This page uses content from Wikipedia and is licensed under CC BY-SA.

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

Welcome to the fringe theories noticeboard
This page is for requesting input on 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.
  • Questions related to articles on fringe theories may also be posted here.
  • The purpose of this board is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but rather to ensure that neutrality is 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 12 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
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:




References

References

Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi. You're my only hope.

I need help at Talk:Shroud of Turin. The shroudies are burying me in claims and references, and I simply don't have enough time to properly address the situation and still meet certain real-world obligations. Note: I am offering triple the normal pay for editing a Wikipedia article. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I've actually held a piece of thread from the shroud, in a glass phial. It was cotton, if anybody is interested. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
A glass phial made out of cotton? I don’t believe it. Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Is it on E-Bay? - Nunh-huh 21:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

What to do about List of cryptids?

Folks, what should we do about list of cryptids? It has two crucial problems:

  • Scope: This list has an impossibly huge scope (cryptozoologists call any creature from the folklore record that they believe could be hiding somewhere a "cryptid", a hallmark of the pseudoscience's approach).
  • Sourcing: There's not really a way to source this list (essentially everything we'd be using for it would be emic WP:FRINGE). It's been tagged for years.

What we've got here is a relic of the past, a leftover from the days of yore when cryptozoologists were allowed to run free on the site and use it as their personal Pokédex (if you're unfamiliar with the pseudoscience of cryptozoology, please read this — it's not anything like, say, folkloristics). Of course, the Great Reclaiming has been well underway for a while now to improve Wikipedia's folklore coverage, yet this list still exists. So, what do you recommend that we do with this thing? Simply redirect it to cryptozoology or... ? :bloodofox: (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

As I recall the reason the list is like that was to avoid having loads of stubby fringe 'cryptid' articles. This way they all in one place. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
It's true, the cryptozoological sourcing presents WP:FRINGE issues. And not just the list articles are affected. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I very much like the Category:Mythic humanoids though. The concept of cryptozoology is only a part of the category of cryptids. Mythic humanoids is a side category of Category:Legendary creatures, which itself contains the shapeshifters and the Yeti. Wakari07 (talk) 11:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC) I made it the main article for the Category:Cryptids. Wakari07 (talk) 06:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I’m not sure I follow — you’re aware that the term ‘’cryptid’’ is restricted to cryptozoology and cryptozoology circles, right? It’s a sure sign of pseudoscience and not a term used by, say, folklorists or any other academics who handle the folklore record. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, I use the term for the list of creatures whose sighting and existence are disputed, not only animals and not only in folklore. For me, gods and zombies and the mysterious Health-related incidents at the United States Embassy in Havana and the like belong to this category. But apparently this is a disputed matter. Sorry for the interference, I'll try to pull myself away from this noticeboard now, after having been summoned to it by "cryptoids". Wakari07 (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'm just seeing a list of fringe stuff with absolutely no scope (any creature or entity form the folklore record can fall within its parameters) that cannot be sourced and attracts drive-by edits. This sounds to me like this article just needs to redirect to Cryptozoology. Any arguments to the contrary before I start discussion about this elsewhere or before I turn it into a redirect? :bloodofox: (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Since I can't think of a way to source this or how one would measure its scope, I've gone ahead and just redirected the page to Cryptozoology. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


You've been campaigning against this page for years, including multiple discussions and even an AfD which was closed as snow keep. Now you're claiming there's consensus on this page (without even so much as a notice on the article talk page) to redirect. That's just disruptive. Open a discussion there or send it back to AfD if you want it gone. Withholding more substantial arguments until that time. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

This "campaigning" you refer to consists of me completely rewriting cryptozoology to GA standards and editing essentially every associated article connected to the topic, as well as developing our folkloristics coverage, including an array of templates and crucial articles we lacked, such as folk belief. It looks like you're willing to edit war to restore this page: And why? Are you planning to solve its numerous problems? Can they be solved? The list has no sources because it cannot be sourced. Please, WP:PROVEIT. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
So in addition to what I said above, you then undid my revert (i.e. obviously problematic per WP:BRD) and then tell me that I'm edit warring. Good stuff. Kudos on the GA, but I didn't say anything about that page. If you start an RM or RfC on that talk page, I will likely weigh in there. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
WP:PROVEIT is on you — please kindly propose a solution for the list or revert your reversion. As I see it, you're the revert-warrior here. I restrict my reverts to once in 24 hours and the onus to source the material you've restored is on you. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I will say that after looking at the talkpage there is certainly no consensus there (or here for that matter) to redirect the list. I would have expected someone to revert that within a day. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
WP:PROVEIT plays a major role in this case. There's no reason for the article to be gridlocked if there's no solution as to how to even approach it. The article has been tagged for all sorts of issues for years, and additions are regularly reverted due to being unsourced. It's a huge mess. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Wait a minute. consists of me completely rewriting cryptozoology to GA standards When I actually look at the article for the first time in a while, you completely rewrote cryptozoology to nowhere near GA standards. It's now a tiny section on "terminology, history, and approach" and a giant section on "reception and criticism" and that's it. Also, and editing essentially every associated article connected to the topic -- and you're disputing "campaigning" (I didn't use that term in relation to anything but the list page, but it sounds like you're disputing that it's limited to the list rather than disputing that it's an appropriate word). Also, regarding the numerous issues -- in your revert you mentioned that it's been tagged for years... yes, because it was you who tagged it and has been dissatisfied with other attempts to change the list. I'm done engaging with this here, however. If you would like to propose a major change to the article, do it on that talk page. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually, yes, it is to GA standards. It's rock-solidly referenced to reliable academics sources. When it comes to pseudosciences, this is what the sausage looks like. I won't nominate it until associated articles are up to par.
Again, I get the impression that you're keen on edit-warring and flashing policy, but you're not keen on following through when it falls on your shoulders (WP:PROVEIT). You've restored the material, now please — per WP:PROVEIT — kindly source it and cite it. The responsibility falls on you.
There's a link on the talk page to this discussion. Please don't revert-war me and then bread crumb me from page to page to get out of WP:PROVEIT. If you're not interested in actually doing anything about this article, please revert your reversion and let us move on. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Bread crumb you? For crying out loud how about don't redirect an article that was snow kept when you sent it to AfD without finding consensus on that talk page first and then don't edit war to force that redirect you didn't even propose on the talk page, and then don't accuse the person asking you to follow those really basic behavioral matters of edit warring, etc.. This is my last post to this thread. I have a suggestion I'm going to post to the appropriate talk page. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

This thread continued off board, but Rhododendrites raises a valid point: List of cryptids is a pseudoscientific content fork of lists of legendary creatures. Please consider weighing in over at Talk:List_of_cryptids#Merge_proposal_with_lists_of_legendary_creatures. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

A Third Of Millennials Aren’t Sure The Earth Is Round, Survey Finds

"A new survey has found that a third of young millennials in the U.S. aren’t convinced the Earth is actually round."[1] --Guy Macon (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Please tell me that their only objection was that an oblate spheroid with continents, mountains and stuff protruding from its surface isn't perfectly round. No? OK. Well, instead, please tell me the millennials were being sarcastic when asked such a silly question. I mean, if somebody phoned me up and asked me what shape the Earth is I'd probably say something sarcastic and would probably have been even more sarcastic when I was their age. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
The survey itself is available. The largest category other than that 66% is "other/not sure". Also, it appears that as people get older they become more convinced that the earth is round. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
It's not a good conclusion that people become more convinced as they get older since the survey wasn't run every decade for the past 50 years or what have you. It's also not surprising with school budgets and priorities like they are that the average person is getting stupider (more ignorant if you insist) after many decades of the opposite. I do like the sarcasm explanation though, I think a lot of flat earthers are just kidding or trolling. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree with some of what DanielRigal said above. I cannot take a question like that seriously. The question "Do you believe that the world is round or flat?" is likely to be interpreted as a facetious question, worthy of a facetious response. Bus stop (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Also to further address DanielRigal, some of the "other/don't know" could definitely be attributable to legitimate uncertainty whether "round" means "spherical", or if being merely spheroid means that it is round. If you heard in class once that the earth wasn't perfectly round that might stick as a vague memory, and it is possible that younger people have been exposed to this more recently than older so the vague memory sticks better - or that it has been discussed in schools more recently than in the past. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
When I was the current age of millennials, I responded to some silly surveys with "Fuck off!". (I'm much nicer now.) I imagine that response would have been counted among "other/not sure" if I had provided it in this survey. We should NEVER make assumptions about what "other/not sure" actually means. HiLo48 (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

"A new survey has found that a third of young millennials in the U.S. aren’t convinced the Earth is actually round."

I am not that surprised. Some time ago I watched a YouTube video where random passerby people (several of them college-aged) in an American city were asked basic questions concerning geography. Several of them did not know that Africa was a separate continent, and a few of them were convinced that Mount Rushmore was located in Australia. In Greece where I live, Americans have a poor reputation (as either insane people or poorly-educated people, often depicted as such in Greek comedy), though I often wonder what kind of educational system they have. Dimadick (talk) 11:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Was the video actually random, or was it edited to remove those boring people who knew the answer? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
That's what those videos always are. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Some Americans believe Mount Rushmore is a naturally occurring Rock outcrop. Bus stop (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
What's a millennial? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
A fictional creature (supposedly between the ages of 25 and 35) created by news media (by blowing out of proportion any incident involving someone under 50) to make baby boomers feel better about fucking the economy and environment with a rusty cheese grater. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • All age groups and countries have some fact of science they don't firmly grasp (for example, climate change among baby boomers). In the case of millenials, there has been memes, some spread by trolls, some caught up by the dumbest 10% that exist in any age group, some taken up in quasi-Gnostic conspiracy theories (basically, that the Earth is a flat 11-dimensional object that only looks round in 3 dimensions) which make jokes about a flat-earth in some way (either accepting the idea, jokingly using the idea as a non-sequitur with or without acceptance, or joking about it as a sign of the decline of society). Rapper B.o.B. has given these (and other) views an unfortunate amount of prominence. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Any fool can look out his window and see that the earth is flat. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
      • People who live in Florida think the Earth is flat. I am a Californian and know that it is bumpy. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I have taken enough years off my dad's car's suspension to know better than believe anything besides tires can be flat. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

This kind of survey can say anything that a news channel wants to promote. The exact text at the site says YouGov, a British market research firm, polled 8,215 adults in the United States to find out if they ever believed in the “flat Earth” movement. Only 66 percent of young millennials answered that they “always believe the world is round.”. This means that approximately 0.003% of the US population was polled. Not sure what size of the sample as defined as young millenials. Nothing is being said what the survey was about. I mean, why exactly should anyone take this page seriously? --Wikishagnik (talk) 10:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Waddell's chronology

This is an article by the banned Paul Bedson about a fringe chronology by Laurence Waddell. Not surprisingly I just removed a quote he used that looked as though it might be praising the chronology without its full context. I don't see what the whole, possibly inaccurate, chronology does for Wikipedia more than the section in Waddell's biography. Doug Weller talk 16:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah... I would be interested in having a condensed version of the purported events "this Sumerian king did X and this Indian king did Y, so the supposed 'historical' king would have supposedly done Z" (mostly for Tabletop role-playing game material), but just a list of kings and dates with no context or explanation would honestly be kinda useless for real history. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
As is, chopping the chart and redirecting it to the Waddell article would probably be best. I feel like it'd go against WP:UNDUE for me to dig up Waddell's stuff and make a useful chart, no matter how much we also expand the article with sources explaining why Waddell should have stuck to documenting his experiences with Tibetan Buddhism. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
@Ian.thomnson: tempting, but there's a new editor there who I've already had to revert elsewhere and it would end up an edit war. Maybe a move request. Doug Weller talk @Ian.thomson: Correct ping. Doug Weller talk 13:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Washington Post op-ed see us as an antidote to fringe nonsense on the web

Heh... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Conspiracy videos? Fake news? Enter Wikipedia, the ‘good cop’ of the Internet
Things are bad.Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I can definitely see problems if YouTube starts posting links to Wikipedia in videos promoting fringe idiocy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I can't "appreciate" the Washington Post's argument, since it's behind paywall. Wakari07 (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
From the article: "Conspiracy videos are top draws on YouTube, whether the subject is the moon landing (humans never set foot on it) or the Parkland school massacre survivors (they’re “crisis actors”). Last month, Susan Wojcicki, YouTube’s chief executive, proposed an antidote to these poison pills: Wikipedia. For each fanciful conspiracy peddled on YouTube, she said, there soon would be a link to a corresponding article from Wikipedia." OMG get ready for "conspiracy" type articles to be overwhelmed by lunatic trolls.Smeat75 (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the excerpts. I agree there's a serious problem when trolls start acting like lunatics. Wakari07 (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Or lunatics start trolling. Not sure which is worse. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • More coverage [2]. Apparently the whole world knew about this but someone forgot to tell us. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
There is a case to be made for semi-protection of fringe articles targeted by crank IPs. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC).

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── See this topic from March.--Auric talk 23:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I suggest that semi be put on all articles in the fringe category. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC).
Lets wait and see, we do not know this will happen.Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Gilbert Ling

Old article I came across when I was more WikiYoung than today, about a fringe-pusher of some repute. Beyond the usual puffery that I try to clean up shortly, the article makes many claims with dubious sourcing; for instance, the claim that Raymond Damadian offered financial support when Ling's laboratory got defunded. TigraanClick here to contact me 14:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Christ myth theory at NPOVN

WP:NPOVN#Christ myth theory. Just fyi. Doug Weller talk 11:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Shroud of Turin

Chronically infected by shroudies. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Now at DRN: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Shroud of Turin#Deleted sentence "However, none of the hypotheses challenging ..." as not sourced According to the rules at DRN, comments by uninvolved editors are welcome, but not until a DRN volunteer opens the case. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Looking at this article - holy crap it's poor. Surely there must be some decent secondary sources we can summarize rather than (as now) pretend that Wikipedia ia a secondary publication by reviewing loads of primary material - some of very doubtful origin. Alexbrn (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
The secondary sources are open-and-shut - the shroud is medieval, good night. However if we stuck to that, a) the article would be only 6 paragraphs long, and b) it would hardly be notable, and c) it would constantly be bombarded with believers trying to insert some article they read in a church blog. Obviously we need to manage the level of reliability, but it hardly helps to delete everything and start a war. This article has taken years to stabilize, and its really not a place for dragons. Wdford (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
We summarize accepted knowledge. If 6 paragraphs does it, then so be it. We do not bend the WP:PAGs to try and police suspected behaviour from anticipated editors (we have mechanisms like extended protection for that). The article as-is is amateurish faux-secondary material. Alexbrn (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
That's not a helpful mindset. "Amateurish faux-secondary material" is hardly helpful either. The secondary material is sparse but clear, and the article relies on it correctly. However this is not a field where there are tons of secondary sources, so much of the notable research is still primary (although we do obviously carefully consider the reliability of the sources, and word their material appropriately). I have removed the HuffPost reference - we already have the actual journal source in the article. It doesn't really help the reader to delete everything that happened after the most recent secondary source, or which is not addressed specifically in a secondary source. Wdford (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
My take as a neutral editor, I don't believe the shroud itself falls under fringe theory. Its the claims regarding its origin and / or significance, that may fall under fringe theory. The shroud has been studies by various experts, who in turn have presented their analysis. The shroud in my opinion is Notable enough, due to its mention in these, that have been shared and mentioned in reliable sources. However, I also believe claims and counter claims can be summarized with the most significant findings, to reduce the length of the article, and the rest can be explained in sub-articles. --Wikishagnik (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
The sentence under dispute doesn't even mean anything. It's never true that all alternate hypothesis are answered by scientific literature. Of course. If I say "leprechauns did it.", and nobody proves I'm wrong, does that mean the disputed sentence should stay in the article? ApLundell (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


Yeesh, judging by the leads alone, it's pretty clear that this article is indeed "chronically infected by shroudies". There's no reason to let fringe theorists rule the roost. In fact, I'd say we have a responsibility to make sure that doesn't happen. This article definitely needs *way* more scrutiny. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I dipped in briefly but gave up swiftly: WP:OWNership and WP:LOCALCON are maxxed-out. Alexbrn (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
It sounds like it might be time to bring in the admins then. We're not here to give credence to relics and reliquaries. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree. Most of the following pages contain poorly sourced claims, and are magnets for pseudoscience editors. Some are WP:COATRACKS, some are WP:POVFORKS, and a few are unrelated articles with material from shroudie websites tacked on to the citations.
--Guy Macon (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources discussion at dispute resolution noticeboard

At Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Shroud of Turin#Deleted sentence "However, none of the hypotheses challenging ..." as not sourced there is an ongoing discussion about what sources are and are not reliable regarding the Shroud of Turin. It would be helpful if some knowledgeable editors from this noticeboard would look over the discussions and comment on the decisions being made. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Smith (psychologist)

An AfD for a parapsychologist seems relevant here. XOR'easter (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Pseudomathematics up for deletion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pseudomathematics (2nd nomination). Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Brain Overclaim Syndrome (BOS)

A brand-new article that seems to me to be one guy's hobby-horse, but I don't know enough to judge properly. Anyone here know about this? --Calton | Talk 00:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, this article from Nature presents it as a inter-disciplinary dispute: basically it's about neuroscientists claiming they know more about the basis for behavior than they are justified in doing. So the article we have is pretty much bilge, but the original article see here is very heavily cited. Mangoe (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
It seems pretty clear to me that Brain Overclaim Syndrome is just a bon mot and the author of the article is having some fun running with the concept. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
(And, as such, the article probably shouldn't stick around for much longer.) -165.234.252.11 (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
To quote the man himself: All of the above is really just a “high falutin,” partially tongue-in-cheek way of suggesting that people need to think more clearly and make more transparent, logical arguments about the relationship of anything to criminal responsibility. The article in its current state is well within WP:HOAX territory. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Dorothy Kilgallen (it never ends)

The latest attempts to get the Fringe Conspiracy Theories back into the article. here -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Are there any objective reliable sources that could be used to add a paragraph noting the deprecated conspiracy theories, similar to how we treat the conspiracy issue at HAARP? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think so. This stuff is so fringe it has been pretty much ignored by reliable secondary sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The OP has now opened a discussion at WP:DR where I have responded. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Resonnant cavity thruster

I tried to clean up the article on the so-called Resonnant cavity thruster, and got reverted. Could someone weigh in in the discussion on the talk page? Basically, Resonnant cavity thruster is supposed to generate propulsion by sending microwaves into a cavity. It is supposed to operate in space without ejecting reactive mass, so it would be a very excellent mode of propulsion indeed. Unfortunately, the device suffers from very specific specific practical and theoretical problems. The practical problem is that it doesn't work, and the theoretical problem is that it is proven theoretically that such device doesn't work (Newton's third law and such). There have been several tests which don't disprove that the device can produce a very small amount thrust, very near the limits of the experimental error. Apparently this is enough for some people to defend that this design and continue testing it, but it seems to be about as useful as homeopathic apothecary. Heptor talk 14:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

No, you added WP:NPOV wording that is apparently based on your original research. That's not permitted. You should bring your ideas to the talk page, with sources to back them up.- MrX 🖋 14:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Where is the NPOV and OR with calling pseudoscience what it is?[3] See [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Macon (talkcontribs)
Explained on the article talk page and [11][12][13][14][15][16]- MrX 🖋 16:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
BTW, please try to spell "resonant" correctly. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
You talkin' to me?- MrX 🖋 16:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
[www.youtube.com] (Actually, I was talking to Heptor). --Guy Macon (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


MrX, third law of motion is Isaac Newton's research, not mine. The fact that the contrivance of our present conversation attempts to violate the said law has not been contended by anyone on the talk page and it furthermore easily verified by reliable sources[17][18]; since this law very much remains a cornerstone of mainstream science, I really thought that this would be an open-and-shut case. PS: Guy Macon, many thanks for correcting my spelling. Heptor talk 21:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Art Bell has died

Before Alex Jones, Art Bell was the king of woo. Sadly his article is in such poor shape that unless it's drastically improved I don't think it will get posted to RD under WP:ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Nicolae Densusianu is fringe

Thread moved to Talk:Origin of the Romanians. Further discussion should take place there. GMGtalk 16:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is about Talk:Origin of the Romanians#Densusianu is fringe, namely including fringe authors in a mainstream history article. I have stated that WP:DRN is not the proper channel to advocate for such inclusion. By fringe authors I mean Nicolae Densusianu and Protochronist authors.

The gist of the matter:

Dacia Preistorică by Nicolae Densușianu is a close encounter of the WP:FRINGE kind. All Iovaniorgovan could quote from among the contemporary "scholars" are Protochronist authors and their walled garden. Per WP:ONEWAY pseudohistory is not welcome in a mainstream history article.

Source for ND's book is "mystical delirium": Dan Alexe (2 August 2016). Dacopatia şi alte rătăciri româneşti. Humanitas SA. p. 95. ISBN 978-973-50-4978-2.  (Alexe's book is of the popularized science sort, but it was published by the prestigious publishing house Humanitas — prestigious by Romanian standards).

Here is an article by Zoe Petre: [19], one by Mircea Babeș: [20], and one by Eugen Ciurtin: [21]. All of these articles treat ND's book with high contempt, noting that there is nothing new about such contempt from notable Romanian historians in the past 100 years. The articles exemplify such contempt with quotes. They note that all the interest for ND's book was from dilettantes and that his book was not appreciated by professional historians. (ND had some serious historical contributions, but not in respect to the Antiquity.) The verdict of conscious Romanian historians is unanimous: ND's book is pseudohistory/fantasy trying to pass for history. It is totally ignored by the international scholarship and rejected by the Romanian academics by consensus. As Ciurtin notes, nobody (i.e. scholars) reads ND's book any longer, this is shown by consulting the somewhat recently published historical scholarship.

In respect to the claim of Dacian continuity, this is an odd claim and I would like to see mainstream sources supporting it. It should not be conflated with the theory of Daco-Roman continuity which, although not proven, is taken seriously as an explanation of the origin of Romanians. I.e. stating that there is a purely Dacian continuity, with little or no Latin influence is an oddball in respectable historical scholarship (Protochronists are by definition eccentric and marginal, thus not a respectable position in historical scholarship). Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

DNA studies such as this, Ancient DNA from South-East Europe Reveals Different Events during Early and Middle Neolithic, as objective and NON-fringe as it gets, agree with Densusianu's main thesis, that of continuity of the same people over the same territory over millennia. "M_NEO and modern populations from Romania are VERY CLOSE, in contrast with Middle Neolithic and modern populations from Central Europe."[p.11] As one can see from the yellow diamonds in Fig 2 & 3 in that article, modern-day Romanians/Moldovans are closer to their Middle Neolithic ancestors than to any modern European population. Other people/ethnicities passed through that area over the centuries (as shown in the Late Neolithic sample from the same study) but there was minimal admixture of mtDNA, except with already related populations. This study alone (there are others) disprove the "Romanization" theory (no DNA study to date has shown any "Roman" input in the ethnogenesis of the Romanian people). This DNA study clearly shows that the Romanian ethnicity had already formed (in the same area occupied today) by Middle Neolithic. This is a fact, not a matter of opinion, so we must allow for competing theories that take this into consideration. I don't suggest that Densusianu's work is the historical bible that we must all follow to the letter, but to call him "fringe" is to go to the other extreme. Dacian continuity (with minimal Roman influence) is a perfectly legit theory that is now supported by DNA research (all other theories are NOT), and many reputed scholars have subscribed to it. Here goes again: Iosif Constantin Dragan, Dumitru Berciu, Ștefan Pascu (member of the Academy), Conf. Univ. Dr. G.D. Iscru, Grigore Tocilescu (member of the Academy), Ioan Andriesescu (correspondent member of the Academy) and even Vasile Parvan, initially critical of ND's work, came around to his way of thinking towards the end of his life (see his posthumously published work). And since you anchor your argument to a book by Dan Alexe, a journalist/filmmaker, please allow me to quote the greatest Romanian poet/journalist, Mihai Eminescu, who said that in light of the historical record, "Everything should be Dacicized from now on". Finally, I would also like to mention recent work from two reputable linguists (doctorates, the works) who also subscribe to this view, that no "Latinization/Romanization" ever took place: Carme Jiménez Huertas (We Don't Come From Latin; Original Spanish Title: No venimos del latín; ISBN 9788490503645), and Dr. Mihai Vinereanu (The Evolution of the Proto-Indo-European *BH Sound in Latin and Why Romanian Doesn't Come From Latin)--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
One other thing-- one does not need Densusianu's writings to prop up the Dacian continuity theory. The theory can be thoroughly supported without resorting to ND's work, although people (myself included) do it out of convenience (one-stop-shopping kind of thing).--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
From the article Iosif Constantin Dragan:

According to historian Lucian Boia, Drăgan promoted an extreme version of protochronism, which claimed that the Romania was the cradle of civilization, and the Romanian people the oldest in Europe:

As the author of We, the Thracians (1976) and editor of the periodical of the same title (Noì, tracii) that was launched in 1974, he was the leading figure of an entire movement aimed at amplifying the role of the Thracians in European history, a movement supported by all sorts of amateurs (even a lawyers’ group!) but also by some less than scrupulous professionals (among them the archaeologists Dumitru Berciu and Ion Horaţiu Crişan). In the periodical Noi, tracii it was possible, for example, to claim that the ancestors of the Romanians lived 100,000 years ago, eloquent proof that the Romanian people is the oldest in the continent, if not in the world. As for the extent of the Thracians’ territory, Drăgan generously allows them almost half of Europe, centered, evidently, on the present-day space of Romania.<ref>Boia, Lucian, ''History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness'', Central European University Press, Budapest, 2001, p.105</ref>

The work of Densusianu begins with (I translate):

Behind the populations known in ancient times as Dacians and Getae there was for many thousands of years a genial, powerful and glorious nation, which much time before the Trojan times [the Trojan war, sung in Iliad], founded the first vast empire of the world, established the first cultural unity of Europe and established the basis of moral and material progress in West Asia and North Africa

From ro:Dacia preistorică:

Alexandru D. Xenopol stated "The theory of the author that Dacians have established the first civilization of the humankind shows that it is a product of chauvinism, not of science". Vasile Pârvan, in his monumental work, Getica, mentions the author and his work - "his fantastic novel Dacia preistorică, full of mythology and absurd philology, which from its publication has awakened wonder and unbounded enthusiasm among the Romanian archaeology dilettantes"<ref>Quoted by M. Babeș</ref>.

According to WP:SCIRS and WP:HISTRS I want to see many mainstream (i.e. not from the walled garden of Protochronism) secondary sources which support the Dacians-only continuity claim. Not one or two pieces of DNA study wherein the authors claimed that they had not studied enough people. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Again, all you offer is... opinions, NO arguments. As for Lucian Boia, your leading man, and former University of Bucharest Secretary of Propaganda for the Communist Party (up to the Revolution), here's what Ioan-Aurel Pop (Istoria, adevarul si miturile, Ed Enciclopedica, 2014; first published in 2002), an advocate of the Daco-Roman theory and the recently elected President of the Romanian Academy, has to say "Lucian Boia is not able to read a document in Latin, Slavonic, or Greek.[...] His entire so-called expertise is restricted to the end of the nineteenth century and beginning of the twentieth century. He's not a historian of ancient times, he simply borrows from here and there. He even acknowledged that he does not apply historical methods in his books because the historical methods are outdated. [...]He is a falsifier of history." So, we can go back-and-forth on this until the cows sing the blues.
The DNA study I mention clearly states that it performed a "genetic analysis of a RELATIVELY LARGE NUMBER of samples of Boian, Zau and Gumelniţa cultures in Romania (n = 41) (M_NEO)", which is the period in question. It says that further studies are necessary to draw conclusions in regards mostly to the Late Bronze findings-- that is, ancient populations that are not related to any modern populations. That's to be expected-- Romanians were not the only people to ever inhabit those lands, other people came and left (like the Celts), they're just the only ones who have been living there continuously. Speaking of DNA studies, here's another recent one (from last year) that made waves at that time because of its surprising finds, DNA from ancient Egyptian mummies reveals their ancestry-- "Johannes Krause, a University of Tubingen paleogeneticist and an author of the study, said the major finding was that “for 1,300 years, we see complete genetic continuity.” Despite repeated conquests of Egypt, by Alexander the Great, Greeks, Romans, Arabs and Assyrians — the list goes on — ancient Egyptians showed little genetic change. “The other big surprise,” Krause said, “was we didn't find much sub-Saharan African ancestry.” What the study found was "that ancient Egyptians are most closely related to Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in the Levant, as well as to Neolithic Anatolian and European populations (Fig. 5a,b). When comparing this pattern with modern Egyptians, we find that the ancient Egyptians are more closely related to all modern and ancient European populations that we tested." This came as a shock to everyone EXCEPT readers of Densusianu. So here you have not one but TWO major DNA studies published in the last two years, both confirming Densusianu's version of ancient history. These are recent studies and it takes a while to enter the mainstream but eventually this new and (re)emerging version of history (closer to the truth) will win out. Too bad that the pace is made slower by irrational detractors. Wikipedia should allow these theories to be represented on its pages, lest one will start branding DNA studies as "fringe."--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I did not say that the DNA studies would be fringe. I have stated that WP:SCIRS and WP:HISTRS demand many WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SECONDARY WP:SOURCES. Also, Densusianu's work is comparable to the hallucinations of a drugs addict, so whatever the DNA studies show, he cannot be right. Protochronists maintain that Dacians have conquered the Americas and Japan, so far goes their ludicrousness. Besides, Pop has stated on Acad. prof. univ. dr. Ioan-Aurel Pop - Despre falsificarea istoriei on YouTube that he has nothing against Boia dispelling the myths of National-Communist historiography, he only maintains that Boia is not an expert who can provide positive information about the history of Romania. In Pop's view Boia is good at removing the weeds from the garden of Romanian historiography—and he should stick to doing that (he is qualified for doing it, but not in other fields). "Wikipedia is behind the ball – that is we don't lead, we follow – let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements and find NPOV ways of presenting them if needed."[1] Wikipedia is a place where we kowtow to the academic mainstream. If you don't like doing that, you won't like it here. See WP:ABIAS. Since you cited Densusianu and Iosif Constantin Dragan as if they wrote reliable sources, you don't have the faintest idea of what WP:RS means. I suggest reading it thoroughly, and please take notes. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Now you're using specious arguments: Densusianu = "protochronist" and since one "protochronist" said "X" then Densusianu must have also believed "X". Densusianu wrote nothing of the sort. In fact, I only linked to his work once in the entries that you deleted. Every author should be scrutinized, including ND, but one should be able to quote from a work (if fitting) without dismissing the entire work just because the author didn't get everything 100% right. Else, we'll be left with no books to quote/cite. And that also goes for all those ACADEMICS I just quoted.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
ND's work has been flat out rejected by all serious Romanian historians of the past 100 years. So it's not WP:RS, it is an exercise in mythomania. Also Dragan is not regarded as a scholar, he hardly published peer-reviewed articles in serious historical journals, so for us he isn't an academic. He was a propagandist for Fascism (Ion Antonescu), Protochronism and the like. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, I disagree. Anyway, like I said before, there are actually two arguments here: 1) Densusianu is "fringe", 2) Thraco-Dacian continuity is "fringe". I don't need Densusianu to prove Dacian continuity, and to say (2) is true is just... preposterous. Recent DNA studies support the Thraco-Dacian continuity theory, famous historians and writers (including Romania's greatest, Mihai Eminescu) advocated it, contemporary university historians and linguists (not just Romanian, I linked to a Spanish one, too, just for good measure) also support it... It's never been "fringe" and will never be "fringe".--2602:301:7769:EF70:1D88:8886:4A13:2F40 (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

:Paraphrased from Jimbo Wales' September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
    — WP:DUE
Please note that Protochronists are not WP:MAINSTREAM, Densusianu is WP:CB and DNA studies aren't WP:SECONDARY. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I named plenty of "prominent adherents". I rest my case then. --Iovaniorgovan (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Protochronists, as a rule of thumb, do not count as academics, and even if some count, they certainly do not pass WP:RS. They fail WP:FRINGE—this is why we don't allow their claims inside Wikipedia. Our encyclopedia isn't an everything goes forum for crank science. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
You seem a little confused, to say the least, and you're resorting to all sorts of conflating and specious arguments (taint by association) to make your points, which only exposes the weakness of your arguments. Protochronism was a national/political movement that used a theory/idea, in this case Dacianism, for political purposes. As we've seen in history, just about ANY idea/theory can be used for political manipulation or economic gain. One can use atomic energy for benevolent purposes, another can use it to start wars... that doesn't make the science wrong. Just like in our case, Dacian continuity is simply a theory that has ZERO political value in and of itself. We're only concerned with historical truth here. Hope you can understand this much.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
That's a red herring: Protochronists are unreliable as sources because they are ideologically tainted, they make fanciful claims, they are not published in mainstream peer-reviewed historical journals, such works are not cited approvingly by mainstream historians, their viewpoints are not taught as fact in faculties of history (yes, even in Romania), they have their walled garden publishing houses, these are all WP:REDFLAGs of fringe theories. So, unless you cite mainstream WP:HISTRS/WP:SCIRS, you cannot add that to our article. The problem that Protochronism/Dacians-only theory are fringe is not ours to fix, see WP:RGW.

The Bible is the voice of God, not the voice of scientists. If we want the voice of scientists, we ask the scientists. Most of them do advocate the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and evolution as the most visible means of how the world came to be. Whether or not this was God's doing is up to the reader to decide. If the scientists are mistaken, this has to be shown to them on their own grounds, which anti-evolution folks are not really doing, because they are not reading up on the same literature, they are not using the same standards and experiments, and they are not speaking in the same circles nor getting published in the same journals. If it does not walk like a duck, does not talk like a duck, and avoids ducks like the plague, there is little reason to assume its a duck. Or scientist, in this case. I'm not saying the anti-evolution folks are wrong, I'm just saying that they are not mainstream scientists. This is why they're not consulted for the voice of scientists. Now, they can be consulted for what they think if their views are notable.

Mutatis mutandis, this applies to your WP:SOURCES: these are not written by mainstream historians, so we don't use them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
That's circular reasoning: If one adheres to the (strictly) Dacian continuity that makes him a "protochronist" and hence he is unreliable and ideologically tainted. Anyway, it looks like we've been going around in circles too. Okay then, no problem, I'll make sure to cite only mainstream sources, and if you don't think they're mainstream then feel free to delete them (and let me know why). However when/if I do that I may need to add a header, etc, for clarity.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
p.s. you're really reaching there, mutatis mutandis.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Here is why: the only people who champion the Dacians-only view are Protochronists (and other wannabe-scholars who are their fellow travelers), Protochronists write unreliable sources, so this is catch 22 for getting the Dacians-only claim in our article, which defaults to it being fringe. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I get what you're saying but that doesn't make it right or true (your first statement above is patently false). The theory doesn't just magically default to "fringe", it does so because people like you deem themselves the absolute arbiters of what is "mainstream" and what isn't (if members of the Academy are not mainstream, what is?) Not that Wiki doesn't need policing, it does, but there should be a way to mitigate such "conflicts". Again, I'll just post mainstream sources (as mainstream as possible in my estimation) and hopefully we can reach a ceasefire.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, don't cite any Protochronist (or fellow traveler) for a start. Cite only mainstream WP:RS compliant with WP:SCIRS or WP:HISTRS. And a thing to remember: Wikipedians do not have much regard for WP:PRIMARY sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

This discussion does not belong here. It belongs on the Talk page of the article this is about. This page is for notifying people who are interested in fringe topics that something fringey is going on somewhere. That has happened by Tgeorgescu's first contribution here. All the rest of this discussion is happening at the wrong place. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I have copy/pasted it to Talk:Origin of the Romanians. May someone close this discussion? Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

References


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

The Menk, the Dyatlov Pass incident, Crackpots, and the So-Called "International Center of Hominology"

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

So, while cleaning up folklore-related articles on Wikipedia, my attention has turned to Wikipedia's Menk article. It appears that this creature stems from the folklore of the Mansi people, a minority group in what is today Russia (see these Google Books hits, for example). The figure has seen very limited coverage in English language folklore studies sources, which isn't surprising given its obscurity to western audiences. Still, with some digging around, I'm sure there's an interesting article to produce here.

Unfortunately, rather than encountering a well-researched piece discussing the development of the figure with factors such as attestations, an etymology, and comparative discussion from folklorists, what I instead found here was the usual monster-hunting pseudoscience (cryptozoology, use of the term cryptid) that continues to plague so many of our articles on folklore topics. More troubling still, there seems to be an active effort to use sources like visitcryptoville.com and news.theparanormal.ca to promote an idea that the Dyatlov Pass incident may have been a result of the menk, which the authors have gone to pains to paint as a Bigfoot or yeti-like entity (essentially in an emic perspective). Right now the article still includes discussion regarding the "International Center of Hominology", which appears to in fact be a Russian cryptozoology group. (No idea if it consists of say, more than a single person.)

Every now and then, a user appears and reinstates a variety of these links, including stuff from Youtube. Can we get some extra eyes on this article? :bloodofox: (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Added a couple high quality sources. Someone with the time can use these to expand the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Mark Z. Jacobson

Rwbest has engaged in tendentious editing of the article on Mark Z. Jacobson, who is a controversial figure in the real world due to his attempted use of libel law to silence scientific criticism, and on Wikipedia due to his editing of his own article.

At DRN, DGG suggested blocking Rwbest per WP:NOTADVOCACY. That would seem to be an option, but Rwbest does have a non-trivial edit history. That said, evidence from the Dutch Wikipedia suggests that some of his edits there are distinctly WP:FRINGE. I do not know if that is the case here. I would ask for a topic ban from Jacobson, and probably from zero-carbon more broadly, but whether it's worth helping Rwbest avoid an outright ban probably depends on how people view Worldwide energy supply, which is essentially a monograph by him. The Banner certainly has a beef with Rwbest, as the history of that article shows, but Ronz and others have also reverted his edits elsewhere.

So, is with worldwide energy supply article cromulent? Should I be advocating a topic ban or a simple block? Guy (Help!) 15:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Is this forum shopping or canvasing?Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
No. It's asking people experienced in fringe theories to look at an article I can't judge. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • No comment on whatever protracted dispute this is a piece of, but is there some respect in which Worldwide energy supply is something other than a big stringy ball of SYNTH/personal essay that randomly duplicates content from about a dozen articles based on no specific criteria, and should for some reason actually not be redirected and maybe selectively merged into Energy supply? GMGtalk 16:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
That was my strong impression, but I don't actually know. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Fringe theory? No, in the debate about the Paris Agreement on Climate Change the analysis of Jacobson and his co-workers was supported because it provides the greatest detail across time, analyzes individual nations, and includes a comprehensive set of technologies from which to choose, M. Cooper, The economic and institutional foundations of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, section III, January 2016 [wwwassets.vermontlaw.edu] See also [www.huffingtonpost.com] which clarifies also that the lawsuit was over factually false statements and not to silence scientific criticism. Rwbest (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
See WP:SYN. His zero carbon no-nuclear agenda is not mainstream. At all. Guy (Help!) 17:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You're basing a scientific argument on a story in HuffPo? Really? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Silurian hypothesis

Silurian hypothesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The original topic is two mainstream scientists asking "how would we prove or disprove that an industrialized global civilization didn't far enough in the past that geological activity would have ground all their buildings back into minerals?" If scientists follow through on trying to answer it, the results will be interesting regardless of what is found. Not really fringe.

The topic is not "There were definitely lizard people who developed atomic weapons and their own internet!" That is fringe.

Again, though, the original topic is not fringe, but it's only a matter of time before the topic attracts folks who insist that it's proof that David Icke, Helena Blavatsky, James Churchward, or some dentist were right all along. That's why I'm bringing it up here, to make sure we have extra eyes on it. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

This is a really, really interesting idea but aside from the recent flurry of press attention I'm not sure it's notable. Lots of stuff like this gets discussed over a beer during the poster session and some of it turns into an article or two. Watchlisted in any case. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Black Shuck, English folklore, and cryptozoology

Hello! Just a heads up that we've got some fringe activity over at black shuck, a ghostly dog from English folklore. This, like may articles on Wikipedia (see here), was hijacked by cryptozoologists once upon a time (deeply in violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, as usual). However, now we've got a user issuing threats and revert-warring to keep a category ("Stop vandalizing cryptid articles or I'm going to report you." ([22]). I restrict my article reverts to one revert per 24 hours, but this article could use some more eyes. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The reason your edit was reverted BloodofFox was due to there being no discussion as to why that category was removed (something you have done with a lot of Cryptid articles).--Paleface Jack 00:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Please review Wikipedia's policies on pseudoscience, specifically WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. In fact, discussion was (and is) ongoing on the article's talk page on the topic, although you have yet to participate. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)