Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

Archives

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

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

Editors more familiar with the subject might want to evaluate Evolution of human intelligence#Social exchange theory. Currently [1] it includes mention of one of Satoshi Kanazawa theories followed by how others have found no evidence to support it. (Something similar but in more detail is mentioned at G factor (psychometrics)#Other correlates where it seems to much more belong.) There is other R&I stuff which frankly seems out of place to me. Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanazawa is a red flag for sure. That section does a very poor job of explaining 'social exchange theory'. It also cites economist Thomas Sowell for claims that are (being extremely generous) way, way too simplistic. This should use reliable WP:IS to summarize instead of dancing around primary sources of wildly varying quality. Grayfell (talk) 08:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Watchers of this board are no doubt familiar with the article on the Feldenkrais Method, which has been discussed here several times. There has been some recent activity at that article, which has given rise to a discussion at the reliable sources notice board. You can find that discussion at WP:RSN#Inclusion of medical evidence review at Feldenkrais Method. MrOllie (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now WP:RSN#Inclusion of Kinesiology Review at Feldenkrais Method. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decided to rewrite the lede myself a bit. Kept it short and punchy, we'll see how this goes. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following the post of a rather odd video by someone titled "Archaeologist John Hoopes Corrupts Wikipedia" Graham Hancock tweeted the video to his almost 500,000 followers saying "University of Kansas Professor John Hoopes contributes ZERO to science in his own work but spends much time pouring scorn on the work of others. By weaponising his editor role at Wikipedia to push his own agenda he brings archaeology into disrepute:" This may involve a number of articles. I've already seen one on Hancock's talk page. Note that Hoopes is an editor here. Doug Weller talk 09:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which articles might this affect? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something that may be of interest to this noticeboard is the topic of the reliability of Canada's National Post on the subject of climate change. It came to my attention that in a recent journal analysis of the publication it came out worse even than the likes of the Daily Mail on the topic, with ~30% of its output assessed as wayward of the scientific consensus on the subject. See this thread for more details on the potentially relevant issue. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Family Constellations (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Cancel the "pseudoscience" description, it's all proven now! [2] --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family Constellations jps (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bert Hellinger jps (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is about [3]. Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal. Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[4] I don't think they are right but I'd like another opinion, and am trying to deal with a complicated CU right now. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just took a look -- the flares are absolutely discussed in the cited source. Removed the newly added tags. Feoffer (talk) 09:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jinn (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

User inputs and comments are requested at:

• Talk:Jinn#RfC: Proposed additions of text 1.

Bookku (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Jordan Peterson (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

A guy who denies that there is such a thing as climate, and still there are users who think he is not a climate denier. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three users all arguing that a known far-right personality is a centrist? Looks more like a matter for AE. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 19:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's edit warring at Dosha. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of the first sentence does not seem to be as concerning as the entire Principles section, based on a book that "reveals to us the secret powers of the body, breath, senses, mind and chakras". Reconrabbit 16:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to describing what that pseudoscience entails—we just do not pass it for valid. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone knowledgeable with medical research, mercury and autism care to review Renee Dufault? Aside from some questionable promotional edits, there's some fringe stuff being pushed here. Ravensfire (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baishideng Publishing Group, publisher of the immediately suspicious World Journal of Psychiatry (cited twice in the article), is on Beall's list. Square One Publishers, who published Dufault's book Unsafe at Any Meal, also published a book called Dressed to Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras. There are so many red-flag sources in this article I don't even know where to begin. I'm busy with other things at the moment but someone really should take a hatchet to any section of this article sourced to these or other suspicious sources. I'll do what I can, when I can. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article history, there seems to have been quite a bit of input from accounts now blocked for sockpuppetry or promotional editing. Brunton (talk) 07:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I slapped a bunch of unreliable source tags on it. Anti-vaccine blogs should not be used to support claims of a diet that prevents autism. Reconrabbit 19:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Related to this, Nutritional epigenetics. Lots of bold claims and marketing-esque language. The longer I look at this the worse it gets. Reconrabbit 20:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently its gone through 3 (or maybe 6... or maybe 9 depending on how you count it) AfDs.

Current deletion discussion is favoring deleting it altogether, but it keeps getting relisted. Would like more eyes on this. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Described in the lede as a "notion". The whole lede has a "some-say-this-some-say-that" tenor. "Maybe they are all god-killers and we should slaughter them, or maybe not. Who knows? Let the reader decide" seems to be the motto.

Jewish deicide is pretty clearly an antisemitic canard. Are there any non-Jewish sources for that? It seems that "Jewish advocacy sources" have a conflict of interest on the question of whether they should be all slaughtered or not, so they cannot be used. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see anything there about anyone slaughtering anyone. Can you point it out? Zero^talk 05:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The accusation that the Jews were Christ-killers fed Christian antisemitism[5] and spurred on acts of violence, directly after the "some-say-this-some-say-that" first paragraph. --Hob Gadling (talk)

Afterthought: I hope you will not stop reading after the word "violence". --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That paragraph is a true statement; why are you objecting to it? Neither the first paragraph, nor the lead as a whole, has the nature you claim. It is a fact that over history some people believed that rubbish and some didn't. If we don't report that, we aren't doing our job. Zero^talk 06:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some edits which I hope will address these issues, including adding what I believe will be a less contentious source. Generalrelative (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why raise this beef here? Jewish deicide was not, for over a thousand years, a fringe idea. It lay at the (dead)heart of a religious worldview. It died out in Western states (though not in Eastern Europe), and for centuries their Christian populations probably never heard much about it, and only then did it become what one could call a 'fringe' idea. One cannot tinker with historical articles thinking that there is only one thing worth keeping a sharp eye out for, traditional Christian enmity for Jews, and calling everything relevant to that trend, an antisemitic canard. Linguistically, a 'canard' is 'a false or unfounded report or story'. Both St. Augustine and the greatest Jewish medieval philosopher Maimonides subscribed to the belief that Jesus was killed by Jews, and they founded their belief on an interpretation of (a) ancient documents which lent support for the notion. Of course, 'Jews' did not kill Jesus anymore than 'Americans' committed genocide in Cambodia or 'Russians' committed the Holodomor. A belief, however stupid or inane or false, often has its roots in reports or misreports, which supply the foundational 'evidence'. One despairs when encyclopedic articles are tweaked by a browsing which itself appears to draw on a general principle or idea that ignores the complexities of history, and which assumes generic clichés and tired boilerplate keywords (which ring an emotional bell) can somehow serve an explanatory function that allows us to dispense with the hard yakka of actually examining the weight of scholarship to ensure we get things nuanced to capture, as here, a transition from infra-Jewish polemics (all those non-Romans present at the crucifixion, Christ included, were Jews, (b) those who wrote the gospels did so within a Jewish cultural milieu and (c) the gentilization of what was a Jewish reform movement and competitiveness with traditional Jewish communities, transformed these polemics over time into an accusation of Jewish (not 'Judean' as earlier) responsibility for Jesus's death. Maimonides, as said, endorsed this as what he, like Christian theologians for a millenia and a half, as a fact, which it wasn't. But this is a long way from modern dumbed-down dismissals of a lethally powerful idea as an antisemitic canard from the very outset.Nishidani (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree with Nishidani. It's a theological viewpoint (i.e not an objective factual statement, and thus not a "canard") that had wide currency in Christian thought for over a millennium. The fact that it is widely viewed as antisemitic can be discussed in the lead without being heavy-handed in the opening sentence. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish deicide was not, for over a thousand years, a fringe idea. Neither was astrology. Now both are fringe. If you want to turn this into one of those boring "this should not have been posted here!" discussions that lead nowhere, I'm out. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is about [5]. Please chime in. I don't think they edit in bad faith, but they have absolutely no idea what Wikipedia is about.

Are they kidding me that my edits aren't the view of Judaism? Just count how many rabbis I have WP:CITED at [6].

But: they are not the rabbis from this editor's sect. To be sure, my edits are not the POV of their sect of Judaism. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta say, your edit is full of typos and awkward phrasings, and also many of the sources seem kind of irrelevant to the topic at hand. What the Bible says and what Judaism says are two different things. Judaism is a living religion that did not stop evolving several thousand years ago when the Tanakh was written.

If you want a broader view than just Orthodox Judaism, you need to cite modern Reform and Conservative Jews, not a millenia old book that is famously open to interpretation. Loki (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LokiTheLiar: That nothing has changed for more than 800 years isn't my claim; it is the claim of my opponent. And, yup, I think I have WP:CITED several Reform of Conservative rabbis. If you read the quotes, they speak about the Bible, but they also speak about Rabbinic Judaism, i.e. post-Bible Jewish religious authorities. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I went in and fixed it so you can see what I mean: [7] Loki (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LokiTheLiar: Much better, but Orthodox Judaism believes that the Bible Outlaws premarital sex (Deuteronomy 23:18)(Maimonides, Hilkhot Ishut, 1:4 sorry, I only found a hebrew edition Maimonides...) It's true that it is not as explicit as most other forbidden relationships.

The part about lesbians was almost accurate; it is only an outcome of the commandment "After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do" (Leviticus 18:3)(Maimonides, Hilkhot Issurei Biah, 21:8). ZucherBundlech (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've always found that one a very impressive leap in reasoning. What about human pyramids? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

>:)

Good point...

I'm sure you realize Judaism has a little deeper meaning than that.

I will do a little bit of research, and would be happy to notify you of my findings. ZucherBundlech (talk) 11:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ZucherBundlech Don't take my word on this, but I think I heard that the interpretation that this was about lesbianism was based on some supposed Egyptian religious cult/practice where women had sex with women. I find it interesting that it's so vague compared to "If a man lies with a man as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is simple. The emission of semen for no reason, or as it is called: "wasting seed", is one of the worst transgressions or the worst transgression in Judaism, up to the point where the Zohar says there is no repentance for it. (actually, even the Zohar agrees there is a way to repent, and that statement is only to show the severity of the sin; learners of kabbalah cite this as an example of why inexperienced people should not learn Kabbalah on their own.)

Therefore, death is only prescribed in places where there could technically be an emission, (even if there actually was no emission).

There is debate what the punishment for Lesbianism is; some say whiplashes, some say there is no punishment, but that the Court should punish them with whiplashes out of their own volition (called Makkoth Mardut). ZucherBundlech (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, there actually is debate if the what the Talmud calls נשים המסוללות זו בזו (Women ..... with each other) refers to Lesbianism. ZucherBundlech (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, but what they say about Rabbinic Judaism isn't true. ZucherBundlech (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can't rely on your own opinion of what's true or your interpretation of documents that are 900+ years old. You're going to have to work with modern scholarship, the kind found in secondary WP:RS. MrOllie (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MrOllie: I can source what I'm saying.

Please read Halakha. ZucherBundlech (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There should be enough * University Press WP:RS which tell matter-of-factly what Orthodox Jews believe. There is no need to WP:CITE centuries old texts. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but nothing is as accurate as the first-hand material itself. I'm beginning to feel that you are somehow opposed to Orthodox Judaism's views, especially after what you wrote me on your user talk page ZucherBundlech (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't based upon first-hand material, but upon WP:SECONDARY sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: "first hand material" refers to the editors own research. Sorry... ZucherBundlech (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the "editors doing their own research is the best source" argument, then you're going to want to edit somewhere else. That's not how Wikipedia works. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what we say about WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY sources; as a rule we prefer the latter. Primary sources are important for research, but that isn’t what we do on Wikipedia. Repeated failure to recognize that this is part of our no original research policy is going to result in a loss of editing privileges if continued. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: If you didn't notice, I quoted the Bible (the primary source) as well as Maimonides ( secondary source) precisely because I am aware of this. I would welcome an accurate later source. However, none have been provided. I will continue to search for later sources. ZucherBundlech (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maimonides in this context, as part of the Jewish theological tradition and as a pre-modern text, is considered primary with respect to the topic. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I'm searching for later sources. The problem is, not many Jewish Orthodox books have been written about the topic less than 200-150 years, since we tend to follow earlier sources in any case. The best I will probably find is a short summary or something similar. ZucherBundlech (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I expect that you’ll have a very easy time finding authoritative sources on the contemporary beliefs of Orthodox Jews on Google Scholar, as it is a topic that has drawn a fair amount of scholarly interest. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some potentially useful sources:

• Traditional Jewish Sex Guidance: A History, Brill, seems like it would be an ideal source for the topic of Jewish attitudes towards sex as a whole.
• Women in Modern Judaism, Cambridge
• Observance of the Laws of Family Purity in Modern–Orthodox Judaism, Springer (which does appear to refer specifically to the Modern Orthodox movement and not those who are Orthodox today in the "modern" day, so a bit less useful maybe)

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The real question is if they read such sources, or they consider these sources as attacking their religion. I was a fundamentalist myself, so I know they see higher criticism and religion studies as attacks upon their worldview. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is NOT true. Please stop attacking Jews and Orthodox Jews. Wikipedia is not a platform to promote your beliefs of Orthodox Jews being "anti women", "outdated", and as seeing criticism and religion studies as "attacks". You are free to make these accusations on social media; not here. ZucherBundlech (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where are those quotes coming from? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check the editors Talk Page ZucherBundlech (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check Fundamentalist–modernist controversy (yup, it's about Christianity, but the same has played out in Judaism, and other religions) and https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/hebrew-bible/free-hebrew-bible-course-with-shaye-cohen/ (from 0:29:00 to 0:30:00, for more detailed: 0:27:00 to 0:30:00). Shaye J. D. Cohen confirms there that that controversy applies to Judaism, as well.

Also, the card of attacking Jews should not be played lightly. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What am I missing? I can't find the term "anti woman" used and the only use of "outdated" is by you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My edits can be construed as anti-fundamentalist, but I don't indulge in hate speech. In respect to my own emotions: I do feel emotions such as jealousy, envy, anger, but I don't feel hate. I never learned that emotion. Let me be very clear: the previous three emotions are not about fundamentalists or the Jews, I was speaking of my own psychology. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry T, thats a response to ZucherBundlech. I don't find your editing to be particularly anti-anything, no comment on whether core emotions are learned or not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"They are not Orthodox Jewish rabbis, but they are rabbis nevertheless. Yup, women can be rabbis, too."

"Wikipedia listens to modern mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP, not to Ancient or Medieval scholars. You are in the wrong place: this isn't Orthodox Jewish Wiki." ZucherBundlech (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm just over-sensitive, but this is a lot like other attacks I've been subjected to (not on Wikpedia) ZucherBundlech (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not seeing "anti woman" or "outdated" where are those quotes from? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "Yup, women can be rabbis, too" (which is totaly unnecessary) is insinuating that I refused to accept her view because she is a women. Especially after what the editor wrote at the beginning of the discussion: "Maybe you work under the assumption that you should only trust scholars of Judaism who are male and halachically Jewish." ZucherBundlech (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for the outdated part, it was never explicit, but I got that feeling after repeatedly challenging me that "not to Ancient or Medieval scholars" "Orthodox Judaism does, Wikipedia doesn't. See WP:SYNTH. Medieval or early modern texts are not WP:RS for making claims in the voice of Wikipedia"

The fact is that Orthodox Judaism believes the Torah to be inflexible, the same today as it was 3000 years ago. I tried making that clear to Tgeorgescu, but the editor constantly circled back to the fact that it was long outdated.

But you're right; I should not have mentioned it. The discussion got a little bit too heated. I apologize for that, @Tgeorgescu.

Forgive me? ZucherBundlech (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: Thanks. I'm aware that source do exist, and I will quote them; however, I prefere sources in the Jewish Orthodox world itself, which I have found to be more accurate. ZucherBundlech (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of source are you thinking of, exactly? By definition, sources that contradict the majority of reliable sources on a topic will be considered WP:FRINGE at best. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, search for WP:IS, i.e. third-party observers. See emic and etic. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: I'm sorry, I just reread my post. It is quit misleading. I apologize for that. ZucherBundlech (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]