Missing scientists?

I don't think there are any real WP:RS covering this yet, but Richard Hanania has an article in Unherd which strongly suggests that the "10 missing scientists" thing is a conspiracy theory/hysteria originating from right wing outlets like DailyMail... which has made it's way right up to the White House.

Perhaps if this is later covered in RS as a conspiracy theory, it would be worthy of a standalone article? Zenomonoz (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Agree it is a topic worth keeping an eye on for reliable sources. I believe it is probably close to passing Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability as a stand alone article, but probably needs a bit more to describe it. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:57, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Interesting opinion piece of this: Behind the ‘disappearing scientists’ hysteria --Guy Macon (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I dunno how much stock I'd put into Richard Hanania given all this. Let's not platform as a sourcing focus anywhere white supremacists. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:44, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

See here on that front. People do change their views from ~16 years ago. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I've been looking at this too. This has reached the White House Press Secretary, DOJ, and even Trump has remarked on it. If it's not really ready for an article it probably will be in a few weeks to a months tops at the rate the story seems to be expanding.

Weird overlaps to this mysterday of long ago: GEC-Marconi scientist deaths conspiracy theory. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:41, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

This looks like a nothing, even by the nuseualy standards of conspiracy theory, as I have seen sod all about this. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I don’t know… The story has now been reported on by multiple outlets such as Newsweek, Fortune, The Hill and (of course) Fox. Most of these sources dismiss the “conspiracy” angle but report that several government agencies are looking into the situation. This indicates that the fringe topic is gaining at least some coverage (and thus notability). I wouldn’t say these are high quality sources, and I would prefer even more coverage… but I could see an article being written based on them. Blueboar (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Not over it as far as I am aware. Slatersteven (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I did say "perhaps if this is later covered in RS...". Zenomonoz (talk) 02:36, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I did it: Missing scientists conspiracy theory. Chetsford (talk) 04:08, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh dear, I guess this means it's a thing now. Thanks Chetsford. Sgerbic (talk) 05:18, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

You didn't use Mick West? Sgerbic (talk) 05:19, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

According to what I've recently read on Reddit, I am Mick West! Chetsford (talk) 06:02, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

No, I'm Spartacus! - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Actually ... I think we all are LuckyLouie, including Mick. I can't keep up with these conspiracies. Sgerbic (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm actually all of you. Or is Sgerbic actually running five monitors on five ISPs on five computers? How many grey aliens typing to create Hamlet? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:45, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Just as long as I don't go missing I'm fine with all of this. Sgerbic (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

• https://www.theatlantic.com/science/2026/04/missing-scientists/686885/ --Hipal (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
• Any one remember Alternative 3? Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  Reading about it now on Wikipedia Alternative 3, first I've heard of it. These days I think I'm living in the Onion. Sgerbic (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  You are. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  There are still people who claim it was real. Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• And then there is this: Chinese Scientists Have Been Dying Mysterious Deaths Too. The connection to the death of these French scientists is obvious. As is the death of these Iranian scientists. It's all related!!! --Guy Macon (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I think Hanania is a pseudo intellectual and I do not trust a ton of his "takes" but for now (although I find the deaths interesting) I agree that it is a conspiracy theory until more evidence from reliable non-opinion sources is posted on the subject. Agnieszka653 (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

SPLC indictment and conspiracy theories about Unite The Right

I posted about this first at WP:NPOV/N and was advised it might have been more appropriate here. I'm seeing the appearance of novel conspiracy theories at pages like Unite the Right Rally that go beyond the US DoJ allegations about the SPLC either alleging that the SPLC orchestrated the UTR as a false-flag event or that the Democrat party did via the SPLC. I suspect that other pages that cover far-right extremism in the United States are facing similar influxes of conspiracism. This is notwithstanding content disputes about how to neutrally document the US DoJ indictment. It would be advisable for people to watchlist articles about US far-right extremism that cite the SPLC as disruption is already occurring and will likely get worse over the next few days. Or at lest until MAGA finds some new shiny bauble to get mad about online. Simonm223 (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Southern Poverty Law Center (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• Unite the Right rally (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• Targeting of political opponents and civil society under the second Trump administration (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Southern_Poverty_Law_Center

all i see currently. fiveby(zero) 16:32, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

This whole conversation is very funny if you know anything about the groups in question. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Ron Wyatt

See WP:NPOVN#Ron Wyatt. A supporter is very upset.Doug Weller talk 17:50, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Actually the editor says they are neutral about him? Doug Weller talk 17:55, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

My fault Doug. Block me for being lazy if the next thing i do on WP is not clean up that article. fiveby(zero) 18:01, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I've put this on my watchlist too. I'm a bit rusty on the whole pseudoarchaeology thing (it was a former special interest of mine that kind of got eclipsed over the years) but I'm happy to lend at least half a hand. Simonm223 (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I've nixed the entire reception section which was sourced to blogs and copies of emails with a dab of synth and OR. If the guy is notable there should be actual secondary coverage somewhere ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of Relict hominid for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Relict hominid is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relict hominid until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

—Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Straw poll on the wall of categories at the bottom of many fringe topics

I have been looking at the wall of categories at the bottom of many fringe topics. Some are quite useful, but others are a waste of screen real estate and are of no use to anyone. I wanted to run the idea of paring the bloat down with the community before I started nominating things for deletion. I decided to start with this:

In my opinion. we should delete or mark historical the following WikiProject:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative views

And we should delete the following category:

• Category:WikiProject Alternative views

Besides the cat being useless cruft, the phrase "Alternative Theories" is just weasel words for fringe theories and conspiracy theories. For example the (completely unmaintained) list of articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views/Articles contains a link to TWA Flight 800 alternative theories even though it was moved to TWA Flight 800 conspiracy theories in 2014.

What say you? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

WikiProjects are not deleted, they are merged. What do you propose it be merged into? PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

They can be marked historical if not used anymore. Katzrockso (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

If it is historical, which it doesn't seem to be? Yeah, but we wouldn't end up removing the templates that spawn the categories, so it wouldn't solve Guy Macon's issue. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page, the project is moribund. Katzrockso (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I may not understand this, but I think Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism and Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative views have enough overlap they could be merged. Alternative views could be merged into Skepticism, which seems more active. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:49, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Re "WikiProjects are not deleted, they are merged", I believe that is incorrect. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion says

"What may be nominated for deletion here: Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, MOS:, Event: and the various Talk: namespaces" (Emphasis added).

Before I get into a discussion of how to delete a category or a wikiproject, I would like feedback on my original question: should I delete them? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:10, 30 April 2026 (UTC).

Is there a single established WikiProject that has ever been deleted? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

A few back in the 'Votes for Deletion' era, and Esperanza was closed as a result of this Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza. But that's almost 20 years ago now, I don't think it would go the same way today. MrOllie (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

No, whatever for? It's a historical artifact. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 04:02, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

So? Every deleted Wikipedia page is a historical artifact. The language of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion and Wikipedia:Deletion process. If you want to change the deletion process to exclude Wikiprojects, go to one of those pages and suggest the change. Until then, please follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Again I ask,SHOULD I???. I am not getting any answers because this discussion has been hijacked into a discussion about a related issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:12, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Regardless of the how, I agree the alternative views wikiproject probably shouldn't exist in its current form. At best it's euphemistic, and and worst it's a branding for the "bad" articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Red Light Therapy

I am seeing a lot of online woo about Red Light Therapy. Red LEDs are cheap enough now that lots of people are putting together contraptions that shine red light on you and claim miraculous results.

He have two related articles; Light therapy, which looks like a real medical procedure, and Low-level laser therapy (Which Red light therapy redirects to) which looks a lot like pseudoscience to me.

What do you think? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I've been watching LLLT for some years and to my shame, the article is awful, far too much kowtowing to nonsense. I'm sorry. - Walter Still not in the Epstein Files Ego 21:14, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

As someone with severe eczema I've had "red light therapy" suggested to me before--but it never seems to be something my actual dermatologist recommends for my condition so I think that hints at it being a bit pseudoscientific. Agnieszka653 (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

This is original research and thus not usable in any article, but it is easy to look up the intensity and wavelengths of the diode arrays and then do the same with sunlight. The sunlight contains a far more intense red light at the same wavelengths as the diodes (and of course far more in the green, blue, UV, etc). Which raises the question: If red light therapy is an effective treatment for a condition should we not also find that sunlight is equally or more effective? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:16, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I have actually red about sunlight being an effective treatment--but in my (personal) experience and my condition is quite severe IL-13 inhibitors see Interleukin 13 or drugs like cyclosporine are the only things that have worked. I would be interested in any peer-reviewed scientific studies on this though. Agnieszka653 (talk) 05:23, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Not scientific papers, but here are a couple of sources. Note the wavelengths that the real doctors are evaluating.

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/24385-phototherapy-light-therapy

https://nationaleczema.org/treatments/phototherapy/

https://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/eczema/phototherapy-atopic-dermatitis

Disclaimer: anyone who follows health advice that they got from an electronics engineer posting on a Wikipedia talk page is an idiot. Talk to an actual M.D. who has examined you. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Will check it out--and yes please heed the disclaimer! Don't take medical advice from me either! Agnieszka653 (talk) 05:41, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Sunlight and UV light is an effective treatment for some people's eczema. I know someone whose official, dermatologist-approved treatment plan involved tanning beds, and it worked. However: it also raised the risk for skin cancer. Even if red light is less effective than sunlight, if it has fewer potentially deadly side effects, then that could make it a better treatment overall.

The articles are a mess. I think the first problem to be solved is figuring out which page is about which subject. Obviously, red LEDs aren't any kind of laser therapy, but beyond that, who knows? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I have a personal situation that makes me really want a good article on RLT to exist, but also makes me question whether I can be unbiased. I have a very close friend. We are both into science and engineering. We have diverging views on our own medical care. My philosophy is to only pay attention to a MD who has examined me. Oh sure, I will do research, but I refuse any treatment not prescribed by a doctor. I won't even take a vitamin until my doctor has reviewed my list. My friend is more of a "my physics degree beats your medical degree" kind of person who has decided that sticking his head in a bucket lined with high power Red LEDs is a great plan. (He does have what he thinks is good eye protection). I just wish we had a good article on the subject.

Interesting non-MEDRS links: --Guy Macon (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Eyes needed at Talk:Dissociative identity disorder

I am seeing a combination of mostly good-faith efforts to improve the article and a bit of what sort of looks like drinking the Cool-Aid that you see on sites like [ https://traumadissociation.com/alters ]. I could really use a bit of help there. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Cathy O'Brien (conspiracy theorist)

See discussion Doug Weller talk 17:44, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I have responded there, thanks Doug. - Walter Still not in the Epstein Files Ego 18:26, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

If you go down to the woods tonight ...

• Rendlesham Forest incident

This is the so-called "British Roswell". The article draws on some colourful sources including Youtube, UK-UFO.org, and blogspot.com. More reasonable sources like this are absent. The article builds on primary sources without secondary oversight including police records. In my view it's largely embarrassing UFO fancruft. It would be nice to think it could be improved to the standard of Roswell incident – more eyes welcome. Bon courage (talk) 11:03, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

You have removed two paras containing significant information from an openly skeptical source, which I have reinstated. By all means delete links to Youtube, UK-UFO.org, and blogspot.com (plus what you call "UFO fancruft") if you wish, but I think you have chosen the wrong targets with the skeptical paragraphs you have removed. Skeptic2 (talk) 12:23, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

This chap Ian Ridpath seems to have a passionate self-published website on this topic but a self-published site is not a good source for Wikipedia (even if he is 'on the right side') and especially not as the foundation of the article; more than a third of the citations in the article are to ianridpath.com. It may be that his stuff is useful for WP:PARITY but since a lot of this material is not covered at all in good sources there is no need to use a weak source since there is nothing to rebut; such stuff should just be omitted per WP:FRINGESUBJECTS to give us a more encyclopedic view of the topic, rather than a maximalist one. Bon courage (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

It's probably worth asking WP:RX for Clarke's The UFO Files if you don't have access. Both he and Svozil cite Ridpath. fiveby(zero) 14:04, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Great, that shows a way forward ... Bon courage (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

This is the article which you regard as a "reasonable source" https://skepticalinquirer.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2014/09/p60.pdf It's a review of a fanboy book by Nick Pope which simply reiterates the points made in the Wikipedia entry about the true causes of the case. Skeptic2 (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Nonsense. See WP:SKEPTICALINQUIRER, Joe Nickell and Nick Pope (journalist).

Also see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 373#Skeptical Inquirer at Arbcom, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Proposed decision#Skeptical Inquirer as a reliable source, and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing#Skeptical Inquirer as a reliable source

If you are not willing to abide by the consensus of the Wikipedia community on what sources are reliable you should stay away from fringe topics. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Well in that case you can use this as a source: https://skepticalinquirer.org/1986/10/the-woodbridge-ufo-incident/ Skeptic2 (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Evasion noted. You (Skeptic2) made a claim. I refuted it, and you just moved on without addressing what I wrote. And I know damn well that you didn't read the RFC and arbcom decision before composing your non-response and posting it 11 minutes later.

Nothing wrong with the source you suggested, but use caution. It is from 1986 and WP:AGEMATTERS. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

You're not going to get anywhere by citing the opinion of AI chatbots. MrOllie (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2026 (UTC) - Noting that this comment was in reply to a quote of AI chatbot output, subsequently removed by Skeptic2 in this edit. - MrOllie (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, are you associated with Ian Ridpath in some fashion? Quite a bit of your activity on Wikipedia is citing him or writing about him. MrOllie (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

As a side note, there are 853 links to ianridpath.com through the Project (all Namespaces) which is quite remarkable. (For comparion edzardernst.com has 157 such links.)Bon courage (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I have removed it. Skeptic2 (talk) 09:06, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I note that you failed to answer the question asked above: "Also, are you associated with Ian Ridpath in some fashion? Quite a bit of your activity on Wikipedia is citing him or writing about him." There is nothing wrong with having an association, but we do have some best practices if you do. See WP:PSCOI --Guy Macon (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I was under the impression that it was bad form to call people out on Wikipedia. But yes, I am he, and have no reason to deny it. As you may or may not be aware, I have been associated with the skeptics movement for many decades, in particular with regard to the Rendlesham Forest UFO case. My work, and that of David Clarke, on this case is the main skeptical source, and I would appreciate support in presenting it. However, as you can tell from the list of links posted by Bon Courage, most of my contributions to Wikipedia have been astronomical, which is my professional specialization, and nothing to do with UFOs or Rendlesham at all. I have been genuinely troubled by the aggressive approach of a recent posse of editors whose names I have never come across before, yourself included, which seem quite out of keeping with the usual collegial relationships I have had with fellow editors over the many years that I have been editing. I hope that, having had this discussion, we can now get back to doing what we should be doing, which is contributing to the improvement of Wikipedia with mutual respect and support. Skeptic2 (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Postong other editors' personal information on Wikipedia is unacceptable. See WP:OUTING. Asking an editor if they have a relationship which might constitute a conflict of intertest with any person, company, institution, etc., is perfectly acceptable. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Donald Albury 21:49, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Skeptic2, if you want to have "collegial relationships with fellow editors" in the area of pseudoscience, I suggest that you start by not posting utter bullshit about skepticalinquirer.org as a source, as you did above. You also might find the "vibe" a bit different in an area where we are constantly bombarded with bullshit and vandalism from people who make a lot of money preying on the gullible. Be thankful that the astronomy pages aren't infested with people who want to set you straight and insist that stars are just pin holes in the curtain of night. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Lucky you! I have spent nearly 20 years trying to avoid most of the editors taking part here. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:47, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I have even started actively avoiding myself, which it turns out is quite difficult to do. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: I am not surprised to see much of it is an editor citing their own self published website. I think all the "ianridpath.com" sources should be removed, along with several others. Content can then be tagged^{[citation needed]} and removed if no better source can be found. I'm seeing enough reliable sources for maybe a stub. The unconventional, self published, and primary content would be questionable if we had good sources to balance it for WP:PARITY, but those seem absent.

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:39, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion, many of the citations to ianridpath.com are allowable per WP:EXPERTSPS. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents that refers to this discission. The thread is Skeptic2. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

• Svozil, Karl (2023). "UFO Sagas and Legends After the Robertson Panel Until 2003". UFOs. Springer. Full access available to users of The Wikipedia Library.
• Clarke, Davide (2012). The UFO Files (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury. pp. 106–116.

Black triangle (UFO)

• Black triangle (UFO) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Another minor UFO weirdness. The Project Condign report proposes some UFO sightings could have natural causes, however a lengthy rebuttal has been inserted from a meteorological source criticizing it for lack of peer review. I reverted but frankly the whole section could go as WP:UNDUE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm looking at that and there are not only problems with WP:UNDUE but also the whole section is based on a primary source, and not just any primary source but some declassified military documents. On an article about UFOs I think that's a pretty far cry from the sourcing we would like to see. It doesn't deserve its own section and if included at all should be cut down and start citing secondary sources. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 05:01, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

The newbie IP editor involved has been accumulating reverts and engaging in personal attacks including in edit summaries, and placed an editor's name in a heading, which is against WP:TALKHEADPOV. A fringe notice placed on their talk page was deleted and called a "moronic comment" in the edit summary. 5Q5|^✉ 11:28, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

IP editor got blocked, but now a new registered account is pushing much of the same stuff. MrOllie (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Might be worth it to go to WP:SPI I suppose. That or just give that new account the same warnings and go to WP:AN if it has no effect. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 16:51, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

They're now blocked as a sock. MrOllie (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

That's how it goes I suppose. I will watchlist the article in case they keep going. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 12:16, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Holistic nursing

• Holistic nursing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article seems PROFRINGE. It is flagged as having multiple issues, maybe some of the locals here can help. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:22, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Education on holistic nursing would be beneficial to nurses if this concept is introduced earlier as repetition of educating holistic nursing could also be the revision of it.

You know that Jackie Chan exploding head meme? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 06:00, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I've taken a blunt knife to the lead, but the whole article looks like a mish mash of naive student editing mixed with some true believeriness. If somebody wants to mess with my edits, I wont object.

I believe that the rest of the article needs this sort of pruning. I may return to it. - Walter Still not in the Epstein Files Ego 20:41, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Bangladesh genocide

At anti-Bengali sentiment, Sylvester Millner had twice inserted this about the Bangladesh genocide:

Pakistani historians meanwhile challenged the notion of genoecide, arguing other accounts of the events of 1971 and leading up to it such as Junaid Ahmed's 2016 book, Creation of Bangladesh: Myths Exploded.^[1] In 2022, a Pakistani documentary called 1971 Separation of East Pakistan: The Untold Story publicized which gave an alternative narrative of the events of 1971 and what lead up to it, also arguing against the numbers of Bengalis killed and alleged the violence initiated by the Mukhti Bahini lead to the war, also alleging the Mukhti Bahini to be guilty of severe war crimes.^[2]

Junaid Ahmed is a management consultant not a historian, whose book (published by the unknown "Fazlee's Books Supermarket") says that it "breaks new grounds in revealing the real facts behind the loss of East Pakistan and creation of Bangladesh. ... It is Pakistan's misfortune that untrue, baseless propaganda of the friendly and antagonistic stakeholders in the creation of Bangladesh tarnishes Pakistan's international image and stains its history with untrue allegations of fomenting genocide."

In the book he denies the genocide, denies the 1971 Dhaka University massacre, denies the 1971 killing of Bengali intellectuals, whitewashes Operation Searchlight, says that Bangladeshi refugees "were largely Hindus and they were terrorists in the guise of refugees", writes that "everything that went wrong for Pakistan in 1971 had to do with India, with its Hindu mentality, with the secret workings of Delhi’s Research and Analysis Wing" and further engages in other racist conspiracy theories like :

There would be no armed forces formed by Bangladesh since a required number of Indian soldiers would stay on in the new country. Vacant posts in Bangladesh’s civil service would be filled by Indian civil servants. ... He weeded out the Hindus from public services, police, and army. These Hindus after their termination went to India and sought asylum. This also clearly proves that the Indians were present in large numbers in the civil and military establishment of Bangladesh since her creation.

The other source cited is a self-published documentary film, by former Pakistani information minister Javed Jabbar, which has been described as "a deliberate and one-sided account. ... The film, despite its reservations about the Pakistani regime at the time, is somewhat sympathetic to the then-leaders of the country ... the narrative doubles down exclusively on the atrocities in Bangladesh for the bulk of the runtime, and then, by the very end, proposes to make peace."

Clearly fringe sources like a random conspiracy theory book denying genocide and a random self-published documentary doing much the same should be nowhere near Wikipedia. I told Millner as much but they replied "Please refrain from posting bogus warnings on my talkpage and overusing words like "fridge" for personal gain. It doesn't work like. Please refrain from such behavior in the future." and reinstated their edits. Gotitbro (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, obviously partisan fringe pseudohistory. Given that this comes under a 'contentious topic', and given that Millner has been notified of the fact, I suggest that if the material is added again without prior consensus, you report Millner at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

To add to the above, a citation to a two-minute trailer hosted on YouTube is invalid as a means to cite the contents of the documentary itself. This would be the case regardless of the content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

If I recall didn't the Bengladeshi genocide murder over 3 million people? And anywhere between 200,000-500,000 women were sexually assaulted? This person's writing seems to be on the same level as a Holocaust denier and I don't think it should be included on a page like this except in a section for "fringe conspiracy theories," or a section specifically named genocide denial. If any of their arguments are used in the body for any reason it would also seem appropriate to caveat each one with their very specific and slanted POV. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree, that's clearly fringe genocide denial. The fact that these people aren't even historians makes it even more clear-cut. Cadddr (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, nobody notified me of this discussion. Secondly I did not give my verdict on weather a genocide occurred or not, except that the Pakistanis have made counter claims, which is 100% notable. That does not amount to fringe. These kind of accusations and false slander reports against users should not be allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvester Millner (talk • contribs) 09:21, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd agree that it might have been appropriate to notify you of this discussion. Beyond that, nothing you have written addresses the issues raised here. The sources you cited (the only ones of relevance, since vague claims about an unspecified number of unnamed Pakistanis you now make here are evidence of nothing) weren't historians, contrary to what you wrote in the article. Wikipedia has specific policies regarding content, and they aren't overridden by vague unsourced assertations. If there is serious support for these claims amongst recognised academic historians (of any nationality), provide the evidence to back it up, and be prepared to discuss the issue on the article talk page if contested. And cut out the crap about 'slander': if you make controversial claims unsupported by appropriate sources, you can expect scrutiny. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

@Sylvester Millner and AndyTheGrump: "Firstly, nobody notified me of this discussion" is untrue. I specifically pinged Sylvester in the post above, "Sylvester Millner had twice inserted this about the Bangladesh genocide" (linking/pinging their username). And I think it would be correct to surmise that Sylvester followed the ping to this board. Gotitbro (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Move discussion at list of topics characterized as pseudoscience

Likely of interest to this board: Talk:List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience#Requested_move_7_May_2026. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:05, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Raw milk, ivermectin, psychedelics, and sunshine

• RFK Jr. clears path for minors’ use of tanning beds, much to the dismay of dermatologists --Los Angeles Times

"Days before the 2024 presidential election, future Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. posted a statement on X promising to end the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s 'aggressive suppression' of such alternative therapies as raw milk, ivermectin, psychedelics and, somewhat perplexingly, “sunshine.”

While the post did not explain how the FDA was limiting Americans’ access to the sun, many dermatologists were dismayed when Kennedy abruptly withdrew a proposed FDA rule that would have banned minors from using devices that mimic sunlight — indoor tanning lamps."

--Guy Macon (talk) 01:44, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Could you clarify what edits you're proposing? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:04, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

No. Our goal here is to create or improve articles about fringe theories, not necessarily to propose specific edits. In this case I prefer to leave the decision as to what articles could be improved with this citation to other editors who are comfortable working in the area of US politics. I am not. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:18, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

What a time to be alive. I sometimes think Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic might morph into a more general Ivermectin misinformation, as this antiparasitic drug has had such a remarkable journey in the crankosphere. Bon courage (talk) 04:28, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Not just any antiparasitic drug. This one is mostly used as a dewormer for livestock. But hey, if you happen to have River Blindness and your doctor prescribes Ivermectin, go for it. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:50, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Whats the thing about tanning beds? There is another thread above about red light therapy that you may want to check out because I think it's probably adjacent to this. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Thebiguglyalien tried to close this discussion. I reverted them. First, this does not meet the requirements of WP:FORUM, as I clearly explained above. I posted the link (without added comment) to improve certain fringe-related articles such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr.. Second, WP:CLOSE is clear: "Most discussions don't need closure at all, but when they do, any uninvolved editor may close most of them" (emphasis in original) That's why you see so many "call to close" comments on various discussions. The editor making the call knows that they are not allowed to close it themself.

Again, I am not willing to edit US politics articles, but someone should consider adding the above source. It's an important issue and a reliable source. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Whatever you say Guy. fiveby(zero) 16:26, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

You appear to be having trouble telling the difference between being involved and saying "Nope. I will not discuss this. ANI is not the place for discussing content disputes." --Guy Macon (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I often find myself in disgreement at first with Guy Macon, but when I think about things further I find that he has that intensely annoying habit of usually (but not always) being right. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

no no, he's just annoying. - Walter Still not in the Epstein Files Ego 19:43, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

(Sobs softly.) My heart is broken. The good times we had... The laughs we shared... I will try to go on, my life an empty shell, longing for what I have lost forever. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Skeptoid at RSNB

This discussion may be of interest:

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Skeptoid / skeptoid.com / skeptoid.org

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Especially to people interested in collecting instances of sealioning. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:22, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Not to worry. They know what they are doing! I feel honored to be graced with the presense of such a clearly superior Wikipedia editor. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Removal of skeptical material and sources at Earthquake light

Very aggressive editor, lots of Sealioning. Help needed.

Material removed includes:

• "There is no broad consensus as to the causes of the phenomenon (or phenomena) involved, and disagreement about whether earthquake lights exist."

• "Skeptic and UFO debunker Robert Sheaffer in 2014 proposed that the tectonic strain theory of earthquake lights links to 1970's parapsychological research of Michael Persinger, a psychology professor at Laurentian University. Persinger proposed that tectonic forces were behind a number of claimed paranormal experiences, including UFO sightings, poltergeist activity, animal mutilations, and spontaneous human combustion, the latter with geophysical electrical currents having caused the victims' electrocution."

See [ https://skepticalinquirer.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2014/05/p26.pdf ]

--Guy Macon (talk) 02:38, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't see why that writer deserves a paragraph of line copy for a non-FRINGE article when the various "titans" of geology linked only get a sentence each.

Why does "Robert Sheaffer" rank amongst them? There is no pseudoscience here. It's a real scientific phenomena under investigation that suffered under an absolutely awful article. There is an astonishing amount of science history on this from extreme WP:RS with their own wikipedia articles that was criminally kept out of this article for years, either by intention or neglect.

There is no WP:FRINGE angle here and this is tendentious on your part after previously insulting me on this very page in the preceding section. You are disrupting wikipedia. Stop now. Or better yet, make articles instead of trouble. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 02:44, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

• Before: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earthquake_light&oldid=1318396751
• After: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earthquake_light&oldid=1353747038

Frankly, the prior form was garbage. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 03:13, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't mind most sea mammals, but Sea Lions? I could do without sea lions.

You know what would be great to establish your claim that earthquake lights are non-FRINGE? A single reliable source from any peer reviewed scientific journal that plainly says says that earthquakes cause lights in the sky.

As for your citations to non academic sources, let's look at one: Go to Earthquake light and search for "Bizarre Earthquake Lights Finally Explained" (without the quotes). Pay careful attention to the story VPP is trying to tell with this source.

Now search for "Bizarre Earthquake Lights Finally Explained" in Earthquake Lights Shine Again!.

See anything VPP failed to mention?

How about another? Search the same two sources for "Why Do Lights Sometimes Appear in the Sky During An Earthquake?"

I'm just saying.

Related:

--Guy Macon (talk) 08:04, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:CIR and you should perhaps read the entire article that I'm trying to rebuild here. We can pimp up tabloids and this Sheaffer writer all day, but literally not one pop culture writer at the entire extended for-profit legacy Center for Inquiry ecosystem outranks the combined weight of actual geophysical and related academia. Certainly not Sheaffer nor you nor this entire "red scare" board get to decide what is fringe, and what is not. Mainstream sources do, and this time, the "skeptic club" is the fringe itself for not having done basic foundational historical reading on a global scale. Sorry. "Skeptic hall pass" turns out does have limits. Called reading skills. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 13:14, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

And Guy should feel bad for repeatedly declining to say which sources I've started to use that made him mad.

This one is National Geographic that has him so upset. The other one is the Smithsonian Institute. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 13:17, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I find both of you have not been particularly clear about diffs and use of sources. Can somebody please point to how specific disputed sources have been added or removed? Because, yeah, the articles are very different, and the insertion of UFO stuff in the VPP version is not confidence-building. But I'm struggling with specifics here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

What UFO stuff? I removed the BIZARRE insistence of Guy Macon to INSERT the UFO and animal mutilation stuff. The LIVE version is MY version: Earthquake light.

GUY wants the bizarre cult stuff added back in from that tabloid writer about some Canadian scientist. I do not want. I'm trying to write a boring article, not a Clive Barker film. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 13:32, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

OK so I think you both need to dial back the PAs and FOC. Can either of you provide some workable diffs for the contested changes? Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Please also note that Clive Barker is protected by WP:BLP and so please leave him out of this dispute. Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

He's one of my favourite writers. Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

That was a compliment to the Thief of Always. I would never insult him. I've met the guy once. Lovely fellow. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 13:35, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

He hasn't even touched the article. He's mad because I removed old nonsense about psychics and animal mutilations. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 13:34, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

As to allegations I don't have academic sources in my in progress rebuild, again WP:CIR, and honestly, this is just bizarre theatrics by you. You can admit you were wrong. It's cool. I don't care.

Plenty of academic meat that says Earthquake lights are a "thing" but that we don't know what kind of thing, which is literally all the article says:

Don't trust me or Guy's honestly weird exaggerations, look yourself:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_light#History_and_background — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 13:22, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Some skeptics are more quotable than others:

...it appears that the rate of observation by witnesses for EQLs is significantly lower than even the most conservative estimates of hallucination prevalence in the normative population. This consideration is neither a bias due to the authors’ skepticism nor a preclusion against the investigation and existence of EQLs, but something that should be cautiously taken into account when assessing the reliability of this intriguing phenomenon. Indeed, it is worth noting that the prevalence of hallucinations is by no means negligible even in the general population (which may include psychotics, whether they know they are psychotic or not.)

Latest review i've found, not sure about this particular Frontiers... journal. fiveby(zero) 15:53, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, Frontiers is not a good publisher. Simonm223 (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

It's a predatory journal apparently and those guys are looking them up all physicists, so empirically 1000% they will never be Wikipedia WP:RS for any/all mental health claims in any event (hard WP:MEDRS fail I think). But then for good measure, that journal @Fiveby found ironically literally says in it's conclusion what amounts to "there's something there and we don't know what" re earthquake lights. Literally that's also only what our article and every source so far says: yes it's something, yes there's theories, no, we don't know what it is today under the hood. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:08, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm still looking for a clear set of diffs about added and removed sources between these two versions. Simonm223 (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I think this is the edit that upset him so much: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earthquake_light&diff=1353394307&oldid=1353393827

There is no justifiable reason a general pop writer should be getting this much screen time and to introduce nonsense that literally one (1) person in Canada one time advocated, as if it somehow invalidates or challenges a century plus of mainstream academic research and discovery. Also, Sheaffer and Dunning are both over a decade out of date - would we quote skeptical writings from the 1970s about any modern computer stuff? The idea would be silly. Skeptical writings get outdated and superseded too, they have no claim to permanence. "Bad UFOs Blogger Livejournal Spot" is never going to be WP:RS for a seismology domain article. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:28, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Why was the Thériault 159–178 reference removed in that edit? Simonm223 (talk) 11:54, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Because WP:ONUS is on inclusion to prove it's relevant that a non-qualified person (Sheaffer) is qualified by our standards to speak to Therault's specific researh of it's even due or relevant versus the entire scope of the article.

Why would we include a particular criticism of one single scientist out of however many who gave one single presentation paper? Cause Sheaffer says so? Not good enough. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:50, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Simonm223 are we rejecting that review as a source? I thought that while we know Frontiers Media has problems WP looked at each of the journals on a case by case basis? I thought it was a good review of the literature and introduces the topic as:

One of the most controversial debates about earthquake precursors is the presumed correlation between the occurrence of seismic events and: 1) observations of earthquake lights; ....they often share a non-instrumental method of observation (with some recent, but still rare and unclear exceptions of photo/video recording) and suffer from the high variability of sensory perceptions by biological organisms with the consequent inherent difficulty of assessing the statistical significance of the reports.

I should have quoted that, the real point of their commentary (similar to Sheaffer) that these eye-witness reports are really unreliable. (Thought the psychotics thing was fun tho.) I was just looking for something more critical of the phenomenon outside of the seeming walled garden of proponents. I don't think anyone would say that there is not something here to investigate, but building the article content solely from the proponents might overstate things a bit. If rejecting this source i can look for something else, but if the article needs to resort to PARITY sources i would suggest Sharon A. Hill's blog post here is at least as useful as Dunning or Sheaffer. fiveby(zero) 17:00, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

seeming walled garden of proponents

Respectfully, like Guy and others, you're seeing this through reactionary "watch out!!" blinders. There is no walled garden, unless we presume the skeptic ecosystem in this blogs and publications somehow has meritous standing equal to mainstream science (they don't and never will). I'm literally just quoting mainstream science sources in the article. It's completely boring stuff.

If this: Earthquake light#History is making WP:FTN twitchy, we've dangerously gone past ration to paranoia and red scare. If need opposition voices great--but they must be actual domain experts, not bloggers. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:10, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Re: request for sources and/or diffs

VPP has made 112 edits to earthquake light since they stated pushing the fringe view that earthquakes causing light in the sky is established science. If someone wants to have a polite debate with a sea lion about specifics diffs, I suggest crawling through the page history. Their first edit was this one: removing a source that clearly falls under WP:PARITY.

For the rest of us, simply look at the article as it was right before VPP started editing it. and compare it to the current version.

First, note what isn't in the new version. Not a single WP:SCIRS source that says that earthquakes cause lights in the sky. Plenty of sources documenting reports, plenty of sources presenting "if this is a real thing" theories about possible mechanisms. Not a single shred of evidence that contradicts the skeptical view that people see lights in the sky all the time and earthquakes happen all the time. Not a single shred of evidence that contradicts the skeptical view that many of the reports link lights and earthquakes that happened at widely different locations and times. So VPP simply deleted the skeptical source that pointed that out, reluctantly allowing it back in after getting significant push back.

But he did manage to add these quotes:

• " the reality of various luminous phenomena attending (some) earthquakes appears to be generally accepted as an observational fact by seismologists and is attested by thousands of eyewitnesses and even numerous photographs"
• "the continuing reports of EQL, especially the Matsushiro pictures, have led to general acknowledgement that EQLs do occur."
• "scientists made photos of earthquake lights that were clearly tied to the geologic activity. Since then, an increasing number of the phenomena have been captured on film and video"
• "scientists acknowledged the validity of the phenomenon."
• "No longer does this subject lurk in the shadows of scientific skepticism."
• "The existence of luminous phenomena, or earthquake lights, is well established."

But no quotes from any source that dares to say that they don't exist.

Also note changes such as this:

OLD VERSION:

"In 2016, freelance writer Robert Sheaffer wrote that skeptics and science bloggers should be more skeptical of the phenomenon. Sheaffer on his Bad UFO blog shows examples of what people claim are earthquake lights, then he shows photos of iridescent clouds which appear to be the same. He states that "It's truly remarkable how mutable 'earthquake lights' are. Sometimes they look like small globes, climbing up a mountain. Sometimes they look like flashes of lightning. Other times they look exactly like iridescent clouds. Earthquake lights can look like anything at all, when you are avidly seeking evidence for them."

NEW VERSION:

"Skeptical writer and UFO debunker Robert Sheaffer argued in 2014 that some modern claims about earthquake lights resembled the 1970s parapsychological research of Michael Persinger, who proposed tectonic explanations for claimed paranormal experiences including UFO sightings."

Here are sources for Robert Sheaffer's views.

Read them and tell me which of the above versions is a more accurate description of what Robert Sheaffer wrote.

Again, Not a single peer-reviewed paper in a reputable scientific journal that says that earthquakes cause lights in the sky. Zero evidence that the prevailing scientific consensus is that earthquakes cause lights in the sky. This is blatant POV pushing. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

You've lost AGF because you are flat out lying and need to be called out now. The article in no way says what they are (earthquake lights) and reflects the MAINSTREAM consensus in science that they are real but we don't know what.

You do not outrank mainstream sciene and neither does the entire CSICOP or whatever SI grifter legacy industry. Improve the article if you want, but it's going WP:GAN whether or not you like it or any other skeptics do. You are the minority FRINGE POV pusher here, not me. I'm just reporting what literal mainstream science says. Sheaffer is neither an expert and for good measure is utterly out of data and fixated on two researchers out of a global field.

Why don't you improve articles instead of dropping WP:BLUDGEON tomes here? Every sentence above would have been a better application article editing skills if available. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:54, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Guy Macon is literally just flat out lying here. I will not retract that because lying is not an allowed 'tactic' here and you all must be aware of his WP:GAMING attempts here to POV push a WP:FRINGE position. As to this dubious fiction: "But no quotes from any source that dares to say that they don't exist." Find some from actual modern post-Nagano seismology experts and I'll put them in myself. I'll be waiting on talk there.

AGF is not and never has been and never will be a suicide pact. Literally all of you read Earthquake light. Go right ahead.

It says science believes they are real lighting phenemona associated with some but not all earthquakes and we don't know why yet. That's the entire article. He is insisting we include total horse shit about one irrelevant dead Canadian's fixation on the supernatural, and that Robert Sheaffer for some reason deserves an entire paragraph dedicated to his blogging. Robert Sheaffer is 100% not a SME or expert on seismology. We are gracious giving him a sentence.

Read the article for yourselves. I have warned User:Guy Macon to stop lying. If there was a problem with the articele he could have fixed it, but that he refused to is proof nothing is wrong. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:03, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok so here's what I'll say: on the Frontiers question - I prefer not to use Frontiers journals. While it's true, as @Fiveby said, that sources should be reviewed situationally I'd say the reputation of Frontiers as a publisher is poor enough that they're starting pretty far back in the terms of a reliability assessment. I kind of see what VPP was doing with the Thériault citation now - thanks for clarification on that point. One thing I've mentioned about rational skepticism is that it's equally important for skeptics to turn the skeptical lens inward and assess themselves. Sheaffer seems weak on that point and, to make sure it's really clear what I'm saying here, we should not be using a climate change denialist to critique a geologist. With that being said I'm alarmed by the level of acrimony here. I'd encourage all parties to WP:FOC and dial back the hostility. Simonm223 (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea what has made Guy flip off the deep handle so much here. We are perfectly fine personally until I removed the UFO blog source from Earthquake light from Sheaffer. That instantly set off Guy. This is not and has never been a "UFO" article. People assign stupid stuff to literally everything. If some well known figure says eating Twinkies spawns actual supernatural demons in your digestive tract, we will not put a Twinkie#Skeptic response section into play. The very notion is beyond idiotic.

I'm frankly amazed at the sudden onset extremely personalized attacks by Guy Macon toward me over this minor and policy correct change for a non-FRINGE article. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:18, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

NPA and FOC means everybody and not just the person who, imo, seems to be wrong on the sources. Please stop with the personal attacks. Simonm223 (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

More than happy to, but in no scenario will I allow Macon to unchallenged flat out lie about me or my works, nor should anyone ever be accept to tolerate, suffer, or AGF or not call out overt lies.

Win on the merits or shut up should be doctrine. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:23, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd have to suggest that regardless of the disputes over other edits and content (I've not looked into it all), the edit noted above by Guy Macon, where Sheaffer's commentary on the nebulous descriptions of the 'lights' etc was reduced to a badly-written waffle about Persinger was entirely inappropriate. Certainly, Sheaffer mentions Persinger, but that isn't the focus of his commentary, which concerns the questionable nature of the anecdotal evidence being presented to support the claims. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I think we should probably leave Sheaffer out altogether. Again, the man is a climate change denier, and the subject of critique is a geologist. He is the wrong source to use in this context. Simonm223 (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Possibly Sheaffer isn't the best source to cite. But that's not a justification for misrepresenting his commentary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Agreed; it'd be better to just cut him altogether. Simonm223 (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

And what's with the hostility against skeptical sources and Skeptical Inquirer ("SI grifter legacy industry"?) You'd think someone has an axe to grind against skeptics or something. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I was an SI subscriber until about 2011. Simonm223 (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

The hostility against skeptical sources and Skeptical Inquirer is 100% on the part of not very polite at all person.

• "...the "skeptic club" is the fringe itself for not having done basic foundational historical reading on a global scale. Sorry. "Skeptic hall pass" turns out does have limits. Called reading skills."
• "...unless we presume the skeptic ecosystem in this blogs and publications somehow has meritous standing equal to mainstream science (they don't and never will)."
• "...the entire extended for-profit legacy Center for Inquiry ecosystem"

This will, of course, set off another round of WP:SEALIONING, but WP:PARITY is clearly written:

"Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia. For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science, since creation science itself is not published in peer-reviewed journals."

VPP has utterly failed to come up with any academic source that says that earthquakes cause lights in the sky, yet insists that the only allowable source saying that earthquakes probably don't cause lights in the sky simply must be from seismology experts. Criticism of earthquake lights, like criticism of creationism, is never published in science books or journals. That's why we have WP:PARITY. Not a single scientific source. All they have is popular press supporting a fringe theory. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

"Popular press" according to guy, as seen here: Earthquake light#References

See for yourself. Don't believe me. In order right now:

1. Earth Sciences Journal
2. Pure and Applied Geophysics
3. Air Force Research Laboratory
4. United States Geological Service (he objected to me quoting them too I think?)
5. Nature
6. National Geographic
7. Harper Collins Ecco
8. Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New Zealand
9. Nature
10. Proceedings of the Royal Academy
11. Atmospheric Research
12. Smithsonian Magazine
13. Geophysical Institute of the University of Alaska Fairbanks
14. Nature
15. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
16. National Geographic
17. United States Geological Survey
18. United States Geological Service
19. Press Democrat
20. Physics World
21. Times of London
22. David & Charles
23. El Universal
24. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences
25. Bollettino di Geofisica Teorica ed Applicata
26. Bulletin of the Global Volcanism Network
27. Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences
28. Peru Online
29. Mexico News Daily
30. Seismological Research Letters
31. NASA
32. NOVA PBS
33. United States Geological Survey
34. Forbes
35. Storm Highway
36. Japanese Journal of Applied Physics
37. Seismological Society of America
38. Nature
39. livescience.com
40. Washington Post
41. iflscience
42. Skeptoid

The article also literally never says what he keeps claiming it does. It doesn't. It says, as part of mainstream science as I have demonstrated:

1. There are lights associated with earthquakes
2. Not all earthquakes have lights
3. Since the 1960s it's accepted as fact that there are sometimes unexplained lights associated with earthquakes
4. Those are earthquake lights
5. No one knows for sure what they are
6. Scientists continue to science

That's it. That's literally all the article says. Read it yourselves. I have absolutely no idea what he's even doing here. Other editors already agreed Robert Sheaffer as a climate change denier has no business in earth sciences articles. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:50, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Please link/cite three sources from the above that best support the claim that "Since the 1960s it's accepted as fact that there are sometimes unexplained lights associated with earthquakes". AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

1. [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_light#cite_note-McMillan_DTIC_Earthquake_Light_1985-3
2. [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_light#cite_note-Lockner_Johnston_Byerlee_1983-4
3. [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_light#cite_note-NatGeo_EL_2014-01-07-5
4. [11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_light#cite_note-Smithsonian_Stromberg_2014-01-02-11
5. [12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_light#cite_note-Davis_GI_1978-04-03-12

Take your pick. There's way more than that. In fact, just look at the page, which I would have assumed everyone involved already would have, to see what's there? I was pretty liberal with the "quote" field. It's exceptionally transparent, unlike "OP". — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:28, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

And for the record, "since the 1960s it's accepted as fact that there are sometimes unexplained lights..." is my wording here, NOT in the article. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:29, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I asked for three, not five, for a reason. Either your claim is well supported, or it isn't. And if it is well supported, it doesn't need multiple sources to prove it. Anyway, from a quick look, I can't really see how the sources you list support more than a statement that some scientists have taken the phenomenon (it there is one) seriously. None can support any claim regarding current consensus.

1. A report from the 1980s, written for ARPA, carrying a statement that 'The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the author, and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies [of ARPA]" Not peer reviewed. carries a disclaimer. And certainly cannot be cited for current scientific consensus on anything.

2. A vague statement about 'general acknowledgement' from a proponent of a specific theory. 'Acknowledgement' by whom? Again dated, cannot be cited for current scientific consensus.

3. I can't see any wording in the Nat Geo article to support any claim of 'consensus'.

4. A vague statement that 'scientists acknowledged the validity of the phenomenon' again isn't an indication of consensus. Which scientists?

5. Dated. And why do we need to cite The university of Alaska's science forum on this. What subject-matter expertise does the author have?

A claim regarding current consensus needs to be supported by recent sources that explicitly state that such a consensus exists. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I have concerns about you here. Did you actually read all those sources that quickly in less than 28 minites, or are you going by the quotes and skimming? If you don't like 1, that's fine, even though it's a perfectly valid source. From Pure and Applied Geophysics, cited 30+ times already since 2019:

* doi:10.1007/s00024-019-02142-2

* https://web.archive.org/web/20240416005217/https://earthquake.usgs.gov/static/lfs/research/rockphysics/Lockner_etal_Nature1983_EQLights.pdf

Tell us what sentence 3 says. I'll help you out:

A transformation in these attitudes occurred when photographs of luminous phenomena were taken during the Matsushiro earthquake swarm in Japan (Fig. 1), between 1965 and 1967.

That sentence is cited to in the document as:

1. Yasui, Y. Proc. Kakiokoa Magnetic Observ. 13,, 23-33 (1968)

2. Yasui, Y. Proc. Kakiokoa Magnetic Observ. 14,, 67-78 (1971)

Oh, and who said that? US Geological Survey. They're all like this.

5. Dated is an irrelevant criticism with absolutely zero policy backing, respectfully, so that will be disregarded as criterion. And that author is T. Neil Davis, commenting in the 1978 about research from the 1960s, so quite fine, the end. Your incorrect framing of it as a "forum" like a message board. Please do not even by accident try to the deceptive framing guy attempted. From their own site:

The science forum is a weekly story we here at the University of Alaska Fairbanks Geophysical Institute send out to Alaska news outlets and 358 email subscribers each week. Established in the late 1940s, the Geophysical Institute is a place where a few dozen researchers study the aurora, earthquakes, permafrost, glaciers, the atmosphere, snow, coastal erosion, sea ice and other northern phenomena.

Go ahead and gut the Earthquake light article if you dare. Fine by me. It would be grossly disruptive at a casual reading of the sources. It's also patently obvious I'm trying to be baited, and it won't work. The precedent of skeptical fallibility will stick. They are wrong this time. They should have kept up with real world science instead of what the flock wants to hear. This entire thing is a waste of everyone's time for a perfectly fine non-fringe article.

I am going to WP:FA every one of those sacred articles that are apparently intended to be in a broken state. Every one. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 01:31, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Dated is an irrelevant criticism with absolutely zero policy backing. Wrong. Just wrong. As for the rest I see no reason to respond further to your accusations of deceptive framing', that you are being 'baited' etc. I asked for material to support your claim. I have explained why I don't think the material you cited does. You don't have to agree with me, but if your only response is hostility, I see no reason to discuss anything further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Age matters and this is seismology. The skeptical fringe crew literally does not get under policy to be arbiters of what is, or is not, fringe. The mainstream science does.

The article, in my revised format here right now -- especially lead to the end of the history section, which I am actively rewriting -- is fine.

Of course I am defensive, when OP has flagrantly lied about me to cause disruptive framing of me and poisoning the well. I have literally no idea what absurd fictional view of my 'work' you all have, but I guarantee you are all completely wrong. Go see:

User:Very Polite Person#Corpus so far

If I'm such a fringe POV pusher, how come no one ever blows up, AFDs, strip mines, or WP:TNTs any of those pages? I'm doing the same exact thing on Earthquake light. Making an actually correctly written, neutral article. If that makes something some people dislike not seem so stupid, too bad. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 01:49, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey, remember that ANI from last year when a bunch of people complained about your editing and you said it wouldn't be a problem any more because you had started to 'chill out on arguing'? Good times. MrOllie (talk) 02:33, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Am I supposed to roll over when people lie about me or my constributions to articles? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 02:36, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, you shouldn't be making misleading claims that no one has ever had a problem with your editing before. And if the well is poisoned, some of that is your own doing, because people do remember previous interactions. MrOllie (talk) 02:40, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, well, 'guy' opening with bold lying is a problem, and I am not a believer in the entire saving face thing. I fucked up then, and we went forward. People openly lying about my editing is an entirely different animal, which is not to be tolerated by anyone. If someone lied about you, I'd jump down their throat as firmly. If it was up to me, no one gets to save face. It subsidizes bad behavior.

This entire thing is someone is upset that I decline to be deferential to their perceived status. That's it.

I'll note still that no one ever seems to really undo my edits to the darling fringe articles. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 02:45, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, you shouldn't be making misleading claims that no one has ever had a problem with your editing before.

Also, I had to reread this entire thread, because you just lied too about me. I didn't say that. I said that nowhere in here.

I very clearly said no one seems to blow up the "fringe" articles I supposedly WP:OWN (heard that one too) and catalog on my user page. This entire series of responses is like a trained programmed linguistic regimen to make anyone who doesn't toe the FTN line seem like a crazy person, by subtly reframing and mistating things. Like you did here. Like the bizarre transitions of higher standards above by others that I said things I didn't. The "walled garden" accusation: who? The mainstream seismology scientific community?

It's like the flat out accusations I was going to use Field propulsion as some ultra fringe UFO springboard. Heard that one too.

Do you all even realize how plainly and transparently manipulative and theatrical it is? You guys probably don't even realize you do it at this point. It doesn't work. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 02:54, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

This pearl clutching about everyone else lying is quite something given the diff I linked a little ways up. Do you realize that heaping personal attacks on everyone you can find just makes your arguments seem weaker, whether you're right on the subtance or not? MrOllie (talk) 02:57, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

No one should be expected or obligated to do anything socially performative on here, ever, for any reason. I decline.

If there's a problem with the articles I write someone would have improved them. I'm not stopping anyone. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 02:59, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Age definitely matters in science. Simonm223 (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

A simple question: if this is mainstream science, where is it discussed, beyond papers specifically on that topic? Are there general articles on phenomena associated with earthquakes that mention the 'lights' as being amongst them? If such sources can be found, it might help resolve the issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:01, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_light#cite_note-Smithsonian_Stromberg_2014-01-02-11
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_light#cite_note-NatGeo_EL_2014-01-07-5
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_light#cite_note-Warnings_Clarke_Eddy-6

But those sources all apparently upset folks. I've been told "Smithsonian" and "National Geographic" are not valid sources as "popular press". I saw historically some editor objected to those because they were somehow tainted for being written during a period when earthquake lights were in the "news" (a fine example of the arbitrarily escalatory fake content policies that should be a conduct violation) If I wanted, I could stuffed the page full of newspapers, but didn't need to. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 03:09, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not the slightest bit surprised that folks get upset if you cite Warnings: Finding Cassandras to Stop Catastrophes as a source for content on 'earthquake lights'. As for the rest, you are clearly too obsessed with your relentless victimhood to understand the question I asked. Maybe someone else could try to actually answer it - with sources that aren't written by 'intelligence and counterterrorism officials' and aren't on another topic entirely, and which don't have 'lights' in their titles, since that was clearly not what I was asking for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

1. https://www.aps.org/archives/publications/apsnews/201406/earthquake.cfm
2. https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/978-90-481-8702-7_205
3. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26462348
4. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg25834370-100-these-bizarre-lights-in-the-sky-hint-at-a-way-to-predict-earthquakes/
5. https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/14/world/earthquake-lights-phenomenon-scn
6. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/lights-mexico-earthquake/
7. https://www.britannica.com/science/earthquake-geology/Surface-phenomena -> Earthquakes are frequently associated with reports of distinctive sounds and lights. The sounds are generally low-pitched and have been likened to the noise of an underground train passing through a station. The occurrence of such sounds is consistent with the passage of high-frequency seismic waves through the ground. Occasionally, luminous flashes, streamers, and bright balls have been reported in the night sky during earthquakes. These lights have been attributed to electric induction in the air along the earthquake source.

Do Britannica and a scientific geophysical encyclopedia count?

What kind of source are you after? The ask for them to not be mentioned in the article title or URL is unusual. Springer encyclopedia there, that's the URL for the chapter or entry on it. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 03:46, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

United States Geological Service in 2023:

The felt reports for the aftershock about 10 hours later help provide evidence that the mainshock location was indeed in the northern Front Range of Colorado or possibly the southern Laramie Mountains of Wyoming. In addition, what are now described as earthquake lights were observed from Cheyenne and in the Longs Peak area. Earthquake lights are thought to be due to breaking of rocks during the faulting process and are normally visible only in the epicentral area of an earthquake.

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/ushis230/impact — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 03:51, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Are there general articles on phenomena associated with earthquakes that mention the 'lights' as being amongst them? If such sources can be found, it might help resolve the issue.

Yes, part 2:

Encyclopaedia Britannica, in its general article on earthquakes written by seismologist Bruce Bolt, states under "Surface phenomena" that earthquakes are "frequently associated with reports of distinctive sounds and lights", including "luminous flashes, streamers, and bright balls" reported during earthquakes, and says these lights have been attributed to electric induction in the air along the earthquake source.

Bruce Bolt literally wrote the definitive encyclopedia article on the matter and he died in 2005. He has an award named after him and I learned just now is an indisputable expert of experts apparently in this domain of seismology and seismic engineering. That seems like what you wanted?

-> https://www.britannica.com/science/earthquake-geology/Surface-phenomena — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 04:33, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Texas sharpshooter fallacy

• Texas sharpshooter fallacy (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Talk:Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy#Revert - This is about a deletion from the article regarding the fringe topic of electrosmog. What do others think? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:46, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Talk:United_States_UAP_files#UFO_or_UAP_in_article_title_and_wikivoice

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:36, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Paul Saladino

A user is repeatedly claiming Paul Saladino does not promote pseudoscientific claims and this claim is unsupported by the references, even though two sources support this directly in the lead including this article from the Office for Science and Society . Also see discussion on talk-page. Carrot juice (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

The FTN summary misstates my objection. I am not arguing that criticism of Saladino's claims cannot be included. The issue is framing, placement, and verification: whether the sources directly support saying in the lead/infobox, in Wikipedia's voice, that Saladino "promotes pseudoscientific claims regarding human health and diet" and is "known for" pseudoscience.

The McGill/Schwarcz article^[1] is commentary first published in The Montreal Gazette. It is purely an opinion piece, not a scientific or medical source, and presenting it otherwise is disingenuous. It contains Schwarcz's phrase "pseudoscientific rants" (singular mention), but the article is mainly about Saladino's french-fries/cigarettes comparison. Schwarcz even acknowledges the main chemical point: fries can contain "some carcinogenic aldehydes in amounts comparable" to cigarette smoke, while saying "In no way" were the risks comparable. That is criticism of an exaggerated comparison; it is not source support for making "pseudoscience" Saladino's defining BLP label.

Another important note: Schwarcz writes about health and food science, but he is a chemist/science communicator, not a physician (like Saladino) or medical authority.

The other cited source, Anisin's Food, Culture & Society article^[2], critiques internet food-cult/diet advice framing. It does not say Saladino "promotes pseudoscientific claims regarding human health and diet" or that he is "known for" pseudoscience. The Anisin article is being cited for claims it simply does not make (I assume it was found with an LLM and not human-reviewed/mistakenly cited as supporting these claims, since @Carrot juice sort of scrambled^[3] to find a new source directly after I pointed out the Schwarcz opinion piece flaws). Using these sources that way is a source-text mismatch and a WP:V/WP:SYNTH/WP:BLP problem.

I'm not seeking to remove opinionated sourced criticism, which is already discussed in the article's body. I am objecting to using opinionated commentary and diet criticism to justify the article's most prominent wording: "known for" pseudoscience in the infobox and "promotes pseudoscientific claims" immediately after identifying him as a board-certified psychiatrist. That framing is not supported or proportionate under WP:NPOV and WP:DUE.

The lead and infobox materially misrepresent the cited sources and give the criticism undue weight in a BLP. MightyLebowski (talk) 08:42, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Carrot juice appears entirely correct in this assessment. The Pseudoscientific label belongs front and centre in the lead. - - Walter Still not in the Epstein Files Ego 08:46, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

This adds nothing. I raised specific WP:V, WP:SYNTH, WP:BLP, and WP:DUE objections, including that the key source is an opinion/commentary piece. "Carrot juice is right" engages with none of them. The source text still does not support the lead/infobox wording, and your reply does not identify what "assessment" you are endorsing beyond an unsupported assertion. MightyLebowski (talk) 09:06, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• The pseudoscience tag seems adequately sourced, kind of obvious given the guy's preposterous schtick, and necessary for Wikipedia to include up front for NPOV. Bon courage (talk) 09:12, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  Remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, so we can't redefine "adequately sourced" to mean "I don't like the guy, so let's ignore all evidence about unsourced/opinionated claims being the basis for the lead". And I say that as someone who doesn't like him either. MightyLebowski (talk) 09:33, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  Read the article again. See how much claptrap he endorses. - Walter Still not in the Epstein Files Ego 09:50, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  I mean, we don't have to like what he says, but at the end of the day, the lead and infobox don't correctly represent what the sources say, so it's synth + undue opinions with high precedence. MightyLebowski (talk) 10:54, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  You're simply wrong. We have RS referring to this guy's "pseudoscientific rants". We (obvs) have no source demurring from it given then nature of the crankery being espoused, so for Wikipedia's purposes it can simply be asserted. This special pleading for fringe positions in the face of consensus (there's a rap sheet for fluoridation as I recall) is not helpful to the Project. Bon courage (talk) 11:24, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  I haven't looked at any of the sources but if we literally have one that says the quote he goes on "pseudoscientific rants" why not make it source [1] on opening sentence? Then all complaints are met and no one ever has to deal with the article again in opener? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:29, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  Well it is source No [1]. But in general we really we shouldn't bend articles to attempt to stave off WP:PROFRINGE editors who will always have some beef or other, no matter what. Bon courage (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  No no, not bend, just sharpen and hone them with quote= in metadata and enough careful construction that literally any further edit to the sentence based on existing sourcing is inherently bad and damaging, because it can't be improved more outside of artistic license or emotional tenor. Just lock it down so the sentence is doing the same easy work for a generation. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:10, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  The source they're referring to is a re-published opinion piece. It can't be used to substantiate factual claims about Saladino in the lead/infobox, yet it is. Using an opinion as the first source for a BLP is comedic and it should be removed.

  https://montrealgazette.com/opinion/columnists/the-right-chemistry-no-eating-french-fries-is-not-the-same-as-smoking-cigarettes MightyLebowski (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  I couldn't find any reliable source that doesn't present him as pseudosomething or fringe. Where are these sources, MightyLebowski? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2026 (UTC)