Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

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

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

Article alerts

Did you know

• 16 Jan 2025 – Epistemology (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Phlsph7 (t · c); see discussion
• 14 Jan 2025 – Transgender health care misinformation (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist (t · c); see discussion

Categories for discussion

• 28 Jan 2025 – Category:Fictional alchemists (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Jc37 (t · c); see discussion
• 25 Jan 2025 – Category:Setians (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by PARAKANYAA (t · c); see discussion
• 22 Jan 2025 – Category:InfoWars people (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Fourthords (t · c); see discussion
• 21 Dec 2024 – Category:Possibly fictional people from Africa (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Smasongarrison (t · c); see discussion
• 21 Dec 2024 – Category:Possibly fictional people from Asia (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Smasongarrison (t · c); see discussion

Good article nominees

• 26 Jan 2025 – 2024 United States drone sightings (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Anne drew (t · c); start discussion
• 15 Dec 2024 – Misinformation about the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Dan Leonard (t · c); see discussion
• 19 Jan 2025 – Ancient Aliens (talk · edit · hist) GA nominated by Thosbsamsgom (t · c) was closed

Good article reassessments

• 17 Jan 2025 – Periyar (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by Z1720 (t · c); see discussion

Requests for comments

• 30 Dec 2024 – COVID-19 lab leak theory (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by Slatersteven (t · c); see discussion

Peer reviews

• 17 Jan 2025 – Epistemology (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by Phlsph7 (t · c); see discussion

Requested moves

• 21 Jan 2025 – LGBT chemicals conspiracy theory (talk · edit · hist) move request to Gay frogs conspiracy theory by GnocchiFan (t · c) was not moved; see discussion
• 06 Jan 2025 – Deep state in the United States (talk · edit · hist) move request to Deep state conspiracy theory in the United States by BootsED (t · c) was moved to Deep state conspiracy theory in the United States (talk · edit · hist) by CommunityNotesContributor (t · c) on 25 Jan 2025; see discussion

Articles to be merged

• 02 Dec 2024 – Amulet (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Ta'wiz by Klbrain (t · c); see discussion
• 24 Nov 2024 – Omphalos hypothesis (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Last Thursdayism by Викидим (t · c); see discussion
• 13 Jul 2024 – Peter A. Levine (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Somatic experiencing by Klbrain (t · c); see discussion

Articles to be split

• 26 Jan 2025 – UFO conspiracy theories (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Feoffer (t · c); see discussion

Water fluoridation controversy

• Water fluoridation controversy (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

RFK Jr. may belong in the article, but some people insist it has to be in a specific way, which results in lots of edit-warring recently. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the correct space for this. But why do we call it a "controversy"? There is no reasonable controversy to speak of when we're looking at water fluoridation. We don't call the antivaxxer movement part of a "vaccination controversy", or do we? The nicest terms I've seen used is "hesitancy", as in vaccine hesitancy. I think anti-fluoridation cranks deserve the same treatment as anti-vaxxers. Also, they're mostly the same people... I'm thinking the tone should be more in line with anti-vaccine movement or outright mention misinformation, like in COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and hesitancy. VdSV9•♫ 12:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, deleting the "controversy" part would probably give a better article name. "Opposition to water fluoridation"? But that belongs on the talk page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

That would be a better name Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks like there has been discussion on the talk page about this: I've moved the article to Opposition to water fluoridation; parts of this article will have to be reworded. GnocchiFan (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Well...JAMA Pediatrics did publish a meta-analysis linking water fluoridation to decreased IQ in children. That review is now prominently emplaced in the (stupidly large) lead of the main fluoridation article - but interestingly enough, not in the "opposition" article in question (yet). I don't know how you intend to handle this, and I probably wouldn't have time to contribute to this on top of editing my usual subject matter, but it's worth mentioning. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

JAMA Pediatrics did publish a meta-analysis linking water fluoridation to decreased IQ in children. No, they didn't. That's inaccurate and misleading. It not a link between fluoridation, as in Fluoride being added to the water, and IQ decrease. But Fluoride exposure from drinking water. Places with higher than 1500 ppm of Fluoride in water have those levels naturally - and an inverse association was found to be statistically significant only in those cases. So it's not from fluoridation, it's for a lack of control over the natural levels of fluoride in the water supply, which means there are also confounding factors: what other possibly toxic elements could naturally be in that untreated water? It's a very small effect with lots of confounding factors.

Looking at that big paragraph that mentions this and other studies, and it's a mess. One thing jumped out and I'm editing out right now. VdSV9•♫ 15:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

See also Water fluoridation, which is teetering on the brink of an edit war. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, experienced eyes on Water fluoridation would be appreciated. Someone added a bunch of FRINGE and it stuck for months. Now an editor with about 180 edits to their name is all like "STATUSQUO" and it's really aggravating. Also, expert criticism on some systematic review studies is, apparently, undue, and the most sensationalized interpretations of the study (i.e. actual anti-Fluoridation propaganda) is, apparently, NPOV. VdSV9•♫ 02:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

You might ask the newer editor whether they've actually read WP:STATUSQUO. It doesn't say what a lot of editors think it says. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I have added a new thread below as both are different topics. --Julius Senegal (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory

I think we need more eyes on the talk page for COVID-19 lab leak theory regarding multiple discussion threads there. There's been a lot of WP:SPA and new account activity over the past two months and there should really be broader community involvement so WP:LOCALCONSENSUS issues don't occur. There's several instances of comments currently on the talk page where accounts more or less openly state that they're trying to make POV changes because the scientific community is covering up the facts. Silverseren^C 21:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Just for bookkeeping so that people following this noticeboard are aware, there are at least two drahmaboard discussions about this matter active now:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility_and_ABF_in_contentious_topics
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#BabbleOnto

jps (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I also have a heavy suspicion that somewhere in here are some socks (especially given the sheer number and timeline of SPAs and anons). I filed a CheckUser on two of the new SPAs, but they were likely unrelated.

Is it possible a bunch of random people from various corners of the internet are all simultaneously becoming interested in this topic again? Yes. Is it more likely that at least one or a few of these are socks of LTAs? Also yes. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It's also possible that they're all separate people that are organizing this activity together on some conspiracy forum somewhere. Much harder to detect in that case. Silverseren^C 16:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

That was my thinking. Alternatively the election of Trump has reinvigorated WP:SPA's who are out to WP:RGW. TarnishedPath^talk 23:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me the problem with that article has always been that "lab leak theory" is not really an encyclopedic topic. The topic is Origin of SARS-CoV-2 and really not much has changed as far as evidence goes in years. If there is an encyclopedic topic of "Lab Leak" it is the story, recent and ongoing history, a narrative of notable events. WP has taken a story and tried to transform it into a topic for an encyclopedia. fiveby(zero) 16:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It's a conspiracy theory, which is entirely an encyclopedic topic. Just because "vaccines cause autism" is complete bokum doesn't mean it's not encyclopedic to have our Vaccines and autism article. Silverseren^C 16:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Delta smelt

There is an IP adding a theory from an SPS that does not come from a subject matter expert. The theory claims that an act Newsom refused to sign to protect the Delta smelt caused the Palisades Fire to spread out of control. What should I tell the IP? None of the Twinkle warning templates really seem to match. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I would use the Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material ... warning, with a link to WP:RSSELF in the edit window of the message. Donald Albury 21:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delta smelt (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

More and more articles are in danger of fringe edits because of a certain random rambler. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Given that the habitat of the Delta smelt is about 335 miles north of Los Angeles and that all the decisions about the Peripheral Canal were made before Gavin Newsom was governor, and that even if Newsom had pushed hard to ship Northern California water hundreds of miles to Southern California without regard to environmental issues, and had succeeded (politically impossible), the necessary infrastructure could not possibly have been funded and built in the six years that Newsom has been governor. Add to that that the problems with fire hydrants in LA have not been due to lack of water in general but rather to power failures to water pumps caused by the massive fires, and limits to water storage that feeds fire hydrants. The storage tanks high in the hills were depleted quickly. They are bringing in portable generators as needed, and struggling to refill those tanks. When you add all that up, the connection between the Delta smelt and the 2025 Palisades Fire is non-existent, except in the minds of disinformation operatives and gullible conspiracy theorists. Cullen328 (talk) 09:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

My understanding based on watching the coverage of the fires is that it's mainly a pressure issue and not an issue of total existing water. Basically, no city has the infrastructure in place for every hydrant everywhere to be opened all at the same time. It's designed for multiple structure fires and not multiple town-size fires. Moreover, I expect that if someone tried to install the infrastructure for such a rare situation, everyone of all political stripes would be balking at the cost of something that might be used once every century. GMG^talk 12:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion about SBM at COVID-19 lab leak theory

See Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#Science-Based Medicine - cleanup needed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Misandry

Old/current Wikipedia message: "Misandry is a minor issue, not equivalent to the widespread practice and extensive history of misogyny."

My suggested edit: Some experts see misandry as a minor issue, not equivalent to the widespread practice and extensive history of misogyny. Others disagree, and see misandry as a major issue.

My edit has been reverted by @mrollie and @Binksternet (who said I was engaging in an edit war or about to, but reverted himself, which I didn't fully understand.)

Their reasoning was that seeing misandry as a minor issue was the consensus amongst scholars. However, I said that there was no evidence that the majority of scholars don't see misandry as a big deal, or that seeing misandry as a big deal was a "fringe issue" amongst scholars. Who's in the right here?

P.S. if you think I'm in the right I'd appreciate it if you reverted it for me so that I don't get into trouble for edit wars.

Thank you all for your time. Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC) Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

And please note that this is regarding the text in the Misogyny article. Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:15, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

If the best source you can find to demonstrate the prevalence of a position is a blog post published in a pop science rag, then it is quite possibly a fringe position. Remsense ‥ 论 06:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

The Misandry and Misogyny articles must both tell the reader that misogyny is a huge deal and misandry is comparatively minor and recent. That's because the people who make the most noise in social media about misandry—members of the men's rights movement—have been pushing a false equivalence to get more sympathy for their cause. They keep saying that misandry is a huge deal, much the same as misogyny. Scholars who study these issues have formed a consensus against the MRM position, saying that misogyny has a few thousand years of terrible mistreatment of women, while misandry is about 1 percent of that, as it is a recent accusation, representing a backlash against the advances of feminism. Topic scholars making this description include David G. Gilmore, Marc Ouellette, Heidi R. Riggio, Michael Kimmel, Alice E. Marwick, Robyn Caplan, Frances Ferguson and R. Howard Bloch, among many others. These are all cited in the misandry article. In fact, 40 topic scholars have declared a "misandry myth" contradicting the MRM claims, saying that feminists in general do not hate men. It's a thing. Binksternet (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Just because it's newer doesn't mean it's a minor issue, and misandry doesn't have to mean that feminists in general hate men. Do the sources you listed also state that it's a consensus that misandry is a minor issue? To clarify, are they claiming that they think it's a minor issue or are they stating that it's the consensus? Perhaps you could point to specific from the sources?

@Remsense I wasn't sure it was a blog post, but I did see the person writing the article had a PHD, and I saw some other places on google scholar stating that too.

Wikieditor662 (talk) 07:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS is on you to demonstrate the proposed changes represent positions in proportion to their prominence in the body of reliable sources. This is something the post above goes much farther in demonstrating, even citing a survey of many relevant scholars. Remsense ‥ 论 07:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Just because it's newer doesn't mean it's a minor issue Then it's a good thing that nobody said that was the reason for it being a minor issue. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like “comparatively minor” would be more accurate, unless sources state that it is a minor issue on some kind of absolute scale. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Black male studies sources do not consider at least the racialized version of misandry to be a minor issue.--Reprarina (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

misandry is comparatively minor and recent

From what source did you get the idea that hatred towards men appeared recently? I read a lot of sources including Misandry myth and Drinking male tears. There is no such thing there. On the contrary, sources say that feminism is no more misandrist than non-feminism and antifeminism.--Reprarina (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Is the claim that it is less harmful, or less widespread? The ability to carry out harmful action is directly proportional to power structures, and desire to do harmful things can exist without harmful action. From what I can tell, the sources being cited are mainly discussing the harmful action aspect, referencing the larger number of men holding positions of power. I don't see support for the claim that misandry is a "minor issue" in sense of being a less common form of prejudice, as is implied by the article. Dekadoka (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

It's definitely an issue that has received increased attention. But it does probably need better sourcing to back your stance. I would recommend something like Of Boys and Men by Reeves. Granted, I largely disregard the MRM as weirdos. But the subject has gotten treatment from people who aren't online weirdos.

I would also note that misandry doesn't necessarily mean overt and explicit "hatred" of men exclusively. By all accounts, the jerk at the office or the Harvey Weinstein at the job interview doesn't hate women. They're probably very fond of them. But they're also part of a systemic viewpoint that devalues people based on a particular class membership. GMG^talk 14:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

This. Implicit misandry without any "I hate men" is also misandry.--Reprarina (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

These are the types of claims that should be attributed. Wikipedia shouldn't be telling people what issues are important, it should be telling people who thinks what's important and why. Trying to use Wikipedia to say "this issue is worse than that one" is textbook POV pushing. And Wikieditor662, keep in mind that it's still edit warring if you ask other people to do it on your behalf, and it's not a good idea to dodge restrictions like that be enlisting others. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you all for your responses, please allow me to address them:

@Remsense @GreenMeansGo If there are reliable sources on a topic giving opposing views, and you claim that one is a minority view, wouldn't the responsibility of proof fall on you? Either way, I tried to find information as to whether scholars have a consensus on the severity of misandry. There is only one thing I found in regards to that:

1) "Misandry is a very general and very contested term" - Excerpt from Sutton, Robbie M., et al. "The false and widespread belief that feminists are misandrists." (Please note the title isn't related to the issue, as it's about whether misandry is a big issue, not whether feminists are misandrist.)

Note that this was in regards to what the consensus is about Misandry. I can also show you what individual scholars think of Misandry, but again, this may not necessarily represent the consensus:

"Whether you define misandry as “hatred” or “contempt,” which is … First, misandry is a major

problem for men and must not be …"

Source: NathaNsoN, Paul, and KatheriNe K. YouNg. "Misogyny versus Misandry: From" Comparative Suffering" to Inter-Sexual Dialogue." New Male Studies 3.3 (2014).

"Mitigation of misogyny and misandry is crucial"

Source: Oparah, J. S., and Mary Ndubuisi Fidelis. "Misogyny and Misandry: Reasons and Mitigating Strategies in the Sample of Antenatal Patients in Tertiary Health Facilities in Owerri Municipal Imo State, Nigeria." International Journal of Human Kinetics, Health and Education 5.1 (2019).

These are some of the areas of text I found from google scholar; I'm sure there's plenty more. But except for the one excerpt stating that Misandry is a general and contested term (they may be talking about the general population, so I'm not even sure if that counts), I couldn't find anything about what the consensus is, but it appears to be a nuanced issue amongst scholars from what I see.

As for the WP:ONUS, some other options would be to only compare it to misogyny (for example what @Barnards.tar.gz suggested, although that example specifically would also require source/s), to mention that it's the counterpart of misogyny but not compare it, or just not mention misandry at all.

-

@Hob Gadling I think Binkstrenet did when he said "misogyny has a few thousand years of terrible mistreatment of women, while misandry is about 1 percent of that, as it is a recent accusation"

-

@Thebiguglyalien In the first part of your sentence, were you referring to where it says Misandry is a minor issue when you were talking about POV pushing?

And as for asking people to do the edit on my behalf, I meant after a consensus was reached, I promise it wasn't my intention to escalate an edit war. I apologize if I worded that statement badly.

-

Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

New Male Studies is a journal sponsored by the foundation for male studies. The about us page of the foundation includes PragerU and random TED talk videos.

International Journal of Human Kinetics is not a journal really about human sociology, and is published by a random department in the university of nigeria.

These don't pass muster for reliable and due sourcing. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I quite specifically pointed to evidence that this position is in the great majority, and am not sure how you missed that. Remsense ‥ 论 03:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The sentence could certainly be worded more impartially. That said, typing a phrase such as "misandry is a major problem" into any search engine is going to return biased results. Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young are religious scholars whose writings about misandry are outside their field of expertise and have been harshly critiqued by topic experts. Their views are extremely WP:UNDUE if not outright WP:FRINGE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Bluethricecreamman I thought the information on google scholar was reliable, perhaps I was wrong. That's unfortunate, it means getting reliable sources is a little more difficult. Are you aware of any other easy ways to find reliable sources?

@Remsense are you referring to the misandry myth title? As far as I'm aware that's in regards to the viewpoint that feminism is misandrist, so it might be talking about a specific part of misandry rather than all of it.

@Sangdeboeuf I didn't type that in, I typed in things like "misandry" and "what do scholars think of misandry" and "is misandry a problem" into google scholar, but now I'm noticing that also may not be reliable as @Bluethricecreamman so I'm trying to figure out where else I can check

Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Not every source on Google Scholar is reliable. For scholarly sources, check if the journal is peer-reviewed and is well-respected by others. The journals you posted were easy to investigate with a quick google search to see who were sponsoring them, or if they were predatory. Please see also WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:DUE. You need to find sourcing that is due, not the first sourcing that validates your point of view. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Alright, here are some things I found from what I believe are peer-reviewed articles (and I searched misandry and clicked on whatever I saw). These are some different perspectives I found on it:

The psychology of women quarterly (the misandry myth) shows different sides to the issue (I'll highlight the specific parts).

On one side: "some feminists have claimed that misandry is a legitimate, even necessary aspect of the movement. Their argument is that bad feelings toward men are rational responses to men's hatred and mistreatment of women and that more positive or dispassionate responses would only undermine women's motivation to bring about social change

On the other: "On the other hand, there are reasons to think that feminists may harbor positive attitudes toward men. Many feminists disown misandry' and even advocate for men and boys." (They later elaborate on this by stating "Feminists have driven forward significant changes in men's favor (Courtenay, 2000) including the repeal of sexist drinking laws (Plank, 2019) and laws that define rape in terms that exclude assaults in which men are victims (Cohen, 2014; Javaid, 2016). Feminists have also advocated for reforms that mean the burden of front-line combat duties and dangerous occupations are now open to women and therefore no longer borne alone by men (Soules, 2020). These phenomena weigh against the conclusion that in general, feminists are motivated by negative attitudes toward men.")

Interestingly enough, the article Hating Misandry will free you? Valerie Solanas in Paris or the discursive politics of misandry argues, if I understand correctly, that a certain type of misandry can even be a good thing. If I'm correct, that article (and others) seems to imply that the term misandry has had a major influence on feminism and dissuaded many people from becoming feminists in fear of being called misandrist. These articles seemed to try to counter that notion, but the notion's existence itself shows that at least the concept of misandry is a major issue.

-

I'm pretty sure these sources are reliable and prove that it's a nuanced issue, but I apologize in advance if I made some sort of mistake. Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

might be worth inclusion depending on what is added in and where. I have no clue about this subject matter. try WP:BRD with these new changes, and if you are reverted, engage in discussion on the article talk page. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

What do you think about Crime & Delinquency? A recent study in the journal found significant level of both implicit and explicit misandry in the criminal justice system.--Reprarina (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Assuming misandry needs to be mentioned at all in the Misogyny article, then I'd go with others' suggestion to attribute the opinions of relevant scholars. Copying from the Misandry article, we could say something like: Marc A. Ouellette argues in International Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities that "misandry lacks the systemic, transhistoric, institutionalized, and legislated antipathy of misogyny". Anthropologist David Gilmore argues that misogyny is a "near-universal phenomenon" and that there is no male equivalent. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Seems good to me. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah Sangdeboeuf has the right of it. And do please avoid the PragerU pseudo-journal. They aren't a real university. Simonm223 (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Let me add what the peer reviewed article mentioned: Marc A. Ouellette argues in International Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities that "misandry lacks the systemic, transhistoric, institutionalized, and legislated antipathy of misogyny". Anthropologist David Gilmore argues that misogyny is a "near-universal phenomenon" and that there is no male equivalent. At the same time, the Psychology of Women Quarterly in the article the Misandry Myth states that many feminists disown Misandry and advocate against it. Is this good to go? And if we reached consensus, can I add it? Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC) Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd argue that misandry doesn't need to be mentioned in the misogyny article, there's a link to misandry on the bottom among related articles and I think that's enough. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 10:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Are you sure the two aren't connected and don't influence each other? Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

if major texts discussing misogyny do not also talk significantly about misandry, then we cannot include it due to WP:DUE.

It technically does not matter if it is obvious anyone thinks they are connected, WP:OR means we have to find sourcing that backs it up...

If there are minor texts talking about both somehow, then maybe thats an auxiliary article... Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, there are major texts discussing misandry which also talk significantly about misogyny, does that count? Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

... i mean you can debate it in the talk page. im not a topic expert on it, but i think folks who watch that page, myself included, would probably want a text that discusses misogyny to spend a bit of time on misandry for it to be considered due for more than a mention in a see also. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Connected and influencing one another are two different things. They are in the same category, this is reflected by the "Related" link at the bottom of the article.

To claim they influence one another WP:RS is needed. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 05:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

So is it ok if I remove the part that talks about Misandry on the Misogyny page? Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

No. You'd need go get consensus at Talk:Misogyny to do that, and I think that is unlikely to happen. MrOllie (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Given @TurboSuperA+'s reasoning, why is it unlikely to happen? Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Because finding one person who sort of agrees with you on this noticeboard is not a substitute for gathering consensus support on the article's talk page. MrOllie (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Then should I go to the Misogyny page and seek consensus between removing mention of misandry and changing to the phrases mentioned earlier here? Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The answer to that question is a few lines above, but at least it is a better option than editing the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Kozyrev mirror

• Kozyrev mirror (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Seems to have only in-universe sources. Does anybody know any better ones? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

In russian Wikipedia I deleted it in 2019 because there are no normal sources on this topic ru:Википедия:К_удалению/27_февраля_2019#Зеркало_Козырева. Only fringe sources such as Kaznacheev. El-chupanebrej (talk) 10:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Never heard of it before. Pretty outlandish stuff. Having a look. VdSV9•♫ 13:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

This just feels like it needs an AfD more than any extra eyes on it. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kozyrev mirror (2nd nomination) jps (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Ido Kedar using Facilitated Communication

I'm not even sure how to word this question to you all, but it comes down to this, if Ido Kedar is using Facilitated communication and or Rapid prompting method and is a student of RPM founder Soma Mukhopadhyay then how is it that Kedar is listed as being "author, memoirist, essayist, educator, and autistic advocate"? Sgerbic (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Is he still only using FC/RPM? The article claims he types on a tablet unassisted. jps (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Not a WP:RS, but the best sanguine evaluation I can find: [1]. No real explanation as to whether Kedar may be engaging in validated augmentative and alternative communication or is still in the thralls of FC/RPM. jps (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

So despite that no one has ever been proved to have become an independent writer after using FC, we have to assume that this person is an independent writer just because they said so? If so can we start writing articles from people who are dead but are currently telling us about what life is like in heaven? I'm only half-joking. Sgerbic (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Our hands are tied by WP:RS and WP:BLP. The blogpost is the best we can do with someone evaluating the situation and we really can't use it for any claims. An alternative might be to argue that we don't have reliable WP:FRIND sources about the subject and asking for deletion. jps (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

It's one of those cases where, I think, so-called weasel words would be appropriate. I don't know if the zeitgeist in WP has changed in regards to their use. He is an "alleged" those things. Who claims that he is those things? That's the problem. We don't really know! VdSV9•♫ 13:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd say deletion is the best option, if we have no reliable sources. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ido Kedar. Let's see how this goes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

During the AfD discussion, two peer-reviewed papers were identified which I think more-or-less cast doubt on the FC/RPM techniques associated with the claims of communication. I have added them to the talkpage of the article. Perhaps they can be used in the article in some fashion, but I'm not exactly clear to what end (and to what extent articles which implicitly or explicitly contradict these points should also be included). jps (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

For the record, I courtesy blanked the AfD, not because of BLPVIOs but because we should be ashamed of it, as a community. Polygnotus (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Jonathan Bernier

Is this WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE? [2] tgeorgescu (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to judge whether it is or isn't fringe but for something as culturally and historically significant as the New Testament one minor scholar's unique opinion should never be given that much due weight on the main article. Definitely undue weight. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I mentioned shortening the description over undue weight in the talk page as well. Maurice Casey and James Crossley also argued for early datings like Bernier as well, so I would not describe it as an extremely unique opinion. This review mentions the book had a strong press release, with endorsements from the notable Chris Keith among others. Silverfish2024 (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Early dating is not necessarily fringe since Casey and Crossley are actually atheists and relatively recent scholars that argue for this. Chris Keith is a notable scholar too. I think this is just a minority position at the moment and can be represented in the encyclopedia with attribution or respective weight. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your input @Ramos1990. I think adding a shorter description on earlier datings is a good idea. It is indeed a minority position, but significant. Silverfish2024 (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Since when does atheism disqualify anybody from anything? This sounds like you want to redefine "reliable" as "agrees with me". --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

The fact that Casey and Crossley are reputable scholars who publish with academic publishers like T&T Clark and are associated with institutions like Cambridge makes them highly reliable sources. My uneducated guess is that @Ramos1990 noted their atheism to refute any accusations of bias. Silverfish2024 (talk) 09:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Early dating for the New Testament literature has traditionally been advocated by predominantly conservative Evangelicals and apologists. The point about atheist (and presumably critical) scholars advocating for such positions in recent years is not intended to disqualify atheists, but to argue that such ideas perhaps should not be brushed off as being fringe, though (which should be highlighted) still a minority position. Divus303 (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Chico Xavier and Explore

A user is edit warring to include the results of a study in the fringe journal Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing in the article about Brazilian claimed medium Chico Xavier. At minimum the additional context from skeptical writers provided in the explore article (Explore:_The_Journal_of_Science_&_Healing#Chico_Xavier_letters) should be included in the main Xavier article, though I would mind mention of the study being removed enitrely. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done this [3] but the section should still be checked over for neutrality, as the wording of the initial paragraph on the paper seems overtly promotional and long to me. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

If any of this is inappropriate to bring up, please delete and let me know. But... The Portuguese language article for Xavier is very problematic, based almost entirely on believer "in-world" sources, and studies such as this one are presented in a very credulous way. Even argumentative, and often proselytising in tone.

I have tried to make improvements to it, with very little success, because there are always a few believers watching the page who fight over every sentence and are immune to reason (the article is currently blocked by admins because of one such dispute).

Looking over at the English version, it clearly has been created as a translation of an old version of that one and has a few of the same issues, but some of the more outrageous things seem to have been improved.

This Explore paper is a good example of the sort of thing that passes as "scientific" for these spiritist editors (should I tag them here? They also have accounts in the English project). The Portuguese version even includes the fact that the paper is indexed at PubMed, in a very poor attempt at an appeal to authority fallacy. As if the irrelevant fact that the paper's abstract is available at PubMed gives it any weight or credence. Doesn't matter how many times I point to WP:FRINGE, the spiritist Portuguese language editors refuse to listen. If anything, they seem to get offended and sink their heels even deeper by the suggestion. It can be quite frustrating.

I have taken further comments about this paper over to the article's talk page. Anyone is welcome correct me or add to the conversation. VdSV9•♫ 18:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Papers authored by parapsychologists, especially ones forwarding WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims, should not be given weight in an article unless they are notable as discussed by WP:FRIND sources. Although better than the Portuguese version, the Xavier article is still loaded with worshipful anecdotes and overly credible tone, e.g. When challenged to demonstrate his abilities, Francisco impressively rose to the occasion. He was asked to improvise an essay on the spur of the moment about a grain of sand, with the assistance of a spirit. Despite the lack of preparation and the immediate nature of the challenge, he succeeded. I understand Xavier is a beloved part of the culture in Brazil, but our article has long ago veered off the path of encyclopedic. I would say WP:BLOWITUP but doubt the fans would allow it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I think Hemiauchenia did a good job in regards to the part that mentions the Explore paper. The section you quote is one outstanding example of the proselytising tone in the article. Such an unsourced fantastic claim should just be removed. The one ref in the entire childhood section doesn't have anything about an essay on a grain of sand.

This was probably taken by one of the many very credulous biographies about the man. VdSV9•♫ 21:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@VdSV9: The problem is that the coverage of Xavier is basically entirely in Portuguese, and often in difficult to access 20th century sources like old TV interviews and such. I would improve the article, but without good critical sources that's difficult to do. Do you have any good source recommendations that talk about Xavier from a non-hagiographic perspective? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it is a big problem. Almost everything that is published about him in mainstream media for the past several decades has been hagiographical. There are very few exceptions, but publishers usually err on the side of caution when it comes to hurting people's religious sensibilities, as Brazilian law typically is more interested in protecting religious feelings than it is in protecting the victims of charlatans.

It's quite a cumbersome system to navigate, but the Brazilian National Library has a big collection of searchable old magazines (link). Here is one notable story from 1971 that I added to the pt version. And another one from 1944.

A problem, especially with his childhood, is that everything is unverifiable. Everything is hearsay written decades after the fact. We can't even properly attribute things, because we don't really know who said it, or when they said it. For most non-extraordinary claims, that's fine. But when it comes to extraordinary claims, I don't even know how to handle it. VdSV9•♫ 21:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I've just deleted almost the entire childhood section. It's not sourced anyway. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Exorcism in the Catholic Church

• Exorcism in the Catholic Church (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Complaint on the talk page: the realist angle is missing. Complaint seems legit. Who is familiar with sources in this area? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Vladimir Bukovsky and the Russian hacker conspiracy

WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE and WP:POVPUSH in the article/section: Vladimir Bukovsky#Child pornography case

Related talk topics: [4] [5]

Rather than continue the back and forth with the other editor, it would be good to have input from others. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 05:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I replied there. I mostly said my piece about it on the talk page, but I find that your approach could be a bit more respectful to @My very best wishes. You are in a content dispute with another editor who is very decently arguing their point (and as a result I agree with them on the content), but you choose to drag it to this noticeboard even though the connection to fringe stuff is tenuous at best, while declaiming policies like it is a clear-cut thing that any of these have been breached. That is in my opinion misleading, and unfair to the other editor whose contributions you are misrepresenting. Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 14:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Please quote what I said that could be more respectful. I am always looking to improve. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I think I was very clear actually, I criticized your "approach", not individual words, and explained why I felt that way. I have now read the rest of the talk page of the article in question, and I see that there was recently a long discussion between multiple editors about this section already and how best to bring it to WP:NPOV. It ended in a consensus that looks satisfactory to me, therefore I now think your approach is doubly misguided. Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 14:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I see, there is nothing wrong with my approach then, you disagree with my assessment. That is your prerogative, but you don't need to accuse me of being disrespectful. WP:RS consensus supports my view. Only 3 sources support the Bukovsky/Russian hacker conspiracy view: RFE/RL (considered "reliable, with restrictions"), an NYT article, and a book published by a self-proclaimed conservative publishing house that published books by Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and Glenn Beck. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I have replied once again on the talk page, but am no longer convinced engaging is productive at the moment. I will wait until other editors weigh in, but I still think this issue (if there is one, since imo it was resolved already, check talk page to see recent involvement of WP:NPOVN) has very little to do on this noticeboard. Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 14:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Russian hackers are very much real, and we have pages about them, see Cyberwarfare by Russia and others. Have they been involved in this specific incident? I do not really know, but a book on this subject (IWar: War and Peace in the Information Age by Bill Gertz, Threshold Editions, 2017, 384 pages, ISBN 9781501154980) tells that they have been involved. Other strong sources, such as NYT [6], say that the claims of hacking were taken by the prosecution very seriously and investigated, but it does not say if they come to any specific conclusion. This is moot because the case was closed and the defendant has died. My very best wishes (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  You're being disingenuous now.

  "but it does not say if they come to any specific conclusion." NYT article came out on 9 December 2016.

  On 13 December 2016, the BBC wrote:

  Cambridge Crown Court heard Mr Bukovsky's computer was examined by Dr Howard Chivers. He said the evidence supported the view the images were placed there by the user and not by a third party. Dr Chivers, a former worker for British intelligence's listening post GCHQ, runs a cyber security company. He was asked whether, in normal circumstances, the user would be aware of the indecent material on the computer. "Did you find that the user of the desktop applications would immediately be shown files which are suggestive of child pornography?", asked the prosecutor William Carter. Yes," replied Dr Chivers.

  TurboSuperA+ (☏) 21:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, the police expert has examined the computer immediately after it has been confiscated and found no evidence of hacking (your quotation). We said it on the page. However, the defendant plead not guilty and said that the images were placed by someone else. Therefore, the prosecution decided to investigate further this matter (the quotation from NYT above). I understand they did not publish their findings (that would be discussed in the court to finally determine the guilt of the accused, but it did not happen). Bill Gertz apparently did not buy the words by the police expert and came to a different conclusion in his book. My very best wishes (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  "Yes, the police expert has examined the computer immediately after it has been confiscated"

  Where does it say that? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 21:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Right here [7]. Sources in April 2015 say ""Following an investigation by Cambridgeshire police...". Hence, the examination of his computer has been already completed in 2015. My very best wishes (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, by the police. Dr Chivers is the independent expert, who was a former GCHQ employee and now has his own cybersecurity firm. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 13:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

"Claims the Russian state may have been part of a hack to plant indecent images of children on the computer of a dissident living in Cambridge have been rejected at his trial." TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Rejected by the prosecution's expert - MrOllie (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  "Rejected by the prosecution's expert"

  Please find a citation from the source backing up that statement. Thanks. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  The article describes exactly who rejected it. Cherry picking the preface to that is not the slam dunk you seem to think it is. MrOllie (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  "The article describes exactly who rejected it."

  Then you won't have trouble finding a citation. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Sure! It's the little number at the end of the quote you posted. MrOllie (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Please find a quote from WP:RS that supports your claim "The article describes exactly who rejected it." TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Copyright concerns prevent me from reposting the whole article. Feel free to click on the little number and read it. MrOllie (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  WP:GAMING. Please stop wasting my time. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  It would be nice if you could recognize that you are wasting your own time, as well as the time of three other editors who all independently reached the same conclusion. Consensus has formed and is not on your side, that happens, move on. Since you apparently like the WP acronyms, it is time for you to stop WP:BLUDGEONING and to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 17:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Consensus is about WP:RS and arguments, it has nothing to do with the number of editors. I suggest you read WP:CONSENSUS. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 18:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  I do not actually see that the Cambridge News article "describes exactly who rejected it". That paragraph isn't well written.

  It says the claim is "rejected", then it goes on to describe the claim being refuted by a witness.

  I'm left with the impression that the argument was rejected *by the court*, on the basis of an argument by Dr. Chivers, but it doesn't clearly say that either. Perhaps the article writer simply meant to say "refuted"? ApLundell (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• There is nothing disingenuous here, what is meant is that the court did not reach an official conclusion, since the case was closed. A statement of a prosecution witness is not "a specific conclusion" about the truth of the matter. On another note, discussing the specifics of this content dispute should really stay on its talk page; you are already taking things in a sufficiently WP:DISRUPTIVE direction there, so it does not need to spill on this noticeboard as well. Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 21:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  Why are you and My Very Best Wishes allowed to post here but I am not? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 21:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Well, in any event, this is not a fringe theory, and therefore, it does not belong to this noticeboard. That was just a claim by a defendant during a court trial. It could be true or not. The court did not rule anything about it, and dismissed the case. We have a book (IWar: War and Peace in the Information Age by Bill Gertz, Threshold Editions, July 2017) that qualify as an RS and says his claim was true based on whatever info the author of the book was able to collect. This is all I can say about it. My very best wishes (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Contradicted by at least three WP:RS.

"Claims the Russian state may have been part of a hack to plant indecent images of children on the computer of a dissident living in Cambridge have been rejected at his trial."

"I don’t think the Russian state had anything to do with it,” said Ms Fradkin, a Cambridge-based scientist."

"He said the evidence supported the view the images were placed there by the user and not by a third party. " TurboSuperA+ (☏) 19:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I would say this differently. The author of the book, Bill Gertz was well aware of the published claims you cited (and a lot more), but decided it was an operation by Russian agents. We only cite RS. My very best wishes (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE, WP:EXTRAORDINARY.

"Bill Gertz was well aware of the published claims you cited (and a lot more),"

Not supported by source. WP:OR, MOS:EDITORIAL. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 04:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Based on his book (that's the source), he is well familiar with this subject and a lot more. He says that Bukovsky was targeted to discredit him as a witness in the Litvinenko inquiry. He was just about to testify. And no, according to the book, this is nothing extraordinary, just "a classic Russian disinformation and influence operation". My very best wishes (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  I guess the question becomes one of due weight - whose expertise do we prefer? The police witness or the journalist who wrote the book about it? My tendency toward parsimony says that this sad story works out perfectly well without Russian spies being involved and with no prejudice for whether or not this is actually a Pete Townshend situation. But then again it's pretty well known that police are not always perfectly honest at trial if they can secure a conviction with a fib. So... I'm going to be honest, if this were an RFC I'd be on the fence. Simonm223 (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  It is a difficult one indeed, and regarding what actually happened I am also drawn towards a 50/50 belief. However I sincerely think the section is correctly balanced as it is in terms of due weight of everything, and that it does not point the reader to one opinion or the other (which makes sense since it already underwent prior work to get to NPOV) and as a result should stay as it is. Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 20:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  It's not just the police, it's the Cambridgeshire police, Bukovsky himself, the expert witness, Ms Fradkin (a Cambridge-based scientist), the court, and the Appeals court. I will post the quotations and citations:

  Cambridgeshire police: " "Following an investigation by Cambridgeshire Police, we have concluded that there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to prosecute Vladimir Bukovsky in relation to the alleged making and possessing of indecent images of children."

  Bukovsky himself said it was for research: "Bukovsky told police he had been researching the images and videos out of "social" curiosity and not for sexual gratification, according to an agreed summary of his interview which was read to the court." "Bukovsky claimed that he had been researching the images and videos out of "social" curiosity and not for sexual gratification."

  Bukovsky told the police he had the images when they first came to his house: "But when the case was opened in December 2016, Cambridge Crown Court heard that when police knocked on Bukovsky's door he immediately told the detectives he had the images."

  In his defense, Bukovsky said the children seemed to be enjoying themselves: ""So far as the children were concerned, it looked to him [Bukovsky] as though they were enjoying themselves.""

  Bukovsky also said he thought it was like stamp collecting: "Mr Bukovsky told the police after his arrest that he did not realise downloading the images was a crime as he considered it similar to "stamp collecting".

  Dr Chivers, a former GCHQ employee, and a lecturer at University of York, a computer expert, said "said the evidence supported the view the images were placed there by the user and not by a third party."

  Ms Fradkin, a Cambridge-based scientist: ""I don't think the Russian state had anything to do with it," said Ms Fradkin, a Cambridge-based scientist."

  The Court rejected it: "Claims the Russian state may have been part of a hack to plant indecent images of children on the computer of a dissident living in Cambridge have been rejected at his trial."

  The Appeal Court rejected Bukovsky's libel claim: "Appeal court throws out libel claim over CPS press release"

  Furthermore, WP:EXTRAORDINARY:

  The images and videos were downloaded over a period of 15 years: "The dissident stood trial for allegedly accessing still and video images over 15 years, some of which were being downloaded at the point of his arrest in 2014." and " "The charges related to making or possessing more than 19,000 still images and more than 8,700 films of child pornography.""

  The extraordinary claim is that Russian hackers placed over 19.000 images and over 8.700 videos in the course of 15 years. And then, after waiting for 15 years, decided to "tip off Europol" (according to Bill Gaetz). But it wasn't even Europol who got him, he was traced because the police was monitoring child abuse websites: "On Monday the court heard that Mr Bukovsky was arrested after police monitoring child abuse websites traced activity to his computer."

  And what do we have in support of the Russian hacker conspiracy? A book, a NYT article and an Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty article.

  The consensus among WP:RS is clear. Only reason to ignore it is to push an agenda. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 20:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

All of that is just a hearsay. There was no conviction. We may never know the truth. Given that, I would generally rely on the best available sources, such as books by experts. Any other books that cover this subject? My very best wishes (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I am unconcerned with NYT or RFE/RL - neither of those are sources I hold in particular high regard. However I also don't hold police claims regarding things they say a suspect of a crime said in their custody as reported by the Telegraph and the Independent, two sources I like even less than NYT, in any particular high regard either. I concur with MVBW above that it'd be best to find other sources that aren't just more newspapers. Simonm223 (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

They are considered reliable sources by wikipedia, WP:RS. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 20:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Look WP:RS isn't a talisman to write whatever you like as long as some newspaper said it first. Reliability is contextual. In this case you said, at the top Rather than continue the back and forth with the other editor, it would be good to have input from others. and now the input from at least two others is that newspapers are being over-weighted as sources here and undue attention is being given to salacious crime reporting that wasn't subsequently played out as a finding by a court. In this case more sober sources would be preferred. Like I said there are three possibilities here:

1. This guy was burnt by a Russian spy operation.
2. This guy accessed images for non-sexual reasons (the Pete Townshend possibility).
3. This guy actually was a nonce.

The sources provided don't honestly present an entirely convincing case for any of the above. Regardless I don't think this really is a WP:FRINGE issue so much as a WP:DUE one. Simonm223 (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

"This guy was burnt by a Russian spy operation."

That placed over 19.000 images and over 8.700 videos in the course of 15 years. WP:EXTRAORDINARY

1) If the aim was to "burn" him, a couple would have sufficed, not thousands.

2) If the aim was to "burn" him, why wait 15 years.

3) Bill Gertz' book contains factual errors, Bukovsky wasn't captured by Europol.

There's nothing more I can say on the topic. If you think Wikipedia should defend pedophiles there's clearly nothing I can say to change your mind. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 21:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry, did you just accuse another editor of protecting pedophiles? Asking just to be extra sure here. Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 21:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Read it again. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 21:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

This was very much a rhetorical yes/no question to give you a chance to explain you meant something else, but alright, let's go with that. Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 21:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

From your first reply to me you have been accusing me of bad behaviour without contributing to the discussion. You're being disruptive. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 21:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you advise further of these factual errors in the Gertz book? Can you please provide evidence from other sources of these failures of fact? Is it just one factual error or are there several? Simonm223 (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Gertz said that "Europol was tipped off", but it was in fact UK police that was monitoring child abuse websites that traced the activity back to Bukovsky's computer, and his house. That is a factual error. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

This is not a fact and far from clear. It well could be that someone tipped off the police or Europol, which triggered their investigation. Other sources do not say there was no an anonymous call. My very best wishes (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory

There's currently discussion occurring at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#WIV did perform genetic manipulation of SARS-related bat coronaviruses in which some editors are proposing that COVID-19 lab leak theory should be edited to state that the genetic manipulation of SARS-related bat coronaviruses was carried out at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The eyes of experienced editors is invited. TarnishedPath^talk 23:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

As I remarked on the talk page, I think the clearly non fringe thing to do is that we shouldn't ignore what a paper says even if it's primary and continue to present something which seems to be so clearly contradicted. It doesn't help convince the readers of the rest of the non fringe stuff. Instead it's just more likely to make them believe fringe stuff., Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate very much the point you make here and on the article talk page, errors such as this could make the entire article seem lest trustworthy to careful readers. fiveby(zero) 13:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

This conspiracy theory silliness is spreading to unusual pages now [8] I think, somehow, the Americans are to blame. Simonm223 (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Water fluoridation

WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE and WP:POVPUSH in the article/section: Water fluoridation.

I have added this as it was first mentioned above.

There is also a lot of WP:LAWYER, one user against all. --Julius Senegal (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Putting aside the provenance of the sources that are being cited, the way they're placed in the leading paragraphs is ruining the appearance of the article and putting too much weight on individual studies. Reconrabbit 16:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice here. --Hipal (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Sex differences in intelligence (again)

Sex differences in intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article was last discussed here in February/March of last year. That discussion hinged on a brand-new account pushing against the scientific consensus for gender parity in general intelligence. It quickly turned into a WP:1AM situation and the account disappeared for nearly a year.

Recently we saw another brand-new account appear on the talk page, making largely the same arguments. This editor was given a 1-week block for edit warring on Monday. But then today we saw the return of the account from last February/March to take up the mantle for the currently-blocked account.

I have engaged with the returning account as far as I believe AGF requires. The returning account, however, refuses to be WP:SATISFIED. Experienced editors are invited to join the conversation at Talk:Sex differences in intelligence#Claim not matching source or simply keep an eye out for disruptive edits. Generalrelative (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

This discussion is misplaced in the context of broader claims about sex differences. My edit was a simple, factual clarification of the 2022 meta-analysis, specifically noting that it only involved school-aged children, which is explicitly stated in multiple sections of the manuscript. The edit was reverted without sufficient reasoning or evidence. The so-called 'compromise' introduced a significant deviation from the original text, which only added confusion and misrepresentation of the study's conclusions. My goal here is not to challenge the broader discourse on sex differences but to ensure accuracy in the representation of this particular study AndRueM (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

SPI engaged? Simonm223 (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Someone has already opened one, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AndRueM --Aquillion (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Carnivore diet

New red account on the talk-page of the carnivore diet repeatedly requesting to add this self-reported questionnaire to the article [9]. The questionnaire is a primary source that took most of its data from a carnivore diet Facebook group. It fails WP:MEDRS. Veg Historian (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Cosmological decade

Up for deletion, I'm looking at it and wondering whether this is a pop-sci fringe notion. I do see it discussed but it, well, sounds off-the-wall. Mangoe (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps a bit of OR. The source that is online does not mention "decade", and the terms used as the names of ages in the article are not used that way in the source. Donald Albury 14:05, 28 January 2025 (UTC)