally problematicized as a lot of the literature that uses this idea will often refer to religious beliefs that are not Christian as "superstitions" while assuming that ideas such as the resurrection of Jesus Christ are not. In the context of certain skeptical movements in the 19th and 20th centuries, the idea of "superstition" seems to have been imported from that religious persuasion. It would be nice to encourage some scholar to write a full accounting of the use of this term much as Gordin did with The Pseudoscience Wars. jps (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

    @ජපස: See topic which needs expansion Draft:Irrational beliefs is pretty neutral but I reached that term while researching for Draft:Superstitions in Christian societies. as you rightly say, even primary researching on topic Draft:Superstitions in Christian societies shows not only agnostic but pre 20th century theist christian scholarship itself was a lot introspecting and open minded but now things seems to have changed and they might be feeling unease and discomfort. History indicates in Roman times itself Christianity was very well criticized for superstitions.

    But with new atheism topic of superstition is just not battle in between beliefs but there are genuine concerns from side of human rights and sciences etc. Secondly one won't be surprised if any tribal going on defensive and claiming folk culture defense but if one scratches a bit one finds apologists of majior religions are piggy backing concerns of tribal folk cultures. That is how I feel. Probably that is the reason of so much alarmist defenestration.

    Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

    Can you please stop cluttering up pages with the meaning of the word "encyclopedia" as well as chattering about everything from "defenestration" to "alarmism" and instead restrict yourself to reasoning which has an actual connection to the articles you want to change? --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
    Greetings, It is fallacious propaganda misleading public at large to think that topic of Superstition ought to be limited to domain of folklore; as if fields of Skepticism, rationality, Human rights and science have no concerns at all.(pl. read again)
    What is mainstream is being defined conveniently benefiting to one field of study and ignoring others. Without discussing concerns one by one in detail, only alarmist monopolizing claims are placed on talk page, convenient notices flashed article page and forum shopping on this board without informing article talk that one is raising a point here!
    I used the word 'defenestration' for strongly emphasizing that concerns and authority of domains of Skepticism, rationality, Human rights and science are being thrown aside and usurped for.
    And oh ya on Misplaced Pages has a undeclared culture of uncomfortable sources cited by opposite side to be thrown out of window in similar manner word 'defenestration' connotes. Where such culture of soft censorship persists people need to be reminded what encyclopedia is supposed to be about.
    Thanks and warm regards Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
    I had not really expected that request to work. So I will just regard your contributions as white noise and ignore them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
    I do believe in giving space to all, I do not have habit of ignoring voices which do not agree with me. For example it is not even hours I have made contribution request to users who contribute to cultural relativism for Draft:Irrational beliefs I write. Thanks any ways and happy editing. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
    Since the beginning of this discussion, I have the impression that it's possible that a communication problem is at least partly responsible for the conflict (with exaggerated metaphores not helping)... Also, there are many definitions of what an encyclopedia should be, in the case of Misplaced Pages, it has its own policies, applied by its community as possible. Someone else also mentioned the activism statement as part of your signature. WP:NOT makes clear that Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information (then again, I'm not sure that it is what you are suggesting). I'm sympathetic to the fact that superstition is a fitting description for things like the extreme fear of demons that some Christian denominations are promoting. —PaleoNeonate – 18:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

    National Policy on AYUSH

    Article from last year, seems to need a bit of defringing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

    Discussion regarding sources produced by 'skeptics' and fringe proponents

    There's a discussion regarding the use of sources produced by 'skeptics' and fringe proponents over at RSN right now. You can find it here. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

    Widom–Larsen theory

    Widom–Larsen theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Widom–Larsen theory

    Please comment. jps (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

    TCM

    Hi - would editors experienced in assessing sources for medical topics please take a quick look at Talk:Chinese herbology and Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine? A relatively new user, who describes themselves as an an undergraduate neuroscientist and Qi Gong practitioner on their user page, is eager to add information about the efficacy of traditional Chinese herbal remedies to treat COVID19, and remove statements about pseudoscience. Thank you. Girth Summit (blether) 09:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

    Lada (mythology)

    Hello. I have been working on Slavic mythology for almost two years now. I generally write articles from scratch because the articles on the English wiki contain fakelore or are too short. For the time being I focus on deities, as it is difficult to find reliable and scientific information about them in the English-speaking internet, and many people are interested in it. So I recently wrote a new article on the pseudo-goddess Lada from scratch. The article describes the sources, briefly describes the history of the development of the concept of this goddess, is neutral in that it presents famous/influential people who supported her historicity, but focuses on a critique of that historicity, since practically all modern scholars reject her historicity. To support this thesis, I cited the opinions of 6 professors/doctors of history/slavic studies/religious studies and 2 linguists. Besides, if necessary, I can spam more academic researchers who reject her historicity: Stanisław Urbańczyk, Jerzy Strzelczyk, Henryk Łowmiański, Leo Klejn, Evgeny Anichkov, probably also Radoslav Katičić and others. So I copied the article from my sandbox to actual article, and in the discussion I pointed out serious factual errors and unreliable sources. Despite this, the author of the old article (Sangdeboeuf) reverted my article, and then split it up and restored it in pieces. I disagree with this because the article not only spreads obvious factoids, it presents them as the mainstream view in academia, which is absolutely not true. Now lets look at this:

    1. I checked: this Wikipedian is not familiar with the topic he wrote about, Lada is most likely the only article from Category:Slavic mythology that he touched (except the list, to which he added a fakelore 4 years ago)
    2. This is confirmed by the fact that the main sources there (the ones spreading misinformation) are free sources or with free partial previews (Google Books/Archive.org). Thus, the author probably googled informations about Lada and posted random information from random books on Misplaced Pages without knowing if that book is up-to-date or is reliable source.
    3. These sources are very unreliable. First, they are "dictionaries" - they do not contain any source material or analyze it, they just copy residual information about some character from old, non-critical or even romantic sources, e.g. "Lado is the god of love". No reasons are given here for such an interpretation, no information is provided that, however, most researchers reject the historicity of this goddess. There are only two sentences in which the author of the book tells us to believe. These books are written by Americans who are not experts in Slavic mythology (during the communist era the contact between western and Slavic, especially Russian, researchers was very limited), so they copy songs from older books without reading any critical analysis by Slavic scholars.
    4. These sources contain reprehensible, even childish errors: "the twins Zizilia and Didilia" invented by Joanna Hubs and Mike Dixon-Kennedy are actually spoiled records of another Polish pseudo-goddess Dzidzilela. As for the "deity" Kupala, 100% of modern scholars believe that they were divinized by mistake. Probably the same with the "deity" Kostroma. There is more false information, e.g. in David Adams Leeming one can read that Baba Yaga was a goddess, although she was just an evil mythological figure.
    5. Article states, that Lada was also worshipped among Baltic peoples. From what I know, also most of Baltic scholars also reject her historicity.

    As the only active Slavic mythology expert on English wikipedia at this point, I say that parts of the old article contain serious problems with WP:RELIABILITY, WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. As if that wasn't enough, the author was confident enough to submit the article for a "good article," and since no one on the English Misplaced Pages knew the subject of Slavic mythology, the article was awarded without any problems. Although he was probably doing it in good faith. So I motion to completely replace the current article with mine, which is still in my sandbox. Sławobóg (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

    Ping Bloodofox. This editor is also an expert in folklore and has spoken out about how Misplaced Pages's coverage of the topic has often been very bad. Crossroads 16:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
    Can we do something about articles being awarded good article status without sufficient review? --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
    Take it to WP:GAR. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
    I find it hard to believe that Sławobóg doesn't know the difference between "dictionaries" and "encyclopedias", so their mistaken assertion that the article relies on dictionary sources is troubling. The statement about David Adams Leeming is also false. Leeming says that "some have traced Baba Yaga to a prehistoric European goddess", and gives very plausible reasons for this as well. Sławobóg has certainly cited a number of scholars who reject the historicity of the fertility goddess Lada (most of whom are not religious scholars or historians), but how do we know these represent practically all modern scholars? (I'm assuming the citations are accurate, since I don't have access to English translations for most of them.) Nor is it actually shown how this conflicts with the existing sources, which generally acknowledge this rejection by certain writers yet conclude there is sufficient evidence for a cult of worship. These sources, including Ivanits (1989), Struk (1993), and Coulter & Turner (2013) , are published by generally reliable academic publishers. The idea that they are non-critical is an assumption, not a fact. Perhaps Sławobóg could provide some relevant quotations from their preferred sources to substantiate their claims? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
    1. I said "dictionaries". I said that, because I know dictionaries with more content per entry than your encyclopedias. Encyclopedia of Ancient Deities has 31 words for Lada, and The Oxford companion to world mythology has 9 lines of text on page with 2 columns. Again - without any criticism or references and. These are sources mindlessly copying from romantic authors, primary sources or self-proclaimed researchers.
    2. Mother Russia: The Feminine Myth in Russian Culture is another bad book, and you can find informations about it in the internet. Not only author is trying to push some feminist ideas, she also is not authority on Slavic religion in any way, she studied cultural studies.
    3. Encyclopedia of Russian & Slavic Myth and Legend is another bad book, I found it when I was working on Zorya. Informations about Zorya can't be confirmed by any scientific publication (like Zorya being wife of Perun). Author also used some random, unknown sources or mindlessly copied informations from primary sources. When he is writting on Lada he uses as references: de:Felix Haase (1939) - random German theologist xD, Ivan Snegiryov - early 19th century scholar, it was time before historicity of Lada began to be criticized by the scientific community, Alexander Afanasyev - very important Russian etnographer, but he was often criticized, again, for being uncritical towards the source material. Due to incomprehension of some words/traditions, he invented many deities, e.g. Koliada - you can read about that on Russian version: ru:Коляда (мифология), George Vernadsky - on his page we can read about manipulating about history. Another random, unrelated to Slavic mythology schoolar. Only good and critical reference used here is Myroslava T. Znayenko and her The Gods of Ancient Slavs: Tatischev and the Beginnings of Slavic Mythology, but... I can't find any claims that Lada is real goddess. xD All I found is well documented history of how "Polish pantheon" and Lada developed and mention of old, unimportant scholars' interpretations of Lada. This book basically said what I said in my article.
    • I debunked your sources in like an hour of research. Your "sources" 1) Are super short, 2) don't explain this very controversial topic in any way, just make you think such thing as Lada existed (unlike my sources), 3) Don't focus on Slavic mythology at all - "encyclopedia of worlds deities" 2x, "feminist activist book", "encyclopedia of Ukraine" (unlike my sources), 4) are written by people who are not authorities in Slavic mythology (unlike my sources). Also funny, how most of these books are writted after fall of Soviet Union but none of these books cite Vladimir Toporov - probably most influential and most important Russian scholar who worked on Slavic mythology, it is simply not possible to not know him. Ivantis also doesn't work on Slavic mythology, she is another "random" scholar, who repeats stuff after Boris Rybakov - probably most controversial impactful scholar of 20th century who was and is heavly criticised by other scholars (you can read short here).
    • "but how do we know these represent "practically all modern scholars"?" - because unlike you, I am familiar with the subject of Slavic mythology. I have read books from different eras, different countries and authors with different views. I have a general awareness of the subject and I know that the views presented by your article are WP:FRINGE and pretty pseudoscientific, because yes - scholar can spread pseudoscience too and this is perfect example. My article, for balance and historical context, presents views contrary to those of the mainstream. Additionally, my sources are better because they have influenced history in this context and are known by scholarship, while no one knows about your sources because they have no merit.
    • "The idea that they are "non-critical" is an assumption, not a fact." - that is fact. They literally copy from non-critical primary sources and I explained it before (see Afasnayev). For now, there is no good, scientific, up-to-date book in English. Only relatively good English book was The Mythology of All Races vol. 3. There is only 1 new (2019) English book that might be good (New Researches on the Religion and Mythology of the Pagan Slavs), but I didn't read that yet. French book Perun, dieu slave de l'orage: Archéologie, histoire, folklore (2015) also states that Lada is not supported by historical records (possibly quoting someone else).
    • "Sławobóg has certainly cited a number of scholars who reject the historicity of the fertility goddess Lada (most of whom are not religious scholars or historians)" - are you serious? Most of scholars I brought before are historians: Jerzy Strzelczyk, Henryk Łowmiański, Leo Klejn, Evgeny Anichkov, Aleksander Gieysztor. Others are linguists - and that is also very important, because Lada is not supported by any historical records, lada is just word appearing in songs that was deified - because of that linguists' opinion is extremly important (etymology, semantics, source criticism and more). I can't believe I have to spend hours to discuss that instead of working on another article. Sławobóg (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
      Most of the authors you cited in the article are not historians. Would it be too much to ask for you to elaborate on how the scholars you listed here support your claims, instead of just name-dropping them? I for one would like some independent confirmation that your sources represent the majority, rather than blindly trusting in your general awareness of the subject. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
    Just as a side note, when it comes to folklore topics like myth, commentary from folklorists and philologists (the two are historically closely entwined) is ideal. A background in folklore studies and historical linguistics is crucial for analysis like this and historians often lack it. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
    Sounds convincing to me. Sławobóg gives lots of details from reliable sources, and the main point is compatible with what I know of mythology: it is indeed a subject where the popular literature abounds with amateurs copying from each other. (To me as an atheist, the question whether Lada is a "real goddess" still sounds weird, although I know that "real" has a different meaning here.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
    @Sławobóg:, please go ahead and start drafting a rewrite of the article in a sandbox. Most of our coverage of myth and related topics is absolutely abysmal on the site. This is primarily due to a lack of specialists investing time in getting them up to snuff. The Slavic and Baltic stuff is particularly bad, no doubt due to the lack of English language sources out there on these topics. That said, if you do prepare a total rewrite, please be cautious to separate primary and secondary sources—it will ultimately save you and our readers a lot of headache over time and allow for the article to grow. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
    @Bloodofox: Um? I did rewrite it in a sandbox. It is still there. I always do that. Then I just copy it into actual article. Author of old article reverted it and then massacred it. ATM I'm working on adding scholars on Baltic part of this topic. Sławobóg (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
    Thank goodness that someone is finally trying to do something about the Slavic mythology articles! Kudos!--Berig (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
    Definitely areed, @Berig:. I'm happy to see it. @Sławobóg:, your article looks like a major improvement—I missed your sandbox mention. Let me know if I can help. I would really like to see more of our myth articles improve. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
    If blatant WP:NPOV violations are a "major improvement", then sure. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
    There's an easy solution to these things: Simply write it all out. If there's doubt about a source, this needs to be clear in a "scholastic reception" section, separate from the attestations. There you can chart out what scholars have said over the years. We do this all the time with our Germanic mythology-related articles. Nonetheless, it's important that this discussion is there and that we don't take any particular side, instead going with academic consensus and presenting all arguemnts in a neutral manner. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
    I think this is the best approach, thank you. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, but where do you see violation of WP:NPOV in my article? Big part of the article is dedicated to 2 influential authors that supported her historicity. I'm removing your books not because they support some side of the conflict, I'm removing them because they are insignificant on this topic and I've explained pretty thoroughly why. Can you substantively address my accusations and explanations? Because so far you're accusing me of ruining the article by replacing weak, meaningless authors with meaningful authors with similar POV. 🤦 Sławobóg (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
    See my earlier comments. We have yet to see any proof that your sources represent the majority. (Oddly, given your complaints about authors failing to critically examine sources, you appear to want other users to uncritically accept your bona fides as a self-declared expert on the topic.) I explained the NPOV issues on the article talk page. My main problem with the proposed "Historicity" section is that it states the opinions of scholars (or simply your own) as plain facts. On the English Misplaced Pages, our NPOV policy specifically forbids this. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
    If this boils down to which scholars to use, simply stick to the specialists on Slavic mythology. This also concerns statements on what is the majority view. In Germanic mythology topics, we are lucky to have a good supply of prominent specialists, and I suspect that you have some of those in Slavic mythology topics as well. I suggest that you two discuss and try to reach an agreement on what constitutes the most reliable secondary sources per WP:RS.--Berig (talk) 05:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
    How can I prove it to you? I have listed 14 scholars from Slavic countries who have written books dedicated to Slavic mythology and who clearly evaluate this topic. One of them simply ignores her existence in his publications. I used only a few of them so as not to spam the article unnecessarily. You want me to use them and insert 14 references in a row to prove what I'm saying? (WP:CITEKILL)
    If that still doesn't convince you, how about being convinced by Myroslava T. Znayenko, whom you list in the "Further reading" section? Let's see... "Most modern scholars agree with A. Bruckner that Długosz created his Polish pantheon by interpreting freely old ritual texts...". Bruckner? Oh, I have him in my article!
    "My main problem with the proposed "Historicity" section is that it states the opinions of scholars (or simply your own) as plain facts." - these are not opinions, these are facts. Medieval historians/writers copied informations from each other pretty often. And Polish historians have long established who copied information from whom. You are just ignorant. I just forgot to add references, which I already did in my sandbox. To show again that you are ignorant, I will again use Znayenko, who described the relationships between primary sources, some examples: Miechowita, Kromer, Bielski, Stryjkowski, Synopsis. Deal with it.
    More amusingly, your article didn't even mention Dlugosz, who is the most important source/element of the article here, until someone added that information 3 years after article got "good article status". And you say something about neutrality? You're the one I have to prove I know better than you on the subject? Cherry on top is that in the "Further reading" section you mention the work of some random priest from Germany (de:Felix Haase) who, according to the German Misplaced Pages, supported the NSDAP and "his publications, for example on the Russian Orthodox Church or the Slavs, were unobjective and nationalistic.". You are ridiculing yourself. I see no room for any compromise, your article is frivolous on many levels. Sławobóg (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

    Is 14 scholars a lot or a little? Without independent sources to evaluate the disagreement, we just don't know. You're simply asking us to take it on faith that you haven't left out any relevant sources or overlooked any. I'm happy to mainly cite specialists in Slavic mythology, so I do find the quote from Znayenko more convincing than your bald assertions, thank you. However, based on this short quote, we can't imply that "Contemporary scholars overwhelmingly reject the authenticity of the deities Lada and Lado"; see WP:SYNTH. Nor can we imply anything based on the one writer who completely ignores Lada; that would be the epitome of original research. I gave two examples of POV wording on the article talk page: "The only 'authentic' sources mentioning the deity of Lada/Lado are the Gniezno Sermons" and "East Slavic sources cannot be considered independent sources either". Another one is "We should therefore assume that Długosz's Lyada corresponds to the Old Polish form *Łada". These are all statements of opinion that need attribution. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

    @Sangdeboeuf: and @Sławobóg:, let's take a step back for a second. From what I've seen, everyone here simply wants to improve the article. From my experience, this is unfortunately all too rare: Misplaced Pages's coverage of folklore topics has been in the gutter for a long time. We really need more contributors working on these topics.
    Slavic folklore is notoriously difficult to approach for English language audiences. This is primarily due to a lack of coverage. There are comparatively few works by English language scholars touching on the topic. Much of what is available in English language scholarship can be found in comparative analyses from philologists and folklorists, but these works are often far too brief and few in number.
    Now, I recommend that we work together here. I detect no malicious intent, just what I suspect is simply miscommunication. It's easy to get annoyed on Misplaced Pages—the revert cycle system almost encourages it—but all we have to do is keep the attestations separate from the analyses and chart out what scholar said where and when, with particular emphasis on specialists like folklorists and philologists. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
    I concur with Bloodofox, and I was about to ask you why you are discussing this here. You should get back to improving articles and discuss sources on a case to case basis.--Berig (talk) 04:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Thank you, this is exactly what I was asking for when I asked for some relevant quotations from preferred sources. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
    "Contemporary scholars overwhelmingly reject the authenticity of the deities Lada and Lado" this statement is supported by quote from Znayenko and scholars I mentioned, most of whom published their works after Znayenko's book and are critical. I also know that as expert. That I know more about the subject than you I have proven in this discussion by listing leading researchers that you have not even heard of and using specialists' opinions in my articles - you use some random, free American sources and books that don't focus on anything. I also debunked Dixon-Kennedy. Besides, I have experience in this topic on Misplaced Pages - I have written over 20 articles in this field, while you have 1. Also, if one were to accept your constant repetition of "but how do we know that's the majority" it would be impossible to write anything on Misplaced Pages. I have also been supported here by other Wikipedians, including admin...
    "The only 'authentic' sources mentioning the deity of Lada/Lado are the Gniezno Sermons"" and ""East Slavic sources cannot be considered independent sources either" - no POV here - this is already referenced. Plus, it's not the researchers' "opinion" on these sources - footnotes and bibliographies were already used in middle ages. 🤦
    "East Slavic sources cannot be considered independent sources either" - again, no POV, referenced since the begining.
    "We should therefore assume that Długosz's Lyada corresponds to the Old Polish form *Łada" - I don't even why do you think it is POV here. Whole paragraph is explained and sourced since begining. Possibly bad wording?
    So, I've expanded my article to include an analysis of Lithuanian scholars (the latest I've found) and corrected typos, references, minor factual and language errors. I am moving article from my sandbox to the mainspace. And I repeat once again: my article does not violate NPOV anywhere because it presents different points of view (2 most popular Slavic researchers who assumed its historicity, and one Lithuanian). Your researchers are insignificant. Additionally, mine present some argumentation. You probably also don't understand that Slavic or Baltic mythology is not as obvious as Greek or Roman and a lot of information about it is false, and the English Wiki can't handle it. I recall that the list for many years included information from the 18th century Prillwitz forgery, for example - I was the only one who made a point of it. Sławobóg (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

    Phantom vehicle

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

    I'm sure that some reliably-sourced folklore about this topic exists, but the article doesn't appear to contain any. Instead, it's filled with "examples" of vehicle malfunctions that have been WP:SENSATIONALized, and non-notable superstitious rumors. (Pinging the overworked Bloodofox...)- LuckyLouie (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

    I think this article ought to be deleted. There's definitely a theme in folklore of phantom or ghostly things and some of them are vehicles. This article attempts to synthesize a bunch of vaguely related stories into a coherent article, but unfortunately fails. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
    Given the lack of reliable sources that describe anything except anecdotes,  Done: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Phantom_vehicle. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

    Creation Ministries International‎

    I reverted three times and will stop doing that now. Getting tired of people who do not listen. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

    In connection with that, several of our articles use "creation.com", their website, as a source. I removed some of the stuff sourced to it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
    Looking at one of your edits, I can see you tried to add "pseudoscientific" before "Young Earth Creationism". Pseudoscience is mentioned right below, in the second paragraph. No need for the redundancy of having it higher. It's obvious that it's a pseudoscience, and if it's not obvious to someone, then it should be as soon as they read the second paragraph. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
    I did not "try to add" something, I just reverted an obvious profringe edit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
    Did you not add the "the pseudoscientific concept of..." to the lead where it wasn't before, in this edit? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
    I have warned User:Joeltay81 for disruptive editing plus edit warring (together with the IP which is obviously used by the same person, compare Misplaced Pages:We were not born yesterday). Bishonen | tålk 20:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC).
    I repeat: I just reverted an obvious profringe edit. If the profringe edit removes something, then, yes, my revert results in adding that thing. Why do I have to explain that? --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
    Nevermind, I see that was added before. Still, it's better without "the pseudoscientific concept of...". It's an obvious pseudoscience Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
    Amos 1 and Zechariah 14 quote an idea by creationist geologist Steven A. Austin, whose mere existence was sourced to creation.com (I removed that part): widely separated archaeological excavations in the countries of Israel and Jordan contain late Iron Age (Iron IIb) architecture bearing damage from a great earthquake. I do not know how to handle that. Is it legit and relevant? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
    Considering that no reasonable interpretation of "widely separated" describes Israel and Jordan's relative geographic or geologic positions, I suggest it's not especially relevant. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

    Not Evil Just Wrong

    Seems unbalanced to me. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

    Do you have an example? I'm happy to help balance the article if you do. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
    Right after reading this I removed an undue and POV section about a non-profit founded after the movie premiered . I think there are likely other UNDUE sentences. There's a lot sourced to WP:PRIMARY here— Shibbolethink 22:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
    I also think the second paragraph of the lead should go, as well as the "review" from "Online Opinion" as it's not even a film review site, let alone RS. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
    What you removed looks a lot like creationist attempts in classrooms (with typical "we only want them to be informed and to think critically", when in fact the conflicting material presented is false and misleading). It could be mentioned in that optic, that of ideological activism, if described as such by sources that debunk those claims. —PaleoNeonate – 18:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

    Interactions of actors theory

    This was a redirect for a long time. It's now a page with sources that look very primary and text that is not easy to follow. XOR'easter (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

    It was all copyvio; I've restored the redirect and tagged it for copyvio revdel. Schazjmd (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks. XOR'easter (talk) 00:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
    It's not a copyvio. The blog from 2009 is a direct copy of the 2008 version of Gordon Pask. I've reverted and canceled the revdel. The editor indicated on the talk page that he moved it from the bio. Whether the material should have its own article or be returned to the Gordon Pask bio is a different question. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

    Polygraph

    The only mention of "pseudoscience" is the pseudoscience template. Older versions, such as , still contained the sourced sentence In 1991, two thirds of the scientific community who have the requisite background to evaluate polygraph procedures considered polygraphy to be pseudoscience. I guess it was removed because such things are not decided by voting. In any case, either the word should be in the article, or the template should be removed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

    Here's the edit that removed the sentence, for the record. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
    The polygraph has been explicitly discussed in notable surveys of pseudoscience, like , and , so it shouldn't be too hard to source and attribute who calls it pseudoscience and why. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
    Just a note about why it's considered pseudoscientific, despite relying on signals that can be recorded and that can fluctuate: the signals are not optimal, and the main problem is their motivated interpretation, with conflicting studies demonstrating that they cannot effectively determine when someone is lying or not (to reliably know would require technology way beyond what current neurology allows, or verifiable facts that contradict their claims, the traditional way)... —PaleoNeonate – 18:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
    It's reasonable to question the degree to which "pseudoscience-ness" should be emphasized in the article, including template and category. If you only quote or overly rely on professional Skeptics, then everything looks like pseudoscience. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
    You're fallaciously misapplying the adage. Skeptics spend time on the pseudoscience that the rest of the scientific community ignores. As such, they often represent the best sources we have on pseudoscientific subjects. If everything truly looked like pseudoscience, then why don't skeptics list everything as pseudoscience? jps (talk) 03:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
    Also, pseudoscience is what skeptics specialize in. By the same reasoning, you could say that since entomologists write only about insects, everything must look like an insect to an entomologist. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
    @ජපස: Debunking pseudoscience is not a scientific discipline, though. On Misplaced Pages, many (if not most) of the pseudoscience statements are sources to skeptic blogs, podcasts, and books in the commercial market. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
    All this is true. I don't see why any of that, however, indicates that we should look askance at sources produced by skeptics. WP:PARITY is the guiding light. jps (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
    Because pseudoscience is nearly always added to the lead of those articles, with the argument that the "scientific community" has called it so. But as you've said the scientific community "ignores" the work of debunking of pseudoscience. So by definition, the "debunkers" are operating on the fringe of science, not speaking for the scientific community. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
    Your attempt to cram skeptics into the fringe-pusher pigeonhole is pretty transparent. It will not work. Skeptics are on the side of science. They agree with the scientific "mainstream" or "orthodoxy", as you would probably call it, on every subject. They propagate the scientific POV.
    Pyrrhonic skeptics, on the other hand, are useless nowadays. They are history. All they know is that that they don't know anything, and all they can propagate is their belief that nobody else does either. Their POV is that of WP:FALSEBALANCE and of postmodern know-nothingism. You will convince nobody here that skeptic sources should not be used. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

    National League for Liberty in Vaccination

    I came across the article for National League for Liberty in Vaccination because the Commons MOTD today was a French antivax protest for which we (until an hour ago) called it a demonstration for "freedom of vaccination" (sigh...separate issue). Anyway, I took a look at our article about this organization and it was pretty sparse. I read the sources included and made an edit for more context following WP:FRINGE. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find much else. Perhaps there are French speakers here who may be able to find more material if we're going to have an article on this organization. — Rhododendrites \\ 21:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

    Pentagon UFO videos

    Pentagon UFO videos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Additional eyes would be welcome at the Talk page, where a RfC is addressing the description of ufology as a pseudoscience. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

    DNA Evidence of a Croatian and Sephardic Jewish Settlement on the North Carolina Coast Dating from the Mid to Late 1500s

    I just removed this from Lumbee. It's at Doug Weller talk 19:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

    A genetic study published in a social studies review. That is quite fringy.--Berig (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
    The sad thing is that this is not just a social science journal getting 'tricked' into accepting poor material that is outside their expertise - the social science in the paper is abysmal too. Agricolae (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
    The paper is cited a least once—in another paper by Hirschmann, which is even cringier (yes, you can beat Eupedia-dervied graphics!) with its Coon-ish gallery at pp. 19–21. –Austronesier (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
    It is a pity this is not pre-Colombian.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

    Hypnotherapy

    Recently added: "evidence supporting" the use in menopause and irritable bowel syndrome. I am not sure how WP:MEDRS that is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

    Looks like the North American Menopause Society does in fact recommend it for menopause, according to primary and secondary sources. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

    Organic farming – "health" benefits?

    The Organic farming farming article strikes me as problematic. In particular, this sentence in the lead, "Organic farming advocates claim advantages in sustainability, openness, self-sufficiency, autonomy and independence, health, food security, and food safety." There is no counterpoint to these claims in the lead. Isn't it a violation of WP:FRINGE (or at the very least NPOV) to prominently feature rhetoric claiming that organic food has health benefits over non-organic food? The other purported benefits also strike me as dubious and poorly substantiated. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

    Ivermectin was removed as an allowed parasiticide for organic livestock in the U.S. in 2018. fiveby(zero) 02:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
    Just looked there. You're probably right. I also reverted this removal. As a review article, it is a top quality secondary academic source and should be covered. Crossroads 04:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
    A few weeks ago I noticed that the article appeared overly promotional, but have only added that to my endless notes, —PaleoNeonate – 05:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
    But organic farming 'advocates' actually do claim those things. Why does there need to be a counterpoint to those claims? The claims are what they are. The lead presents them as claims, not facts in Misplaced Pages's voice. All of those claims are believed by the large population who create a demand for organic products by buying them. Farmers, on the other hand, would say that organic farming is more lucrative (larger profit margins) due to that demand, provided you get past the approvals, which a few organic farmers have told me is easier to do outside of California than within it. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
    Why does there need to be a counterpoint to those claims? Per WP:FRINGE. Imagine if the homeopathy article or its lead just said the claims of proponents - attributed as claims, mind you - and left off all criticism. That would be a huge problem. Now, organic farming isn't as fringe as homeopathy, but the point stands. Crossroads 05:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
    The lead section is supposed to provide an overview of the body text. A counterpoint would be a summary of the "issues" section of the article. WP:SOFIXIT. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
    It would probably be best to find a reliable secondary source that reports what advocates claim and see what qualifications there are. There should also be clarification of who these advocates are. I haven't seen any organic producers that claim their products are healthier for example. If you provide a claim that hasn't been made then rebut it, it's a strawman argument. TFD (talk) 05:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
    Categories: