Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
"WP:FTN" redirects here. For nominations of featured topics, see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates.
Welcome to the fringe theories noticeboard
This page is for discussing possible fringe theories. Post here to seek advice on whether a particular topic is fringe or mainstream, or whether undue weight is being given to fringe theories.
  • Discussions related to fringe theories may also be posted here, with an emphasis on material that can be useful for creating new articles or improving existing articles that relate to fringe theories.
  • The purpose of this board is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but rather to ensure that neutrality and accuracy are maintained.
  • Familiarize yourself with the fringe theories guideline before reporting issues here.
  • To aid in promoting constructive dialogue with advocates of a fringe theory, {{talk fringe|fringe theory name}} may be added to the top of the corresponding talk page.
 Sections older than 20 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Shortcuts
If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so.
Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

  • If your question regards whether material constitutes original research or original synthesis, please use the no original research noticeboard instead.
  • Discussion of fringe theories will depend entirely on their notability and reliable coverage in popular media. Above all, fringe theories should never be presented as fact.
  • Volunteers: To mark a discussion resolved, place {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Article alerts


Articles for deletion

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Files for discussion

Good article nominees

Good article reassessments

Requests for comments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be split


Skeptics versus deniers[edit]

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

Oh gee. Guess where I've seen this argument before?

[1]

Can someone else clarify whether skeptics and deniers are the same thing when it comes to climate change?

jps (talk) 12:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned no A sceptic is a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions. A denier is a person who denies something, especially someone who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence. The difference is that a sceptic does not ignore evidence, a denier does.Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
It's a matter of sources. I won't bother you with the voluminous discussions we've had on this matter but you can see where climate change skepticism redirects to. jps (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
The discussion on that redirect target was interesting with the closer noting I also find consensus in this discussion to redirect, while noting that skepticism ≠ denial per the opposing comments.[2] PackMecEng (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
That skepticism ≠ denial is one thing. That climate change skepticism = climate change denial is quite another. jps (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
That closing statement was talking about climate change skepticism ≠ climate change denial. That is why it was the closing statement on climate change skepticism redirecting to climate change denial. PackMecEng (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
That you are misinterpreting this and using the word "cereal" [3] makes me understand that you should be topic banned from climate change articles writ large. Begone denier. jps (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Ha! Kids these days. Grow up. PackMecEng (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Are you upset that your cover was blown? Or do you just revel in your pseudoscientific ignorance? WP:CIR, after all. jps (talk) 01:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
List take me to ANI or quit whining. I could not care less which way you go but this is the last reply for me to you on this subject. PackMecEng (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Slatersteven, climate change deniers brand themselves as "skeptics". This is pseudoskepticism. We do not use euphemisms. Guy (help!) 22:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
You asked "whether skeptics and deniers are the same thing when it comes to climate change" I provided a definition of the two based upon what the words mean (an then an interpretation). To answer your question more directly then. It is not true that skeptics and deniers are the same thing when it comes to climate change (after all the source appears to be something of a sceptic), however (to complicate matters) many who are deniers (that is they deny the truth of climate science) use the sceptic label as it makes them sound more reasonable and neutral. So we have to answer this question on a case by case basis.Slatersteven (talk) 08:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Slatersteven, I think that may have been true ten years ago but is no longer true now. There is virtually no informed dissent from the consensus view that the climate is changeing due to global warming caused by human activity. There is some debate over the exact degree of warming, precise projections etc., but the last literature review I saw found no actively publishing climate scientists finding anything else (though to be fair this only looked at the professional literature so would have excluded the professional climate deniers funded by right-wing think tanks, as they have acute difficulty getting published). Guy (help!) 08:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
And that is where the problem comes in, and why we must be careful. There is (as you say) "some debate over the exact degree of warming, precise projections etc", so a "sceptic" will be part of that debate, they may not agree with the exact figures but agree with the overall trend. Whereas a denier will question the general trend, the problem comes in when the deniers use the language of genuine scepticism as a cover for what is in realty denialism. Thus we have to exercise caution and operate on a case by case basis.Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
People who are part of the conversation in climate science are generally not referred to as "skeptics" anymore because of how these labels have been politicized. In discussion, I suppose we can refer to some legit climate scientist who disagree with some colleague or another as "skeptics" if we like, but we basically cannot use the term in Wikipedia's climate change article-space without causing confusion. jps (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Slatersteven, pretty much everyone who calls themselves a "skeptic" is pushing predictions outside the 95%CI of aggregates of other models. One tell is that they critique "alarmists". Another is that they publish outside the climate literature. And a third is that they are funded by dark money. Guy (help!) 16:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
This might be a little off topic, but don't you call yourself a skeptic? PackMecEng (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The specific question was to distinguish between on the one hand

Curry is known both for her emphasis on scientific outreach in general and for her willingness to communicate with climate change deniers in particular.[1]

References

  1. ^ Harris, Richard. "'Uncertain' Science: Judith Curry's Take On Climate Change". NPR. Retrieved 2020-04-04. And that was just her first taste of the rough-and-tumble climate debate. A few years later, an apparent hacker released a lot of private email conversations among climate scientists involved with the United Nations climate assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Curry stepped into the middle of this and started engaging some of the skeptics.

and

Curry is known both for her emphasis on scientific outreach in general and for her willingness to communicate with climate change skeptics in particular.[1]

References

  1. ^ Harris, Richard. "'Uncertain' Science: Judith Curry's Take On Climate Change". NPR. Retrieved 2020-04-04. And that was just her first taste of the rough-and-tumble climate debate. A few years later, an apparent hacker released a lot of private email conversations among climate scientists involved with the United Nations climate assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Curry stepped into the middle of this and started engaging some of the skeptics.

with me preferring the follow the source more closely and jps arguing to change the wording from that in the source. But this has now apparently been resolved by using different words and sources so the question seems moot. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I think this is about the wider issue of how we generally deal with this issue.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
My own view is that it's not possible to give a hard and fast rule on this question (note also the comment by PackMecEng above) which is why I prefer to follow the sources in each case. Of course there's another argument about which sources should be used, but when a single source is under discussion then we should just do what it does or not use that source at all. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
The fact that all the styled "climate change skeptics" are climate change deniers is not really up for debate. jps (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
But that is not the case, so yes, it is up for debate. Are we being cereal right now? PackMecEng (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
You do not decide whether that is the case or not. Reliable sources decide that. Read our article Climate change denial to find out what they say.
Climate change skeptics have died out decades ago; only deniers are left. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I tend to go by sources, heck one is listed above. To say there are no skeptics left only deniers is flat out ridiculous. PackMecEng (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
PackMecEng, no, it's true. But journalistic sources are more deferential to the both sides" bullshit. Guy (help!) 22:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Ah so sources recognize skeptic is not the same as denial but we know the Truth™. Got it!Face-wink.svg PackMecEng (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
PackMecEng, not as such, no. Our article titles reflect the scientific consensus. Journalists... not so much. Guy (help!) 22:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Jonathan A Jones, deniers is the more accurate here. You'll note that climate change skepticism is a redirect. Guy (help!) 22:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

A reasonable approach for the example at the top of this section would be to go with what the AP style guide says to do: "To describe those who don’t accept climate science or dispute the world is warming from man-made forces, use climate change doubters or those who reject mainstream climate science. Avoid use of skeptics or deniers." source Obviously still pipe the link to Climate change denial.

Before After
Curry is known both for her emphasis on scientific outreach in general and for her willingness to communicate with climate change deniers in particular. Curry is known both for her general emphasis on scientific outreach and for her willingness to communicate with people who reject climate science.

~Awilley (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC) Note: edited to remove the word "mainstream" from "mainstream climate science" for brevity ~Awilley (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not part of Associated Press, Wikipedia is not part of the press in general, and we do not use journalist false balance here.
Instead, we go to scientific sources when scientific sources are available. See WP:SOURCE.
In this case, scientific sources are available, and therefore we use those. The scientific sources say it is "denial", and the journalistic sources can go fuck themselves. End of story. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
@Awilley: Charming right? PackMecEng (talk) 04:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
@Hob Gadling: Sorry, you lost me at "false balance". Are you saying that people who reject climate science ≠ climate change deniers? Would the phrase people who reject the scientific consensus on climate change resolve your concerns? We have our own Manual of Style and it favors clear direct descriptions over contentious labels. Labeling someone a "denier" might feel satisfying, but it might be more helpful to readers to use straightforward language that describes what the deniers are actually doing (i.e. rejecting science). ~Awilley (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Not "≠". But it is too long and not the common term used in science. There is a reason you had to write [[climate change denial|who reject mainstream climate science]]: the article is called that because the phenomenon is called that.
People who reject Second World War history, people who reject biological science and people who reject orthodox geography, we call Holocaust deniers, Creationists and Flat Earthers. Those are the common terms. Actually, you will find users in the archives of Talk:Holocaust denial who have exactly the same problem with the term "Holocaust denial" as you people have with "climate change denial" - they think it is a contentious label. But we use the common term.
And you do not need to convince just me, but practically everybody who is familiar with the subject. And that includes the people who write the reliable sources our articles are based on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
If length is an issue it can be shortened, for instance, by removing the word "mainstream". I'd note that the article is titled "Climate change denial" (which is undoubtedly the correct title) not "Climate change deniers" (a label for people who engage in the denial). And with the other examples you gave, when you're writing about actual people it is also more encyclopedic to write straightforward prose rather than slap a label on someone.
Awilley, point of order: she's not known for scientific outreach., She's known for enabling climate change deniers. I doubt if anybody much has heard of her for any other reason. Guy (help!) 08:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Label Description
"So-and-so is a Flat Earther" "So-and-so promotes flat earth conspiracy theories"
"So-and-so was put on administrative leave because he was a Holocaust denier So-and-so was put on administrative leave for teaching Holocaust denial.
~Awilley (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
In general, this is how we handle a lot of the text in Wikipedia articles including the one that started this ludicrous discussion. The problem is we have users who absolutely refuse to let the term climate change denial in any declension show up in articles. Almost as if they take personal offense. jps (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Nothing is as black and white as you describe. Deniers are always skeptics but skeptics are not always deniers. PackMecEng (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
@PackMecEng:, I don't think that is true. A lot of deniers are well aware that the science contradicts their position. If you look at the documentation from some industry archives, you will find people who have been entirely cynical in promoting denialism purely to protect profits. Some deniers are also pseudoskeptics, pretending to be skeptical but in fact merely promoting a precocnived view - rather like vaccine "skeptics". Guy (help!) 08:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I can see where you are coming from that it is more nuanced. Going more into the reasons and motivations more than a yes or no aspect. In broad strokes I do not think it is far off though. The question seems to be what kind of denier or skeptic and why they hold that position. I moved your comment up to get the indents back in order, I hope you do not mind PackMecEng (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Go tell that to Naomi Oreskes and her colleagues. They will doubtless be impressed with your reasoning, and they will immediately change their writings accordingly. Wikipedia will soon follow because WP:SOURCE. Until then, bye. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I take that to mean you have no actual argument? Fair enough. Toodles! PackMecEng (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I used that actual argument several times now. You just did not listen. The argument is WP:SOURCE. Wikipedia follows the sources.
But if you want an outside-of-Wikipedia reason: here goes.
Climate change deniers are market fundamentalists: they believe that the free market will always do the right thing. This ideology is conclusively refuted by the fact of anthropogenic climate change: the market failed to do the right thing in a really bad way. Since they are fundamentalists, they cannot accept the demise of their dogma, so they have to deny the fact. And indeed: follow the denialist reasoning to its source, and it will always be a free-market think tank such as Competitive Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute, or another inhabitant of Category:Libertarian think tanks. Add the Koch brothers, the fossil fuel industry, and other similar money sources for whom deceiving the public is a profitable investment, add Fox and a few bloggers and other mouthpieces, add the GOP and other henchmen, add Trump and other conspiracy theorists, add all those homo oeconomicus wannabes who are interested in their own short-term-profits and not in future generations, add a few market fundamentalists who happen to have science degrees, to lend the whole thing an academic facade, if not much actual understanding, and you get the denial industry. They have the motive, they have the opportunity, and they left their fingerprints everywhere.
Science does not come into it, science is their enemy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
The image and personal commentary aren't helpful here. ~Awilley (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Do go on about the giant conspiracy. PackMecEng (talk) 19:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng says, "tu quoque". User:ජපස (talkcontribs - 14:05, April 6, 2020
]]
This is not a conspiracy theory. First, it is not a conspiracy between all these people, they just all suffer from the same ignorance-selfconfidence-ideology combination and spread the same false rumors they copy from each other (echo chamber). Second, there is actual evidence for who spreads which lies, which you would know if you were familiar with the subject. Read Merchants of Doubt before mouthing off about subjects you do not understand. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
before mouthing off about subjects you do not understand Says the ranting conspiracy theorist. I cannot tell if you are serious or trolling. Either way I think we are done here with your nonsense. PackMecEng (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC) Stuck comment. PackMecEng (talk) 02:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Hob Gadling has been very clear in his explanation of the WP:MAINSTREAM understanding of this subject. That you disagree with him and call him a conspiracy theorist looks like classic projection to me. jps (talk) 14:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that is how it is, obviously. Obviously, to every single one of the regulars here, the deniers are the tinfoil hat wearers, not the scientists. See, for example, Global warming conspiracy theory. The connection between market fundamentalism and climate change denial is a well established fact, not a conspiracy theory. But the problem is that anti-science users like PackMecEng have a far higher opinion of their own opinion than of reliable sources, and this one, like many other pro-lunacy editors, has consistently ignored every single link to articles where he could have learned something. This is the Fringe theories noticeboard, and pretty much everybody here knows more about loons and their tricks, about conspiracy theories, and about denialism than you, profringe editor, ever will. You are not fooling anyone, profringe editor. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
@PackMecEng: You said above, "Deniers are always skeptics but skeptics are not always deniers." I think that lacks nuance. Deniers are not always skeptics in the context of scientific skepticism. I think the quote from the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry sums it up better. "Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics." ~Awilley (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I see so instead of Deniers are always skeptics but skeptics are not always deniers you would go with Deniers are not always skeptics and skeptics are not always deniers? PackMecEng (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

That's technically true but not very helpful here. I think the quote in my previous comment is more relevant. So given the binary choice in this section header of "denier" vs. "skeptic", "denier" is probably the better word because it's less misleading. But the point I'm trying to make above is that it doesn't need to be binary. ~Awilley (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, it is never an always X kind of thing which I was trying to illustrate. PackMecEng (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Your philosophizing is worthless and meaningless. Again: We use reliable sources. You are just two random guys on the internet, and you can publish your opinions wherever you want. But! Not! On! Wikipedia! Because! Wikipedia! Uses! Reliable! Sources!
Why don't you understand that simple concept? Is it because, as I said above, "Since they are fundamentalists, they cannot accept the demise of their dogma"? --Hob Gadling (talk)
Hob Gadling, maybe take it down a notch. You make it sound like anyone who disagrees with you is stupid or evil. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 14:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Levivich I think by only identifying one person here you are missing the problematic WP:POVPUSH that PackMecEng is encouraging. Does that not bother you at all? jps (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I already took it down two notches from my original wording idea, and the result is "profringe editor". I am being very generous here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Another thing: Read WP:PROFRINGE. The vast majority of profringe editors is neither stupid nor evil, and WP:PROFRINGE does not say they are. They are just people who hold positions contradicted by science, and they think that their opinion is better supported by facts than the scientists, which just takes stubbornness and ignorance. I never thought that "profringe editor" was an insult, just a description of specific behaviour.
Climate change denial is a subject which has been thoroughly promoted by the denial industry, and as a result, it is very popular in the general public - but not in the climatology community because they recognize bad reasoning within their own expertise. Therefore, climate change denial is one of those cases for which WP:SOURCE was made: a case where journalistic sources have, in average, much lower quality than scientific sources, because the people who wrote the former are part of a population that has been misinformed, and the people who wrote the latter are part of a population that has not. So, those users who claim that the existence of climate change, human-made climate change or a scientific consensus about both, is an open question and that people can stand on any of the sides in that "controversy" and still be reasonable and knowledgeable, and want that opinion in Wikipedia articles are profringe editors, although they do not know it. Astrologers and flat-earthers know that science is not on their side, but thanks to the denialist echo chamber, those people do not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


  • Skeptic = heretic, denier = infidel. Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I see what you did there, you heathen! PackMecEng (talk) 19:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


I do not care about HIM!, SHE! or THEY! If you do take it their talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

convenience break[edit]

PackMecEng, Think of the bell curve. Virtually all current scientists with relevant expertise lie within the 95% confidence interval. Reviews of recently published papers have found, essentially, nothing currently being publsihed in the professional literature that falls outside a pretty tight range of agreement. Those predicting the lowest values withint hat group are nto skeptics and do not describe themselves as such; those who predict near the top are not alarmists, Those who describe themselves as skeptics are - with, as far as I can tell, no well-known exceptions - (a) not professionals in the field; (b) not publishing in the professional literature, or (c) funded by the fossil fuel lobby (or in some cases more than one of these).

I have yet to see a case of anyone who has gone into the science with an open mind and decided the predictions are wrong (which is what skepticism means). Virtually all of them have philosophical or financial reasons for not wanting the science to be true, and have worked from there. Guy (help!) 17:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

See I think that is where we differ. To me a denier is someone who says nope its not happening in the face of all reason and evidence. That it is a hoax and whatnot. A skeptic is more a long the lines of someone that, within the bell curve as you put it, can disagree with what actions to take, what the effects will be, and what will happen as a result. (You still have no said if you call yourself a skepticFace-wink.svg) PackMecEng (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure this really is what skepticism actually means. In my view, skeptics hold that the case has not yet been proven to be true, whereas deniers hold that the case has been proven to not be true. Skeptics are still open to possible future data tilting the balance either way, but deniers are adamant that the case is closed. I don't know who Curry is willing to engage with, but probably she is engaging with some of each? Possibly her objective is to engage with everyone, irrespective of where they fall based on the above definitions? Open-mindedness is a big part of science, so where should the cut-off line be drawn?
Curry is a decorated scientist, and the article already states that she does not herself deny anthropogenic global warming, but is opposed to the "tribal nature" of the current debate. We seem to be seeing some of that tribalism here too. Perhaps Wikipedia should be extra careful about neutral tone here, and maybe change the sentence to read: "although 95% of recently published scientific papers hold that climate change is both man-made and a looming crisis, Curry is willing to engage with climate change skeptics." My $0.02. Wdford (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Wdford, no, she's willing to pander to deniers. She's not engaging in the scientific debate, she's publishing outside of scientific discourse, and in doing so, giving aid and succour tothe last gasp of fossil fuel funded dneialism. Guy (help!) 20:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
"Pandering" is a very loaded word. Furthermore, Curry does not seem to be denying global warming per se, but she is seemingly contesting the projections etc. Projections can never be certain, so this is hardly pseudoskepticism. The distinction between skepticism and pseudoskepticism is one of intention, which can be difficult for external parties to identify objectively. Wdford (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
So she believes in microevolution but not macroevolution. Because of gaps in the fossil record. You can never be certain that species evolve from other species. Etc. Etc. jps (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what this has to do with climate change? Please lets also remember WP:BLP. Wdford (talk) 11:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
The analogy seems clear to me. Pseudoscience is as pseudoscience does. Anyone else confused? jps (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
PackMecEng, denialism is a form of motivated reasoning, and that is exactly what is going on here. Skepticism is the default in the scientific method: the burden of proof lies with the person making a claim. But every competent professional has, by now, acknowledged that this burden has been met. All that's left is pseudoskepticism. Guy (help!) 20:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
That does not really address what I was saying. There is no firm agreement on the examples I brought up, just that it is happening and something needs to be done. To what extent and what should be done are still under discussion. PackMecEng (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
PackMecEng, sure, but climate change "skeptics" are not saying that, or at least are not within the realm of the consensus position (in that "nothing" is clearly not an acceptable answer to what should be done), and the evidence strongly suggests that few, if any, are arguing in good faith. Guy (help!) 17:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
If that can be proven that moves them to denier. Though that is hard to prove. PackMecEng (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
PackMecEng, actually it's very easy. If they have taken money from any conservative think tank or made money appearing in the conservative media bubble, they are a denier. If they restrict their activities to the professional literature, they are a skeptic. Guy (help!) 20:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng I'm sorry, by what standard are you making these demarcations? A citation would be nice. jps (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Skepticism and denial are two different English words, with different accepted definitions. If scientists have started using them to mean the same thing, then you will need to provide reliable sources to that effect please. Wdford (talk) 11:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
The sources are clear. Climate change skepticism, you will see, redirects to climate change denial. They are synonyms. jps (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
That argument is debunked above. The discussion that lead to that redirect specifically denied that it meant skepticism = denial.[4] PackMecEng (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Awilley can you come get your climate change denier here? jps (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
@Wdford: See what happens when you call them on repeatedly misrepresenting the facts? Like I said this has been discussed by many people many times and all found the same result. PackMecEng (talk) 14:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
You had JzG explain to you the problem and yet you don't seem to have learned the lesson. I encourage you to take several seats. jps (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Again misrepresenting what happened. Me and Guy were talking about the concepts. What you were falsely presenting as facts is past community concensus. There is of course a difference. Also really, have a seat? What does that even mean? PackMecEng (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
ජපස, no need to rope me into this, I think, PackMecEng and I are converging on common ground. Guy (help!) 20:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm glad you think so, but it does not appear that way from the discussions below. The problem is that at the rhetorical level there is a difference between "denial" and "skepticism" as concepts/words, but when we talk about the subjects of climate change skepticism and climate change denial, as they are seen in our world, there does not appear to be a single "climate change skeptic" who is not a denier. The best you can do is point to people like Richard Lindzen who steadfastly maintain that they are not "skeptics" and that instead they explicitly deny that the scientific consensus on climate change is correct. So there are are deniers who reject the skeptic label. I have asked for an example of one person who embraces the "climate change skeptic" label who is not part of this denial machine. No one has been able to point to such a person. jps (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

That you continue to double down on your propagandistic WP:ADVOCACY is appalling. We have showed you sources. We have pointed out the specific problems with your rhetoric. And still you seem to think that there is some sort of demarcation between climate change skeptics and climate change deniers based on, what exactly? I assume it is your own fantasies at this point. jps (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Please accept community concensus. PackMecEng (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
What?! The community consensus is clear. Climate change skepticism redirects to climate change denial. It's as simple as that. jps (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
This is getting to ididnthearthat territory. Read the closing statement for that discussion that created that redirect. I even quoted it to you above. PackMecEng (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I already explained to you that in spite of two words being different, you cannot use Awilley's off-handed comment about two words being different to declare that climate change skepticism is different from climate change denial when we have the preponderance of sources saying they are the same thing. It's as clear as that and there is nothing more to be said. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT indeed! jps (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Listen, if you want to have a discussion on the overall meaning of the two and all that, fine. If you want to say the result of this discussion means community consensus is skepticism = denial even though the closing statement says the opposite then you are wrong. PackMecEng (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

You've already been shown to be wrong, so we're done here. If you continue to push this view in article space, I will ask for a topic ban at WP:AE. jps (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Venn diagram. Left: People who identify as "climate change skeptics" Right: People engaging in climate change denial[citation needed]

@PackMecEng: The community consensus that matters here is a clear community consensus that the term climate change denial is preferred over climate change skepticism. There is evidence of that consensus both here and in the redirect discussion for climate change skepticism → climate change denial. Of course the words denial and skepticism don't mean the same thing. They're different words. And although the full terms also technically have different meanings, the term skeptic is usually misapplied as many have pointed out. A majority of the people who call themselves "climate change skeptics" are misusing the word because climate change skepticism implies scientific skepticism and that is not what is going on. The Venn diagram to the right allows for a sliver of people who are genuinely skeptical but who aren't engaging in denial. Or maybe it's not a sliver...maybe the true "climate change skeptics" are the "climate change scientists" because a good scientist is always skeptical. That this reversal works further illustrates why the term climate change skepticism should be avoided. I can sympathize with your distaste for what might feel like a rabid push to brand anybody who has ever expressed any doubt about any aspect of climate change as a "denier", but I don't think continuing this discussion the way you are is helpful.

@ජපස: In fairness I should point out that it is a flawed argument that the existence of the climate change skepticism → climate change denial redirect proves that the terms mean the same thing. There are a plethora of counterexamples for that...Arsenic mining is clearly not the same thing as Arsenic the element, yet the redirect Arsenic mining → Arsenic exists. ~Awilley (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just pointing out it was a wrong argument not based on facts that a redirect means anything, especially given the discussion that was had at the time. So we agree it sounds like. I appreciate your personal drawing though, its cute. PackMecEng (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Citation needed, Awilley. Is this original research? All the sources I've seen indicate that there really aren't any self-styled "climate change skeptics" who are not in the "denial" category (in other words, I cannot think of a single person in the blue sliver on your diagram). What sources do you have which indicate that your Venn diagram is correct? jps (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
@ජපස: The Venn diagram reflects this quote from Climate_change_denial#Terminology In December 2014, an open letter from the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry called on the media to stop using the term "skepticism" when referring to climate change denial. They contrasted scientific skepticism—which is "foundational to the scientific method"—with denial—"the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration"—and the behavior of those involved in political attempts to undermine climate science. They said "Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics. The bolded part directly supports the Venn diagram. (Although admittedly the diagram would be more accurate if the circles were closer to the same size to reflect the "virtually all" bit.) ~Awilley (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I've read that six-year-old piece. If I knew of one person to whom that description applied, I would be happy to entertain this as an option. As far as I know, there is none who do, to the point that reliable sources that lovingly detail so-called "climate skepticism" only discuss denialist talking points. We have had this discussion a lot: there is no one in that little blue sliver. jps (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Awilley At this point I think this discussion has reached its useful end. Shall we close this now? PackMecEng (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Either admit the blue sliver is a null set or identify a single person who occupies that space. Then we can close. jps (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I'd offer up Judith Curry, but I already know what the response will be - in classic No True Scotsman fashion she will promptly be labeled a "denier" by you, as will any other name that I or Awilley or PackMecEng will propose. There no arguing with a True Beleiver. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Or, you know, we might look at what reliable sources say about Curry's denial? The fact is that these two ideas have been synonymous for sometime or, at the very least, the "self-styled skeptics" are all part of the denial-sphere. Curry denies basic facts about climate change up to the point that she no longer even engages in peer review. She fell down the rabbit hole, and we have the sources that show it. What do you have, speaking of "true believers"? jps (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
You didn't actually read that article, did you? Let me highlight for you the parts you missed: "Curry (2014), a professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology, does not dispute climate change " But like I said, No True Scotsman etc... JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
And you didn't read climate change denial, did you? Not all deniers deny that the climate is changing. They just deny aspects of the scientific consensus on climate change. Try to keep up. jps (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Circular reasoning - climate change denial was written by you and people like you, to reflect the above view point. But let's try to put the shoe the other foot, shall we? I think we can agree that at a purely logical theoretical level, since skepticism is not the same as denial , there could be some people in the silver-blue area. What, according to you, would be the defining characteristics of someone in that sector? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Lol! By claiming that Wikipedia's article is wrong, you have completely umasked yourself as an WP:ACTIVIST. The issue we have here is that climate change skepticism has simply been co-opted by ideologues as a term. They are part of the denialist machine. Wikipedia has recognized this status quo for years now. jps (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I am not an activist, and don't need to be unmasked, and if we're descending to that level , the same can be said of you. But I asked you a question, and would like an answer: What, according to you, would be the defining characteristics of someone in that blue-silver set? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Your edit history speaks for itself. I honestly do not think there is anyone in that blue sliver. What would their defining characteristic be? Well, they would call themselves "skeptics" but not deny the fundamental points that are included in scientific consensus on climate change. I don't know anyone who fits that definition. If we were having this discussion years ago, Richard Muller might have fit that description, but no longer. He doesn't meaningfully object to any of the consensus points. jps (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
As does your edit history speak for itself with regard to your status as an WP:ACTIVIST who is unmasked - I suggest you drop the name calling and labeling, as stick to arguments. So you don't think there could be anyone in the blue silver set (not is, could be)? What aspect of current consensus could one legitimately question or challenge without being a denier, in your view? It seems to me that your view is that the moment you challenge anything which is in current consensus, regardless of the merits of your challenge, you are automatically a a "denier". JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not interested in hypotheticals. If someone can point to one example of someone who is in that sliver, I would be fine with this. In spite of the the claims of the right wing, there are plenty of skeptical disagreements within the climate change literature. The arguments happen all the time. They are not outside the bounds of our article on scientific consensus on climate change, crucially, and because of the politicization of the term, not a one of those scientists would call themselves "climate change skeptics". Like it or lump it, the denial machine has simply engulfed this term and co-opted it to the point that it is a poison pill. You can wail and gnash teeth as much as you want about this, but that's the situation. We aren't here to right great wrongs. Go to Conservapedia if that's what you want to do. jps (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, tobacco industry playbook. Deny there's a problem, then, when the problem becomes undeniable, deny the scale and consequences. Guy (help!) 20:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
If you have no substantial reply, kindly stay out of this. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, so are you denying that the oil industry uses the tobacco playbook? Before you go there, check out the history of professional denialists like Fred Singer. Guy (help!) 14:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
No, I'm saying that regardless of what oil industry is doing, that comment is unresponsive to my question, a Red Herring intended to divert and hijack the discussion. Either answer my question, or stay out of it. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • The Conversation (website), which is listed green at WP:RSP, published "Climate sceptic or climate denier? It’s not that simple and here’s why" in 2019 (links in the original):

    Several papers with reliable methodology unchallenged in the literature show an enormous majority of climate scientists agree that the planet is warming and humans are largely responsible.

    But contrary positions are not unknown. Some questions regarding the credibility of some aspects of climate models, for example, exist for some working academics.

    While these scientists do not necessarily doubt all aspects of climate science, issues of reliability of methodology and validity of conclusions in some areas remain, for them, alive.

    Whether they are correct or not (and many have been responded to in the literature), they are at least working within the broad norms of academia. We might call these people “climate sceptics”.

    * * *

    In summary, three categories of climate science disbelief are: sceptic, agnostic and denier. Three subdivisions of deniers are: naive, conspiracists and opportunists.

    Granted that's just one source, but it's reliable. – Levivich [dubious – discuss] 20:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
    The Conversation is only as reliable as the author. This author is not a scientist and it shows. The so-called "skeptic" that he refers to in this dubious article is Nicola Scafetta. Scafetta is consistently and without shame a member of the denialist machine: [5] jps (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
    Levivich, As noted above, Scafetta is a perfect example of a denialist. He is publishing outside his sphere of expertise (which is engineering), and doing so for money. Guy (help!) 20:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
    The Conversation article I linked/quote isn't written by Scafetta, it's written by Peter Ellerton, who is not publishing outside his area of expertise (critical thinking)
    Richard A. Muller: I draw a distinction between sceptics and deniers. The sceptics are people I respect – they have raised legitimate issues and, from my experience, are open minded. The deniers are people who start with a conclusion and only pay attention to the data that support it. I do think that our results could change the minds of some sceptics about the reality of global warming. [6].
    David Brin: Not every person who expresses doubt or criticism toward some part of this complex issue is openly wedded to the shrill anti-intellectualism of Fox News ... What traits distinguish a rational, pro-science "skeptic" — who has honest questions about the AGW consensus — from members of a Denier Movement that portrays all members of a scientific community as either fools or conspirators? After extensive discussions with many AGW doubters, I believe I have found a set of distinct characteristics that separate the two groups. [7]
    The point is: there are non-woo academics who believe the blue sliver in that venn diagram exists. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 20:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
    Ellerton is publishing outside his expertise. He is citing Scafetta as an example of a skeptic who isn't a denier. That's ludicrous. I am aware of Muller's distinctions, and largely think the world has moved way past this. As for Brin's distinctions, I have no idea who he is talking about. Do you know who he is talking about? He kinda claims that he is a climate change skeptic, but as far as I can tell that means that while he admits all the science is on the side that humans are causing global warming, he still doesn't think humans are causing global warming(?) which strikes me as straight-up denial. Am I missing something at the end of that piece? jps (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
    Levivich, What jps just said. A genuine skeptic is one who is publishing in the professional literature, and is not funded by the fossil fuel industry. Curry is publishing outside the professional literature and boosting those who are both publishing outside the literature and on the payroll of big oil. Guy (help!) 14:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
    She's published more than 100 peer-reviewed papers in relevant academic outlets, and is not on the payroll of the fossil fuel industry. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
    She admits to getting money from the fossil fuel industry: [8]. jps (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
    What that source says :

    '“I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry. My company…does [short-term] hurricane forecasting…for an oil company, since 2007. During this period I have been both a strong advocate for the IPCC, and more recently a critic of the IPCC, there is no correlation of this funding with my public statements.”"

    .
    Care to answer my question now, which I have asked 3 times now - What aspect of current consensus could one legitimately question or challenge without being a denier, in your view? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Let me try to be as clear as possible: It does not matter what I think is legitimate or illegitimate. The problem is that there aren't people who question the scientific consensus on climate change who reliable sources don't put in the category of global warming denial. Crucially, in spite of what it may feel like when we state the simple fact about the world as it is, I am not making any value judgement about the situation by stating this. The fact that, to a person, those who object to the consensus are all part of the climate change denial apparatus is just what we've got. jps (talk) 02:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

A few final observations:
  • Using phrases like "climate change denial apparatus" sounds like you are ranting about an apocalyptic conspiracy. I'm sure Wikipedia can find better wording.
  • We aren't in article space here. Sorry that this upsets you so much. jps (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  • DeSmogBlog is run by a PR company, and they openly brag about their POV, so they are hardly a reliable source.
  • Did you find any mistakes in their list? jps (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Do you have actual citations for the claim that everyone who does not adhere to the consensus is branded by every reliable source as a denier rather than a skeptic?
  • Already provided. jps (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm sure that WP:BLP is relevant here too.
Wdford (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Actually, no. WP:BLP is policy, that applies everywhere (talk pages included). WP:CRYBLP is someone's personal musings. It does not apply here, or anywhere except the author's page. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
It applies here, puppet. jps (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't, young grasshopper, but thanks for playing. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 03:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
The fact that climate change deniers in the past have used BLP as a cover to claim that we couldn't identify deniers like Curry in discussion is well-trodden ground. We can and will identify deniers like Curry in discussion. What we do in articlespace (and how) is another matter. This is why WP:CRYBLP exists. jps (talk) 11:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Remember that WP:CRYBLP is an WP:ESSAY. By constrast the need to avoid WP:SYN is a WP:POLICY. Please do not make statements about named individuals which are not backed up by explicit sourcing which does not require synthesis to reach the conclusions you are trying to support. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Pretending that we haven't provided sources that explicitly label Curry as part of the denialist machine is either WP:IDHT or it is WP:POVPUSH. Either way, not becoming. jps (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Our own article on Judith Curry shows it and we have plenty of sources which identify climate denial machine. I think we're fine here. jps (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

That article contains some very carefully chosen phrases, which were chosen explicitly to be well referenced and avoid WP:SYN. She isn't called a "denier" there, despite the wishes of some of the more enthusiastic and less thoughtful editors, precisely because there weren't reliable sources supporting that specific characterisation. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
No, she's not "called" a "denier" there because it's not necessary for the text. The text makes it clear that she's a denier. If you don't think it does, I think it's just your own comprehension issues. jps (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • The usual wording is "climate change denial industry". You should really read the literature, starting with "Merchants of Doubt", before taking sides here. And yes: accepting denialists as "skeptics" is taking their side, because that is all they want: making the facts seem less factual by pretending there are still disagreements within science about the basic questions of "is climate change happening" and "is is caused by us".
  • "Their POV" is identical with the scientific consensus. It is like "bragging about" having the POV that the Shroud of Turin is fake - the situation is pretty much the same: The facts are clear, it's just that some people will not accept them. You, Wdford, know that the Shroud is fake and that all objections can easily be proved wrong because you have looked at the data. Other people here know the same about climate change because they have looked at those data.
  • This is not about "every reliable source". It is about scientific reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Struck comments by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 19:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


The discussion is continuing at [9]

Grover Furr[edit]

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

Not a historian, pretends to be one, but is a "revisionist", not a pseudohistorian. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he's not actually notable, and put this up for AFD a few years ago. What he does have is a huge following amongst his fellow Stalinists. So expect mountains of special pleading and personal attacks - David Gerard (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Can't stop reading this as Grover Hfuhruhurr . Guy (help!) 22:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that's how "Furr" is pronounced. By some. From now on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I would suggest doing another notability check, and checking every single reference, and AFD if warranted - David Gerard (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I put him in Category:Historical revisionism, and put that category in Category:Pseudohistory (before, it was the other way around), so the categorization is OK now. People who look for pseudohistorians can find him. --Hob Gadling (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Isn't that confusing Historical revisionism with Historical negationism? Grover Furr aside, revisionism isn't necessarily pseudohistory signed, Rosguill talk 02:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
It seemed right to me at the time. Are there any historians here who know the right relation between those terms? Is historical negationism a subset of historical revisionism? --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
The first line of Historical negationism says Historical negationism, also called denialism, is a distortion of the historical record. It is often imprecisely referred to as historical revisionism, but that term also applies to legitimate academic reinterpretations of the historical record that diverge from previously accepted views. signed, Rosguill talk 03:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Furr's a Holodomor denialist, so definitely belongs in some combination of both of these if he's to be in Wikipedia at all - David Gerard (talk) 11:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
"Holodomor denialist" is not what Furr is, he simply denies it was genocide. This is a very common opinion among historians as there is no historical consensus on the matter.Jorge1777 (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC) strike sock-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Minimisation - which he does, hard - counts as denial. Compare holocaust minimisation as a variety of holocaust denial, to which holodomor denial is very closely analogous. Furr's track record on this score is extensive. He's well into the fringe - David Gerard (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Use whatever word you want but the pertinent point is that you're either not very familiar with Soviet historiography, not familiar with Furr's work or a combination of both. All Furr has actually done is deny that the famine was intentional which is a widely accepted and mainstream historical opinion.Jorge1777 (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)strike sock-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
[10] The “Holodomor” is a myth. Never happened. But if you don't want to believe Furr's own statements of his own views, there you go - David Gerard (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Being unfamiliar with the literature you are confusing 'Ukrainian famine' with 'Holodomor'. The etymology of the term 'Holodomor' suggests the famine was intentional (it means to kill by starvation) so when Furr calls it a myth he's simply saying it was not intentional.Jorge1777 (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)strike sock-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Right now those two categories are a mess; at a glance, few if any of the articles listed in Category:Historical revisionism are not examples of Category:Historical negationism. I feel a bit out of my depth trying to fix up categories as I've done very little work in this area, but part of me wonders whether we even need a separate category for Historical revisionism––anecdotally, academics who do productive revisionist work are just known as historians, not "revisionist historians" or "historical revisionists". It could be that the only articles that truly belong in that category are Historical revisionism and Historical negationism. signed, Rosguill talk 22:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Category:Climate change denial - subcats[edit]

A user has made a denialists category, then added subcats for countries, then noticed that this may be contentious: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 22#Category:Climate change denialists

Opinions about that? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Didn't we already have this discussion for Category:Climate change deniers? Is there a categorical benefit to identifying specific people as deniers in this fashion? jps (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
A few times apparently. It was deleted here and then a RFC here just 9 months ago reaffirmed it. PackMecEng (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
This is about subdividing the denial cat into countries or not. Sorry I didn't make that clearer. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

As expected, the new categories have been deleted, with the consequence that Category:Climate change denial has been depleted. I have reinstated the category to a few articles where it clearly belongs and made a list of the remaining now-not-categorized-in-it-any-more articles in Category talk:Climate change denial. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

For the last few days, Category talk:Climate change denial has been about whether any biographies should be included in the category. The usual users interested in preventing such things are heaping on me, and I am starting to lose my cool. I will take a break from that now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Bates method[edit]

Past discussions on Bates method:

I believe Wikipedia and Belteshazzar (talk · contribs) would be better off if Belteshazzar were banned from the topic. I wanted to some eyes on the article and other viewpoints on Belteshazzar's behavior before going to ArbEnf.

Belteshazzar started a discussion here, Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_69#Bates_method_sources.

@Jmc: has attempted to get Belteshazzar to discuss edits before making changes, to little or no effect.

My recent attempts to work with Belteshazzar (User_talk:Belteshazzar#May_2020, User_talk:Belteshazzar#Edit-warring, and the current article talk page) have left me with the conclusion that Belteshazzar is unable to work cooperatively with others on this subject. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The current issue concerns listing well-known (enough to have their own biographical articles on Wikipedia) proponents of the Bates method in the Infobox's list of proponents. Seems pretty obvious that they should be listed there, unless it's someone like Daniel A. Poling, whose public support was perhaps fleeting. Belteshazzar (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
E/C I saw IRWolfie on that trip down memory lane. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 20:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: previously commentd [11]Belteshazzar, the primary issue is your tendentious editing at the Bates Method article. I am minded to topic-ban or partial block here. What do others think? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Blocked 31h for edit warring, and I am up for a topic ban if that has general support. Guy (help!) 22:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • In 18.5 years of WP editing, I have never before encountered such an obsessively single-minded editor. Belteshazzar does not play well with others. A topic ban would be to everyone's benefit. -- Jmc (talk) 09:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

My biggest shortcoming involved the article's first sentence. "The Bates method is an ineffective alternative therapy aimed at improving eyesight" seemed not to quite reflect decent sources which indicate that such training does sometimes result in measurable improvement, albeit which is usually temporary and not due to any change in refraction. For example, [12] by Elwin Marg, and [13] from The College of Optometrists. I tried several different alternatives, first changing "ineffective" and then qualifying it somewhat. I now see that I went on too long with that, and the opening sentence is not likely to change.

Other than that, I think my contributions to the article have been positive. I have fixed some disjointedness, and removed redundancy and excess verbiage. I think the section on "Possible reasons for claimed improvements" has now been trimmed too thin and neglects the biggest reasons for claimed improvements, but if consensus disagrees, that is that.

The most recent issue concerns the proponents listed in the Infobox. If an author or practitioner has strongly supported the Bates method and is notable enough to have a biographical article in Wikipedia, that person would seem to belong on any list of proponents. I tried to discuss this, and got no clear explanation for the removal. My last edit was probably too quick, but at least provided an explanation in the edit summary after my previous lack of an edit summary was noted. Belteshazzar (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe the Infobox proponents list issue has been resolved. It turns out that many instances of that template don't include subsequent or even any proponents. Perhaps this could be prominently noted in the template somehow to save others the trouble. Belteshazzar (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that Eliot source contradicts the idea that the Bates method is "ineffective". It attributes the alleged improvement to placebo effect and "blur adaptation".
Improvements from placebo effect don't count as an effective treatment, and, as I understand it, "blur adaptation" is not actually a result of the Bates method, it's simply a thing that happens if you don't wear your glasses.
(I guess you could argue that "don't wear your glasses" is part of the Bates method, but if that's the only part of the method that provides a benefit, it's a real stretch to say the Bates Method is an effective innovation.) ApLundell (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
And just so we're clear, The "benefit" we're talking about is this : Your vision will still be blurry, but you'll kinda get used to functioning with blurry vision.
Stripped of its quackery, that's all that's left of the Bates Method.
"Ineffective" is being kind. Changing that to "Ineffective, discredited, and dangerous" would be an improvement to the lead.
ApLundell (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
While we're at it, the article William_Bates_(physician) is also rather kind, saying only that "efficacy of the method is questionable".
ApLundell (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I acknowledged that the first sentence of Bates method likely won't change and I went on too long with that. But since you made these points, let me point to the other source I mentioned, by Elwin Marg. Some people will attack the date, but if "flashes of clear vision" happened then, presumably they can still happen now. Marg indicated that these flashes did not simply happen randomly, and were in fact associated with Bates training. Discussion of such flashes has been removed from the "Possible reasons for claimed improvements" section, wrongly in my opinion. Belteshazzar (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
A seventy year old monograph relaying a handful of anecdotes and lamenting that they couldn't be properly studied is perhaps not a rock solid source.
I mean, if the Bates Method had been definitively proven back in 1952, the age of the studies wouldn't be an issue. People knew eyeballs back then. But the conclusion of this monograph is simply that the method "can not be dismissed entirely". That'd be too weak to use as a source in a medical article if it was published last month, and the fact that it's the most flattering thing published about the Bates Method in the last seventy years is a lot more damning than you seem to understand. ApLundell (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
It was not merely anecdotes, as pages 11-15 indicate that subjects were actually observed while having such flashes. I was simply saying that this merits some mention in Bates method#Possible reasons for claimed improvements. It could also be argued that "ineffective" should be changed or qualified in part because of this, but that is clearly not going to happen. Belteshazzar (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
If "observing subjects" is all you do, that is called a case report, a type of anecdotal evidence. So, yes, "a handful of anecdotes" is right. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Nevertheless, this phenomenon pretty clearly is a big reason for claimed improvements. Belteshazzar (talk) 09:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
There no way any of these transient side effects can be labelled "improvements". Alexbrn (talk) 10:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I said claimed improvements. There is a section of the article titled "Possible reasons for claimed improvements" which the aforementioned phenomenon is currently excluded from. Belteshazzar (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Edits by Belteshazzar[edit]

@Jmc:, @Alexbrn:, @Hob Gadling:, @ApLundell:

I am concerned about Belteshazzar's recent edits which I do not believe are good-faith based. This user originally joined Wikipedia to promote the Bates Method, he didn't get his way and now he has does a 360 degree turn and is doing the complete opposite. But I believe this is a form of WP:DISRUPT and WP:POINT.

We all agree the Bates method is discredited but adding "which Huxley wrongly claimed improved his eyesight" is bizarre [14], [15]. He is now also calling Corbett a "charlatan" which is not sourced [16]. He is now doing that on multiple articles [17], [18]. This is problematic editing which some may consider vandalism.

This user is now adding Huxley's non-fiction book The Art of Seeing to Fiction lists [19] [20]. I do not believe these are good faith edits.

If someone wants to take this to the correct avenue I would support a topic ban for this user. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted some of his edits. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
This does indeed savour of their being WP:NOTHERE. Alexbrn (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. El_C 12:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
El C, and I suggest this is the last chance saloon now. The combination of single-purpose account and disruptive editing is not a good one. Guy (help!) 12:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Guy, Already done. I've already specified in the block notice and log that this is a "last chance block." El_C 12:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
El C, top job, thanks. Guy (help!) 13:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm glad to see this block finally in place following remarkable forbearance shown by admins. The continual stream, not to say flood, of edits has been of a staggeringly bizarre character. -- Jmc (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Chronic fatigue syndrome[edit]

Chronic fatigue syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) A new editor (actually registered in 2014 I think but has <1000 edits and made almost no edits in the last couple of years) has been working on a total rewrite of the CFS article from the "myalgic encephalomyelitis" POV. This has looked like activist editing fomr the outset but yesterday he posted a loooooooong screed that makes it plain that yes, he is here to WP:RGW. Given the WP:OWNership of the content, his status as a WP:SPA, and his citing of activist groups like Action For ME as authorities, I suspect a topic ban may be necessary, but regardless, this is one persistent CPUSH and needs more eyes. Guy (help!) 10:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Sophia Mirza ‎[edit]

Sophia Mirza was the first of a tiny number of people in the UK to have CFS listed as a cause of death. The article was largely written from affiliated and activist sources; when those are removed there are only a couple of RS left. The text claimed that she was acutely sensitive to electromagnetic radiation and chemicals (massive red flags) and that relatives believed her mother was contributing to her condition - although this is claimed as final clinching proof that "ME" is a physical illness, this one case looks overwhelmingly psychological, but I can't find any dispassionate analysis that reviews the story in its entirety, only the couple of news items around the inquest finding.

Which leads me to ponder: is this actually a notable case? Guy (help!) 12:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Well there seem to be a least three RS, so yes it seems just about notable. Its rather complicated by there being (at least) 2 Sophia Mirza's.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
@JzG: There is also the pathologist's comment that she had ganglionitis that probably affected her spine. Not proof ME killed her, but something quite a lot more neurological than "overwhelmingly psychological". I had thought chronic fatigue syndrome was well accepted (if poorly understood) as physiological complaint - is this not so? GPinkerton (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
GPinkerton, Chronic fatigue syndrome is a diagnosis of exclusion, a catch-all for unexplained persistent fatigue. A small but vocal subgroup of activists insists that is is really "myalgic encephalomyelitis", though there is no pathological evidence that it is a form of encephalomyelitis. Moreover, they reject absolutely that there is any cause other than a form of encephalomyelitis, so attack with unmitigated savagery anybody who treats patients with palliative psychological interventions.
This girl was claimed to have "ME" and also electromagnetic sensitivity and multiple chemical sensitivity (both fake diseases). So very likely a strong psychological component in this case, possibly even Münchhausen's by proxy. Guy (help!) 08:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Wouldn't it just be Münchausen's? JoelleJay (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
@JzG: @JoelleJay: This is much too harsh. There is pathological evidence for neurological damage in this case! I don't think either Münchausen's nor "overwhelmingly psychological" complaints would lead to the ganglionitis identified in the post-mortem. As I say, it's not evidence for fatal CFS but definitely not a "fake disease" or "overwhelmingly psychological" like t'others in mentioned Mirza's case. I don't think the wider politics of diagnosis is very relevant to my point that Mirza had physiological damage from whatever she was suffering from and this is not a purely psychological case, howsoever the proponents or detractors of ME use the case. GPinkerton (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
GPinkerton I was just being pedantic about Münchausen's (it is distinct from Münchausen's by proxy), I wasn't commenting on whether it could be applied to Mirza. JoelleJay (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
GPinkerton, see my comment. There is no such thing as electromagnetic hypersensitivity. She undoubtedly had some kind of problems (she was sectioned at one point), but the presence of nocebo (MCS and EHS) suggests also serious problems. Guy (help!) 22:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
@JzG: I'm quite aware of that, but I'm not sure which is less credible: fatal CFS or fatal nocebo. The ME issue is not dependent on the electromagnetic hypersensitivity claim so I'm not sure why the non-existence of one condition affects the existence or aetiology of another purportedly neurological condition. (The WHO has labelled it neurological in 1969.) Obviously she/her mother made some dubious claims, but I don't think that has much bearing on the CFS diagnosis or the coroner's report and so on. There are a number of interesting letters published in the New Scientist after the initial article was published, one of which says that Sophia Mirza was not the first person to die of the condition in the UK; the correspondent's late wife had apparently had CFS entered by the coroner as cause of death in Wales in 2003. (Not picked up by the BBC report in 2018 about the "2nd" death. [21], which briefly mentions Mirza.) The NICE will publish their updated CFS/ME guidance in December this year, but the [22] (2007) guidance is ambivalent about the WHO's classification. Some background reading reveals ME was originally "benign myalgic encephalomyelitis" in the UK, then had the "benign" dropped and named CFS by the CDC in the late 1980s, and is since 2015 to glory under the name "systemic exertion intolerance disease" (SEID), since as you say encephalomyelitis is not supported by evidence. Take-up since 2015 of the SEID label has been slow, apparently. [23] GPinkerton (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
GPinkerton, I am familiar with the arguments on both sides, well beyond what I would ever have wanted to be, thanks to years of POV-pushing and BLP violations here by "ME" activists. You are missing the point, which is that an article on a girl with at least two fake diseases was used to assert the validity of a third, questionable one, primarily based on minority activist sources. Guy (help!) 12:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
There is also this Times article about Mirza's and Wilson's account. January 30, 2010, p. 29 (Yes it's copied on an ME advocacy website but I've checked the archive and it's a real article, I just can't find a working link to it.) GPinkerton (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

American Association of Nutritional Consultants[edit]

Should this have a DS alert on its talk page? There's also a cn tag. Doug Weller talk 14:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, it's the go-to source for accrediting your pets as nutritionists though. Whether it's better to consult a dead cat or TAPL is left as an exercise for the reader. Guy (help!) 22:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Bejan Daruwalla[edit]

Bejan Daruwalla (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Indian astrologer, died recently, of COVID-19 or something else (the IP jury is still out). I just had to delete a list of his right guesses again, but it will probably grow back. I am not sure if he is even notable - notability is not my field. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

My deletion of the facts that he is a great man, world-renowned and revered, has been reverted. I do not want the reverter to get the impression that opposing such epithets is just an idiosyncratic quirk of mine, which would happen if I reverted again, so I will not insist. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I reverted to the most recent version that looked halfway worthwhile, but I'm skeptical that the notability case is there. XOR'easter (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

New editor at Daniel Estulin[edit]

Goharrison (talk · contribs) has made 2 edits, increasingly NPOV (see [24]). I've reverted the first. Doug Weller talk 10:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Odd as in fact they have has an account for 10 years, just not active.Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Abhigya Anand[edit]

Abhigya Anand (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch knew it all last year, say sources from this year. I guess this sort of thing happens a lot now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources seem unusually credulous. Claims that someone used psychic powers to predict the current pandemic would fall under WP:EXTRAORDINARY. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
In all fairness they are not all that credulous a few just say he predicted some event. The real problem it seems to me is the puffery in the article. But I do wonder at how many of them are RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I actually created this article after seeing one of his YouTube video which was dated back in 2019 where he predicted some of the things but he didn't mention exactly the term coronavirus. I believe I maintained WP:NPOV and I never used terms with the intention of praising the child for his predictions in the article. I agree some sources raise potential doubts of whether they are abide by WP:RS. Abishe (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I thought it was standard in these types of articles to at least mention the entire topic is fringe? Are there any sources reporting on this that address the fact that astrology is hogwash? Also I am intrigued by the concept of "Ayurvedic microbiology"... JoelleJay (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
And there is the problem, he did not mention what is was (just some vague event), and gave a fairly big date range.Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Sigh... And here I had hoped earlier this year that we weren't going to need to discuss whether we need a WP:PRODIGY guideline. Should we start an RfC about those draft rules? I think they may have helped in this scenario. WP:SENSATION seems at work here as well. jps (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia[edit]

Article.[25] I enter information from book "Neighbors at War: Anthropological Perspectives on Yugoslav Ethnicity" from 2008 editet by Joel M. Halpern, David A. Kideckel and published by Pennsylvania State University Press. The editors wanted someone neutral on the issue and selected two American scholar which are Elinor Despalatovic[1] and Andrei Simić.[2] My edit is information from this source I quote: "According to the latest demographic studies and Elinor Despalatovic number of Serbs killed in the NDH is about 100,000 while according to Andrei Simić number is between 800,000 and one milion."

  • Deletion of this information by one editor is marked as (WP:FRINGE) and second reason is ("Figures are not supported by serious scholars and the general consensus. One is ridiculously low, the other ridiculously high."). My answer was ("number of 800,000 and one milion in the book has been proven with four sources of historian mentioned by Andrei Simić and clame that many others prove this(see Balen 1952; Martin 1946: 47-67; Paris 1961; Pridonoff 1955: 79, among many others, It is RS, they are not all together fringe sources ").
  • My opinion is that it is not (WP:FRINGE), Elinor Despalatovic claims that this number is from "latest demographic studies". Both two scholars have their claims in this RS and as additional information on the number of victims I think they should find their place in the article. Please tell me if this informations are Fringe theories or not. Thanks.Mikola22 (talk) 07:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Fringe as hell, not only fringe but forcing this source on a number of articles reflects that there is a point-scoring going on (!), and it may be seen as cherrypicking the sources as well. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
There is a general consensus regarding the number of Serbs killed in the NDH and that is ~300,000—350,000. This is cited by Balkan experts such as Tomasevich, Hoare, Ramet and others. Yeomans gives the lowest estimate at 200,000 and highest at 500,000. There is no value in including two figures which clearly deviate from the norm. Another issue is that the ones cited for the 800,000—1 million figure are non-experts who gave their figures shortly after the war when casualties by the Yugoslav government were exaggerated and have since been debunked by all serious historians. --Griboski (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Information from another source I quote: "There is little consensus on the total number of death."(Balkan Holocausts?: Serbian and Croatian victim centred propaganda and the war in Yugoslavia, page 161,162)[3] And in this book there are various claims of historians up to 750 thousand killed. Therefore something cannot be Fringe as hell if there is no final consensus among historians. Andrei Simić on the basis of four sources and many which are not quoted draws a conclusion about the number of dead, on the other hand Elinor Despalatovic based on its sources draws a conclusion. They are respected and neutral scholars, they draw conclusions in a book which is RS. Therefore something cannot be Fringe as hell if consensus does not exist and the sources prove numbers of both American scholars. Mikola22 (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Actually it can, if 3 experts say X and 999 experts say Y X is a fringe.Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, probably. Another issue: this work is a collection of essays and might intentionally be including works farther outside the mainstream. Mikola22, got any reviews of the collection or the particular chapter(s)? fiveby(zero) 21:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, based on just the subtitle and the introduction available at books there is good reason to consider fringe without other evidence. fiveby(zero) 22:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Review. @Fiveby: "MacDonald’s book offers a highly original interpretation of myths in Serbian and Croatian nationalism with an extensive bibliography based mainly on English-language and internet resources. The book provides thought-provoking and innovative research on significant political events spanning from the Second World War to the present day, emphasising the creation of myths and symbols in the tumultuous nationalism of Serbia and Croatia. MacDonald’s study is a welcome contribution to the broader analysis of nationalism in the Balkans and its particular case studies" (Lucian N. Leustean is a Research Student in the Department of Government at the London School of Economics and Political Science [4]I supposed that Elinor Despalatovic and Andrei Simić did not present myths but that they presented historical events from their point of view and based on their sources. I thought it was RS. Mikola22 (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Questions of reliability should not have an all-or-nothing answers. The editors of Neighbors at War are anthropologists, and the introduction leads me to believe they were trying to bring in and contrast a wide range of views. Simić is an anthropologist and Despalatovic likewise looks more involved in the basket weaving side of things. MacDonald in a political scientist and reporting secondhand the entire range of views. The context in which thing are said and in which they are published are important. For such content we should not be trying to cast as wide a net as possible, to have a range of X to Y given equal weight or bald statements of numbers by random scholars without context. Per the WP:FRINGE guideline we should look to the best sources, with the most rigorous standards and widest acceptance to present the mainstream view.
Because something is outside the mainstream does not mean that content must necessarily be excluded, but needs care in the crafting of content. The edits i've seen proposed are not careful handling. Maybe suggest and revise some content on the talk page of an article directly addressing the subject? fiveby(zero) 14:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not au fait with the ins and outs of this issue but the 2018 The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945, vol. III: Camps and Ghettos under European Regimes Aligned with Nazi Germany chapter on Croatia says: "Between 1941 and 1945, the regime murdered no fewer than 310,000 ethnic Serbs, up to 26,000 Jews, and up to 20,000 Roma in mass atrocities and camps", (p. 46) "the civil war caused by the Ustaša’s brutal persecution of political opponents and ethnic minorities— predominantly Serbs— that claimed the lives of some 500,000 people", (p. 47) and "The Croatian authorities also committed mass murder in concentration camps, including the Jasenovac camp complex, where at least 70,0000 victims perished. Estimates of the total number of Serbian victims range widely from 25,000 to 1,000,000, but most experts now place it in the low to mid-300,000s." (ibid.) Figures that are very much higher than these numbers, or any lower, should probably be treated with suspicion. The rationale is explained thus in a footnote:
"These numbers are at the low end of most current estimates of the victims of the Ustaša genocide. They are based on Korb, Im Schatten des Weltkriegs, pp. 432–433. Tomasevich provides extensive analysis and explanation of the wide range of “Alleged and True Population Losses” reflected in scholarship, media, and popular perception since the end of the war. Official Yugoslav estimates for Jasenovac victims, mostly Serbs, ranged from 600,000 to 700,000. Private Serbian estimates often exceeded one million Serbian casualties. Some of these numbers are based on estimates generated during the war; for example, those issued by Tito, who reported on April 4, 1942, that the Ustaša had already killed some 500,000 people, mostly Serbs. At the end of the war, Tito reported to the InterAllied Reparations Agency in Paris a total of 1,706,000 casualties, including Serbs and all other victim categories. In the postwar period, both scholars and Yugoslav officials gave a figure of 700,000 people murdered at Jasenovac. Tomasevich ultimately sides with low-range estimates calculated by Bogoljub Kočović and published in his Žrtve Drugog svetskog rata u Jugoslaviji (London: Naše delo, 1985), pp. 172–180. According to Kočović and Tomasevich, the losses of population in Yugoslavia between 1941 and 1945 include 209,000 Serbs for the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina and 125,000 Serbs and Montenegrins for the territory of Croatia. See Tomasevich, War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, pp. 718–750." (pp. 51-52)
I have found this encyclopaedia extremely helpful in furnishing details on the various but obscure misdeeds of eastern European states during the war. GPinkerton (talk) 00:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
@GPinkerton: Book from 2007 (Identity Politics in the Age of Genocide (Routledge Advances in International Relations and Global Politics, page 167) I quote: "The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum gives a figure of between 300,000 and 400,000 victims of Jasenovac alone.[5]Mikola22 (talk) 05:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Mikola22 I would not trust a book from 2007 about statements by a museum over the 2018 book produced by the same institution. If the Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos is contradicted I would rather see more up-to-date material on which the contradiction is based rather than a quote of a quote from a decade before the Encyclopedia was released. GPinkerton (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
GPinkerton This is not right. It is the same institution in 1995 and 2018. I don't think there should be a problem quoting a book from 2007 which has 1995 source for this clame. This institution and information from 1995 are not (WP:FRINGE). Something (according with new historical findings) can always be changed but not so drastically that 1995 information should not be used. That's my logical thinking. Mikola22 (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Mikola22 No it's not the same institution. One is postulated quote purportedly from a museum in Washington DC in 1995, another is a book, the Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, vol. III, published in 2018 in association with the museum. An indirect alleged quote from two decades earlier can't overturn the conclusions of a direct quote from a more recent reliable academic source from two years ago. GPinkerton (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide the quote where MacDonald supports this edit, as I cannot find it?Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

How do you mean support? He brings information(300,000 and 400,000 victims of Jasenovac alone) "Historians, using a variety of statistics, give a range of between 200,000 and 750,000 deaths. The USHMM gives a figure of between 300,000 and 400,000 victims of Jasenovac alone". It is based on source "Genocide in Yugoslavia During the Holocaust, Washington, DC: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 1995". While @GPinkerton cites data from the same institution "The Croatian authorities also committed mass murder in concentration camps, including the Jasenovac camp complex, where at least 70,0000 victims perished. Estimates of the total number of Serbian victims range widely from 25,000 to 1,000,000, but most experts now place it in the low to mid-300,000s." Therefore, where is this information(RS) visible, in which article?Mikola22 (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I suggest then you propose a new text that does not mention Elinor Despalatovic or Andrei Simić.Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Help me with this edit. Mikola22 (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
"MacDonald gives a figure of between 200,000 and 750,000 deaths".Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
And what about the data for Jasenovac and 300,000 - 400,000 thousand killed? It is RS.Mikola22 (talk) 12:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Why do we need that, as it sits neatly between MacDonald's figures?Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I thought about article concerning Jasenovac, it is very well grounded information in MacDonalds book.("Genocide in Yugoslavia During the Holocaust, Washington, DC: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 1995").Mikola22 (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
The why are we talking about this article Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia? This .... I will reply on your talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The Balkanization of Wikipedia... —DIYeditor (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

As we now seem to be talking about something other that either the article or the edit the OP posted about can we close this, they have had their answer.Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.conncoll.edu/directories/emeritus-faculty/elinor-despalatovic/
  2. ^ https://www.eserbia.org/sapeople/science/329-andrei-simic
  3. ^ https://books.google.hr/books?id=kBjrJyen4FEC&pg=PA161&dq=serbs+ndh++numbers&hl=hr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjCqOfNneHpAhWilIsKHXX2BpcQ6AEIMTAB#v=onepage&q=serbs%20ndh%20%20numbers&f=false
  4. ^ https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/03058298050330031026
  5. ^ https://books.google.hr/books?id=8QoNONBC5K8C&pg=PA167&dq=the+USHMM+gives+a+figure&hl=hr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj67qXauuHpAhVpxIsKHRr8BaUQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=the%20USHMM%20gives%20a%20figure&f=false

List of reportedly haunted locations[edit]

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Netholic and haunting-related disruption

Talk:List of reportedly haunted locations: We have several such lists (and BTW, we have heaps and heaps of categories below Category:Reportedly haunted locations by country‎), and it has been proposed to change the "reportedly haunted locations" into "haunted places" in the list article names. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, you're kidding. Mind you, I think changing "locations" to "places" would be an improvement, but obviously that's not the controversial part, and it's indeed not getting much attention in the Requested move discussion. Bishonen | tålk 14:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC).
Participants at this RM are running into a WP:BLUDGEON issue. I'm not sure if it's sincere belief that ghosts are real and that WP can't be seen to express skepticism about them, or if it's just wikilawyering over an idiosyncratic misinterpretation of WP:FRINGE and MOS:WTW.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I literally just abandoned a post there ! -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 14:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Consensus is pretty clear regarding the RM proposal. It's impossible to reason with someone who thinks WP:MOSWTW is a suicide pact, so it's best just to walk away. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
He started editwarring to delete my posts, so I've moved this to ANI.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The Ancient Science of Numbers[edit]

It's nonsense, but is it historically significant nonsense? XOR'easter (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I am less shook over that meaningless page than I am over William Delbert Gann. Apparently, "opinions are divided" as to whether his methods are effective or not. ::ROLLEYES:: jps (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the notability yet, but my impression was that it's unnecessary for the article to expand on the ridiculous methodology. On the other hand, it does demonstrate its obvious flaws... —PaleoNeonate – 22:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Financial Astrology[edit]

Omigod. I did not know this was a thing. It seems to have esacaped our notice:

This WP:Walled garden needs weeding, folks!

jps (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The example for the "Price-Zodiac conversions" section is about as intelligible and arcane as those parcel auction descriptions in newspapers (e.g) JoelleJay (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
As someone who trained to trade financial instruments for a living for several years, yes indeed it is a thing, and generally considered fringe even in trading circles, even though "Gann Lines" are still taught in technical trading classes and many successful traders use astrological indicators not for decisions but perhaps for weighting. The observations that planetary alignments often coincide with market trend changes isn't a new thing, but those who know enough about it also know that most of these coincidences are, well, coincidences, obtained through "curve fitting" of data. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
We need Wikipedia to say this. Right now our articles read like, "Here's the technique! GO OUT AND MAKE YOURSELF RICH!" I also like your implicit jab, "even in trading circles". Gave me a chuckle. jps (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Postural Integration[edit]

While searching for sources after some recent activity at Rolfing, I ran into the related topic of Postural Integration and find we have an article on it (which has been tagged with {{fringe theories}} for six years!). This gets a brief mention at Quackwatch, which I've added, but otherwise RS seems hard to find. The present article is very in-universe. Anybody know more? Alexbrn (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I knew of claims about postures for "energy to flow" including related to the spine in various meditation systems (i.e. mudra), but didn't know it formalized as "Postural Integration" and didn't know of Painter. —PaleoNeonate – 22:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
It appears to be different branches of the same thing, all schismed off like branches of merkian xtianity. This is the parent topic, as far as a mainstream view of the whole thing. imho, of course. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 22:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
(I had a strange edit conflict that somehow after resolving it and adding {{ec}} got lost). It might make sense to merge it in one of the related movement articles or into Rolfing (similar to acupuncture but without needles and relies too on subtle nadi (yoga))... —PaleoNeonate – 22:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

International College of Dentists[edit]

Legit or not? I found a draft packed with predatory journals that listed the subject as a Fellow. Guy (help!) 11:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  • It's just an honor society, does not look very exclusive. I don't see a reason to believe it's not legit for it's purpose outside WP. Fellowship definitely would not confer any notability if that's what you mean by legit. It's not a professional body, hardly see any reason to mention in WP outside it's own article. fiveby(zero) 14:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Seems to lack notability though.Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
PMID 21739865 might be acceptable as a source, but i don't think it stands on it's own. Press release type coverage (best found) and authors mentioning affiliation is all i can find, but bet it would probably make it through an Afd. Special:WhatLinksHere/International_College_of_Dentists is just puffery. fiveby(zero) 15:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Fiveby, there's some COI going on there, for sure. Guy (help!) 15:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
    Started going thru the links, but saw Ian Furst's name in a few places and he looks active so thought would ping in case he wants to comment. fiveby(zero) 17:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
    It's an honor society that does some humanitarian work and provides scholarships. I created the page a long time ago. I am a fellow (but otherwise uninvolved) so a COI exists imo. Best I stay out of any discussions re deletion. Thank you for pinging me though. Ian Furst (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
    Ian Furst, thanks for that. I think the problem is addition ion marginally-notable biographies, especially of people in India. The India project create articles on everybody who is awarded the Padma Shri in any degree, and that leads to a lot of articles that are based entirely on information provided or controlled by the source. Guy (help!) 09:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

AfD discussion: Miraculous plague cure of 1522[edit]

The article Miraculous plague cure of 1522 has been nominated for deletion here. NightHeron (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Burt Rutan[edit]

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

"They drink Kool-Aid instead of doing research. They parrot stuff from the IPCC and Al Gore"

Is that encyclopedic? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

We are reporting what he said, with sourcing; we are not embracing his appalling views. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
How notable is this viewpoint he has expressed? jps (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
To Burt Rutan's article? Pretty notable. It's an opinion he expresses frequently, and is a significant aspect of the recent press coverage of the man.
To the Climate Change article? Not at all. He speaks no particular authority.
Climate denial is a notable aspect of Burt Rutan, even though Burt Rutan is not a notable aspect of Climate Denial.
ApLundell (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
ජපස, there's been talk about this on the article's talk page. Rutan is kind of an icon (I remember his name from Aeroplane Monthly when I was a lad), and his promotion of climate change bollocks has significantly changed perception of the man. Guy (help!) 09:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Me too. The question is how to describe this in the article. When old people start to fumble around in their ignorance, the question is how much do we pay attention to it? I don't know the answer to this question. jps (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Usually, when we report what a fringe proponent says, we add voices from mainstream science contradicting him. And if there are no such voices because nobody cares, we delete the exact wording of his empty propaganda, to avoid propagating it, and just say what he thinks generally. So "he opposes the scientific consensus" is enough. We do not need to repeat his nonsense word for word. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Hob Gadling, on that article there's a history of people removing reality-based critique. There's plenty out there. Guy (help!) 09:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

World Day Without Wifi[edit]

It takes a lot to leave me speechless. There you go. Guy (help!) 09:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Well it got a flurry of publicity, and then what? I think an AFD is in order (I was thinking of a merge, but with what?Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Day Without Wifi. I think all the publicity was just sensationalism. The thing seems to have died since 2016/2017 when it was first announced by an Argentinian group. jps (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Falun Gong again[edit]

Still needs attention. Doug Weller talk 12:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Legends of Alcatraz[edit]

To get a best sense of the problems with our article Legends of Alcatraz, go directly to the references, which include multiple citations of the Weekly World News, and then treat yourself to the astounding bibliography, which is full of such academic tomes as "Ghost Hunting: How to Investigate the Paranormal", "They Came Back: Tales of Reincarnation, Ghosts, and Life After Death", "Hell House: And Other True Hauntings from Around the World", etc. --JBL (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Weighted in favor of the supernatural, definitely written by a fan of the paranormal. Would take a major WP:BLOWITUP to straighten things out. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Is there really any reason why we should even have such an article? Mangoe (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I left a note on the Talk page to that effect. However the most recent AfD concluded as Keep. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Fringe material at Iruña-Veleia[edit]

See WP:RSN#Court sentence being used in an article on archaeology, this edit] and my edit summaries and edits to the article. The claims, now deemed fraud by a court, were for " These included what would have been the oldest non-onomastical texts in Basque, which were hailed as the first evidence of written Basque. Also, it was announced the discovery of a series of inscriptions and drawings on pottery fragments, some of which refer to Egyptian history and even some written in Egyptian hieroglyphs. Finally, it was announced the finding of the earliest representation of the Calvary (crucifixion of Jesus) found anywhere to date." Doug Weller talk 14:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Piers Robinson[edit]

There's a RfC on the Piers Robinson page about whether he describe his promotion of conspiracy theories in the lead.[26] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

For those who are unaware, Piers is known for supporting fringe theories about the Douma chemical attack Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=962805299"