More eyes would be appreciated at Gray alien. Two editors who have professed belief in the reality of the subject are attempting to make the article more 'neutral'. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:46, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

The recently-added main image of sinister aliens lurking in deep shadow isn't an improvement. The old image was objective and dispassionate, something an encyclopedia should strive for. - LuckyLouie (talk)

The image I reverted was because I thought it was "AI" generated and I was worried about copyvio. If I'm mistaken please revert me. Simonm223 (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

AI images can't be copyrighted, though there's currently a community discussion about whether to ban their use in general, and it seems likely to pass. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

My concern is more that we would be violating the copyright of the "training data" owners - IE the owners of the image rights that the diffusion model was trained upon. Simonm223 (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Ahh, yes. I don't think that would actually apply directly (at least not in a court of law, as the image itself isn't a copy of copyrighted work), but it is a broader ethical concern that I, as an artist, very much share. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:50, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not a lawyer so I'd comport myself conservatively here and avoid anything that has even the implication of copyright violation but it's not a hill I intend to die on. ;) Simonm223 (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I completely understand that sentiment. It's a good approach, honestly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:05, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I've tagged the image using the broadest template available on Commons (Commons:Template:PD-algorithm). I am personally averse to using the image as there's no specific discussion within the article that describes depictions of gray aliens as created by AI (which is typically a requirement for any article on en.wikipedia to use such images, especially so for the main image), and the methods by which this image was created are not described in any way. (This is true for all of the images that have been uploaded to Commons by Mesoutopia (talk · contribs).) Reconrabbit 16:32, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I just had a look and, yeah, the one of Jesus and a Gray Alien would likely be a copyright violation for the movie Son of God (film) marketing material. Simonm223 (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Ooof, yeah, that's a shockingly similar face. You know, I work with deep learning systems, and have even built one. I use generative AI in some of my artwork, as well, and yet it is exactly stuff like this which makes me so wary of using it to produce images for anything other than the sheer entertainment value of making images by typing a prompt. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

• They’re not even grey in the image! Why would you use this? PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

• Recovered-memory therapy (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• False Memory Syndrome Foundation (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• Ralph Underwager (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• Dissociative identity disorder (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Recent suspicious activity in those articles this month, moving articles about false memory towards the "false memory proponents are pedophiles" narrative. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:20, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Edit war at Category:Visions (spirituality). Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:45, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

• James Tour (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Bona fide scientist, but flirts with intelligent design. That was in the article, but the sources were not great. An IP deleted all of it after unsuccessfully trying to remove just the criticism. I think it is an improvement - we do not have to add "believes in crazy stuff" to every BLP where the LP happens to believe in crazy stuff. Especially if the reception is thin, as in this case. What do others think? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:58, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

In reality BLP über alles. This does mean some people who believe in batshit get sanitized Wikipedia bios, but them's the breaks. Bon courage (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Hob Gadling. I know he was recently elected to the National Academy of Engieering too. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Ignoring WP:NPOV for a moment, I agree—and personally feel the less we feel the need to automatically nail people for fruity views like these, the less fodder some figures have to develop persecution complexes, the better. I don't even think Tour's "crazy" per se if I take their essay (the parts I both read and understood, at least) at face value here—more than a little idiosyncratic, unduly jaded, and likely ignorant as a chemist and silicon-toucher of things evolutionary biologists and hydrocarbon-touchers may have more of a clue about—but those may be my own metaphysical biases showing a bit.

Back to reality and NPOV: it's the advocacy that's a sticking point. I would resent a campaign to tag every biography possible with the creationist category, but this is clearly at least a perennially visible component of Tour's public intellectual life. Maybe not visible enough, but it seems borderline to me. Remsense ‥ 论 07:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

The fellow is just religiously motivated to attack a scientific field outside of his expertise which conflicts with a belief he holds to be foundational, namely he believes that life is a miracle and natural processes cannot explain its miraculousness. This is certainly a WP:FRINGE claim in the sense that it is bogus, but he is only unique because he pushes this claim as a kind of nadir of his career sort of gambit. Laundering pseudoscience with credentialism is the new Nobel disease. Compare Avi Loeb and aliens.

The chronically online know the guy from his fights/debates with a minor YouTube personality where he doesn't come out ahead, really. He was invited to "debate" at Harvard, but it didn't go well.

I wouldn't say he "flirts" with intelligent design. He is a dishonest evangelical who cannot see that his picking and choosing which science he accepts and which he rejects is classic pseudoscience just like the less sophisticated creationists who crow, "Were you there?"

jps (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we should be citing the guy for any of his positions about biology whatsoever, to be perfectly clear. Since writing this, I've done the barest bit of probing and found that Inference, a magazine he's citing his own articles for a lot in that essay, is a Thiel-funded concern that apparently has a habit of publishing advocacy for various creationisms. Bah humbug. Remsense ‥ 论 05:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, I removed the "Personal Life" section as, apparently, no other sources think that this is relevant to his biography except for his own attestation. If we are going to take WP:Independent sources seriously, I think we need to see what the best sources say about the guy. They don't mention his religion. Neither should we.

If one day Tour's bloviating ends up getting him profiled reliably as a creationist gadfly, we can always add it all back. Until then, let his actual WP:PROMINENT accomplishments remain in his wikibio.

jps (talk) 05:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Seems like the right move to me. Remsense ‥ 论 05:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

In reality, a majority of scientists believe in God or a higher power, so there really is nothing unusual about Dr. Tour. This echo chamber is the actual fringe. I agree that most of his published work is not related to his religious beliefs so I'm okay leaving it off of his bio. In actuality, his challenge to origin of life research doesn't reference religion at all.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/ PerseusMeredith (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

If you actually read the conversation to this point, you would know we're not criticizing Tour or expressing concern about him merely believing in a higher power. Save your time and ours if that's all you have to contribute, please. Remsense ‥ 论 17:45, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

"He is a dishonest evangelical who cannot see that his picking and choosing which science he accepts and which he rejects is classic pseudoscience just like the less sophisticated creationists who crow, "Were you there?""

Based on the foregoing, this is clearly incorrect. This thread is loaded with disrespectful comments to the majority of the population that believe in a higher power and violate, "batshit crazy," "fruity views," that violate the civility policy. [[1]] PerseusMeredith (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

If you immediately conflate "evangelical" here with "believes in a higher power", that's clearly your own baggage at play, not anything that was actually said by anyone. Cheers. Remsense ‥ 论 18:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

But most of the comments are disparaging people that believe that the world was created by a higher power. There isn't anything related to interpretation of the Bible which would imply distinction amongst theists.

So I'm trying to understand your point. Are you saying it's okay to disparage someone because they belong to a certain group (Evangelical)? PerseusMeredith (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Nope. I meant the totality of what I've said in this thread, not any other words you want to put in my mouth. Remsense ‥ 论 22:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

But most of the comments are disparaging people that believe that the world was created by a higher power. No, they're not. Using colorful language to describe people's strange beliefs is not the same as disparaging the people. Also, you are conflating the specific strange beliefs of a person with the more general strange belief "that the world was created by a higher power". It is not this belief of his that is being described in a way that you dislike. So, wrong on the disparaging of people, and wrong on which belief it is that is being described in colorful language. VdSV9•♫ 21:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

(Please drop it.) Remsense ‥ 论 21:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Knock it off, User:PerseusMeredith. If you think there is a violation of civility policy, report it to the appropriate noticeboard WP:ANI, WP:AN, or WP:AE. jps (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't want to get anyone banned. I wanted to point out that a lot of the comments on the thread are disparaging and I find them offensive. PerseusMeredith (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Noted… now let’s move on. Blueboar (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I have tried to collect my thoughts on this. There are two usable sources for this mess: [2] and [3]. From those sources we can say that in 2014 Tour tried the Non-overlapping magisteria approach to his religion and science even while he signed a clearly pseudoscientific declaration of war against biology. In 2023 he lost a debate to a high school science teacher. Not sure there is enough there to really establish something WP:WEIGHTy. Anyone see anything else? jps (talk) 05:45, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I have started a workshop section at the talkpage of the article for a possible section based on these two sources. jps (talk) 12:05, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

AFAIK, Dave Farina is not and has never been a high school science teacher. He was a college "lecturer" before, and makes tutorials on university-level subjects as well as, I guess, high-school level material. VdSV9•♫ 21:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I was being a little fast-and-loose, I will admit, but one of Farina's gigs is as a tutor for Advanced Placement chemistry [4] teaching high school students at a college level. My apologies if it was overly flippant. jps (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Note that Alephjamie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to think that I am a YouTube fan of Dave Farina trying to promote him? Talk page discussions, opinions, and discernment welcome. I have alerted the user who has been removing the statement cited to the Rice University student newspaper that their actions are superficially appearing to be like WP:POVPUSHing. jps (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussion underway at talk:Dallin H. Oaks He is a "prophet" who can hear messages from God, apparently. But editors of the page think this is too confidential to discuss. Hot Drinks and Rock n Roll (talk) 02:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Is this about the retracted speech that, apparently BYU, doesn't want us non-believers reading? Simonm223 (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Do RS discuss it? Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

• What is this section? The title mentions homophobia, but your comment talks only about whether or not we should mention that he's considered a prophet. I did a scan of news sources about him, and saw no mention of homophobia, but I also saw no mention of any kind of prophecy (though to be fair, I eschewed sources from within the church). Furthermore, you don't mention which discussion and I can't find your signature anywhere on the page. Given that your only two edits were to create your own user page and then to make this, I suspect there's some puppetry happening. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:31, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• Not sure this is relevant to this noticeboard (that a senior religious leader is reputed to be homophobic is certainly not outside the norm)... I think this is more a question of due weight and OR which should be resolved on the article talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Where's the discussion under way? There hasn't been any comment for 15 days and the more recent discussion seems to have ended because an editor wanted to add something they considered important but where they couldn't provide any reliable secondary sources to demonstrate this. Nil Einne (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I have been speculating about adding CTOP to the "if it's contested, leave it out until you have consensus" standard (e.g., to handle disputed CTOP material the same as we handled contentious BLP material). However, the result might be blanking everything (e.g., I remove everything that doesn't agree with my side, you remove everything that doesn't agree with your side, and the result is a blank page). Please join the discussion over there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Mixed feelings on handling CTOP the same as BLP… but… I definitely DON’T think it should be coat racked into to W:Verifiability. Blueboar (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Fresno nightcrawler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Brand new article about the latest urban myth that a mystery creature roams Fresno. Article treats the subject as if it really exists, despite cited sources stating the opposite. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Now at Draft:Fresno nightcrawler. This is a recreation of a deleted article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fresno nightcrawler), although the sources of the new version are substantially different. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd forgotten the AfD, thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Stargate Project (U.S. Army unit) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is about an undeniably real and interesting project but reports claims in a credulous way. It would benefit from a lookover.Boynamedsue (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

The lead had some details added about President Carter that somebody thought needed showcasing, but I moved them to the appropriate section. The rest of the article could use some copyediting. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes it's Chromotherapy, and according to PMID:35360820 this is on the table:

CANCER

• The ambience around the patient, i.e. the room where the patient resides, must be coloured red. The patients’ attire, as well as the walls, curtains, bed sheets and pillow coverings, should all be red.
• Cast red light over the body for 10 to 15 min several times a day.
• Massage red charged oil upon the back of trunk, thigh muscles and calves once daily.

Currently an uptick for this article's editing activity, but this should probably be on the watchlist of all connoisseurs of fine pseudoscience. Bon courage (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Noting that there was a (succinct but efficient) takedown response published at PMID:37091007. All this talk of chakras and aura is wild. However I think it is pretty clear where it comes from, because the article currently listed as "most popular" on the journal website looks like it's the work of famous prof.dr ChatGPT, so we should probably blacklist this journal entirely. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛ ⸱ 💬 ⸱ 📋 12:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

It's quite well-covered in this article:

• "How Pseudoscience Generated US Material and Device Regulations" (PDF). AMA Journal of Ethics. 23 (9): E721–738. 2021-09-01. doi:10.1001/amajethics.2021.721. ISSN 2376-6980. Retrieved 2025-03-24.

which, BTW, I recommend to everyone not least for some truly amazing photographs (great shame they're not freely usable?). Bon courage (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

See the discussion on Talk:Chromotherapy. The recent edits attempt to include peer-reviewed secondary sources to the article [1][2][3] (aligning with WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE, WP:FRIND) which in its present state relies on opinions from non-academic books. The reverts of these edits seem non-neutral.

Chromotherapy, by definition, is a treatment modality that uses light in the visible spectrum (colors) to cure diseases. Any study that uses narrow-band wavelengths in the visible region falls under the regimen of chromotherapy, and not under any other treatment modality. There is growing evidence on the therapeutic action of narrow-band wavelengths across various contexts.

Phototherapy mostly uses UV and low-level laser therapy relies on red to near-infrared radiation. Light therapy refers to the bright light therapy and not monochromatic light. Some studies directly use the word 'chromotherapy' or 'colour therapy', some refer to it as the 'visible range radiation therapy', and others simply refer to the wavelength / colour that is used, e.g., 'blue light therapy' or 'red light therapy'.

If every type of therapeutic evidence regarding therapy using colored lights (monochromatic) is to be classified under the entries of other therapies and every quackery under this one, then it doesn't serve the purpose of having this separate entry. At the minimum, this article should clearly represent what does chromotherapy represent (which is line with the published literature), and add reliable peer-reviewed secondary sources.

What do others think?

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37041783/

[2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39586649/

[3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38695906/ Objectiveanalysis (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Objectiveanalysis, since you ask for what others think, I am going to tell you how things look like to me. With only a days-old account, you have almost exclusively made WP:PROFRINGE edits to a pseudoscience page, and managed to edit war enough to get a temp block from the page (you might remove the notice from your talk page, but it doesn't change that it happened). Your persistence in trying to label any treatment modality using visible light "chromotherapy" is pure WP:OR (your use of "narrow-band" and "monochromatic" like they mean established stuff in this context raise eyebrows). Worse, you keep suggesting source after source that are articles from what I can only call trash journals. Based on these elements, I see two options. Either you are a new editor who needs to take a step back, familiarize yourself with how things work here, and learn to identify what is and isn't a trustworthy journal, let alone a WP:MEDRS; or you have a bone in this fight (WP:COI) and are engaging in WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. Either way, you need to step away from editing this article entirely. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛•💬•📋 11:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

@Choucas0 First of all, I would like to point out that your response is not at all welcoming or helpful for new editors. I would certainly expect better from an experienced editor on a topic that is brought forward for a productive discussion and improvements to the article.

My primary concern is that the current state of this article is in direct conflict with the consensus of the research community on the evidence regarding the therapeutic effect of narrow-band electromagnetic radiation. The terms "narrow-band" and "monochromatic" are in fact well-established in this field, and the definition of chromotherapy or the 'exposure to certain colors' as mentioned in the article is nothing but a narrow-band electromagnetic radiation. The biggest issue is that sources that the current article cites are all opinions from non-academic books, and I would expect peer-reviewed, secondary sources to be added to the article for presenting an unbiased opinion on this subject. In my comment above, I shared articles from the following journals: J Lasers Med Sci, J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. If these journals look trash, then I'm afraid we would have to rewrite a significant portion of the articles that cite a number of such journals.

I would suggest new edits to this article based on the peer-reviewed secondary sources so that this could be improved further. Objectiveanalysis (talk) 11:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

You're conflating Light therapy and Low-level laser therapy, which are both scientific, with Chromotherapy, which is pseudoscience. The sources you are citing are not actually about the topic of the article you are trying to put them on. MrOllie (talk) 12:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

No I am not. How does the exposure to blue coloured light fall under low-level laser therapy or light therapy? The references that I shared fall squarely under chromotherapy by the definition presented in the current article and what is agreed upon by the published sources (including the sources present in the current article).

If colour therapy does not consist of exposure to coloured lights, then we should update a significant portion of the current article to whatever the new definition editors seem to agree upon (which I am not aware of). Objectiveanalysis (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Chromotherapy is not just about coloured lights, but eating coloured foods, rubbing on coloured oils, and wearing coloured clothes – all for claimed therapeutic gain. It's bollocks. Anything at all serious to do with light goes in other articles. Bon courage (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Excluding anything serious to do with coloured lights from the domain of chromotherapy goes directly against the sources present in the current article and the very definition that is currently being used there: "Chromotherapists claim to be able to use light in the form of color".

If the other editors agree that this is the new definition of chromotherapy, then we should be explicit about this in the article that 'Chromotherapy does not deal with anything serious about coloured lights' . Objectiveanalysis (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

The sources already do that for us. Chromotherapy is unambiguous pseudoscience and quackery. Your argument is like saying homeopathy is valid because hydration is a legitimate aspect of medicine. Bon courage (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Wrong analogy, I did not say that. You presented the claim that 'Anything at all serious to do with light goes in other articles.' and is outside chromotherapy, which is completely wrong. Objectiveanalysis (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

It is a description of what Wikipedia is doing in accord with what the sources contain, and which will not be changing unless those sources change. Bon courage (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Can you please share the sources that exclude coloured light from chromotherapy? Objectiveanalysis (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

The definition we cite in the article is Chromotherapy [..] is a pseudoscientific form of alternative medicine which proposes certain diseases can be treated by exposure to certain colors and not Chromotherapy is any form of medicine which proposes that any diseases can be treated by exposure to certain colors. Your demand that non-pseudoscientific forms of non-alternative medicine be included just because it fits a definition you imagined that we cite but which we do not actually cite, is based on faulty logic. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the objective response; I greatly appreciate it.

I’m curious how this specific definition was introduced into the article, given that the cited source for this definition does not mention the terms “certain diseases” or “certain colors.” In my view, the argument to exclude every therapeutically valid application and non-pseudoscientific form of coloured light from the field of Chromotherapy hinges on a narrow and selective interpretation, which is neither universally accepted nor exhaustive.

Therefore, in my view, framing chromotherapy exclusively as an alternative medicine that doesn't work (and excluding any valid application of it that works) amounts to a definitional cherry-pick that doesn't seem to be supported by the sources cited in the article. In my opinion, a more rigorous approach would be to distinguish between pseudoscientific and evidence-based applications of coloured light rather than collapsing the entire field into one camp. Objectiveanalysis (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not work like "we get the definition of a term from somewhere, then collect stuff from [WP:RS]] based on that, with Wikipedia users deducing what belongs in the article from whether it fits the definition we have", but like "we look what RS write on that specific topic". If a RS does not explicitly mention chromotherapy, we cannot use it in the article about chromotherapy. It does not matter if an editor believes the source is talking about chromotherapy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:43, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Betteridge's law of headlines. jps (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Are there secondary or tertiary sources saying that it is more mainstream? The metanalyses look interesting, but any mention of this in say a book or textbook (a little more distance than research papers)? There are quite a number of studies rejecting this in the article. If there has been some accepance, it should pop up in a book or encyclopedia of medicine, for instance. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, there are quite a number of books that mention the therapeutic effects of coloured light (red, blue and other colours) as well. Adding a few below:

[1] The Ultimate Guide To Red Light Therapy (Ari Whitten)

[2] Color Medicine: The Secrets of Color Vibrational Healing (Charles Klotsche)

[3] Light and Laser Therapy: Clinical Procedures (Curtis Turchin)

[4] Low-Level Light Therapy: Photobiomodulation (Michael R. Hamblin)

However, beyond expanding the list of books, I recommend that the article also incorporate peer-reviewed secondary sources, such as the meta-analysis previously shared. The current version predominantly relies on non-academic literature, most of which predates 2010. Since then, considerable new evidence has emerged regarding the therapeutic effects of monochromatic light, making recent academic sources particularly valuable. Objectiveanalysis (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Low-level laser therapy is a different topic, but Wikipdia is never going to include stuff sourced to flap-eared quackery like The Ultimate Guide To Red Light Therapy. You are wasting your time and ours. Bon courage (talk) 12:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

The books were only given in the response to the previous comment. I'm not recommending to include them either. All I am saying is that instead of relying on the references from non-academic books, the sourcing should be done from peer-reviewed secondary sources to present an objective viewpoint on this topic. I do not know how else should I bring this to attention. The current books cited in the article are not exactly scientific either if we hold them to the same standards. Most of them predate 2010 and do not consider the evidence that has emerged in the past decade at all regarding the therapeutic impact of coloured light. The last edits in the 'scientific rejection' section rely heavily from these books and I do not see any citations from recent sources.

I'm not talking about low-level laser therapy (or photobiomodulation) in the references that I provided. If therapy using blue or red coloured light (from the visible region) does not fall into colour therapy or chromotherapy (regarding which I shared systematic reviews and meta-analysis), I am afraid we would certainly have to rewrite this article entirely since it is not about chromotherapy at all then. Objectiveanalysis (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

You cannot take a definition from pseudoscientists as a foundation for deciding what goes in which Wikipedia articles. Pseudoscientists define "Yogic Flying" as either flying while in the lotus position (which is impossible) or hopping while in the lotus position and getting photographed in the air to create the impression of flying while in the lotus position. We do not write that hoppers fly based on that definition.

Chromotherapy is for the pseudoscience stuff, and the other articles are for the science stuff, regardless of how the pseudoscientists define their pseudoscience.

And a book does not become "not exactly scientific" by failing to take information into account that does not exist yet when it is printed. To the contrary. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

If the books present in the article do not represent the current state of evidence regarding chromotherapy., why are these outdated tertiary sources still being considered as valid over peer-reviewed secondary sources? The sources that I call 'not exactly scientific' are unreliable and fail WP:MEDRS. On the contrary, I attempted to make actual edits with peer-reviewed secondary sources (meta-analysis and systematic reviews in line with WP:MEDRS) on the therapeutic effects of coloured light were repeatedly reverted. Why?

"Those fighting pseudoscience must realize that using non-scientific sources to fight pseudoscience will only serve to weaken their own arguments and undermine the credibility of the skeptic's movement." Objectiveanalysis (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Wrong. Scientists hardly ever bother debunking bullshit, especially in conventional journal article. This is why WP:PARITY exits. You have produced no worthwhile relevant sources at all. To repeat: you are wasting your time and ours. Bon courage (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I presented the following sources above amongst numerous others on the talk page:

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37041783/

[2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39586649/

I would like to know how do these (a) fail WP:MEDRS, and (b) are not in line with the agreed upon definition of chromotherapy, and (c) not preferable over the other non-academic and non-scientific books currently cited in the article. Objectiveanalysis (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Those sources are not about chromotherapy. There is severe WP:IDHT now to the extent it is starting to look like trolling. Bon courage (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

My primary concern is: Why are these sources are not about chromotherapy based on the definition presented in the current article that Chromotherapists claim to be able to use light in the form of color? We either need to completely exclude coloured light from chromotherapy (which isn't possible as the majority of sources mention that) or include peer-reviewed secondary sources to back up the current claims.

I would not be trolling on the page of chromotherapy if I had to; there are several other places to do that. I have a genuine concern regarding the current sourcing in this article where I want to reach on a consensus and have it resolved. Objectiveanalysis (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Because the definition of chromotherapy is colour-based quackery, as sources about chromotherapy say. The quackery cannot hijack legitimate field of medicine because of a word trick conjured-up by a wikipedia editor. For chromotherapy we need sources that use that exact word. Overall, we have consensus and the issue is resolved. I shall not respond further and if you do not drop the stick I will support your removal from the Project. Bon courage (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

What is the point of recomending books that can't be used in the article? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Editor opinions are welcome at Talk:Alexander Technique#Requested move 31 March 2025. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Editor opinions are also welcome at a corresponding discussion at Talk:Feldenkrais Method#Requested move 9 April 2025. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

It's come up here before and I tried poking it a bit in the past but it seems to have some substantial issues with presenting the in-universe perspective only. I don't know if this topic was even addressed in other contexts, so that may make it trickier to navigate NPOV with, but any other eyes would be greatly appreciated.

This appears to be continued at a lot of the articles related to Thelema, where unqualified adherents are presented as scholarly sources and the internal language of the belief (particularly that these methods are 'discovered') is being presented in wikivoice. See Guardian of the Threshold:

The Guardian of the Threshold is a spectral figure and is the abstract of the debit and credit book of the individual.

and Moon magic just inventing anthropology where convenient:

These beliefs would seem to be consistent with many other cultures traditions, for instance; casting of the spell is often done during the full moon's apex.

and Divine embodiment now spending as much time on Western Esotericism as it does mainstream religions with hundreds of millions of adherents (not saying it doesn't belong there, just the example of WP:DUE issues). Basically it feels like adherent of Western Esotericism in its various forms are treating Wikipedia as an avenue of legitimization rather than an encyclopedia, and that this has been going on a while. The biggest issue with this is a mix of in-universe language and attempts to link historical practices to contemporary ones through inference where the reality is a little less kind to their historiography. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

If there is anything here that makes my eyes glaze over it's this category of word salad, with an added Aleister Crowley interest. (I thought I'd make a cynical comeback after two years away.) - Roxy the dog 15:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I find the processes and speeds used at this noticeboard to be objectionable. I believe there is a requirement to post a notification on the talk page of the articles being discussed that a discussion is going on at a noticeboard, and then give the regular editors of those pages time to see the notice and join the discussion, but that has not been done here. Skyerise (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

You have misunderstood, and reverting in a whole bunch of WP:PROFRINGE you yourself added on a procedural basis probably isn't going to be a working long-term solution for preserving the state of and article. Accusing people of edit warring for a single revert undoing your mass-re-addition of WP:PROFRINGE content isn't appropriate, either. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

There does appear to be a bit of an issue in Western Esotericism articles being presented with in-universe language across the board. I (and @Fram) cleaned up English Qaballa a bit but that seems to have gone over spicily. I don't know how much of the same issues exist elsewhere on that topic, but a cursory glance shows a fair bit?

Just clicking on a random article from the navbox, we see:

A common form of the ritual uses repeated sexual stimulation (but not to physical orgasm) to place the individual in a state between full sleep and full wakefulness as well as exhaustion, allowing the practitioner to commune with their god

I probably wouldn't consider that last bit acceptable in wikivoice. I think this is a fairly systematic problem? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Probably the most effective strategy to start would be AfD'ing articles that are sourced entirely to this before even trying to clean up the central stuff. English Qaballa at first blush doesn't seem to present much in the way of secondary sourcing to authoritative books/publishers that it should exist as a separate topic. {{Thelema}} looks a lot like any fancruft walled garden. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Thelema has a legitimate claim to being a religion and should be treated with some care, but I think there's been issues with Thelema and adjacent topic editors with WP:RS and in-universe language. It needs to be handled somewhat tactfully, but there's definitely this odd creep of late-1800s Western mysticism creeping into other religious articles when those topics become a major part of them. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:06, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Fringe writer. Trying to figure out what publisher "O Mistério Colombo Revelado, Ésquilo, Portugal," which is what the Portuguese version says. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

"The Mystery of Columbus Revealed" is what it means in English. It's definitely not a publisher, looks more like a book title. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's the title, but the Portuguese version, which looks like a fansite has Ésquilo, as the publicher "(Lisboa: Ed. Ésquilo, 2006" [Ésquilo,] I've added his work at Duke to that version, let's see how long that lasts! Rosa is used in a number of our articles, at least in Origin theories of Christopher Columbus] in a bad way. Doug Weller talk 17:10, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Ahh, I misunderstood your question then. I can't find any trace of a publisher called "Ésquilo" when I set my google language to Portuguese and search. I wonder if that's something he came up with? Perhaps his original books are self-published, as well.

I considered publishing my own books under an LLC, or perhaps using a DBA of one, but honestly, it was easier to just let Amazon/B&N or just my name show as the publisher. Less expensive, too. But perhaps not for everyone. I can see why an academic might eschew that route. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

See his article for det how he self published his books. The Portuguese version needs a good cleanup, too much self sourcing etc. Doug Weller talk 18:10, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Esquilo is the publisher: [5] Donald Albury 17:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but I can find no trace of them . I know he's self-published the English versions. Doug Weller talk 17:23, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Found this page from a Portuguese "literature portal" where they have an address, phone number and list of works from Editora Ésquilo.

I'm in Brazil, so maybe that's why my results differ so much to yours. VdSV9•♫ 18:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Nothing about that book shows up anywhere, though. Found another list of books from the same publisher in an online store. Nothing from Silva Rosa and nothing about Columbus. VdSV9•♫ 18:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Found the book following the isbn from the portuguese page [6], and it's from publisher Ésquilo. VdSV9•♫ 18:37, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think he passes the notability criteria to have a page in Portuguese (which are not exactly the same as the ones in English). I'm gonna have to review some things, but I might put it up for deletion later. VdSV9•♫ 18:48, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

It’s pretty obvious, but the 1402 website mentioned is his. Doug Weller talk 19:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think his enwiki article meets GNG, I may be wrong. Doug Weller talk 07:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manuel da Silva Rosa Doug Weller talk 11:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Just so you know, my nomination for the Portuguese page failed. The only actual argument given for notability was that he won this one prize once [7]. An IT technician that writes pseudohistory books gets to keep his CV propaganda page because someone gave him a prize. VdSV9•♫ 17:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

And that's a lie. Or a mistake. l{https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-best-self-published-b_b_13512048] - best self-published book. Did get an indy award.[8] Doug Weller talk 17:28, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Shit, I won a prize for my first sci-fi novel. Does this mean I'm notable enough for an article now? (God, I hope not.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• Jim B. Tucker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lately having WP:FRINGE issues. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I think I need help with an editor who believes that the time of day when a "great man" died (of cancer) is symbolic or something. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Not sure why this reference was being removed.[9] but it's interesting that User:Pclem1 only other edits are to a draft they are writing, Draft:Alexander von Wuthenau who argued that " argued that the continent, contrary to mainstream theories, was ethnically heterogenous and populated by people of Amerindian, black, white, Middle Eastern, East Asian, and mixed-race appearance" and was a supporter of Van Sertima. So far the draft's only criticism is from the media and doesn't include the peer reviewed article They Were NOT Here before Columbus: Afrocentric Hyperdiffusionism in the 1990s. Doug Weller talk 12:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I've fixed that now. Doug Weller talk 15:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

This isn't about pushing POV in one direction or other, it's an encyclopedia. Both figures are notable, but of course since they are out of mainstream, they have detractors, Van Sertima in particular. As for von Wuthenau, I said that he argued that, and he did argue that, I didn't say whether it was true, false, or somewhere in between. There is ample coverage of Van Sertima's numerous detractors in the 'reception' section. I noted and summarized the criticism in the lead. The lead is supposed to contain essential info about the figure and be a summary of the article. It looks silly to have a half an inch of essential info, and then an inch and a half of quotes from relatively obscure books that attack the figure. It harms WP's credibility and makes it look like it's pushing a specific point of view rather than simply covering what notably exists. I summarized the criticism by saying that some scholars characterize Van Sertima as Afrocentrist and call his methodology flawed. That's accurate and reflects the above article you cite. I don't see why you have an issue with that. So far a number of editors have implemented changes, and you've unilaterally done a mass revert each time, rather than compromise, and I don't see much talk discussion about it in recent years. Rather than cast aspersions on me and make ad hominem attacks, let's stick to making this a balanced and proper encyclopedia article.Pclem1 (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

The last two years you've been doing unilateral mass reversions of edits by other users on this article, but it appears you have a backer this time, who again mass-reverted my and other edits. I let 99% of those stand (I don't see a basis for 'ignored' given the numerous criticisms and other forms of engagement with the work) since I am not interested in edit-warring, so I think we're done here. I still think we should summarize criticism rather than cite specific critics in the lead (unless they're super notable, which they aren't at all), so it doesn't look like pushing POV. Pclem1 (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

When you use the WP:WEASEL "some scholars" you are minimizing the fact that Sertima is not accepted by anyone within the field. You should read WP:FRINGE, WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:CHARLATANS. Demanding "compromise" misses the point that Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia and does not portray baseless speculation as valid science. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

The entire critical portion of the article is/was replete with weasel language e.g. 'largely ignored in academic community' (without that statement having any basis in the sources cited), even though we have many many documented instances of the opposite being the case. You yourself are using false blanket language here 'not accepted by anyone.' An example of someone who did accept most of his core arguments is Cyrus Gordon, and surely there are others. So your statement is false. Gordon's eminence as a scholar exceeds the 3-4 relative no-name scholars [upon whom nearly the entire critical portion of the article is built] on by a large margin. The disconnect we're having here is that you can say a notable person argued something without it being true. Hate to go Godwin's right off the bat, but it's easy here: if we say Hitler argued that Jews / Gypsies / Slavs were subhuman, we are not saying that it's true or that Hitler was a good person, we are just saying that he a notable person said that. It's a notable event that happened, and so it's being documented. Van Sertima argued what he argued, his arguments had a large audience, so we are documenting it here.

The second key point you are missing is that this is a biography article. It's not meant to primarily argue the merits of the case or portray them one way or the other, it's meant to lay out the person's life and notable work. If the article were titled Pre-Columbian/Ancient American History, your points would have more merit, and there WP would be more forced to 'take a side' and favor a particular argument/historical theory or narrative.

Pclem1 (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Nonsense, a major part of many biographies are about their work. Your edits are an attempt to prove he was right. [10] Doug Weller talk 06:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

If some part of someone's life work us widely accepted as nonsense our biographies definitely need to make that clear e.g. Linus Pauling is a famous case. Nil Einne (talk) 07:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

It all needs to be reverted. For instance, "Historian John Henrik Clarke said, "the physical evidence will eventually prove Van Sertima correct but it's going to take time. A lot of scholars built their lives and careers on Columbus having discovered America. You cannot expect them to change overnight.} No mention of the fact that Clarke is a prominent Afrocentrist. Their use of a paywalled source for several of their sources makes it impossible to find the sources. Missed the fact that this IP[11] had heavily edited with language similar to that of the account editing. Doug Weller talk 09:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Although there is a link to a local newspaper mentioning the Atlantic Monthly, as the actual source isn't linked than we can't see. And although I could find it and it is quoted accurately, it is a very short and unsigned review. Doug Weller talk 10:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

You're acting as if using paywalled sources is wrong, while making the paywalled NYT a source for the most prominent critic in the article.

I understand you're used to getting your way here on Wikipedia, but we need to take these one at a time instead of another bully mass revert. I called Clarke an afrocentric historian. Pclem1 (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

It's not a matter of Doug getting his way. You can see that there are several other editors who disagree with the insertion of the content that you want there. That is, there is a consensus among editors that your insertions are unwarranted. That is how things get decided around here whenever there is a dispute: by a broad consensus. You need to persuade most people looking at this, according to policy, that the insertions are warranted. The basic problem is that what Ivan Van Sertima proposed is considered a fringe theory by mainstream experts. Wikipedia policy on fringe theories can be found at WP:FRINGE. There you can read that "a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is." By inserting all the praise you can find for his writings on the topic, you are misrepresenting its status among experts. Wikipedia is not the place to rectify the fact that his theory is considered fringe. It is not a shortcut to resolving the problem. Such a change is only possible by changing opinions of mainstream experts in the real world. OsFish (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

And it's on you to establish that it's an 'ignored' 'unaccepted' theory.

So far there are three academics mostly from mediocre universities who wrote one paper against Van Sertima, one archaeologist who wrote a book review, and one author who mentioned Van Sertima in his book. Five people do not constitute all of academia.

On the other hand there are several prominent scholars (whether you like them or not) and several prominent publications who have praised him. It was never stated that their opinions were worth more, or that Van Sertima's views were generally accepted, their response/reception of the work was just stated. And the critical stuff still took up much more space.

There is a substantial competing faction on Van Sertima that is basically saying 'there's some interesting stuff here, but more work needs to be done to prove out the details.' It's not absolutist in its criticism as you and others here are.

Pclem1 (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I said not accepted by anyone within the field. You cut off the part I just bolded and said the non-bolded part is not true because Cyrus Gordon did accept him. I checked Cyrus H. Gordon, and he was an American scholar of Near Eastern cultures and ancient languages. So, not really "within the field", is he? Instead, he was someone who was an expert in one field who tried to revolutionize another field, a typical pseudoscientist property.

Since your untruths are so transparent, I see no point in responding to your other strawmen. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:13, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you think of Gordon, his work in this field was prominent, and his overall prominence as a scholar far exceeds the relatively unknown Wayne State academic the critical portion of this article is mostly built on. Pclem1 (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Stop using the absolutist language 'not accepted by anyone' when it just isn't so.

I believe you and Doug have found 5-6 actual academic critics (most of them relative unknown and from relatively mediocre universities), while there are 3-4 academic supporters cited, plus praise from extremely prominent review publications. We're very close to 50-50, and the praise may even weigh out here. Pclem1 (talk) 13:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I see you think [12] is sufficient to say he lectured at over 100 universities. And are still trying to add an unsigned short review. I don't think you know much about the American university system. Sure, there's the Ivy League, I'm a Yalie myself. But places such as the City College of New York are prestigious. I see Clarke also studied there. Glyn Daniel was a Cambridge professor and edited Antiquity, you don't get more prestigious than that. Doug Weller talk 13:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

What degree from Yale do you hold? I am just curious on that. I graduated from a 'new Ivy' / very high-world-ranked university myself (history) if we're tooting each other's horns. But let's stick to the topic at hand. Wayne State and University at Buffalo (Haslip and Barbour) are not prestigious and are not as good as Rutgers either, sorry. I'm sure there are many brilliant people among the faculty, but you can't raise those schools up while knocking down Gordon and others. Pclem1 (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't even care about the '100 universities' thing and I agree it sounds a bit promotional. But he was a visiting professor at Princeton, that is worthy of mention. Pclem1 (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

And it's on you to establish that it's an 'ignored' 'unaccepted' theory.

So far there are three academics mostly from mediocre universities who wrote one paper against Van Sertima, one archaeologist who wrote a book review, and one author who mentioned Van Sertima in his book. Five people do not constitute all of academia.

On the other hand there are several prominent scholars (whether you like them or not) and several prominent publications who have praised him. It was never stated that their opinions were worth more, or that Van Sertima's views were generally accepted, their response/reception of the work was just stated. And the critical stuff still took up much more space. Pclem1 (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

See above/ I'm not going to talk about myself except to say I have a life and an exercise program to keep me strong enough to edit that takes up a lot of time I'd prefer to use in other ways.. You also used an unsigned Kirkus review. IMHO unsigned reviews (like the Atlantic one also) are worthless. Note also that we normally expect awards, etc to have their own article to show notability.

So, which prestigious publications and scholars are you referring to? Doug Weller talk 14:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I see you are still adding the award despite my comment above. Doug Weller talk 14:13, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

The award was already there, it's been there for years, I just said who it was from Pclem1 (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

If we take Weiant (a doctorate in archaeology published in NYT), Clarke, Price, and Gordon, and stand them up against Snow, Barbour, Haslip, Ortiz, Anderson, Daniel, there isn't much of a difference; in any case, not an overwhelming one, and many would say the praise camp is more prestigious based on university affiliation and career accomplishments. I never claimed either way, and my recent edits allowed substantially more space for criticism than praise. Pclem1 (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Fringe theories simply get ignored by most actual experts. We don't count the number of people who comment. We look at statements of mainstream opinion. For example, can you give provide an example of a widely-used undergraduate textbook on Mesoamerica that supports Van Sertima's theories? That would be more relevant as a measure of mainstream opinion. 14:42, 13 April 2025 (UTC) OsFish (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I never said it was fully mainstream or attempted to present it as such. I let the criticism stand in the lead, I allowed substantially more space to criticism than praise in the reception section. But there was some notable praise, and it's silly and dishonest to censor that from the article. We've already said over and over in the article that it's not mainstream. Neither I or anyone has tried to present Van Sertima's ideas as prevailing. Pclem1 (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

So why are you trying to insert praise of the theory and arguing that academic opinion is divided on the merits of the theory? OsFish (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I never said it was equally divided, but it is in fact divided in terms of those who choose to engage with it. The notability of the work is unquestionable and thus it deserves an article. We've already said it's not mainstream, nobody said it was. The question then is how was it received by people who engaged with it, and there is some division, though I allowed substantially more space to the critics. Pclem1 (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

A letter to the editor by Weiant isn't a reliable source. He was a lecturer, a very junior title in the US (unlike in the UK, where I was a tenured lecturer. He was into parapsychology, etc. Doug Weller talk 15:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Who cares what he was into, he was an archaeologist and had a doctorate in the field Pclem1 (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

And his thoughts on the subject were published in the NYT, that is notable, especially given the relatively sparse public discourse by historians and archaeologists on the article subject. Pclem1 (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

If the discussion is sparse on an idea that would be dramatic in the field if true, strongly suggests academics don't take it seriously. Wikipedia must not give a false impression to readers that it is taken at all seriously. That Weiant didn't have much standing in his field, particularly when he was writing in support of a fringe theory means that a letter to the editor being pretty weak source matters. I would disagree with Doug that the fact that Weiant was clearly a crank in other areas too in itself disqualifies him. What disqualifies his comment is a lack of standing and a rather low-quality venue for his comments when the rules on here have to be especially strict because the whole idea comes under WP:FRINGE.OsFish (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Not necessarily, it could just be controversial, both academically and culturally, and be highly charged and likely to bring on accusations of racism, and therefore they simply decline to wade in those waters.

If we're mentioning Snow, Anderson, etc, we should be mentioning Weiant. He was a doctorate archaeologist who worked at the main archaeological site and his commentary on the subject was published in the NYT. Pclem1 (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

It could be that aliens came down and systematically silenced every single expert in the field who would have spoken in favour. It doesn't matter on here. Either way, there is no good evidence that this is taken seriously, and thus we do not give it credibility even by saying words to the effect that "it's up for debate". It isn't. Had Weiant published peer reviewed articles in support of Van Sertima in appropriate forums, things would be different. There would be an actual debate among serious scholars. But there isn't one.

Look. Every time I refresh my watchlist, there are multiple substantive edits from you per each single comment you intend to make. In other words, you press reply before thinking things through. All the time. People here are just trying to defend the encyclopedia from abuse from crank theorists. That's all. There is no deeper plot than that. OsFish (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Stop being silly. When a scholar is championed by Henrik Clarke, Toni Morrison, and many other black luminaries, and hosted and praised by many black associations, there is indeed an element of risk to tussling with that scholar and trying to take him down, and open themselves up to controversy and false accusations of racism. Most people in recent decades would rather not get into it and leave that task to someone else. Dean Snow published no peer reviewed articles and is cited. Anderson published no peer reviewed articles about Van Sertima and is cited in the intro. There is only one peer reviewed critical article cited (Barbour et al). Pclem1 (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I take your point about being a crank and withdraw that. Barry Fell was a crank in one field and an expert in another. But a letter to the editor is not a reliable source. Doug Weller talk 15:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

It's a published article in the NYT by a doctorate archaeologist who unlike anyone else cited in the article worked at the archaeological site in question. Certainly notable and the source is NYT, and reliable. It's not as if it was unpublished letter to the editor. Pclem1 (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

A letter to the editor is not the same thing as a 'published article' and it is unhelpful (and misleading) to equate the two like that. MrOllie (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

It's published by the NYT, which is the source and is reliable, and the author is doctor of anthropology from Columbia and worked at the site, and therefore in this context is reliable. Pclem1 (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Does anybody else agree with me that a letter to the editor in this context has about the same weight for usefulness as a sparrow's fart? See WP:RS - Roxy the dog 16:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I count four of us at least. It's late where I am, but if Pclem1 continues to ignore consensus, I suggest taking this to ANI. OsFish (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

You still haven't answered any of my questions on talk. You're strawmanning this, telling me I'm saying Van Sertima is mainstream when I never did. Pclem1 (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

ANI for WP:BLUDGEONING here and on the talk page. I’ll support it but having dinner and watching tv with my wife so I can’t start it. Doug Weller talk 17:18, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

So responding to the comments of 4-5-6 people engaging me is now bludgeoning? Get out of here. Also, my edits were not extensive they were just done one at a time so it looks like a lot. Other editors did far more extensive edits recently in terms of volume / word count and no one said a thing. Pclem1 (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Blocked

× diffhist [inspect diff] User talk:Pclem1 19:05 +1,041 Bbb23 (A) talk contribs block (You have been blocked from editing for disruptive editing.) Tag: Twinkle rollbackthank

× Block log 19:05 Bbb23 (A) talk contribs block blocked Pclem1 talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite(account creation blocked) (Disruptive editing; unwilling to collaborate constructively; WP:SPA; edit-warring; WP:IDHT; personal attacks; WP:BATTLEGROUND) (unblock | change block) Tag: Twinkle Doug Weller talk 19:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi (dire wolves) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) could use further eyes. A biotechnology company claims to have resurrected dire wolves, but what they've apparently done is insert a number of genes (or not even that, analogues) from dire wolves into grey wolf embryos that were later born. The company behind this is known for overhyped and exaggerated claims of de-extinction, and this is being taken as evidence that the dire wolf has been resurrected by credulous journalists when it hasn't. I'm not sure this really warrants a separate article at all and maybe should be selectively merged into Colossal Biosciences. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

There is also ongoing related disruption at the main dire wolf article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll check back on this publicity stunt in ten years to see if it has any lasting significance at all. My guess is no. Wait a month then take it to AfD. Simonm223 (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

See also Talk:Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi#Requested move 11 April 2025. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

This is something that seems to have come up repeatedly above; starkly divergent views on WPATH seem to underline a lot of debate in the topic area and a lot of discussion about which sources are WP:FRINGE. Therefore, my intent is to do some RFCBEFORE for a possible RFC to establish its role. My understanding is that WPATH generally reflects the mainstream scholarly consensus - I am picturing an RFC along the lines of WPATH broadly represents the mainstream on trans medicine; sweeping attacks on its legitimacy are generally fringe. Note that this would not mean that measured disagreement with its recommendations is fringe (obviously); no organization is so authoritative that it could entirely determine the scope of mainstream discourse on its own. The "broadly" and "sweeping" there are intended to be load-bearing words. But my intent is to establish that WPATH, overall, sits comfortably at the center of mainstream academic discourse on trans healthcare, such that positions that seek to discredit it entirely, or which fundimentially treat it as illegitimate, are firmly on the fringes of academia. --Aquillion (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

• Yes With a focus on patient-centric care and informed consent WPATH is not only the gold standard for research on trans healthcare it is also the framework for trans healthcare with the greatest adherence to medical ethics. Simonm223 (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
• Transparently yes. WPATH is the big international WP:MEDORG in the topic area. Big national WP:MEDORGs from Canada to Japan explicitly rely on its recommendations, as do other big international WP:MEDORGs like the Endocrine Society. It basically defines the mainstream. Loki (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
• yes - same reasoning as simon and Loki Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
• WPATH is not just a professional organization; it is also an advocacy group for the notion that transgender healthcare is necessary.[13] They've been influenced by the US government in the past: this article in the BMJ says as the SOC8 guidelines were nearing publication in summer 2022, WPATH was under external pressure from high up in the US Department of Health and Human Services to make a last minute change. Specifically, Rachel Levine, assistant secretary for health, asked authors to remove minimum age recommendations16 for gender related hormones and surgeries.
  If discrediting WPATH is fringe, then the BMJ is fringe. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

  A) It's not surprising or concerning that other big WP:MEDORGs such as HHS influenced WPATH's guidelines.

  B) The gist of the article is that the WHO itself is going to be relying on WPATH's guidelines. I can't think of anything that would make it more clear that WPATH is the organization that defines the mainstream.

  C) It appears that the article relies significantly on letters from SEGM, which as you can see above the community agrees is an organization dedicated to pushing fringe theories. So at minimum the BMJ did not check this article closely enough for facts for it to be reliable. Loki (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

  It appears that the article relies significantly on letters from SEGM, which as you can see above the community agrees is an organization dedicated to pushing fringe theories. So at minimum the BMJ did not check this article closely enough for facts for it to be reliable.

  Arguing that the BMJ is unreliable because it conflicts with the opinions of Wikipedia editors is absurd. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 13:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

  Arguing that the BMJ is unreliable... is either a strawman or a bad misinterpretation on your end. No one has argued that the BMJ is unreliable. In the sentence "at minimum the BMJ did not check this article closely enough for facts for it to be reliable," the word "it" refers to "this article," not to the BMJ as a journal. This is not the only comment where you've mischaracterized Loki's claim. You also did it above where you quoted Loki and then claimed describing it as WP:FRINGE would mean that articles published in respected academic journals would be unreliable if they had any involvement with SEBGM in any way. Loki made a statement about a single column by Jennifer Block that "relies significantly on letters from SEGM," not about any other columns, much less about "any involvement with SEBGM in any way." Your overgeneralizations are not productive. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

  This peer-reviewed article in the BMJ is unreliable because it's associated with SEGM is exactly the type of argument I thought was a strawman in the above discussion until I saw it with my own eyes. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 14:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

  You seem to have missed my point: Loki made a claim about a single article (and not a even a research article, only a News/Features column). You turned it into claims about other articles and about the BMJ as a journal. Your overgeneralizations are absolutely a strawman, and the appropriate response on your end would be to acknowledge your mistake, not double down on it. On top of that, you're misusing "strawman." Loki's statement did not attribute a position to an opponent; they simply stated their own belief. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

  The article, which is relatively long and broken into numerous sections, mentions the SEGM letter in two paragraphs. Is this really “significantly” relying on the SEGM letter? How do editors determine when “significantly relies on X” means we should not cite reliable sources?

  Additionally, I am curious as to how the SEGM letter indicates “the BMJ did not check this article closely enough for facts for it to be reliable”. Considering that this comment is about @Chess citing the BMJ for a quote regarding Rachel Levine’s interference in SOC8, are you proposing that the mention of the SEGM letter means the quote is potentially false or misleading?

  Lastly, are there any parts of the article that you believe to be unreliable and in turn make you question the articles oversight? Or is it solely the inclusion of SEGM that makes the article unreliable? PositivelyUncertain (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

  1) The claim that WPATH is an "advocacy group" is not backed by an RS, but by an opinion piece[14] When I looked up "WPATH" AND "Advocacy group" there were no RS agreeing, just unreliable sources like Stephen B. Levine, the WP:NYPOST, and opinion pieces.

  2) That BMJ piece[15] was written by Jennifer Block. The British Medical Association said this about a previous article of hers We have recently written to the BMJ, which is editorially independent, to challenge its article “Gender dysphoria in young people is rising—and so is professional disagreement” and express our concern, that alongside criticisms made by LGTBQ+ organisations such as GLADD and neurodivergent doctors, in our view, it lacks equality, diversity and inclusion awareness and patient voice. That the article has been used by transphobic lobby groups around the world is of particular concern to us. GLADD, the UK's LGBT doctor's association and PRISM, the LGBT chapter of the Royal College of Surgeons said her writing sets a needlessly charged and adversarial tone which would be out of place in a respectable medical journal, reinforc[es] the increasingly hostile environment experienced by gender diverse young people today, and falls significantly below the journalistic standards that are expected of the BMJ[16]. PRISM also issued an individual response that the assertions made are in some cases unsupported by reference, and in others are based on only some of the available evidence.[17] That's all in addition to the fact that, as Loki noted, the piece is criticizing the World Health Organization for following WPATH.

  So your arguments against WPATH's status as the leading MEDORG in the field are 1) a description that no RS supports and 2) an investigatory piece (ie, WP:PRIMARY source) complaining that the WHO supports WPATH by a freelance journalist (not healthcare professional) who the British Medical Association, GLADD, and the LGBT chapter of the Royal College of Surgeons have called out for bias, misleading statements, omission of trans people? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist: My argument is that it's not WP:FRINGE to have that position. The goal of this RfC is to prevent any criticism of WPATH from making it into articles.

  Aquillion states Note that this would not mean that measured disagreement with its recommendations is fringe (obviously). Name me one or two disagreements with that aren't fringe, then. Give me some examples where someone criticizes WPATH in the present day that that you would accept in its article. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 13:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

  My argument is that it's not WP:FRINGE to have that position. - If you are referring to "WPATH is an advocacy group" - that is a fringe position, nobody agrees apart from unreliable sources and op-eds. RS all consider it a MEDORG and not an advocacy group.

  Name me one or two disagreements with that aren't fringe, then. Give me some examples where someone criticizes WPATH in the present day that that you would accept in its article. There are many in both WPATH and Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People, including ones I've put in. Many MEDORGS have tweaked or disagreed with part of their guidance while broadly accepting it - I have yet to see a MEDORG say WPATH is wholly unreliable or not a MEDORG.

  I personally have many many criticisms of WPATH - I do not think the sun shines out their ass so to speak. I am not a fan of them and think they're generally pretty shit and have misplaced priorities, to be kind. But they are a WP:MEDORG, and the kind of nonsense like "they're an advocacy group" (made funny by the fact for the past 4 decades trans advocacy groups have consistently criticized various parts of WPATH) is precisely the kind of FRINGE criticism that has no place on Wikipedia.

  The goal of this RfC is to prevent any criticism of WPATH from making it into articles - this is a ridiculous strawman. As Aquillion said positions that seek to discredit it entirely, or which fundamentally treat it as illegitimate, are firmly on the fringes of academia. - "RS/MEDORG X said WPATH might be wrong about this" could go in many articles - "we can't cite WPATH and/or their members writing RS because WPATH are trans activists" is WP:FRINGE/WP:RGW and an argument that many of those arguing SEGM isn't FRINGE have made. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Yes. Within the field of transgender healthcare, there is no specialized group that comes close to WPATH in terms of membership. HenrikHolen (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
• I would say that WPATH represents the mainstream thinking (and advocacy) in the US… but NOT the mainstream for the UK or Europe. And this may be an important distinction. Blueboar (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

  It is incorrect to say WPATH represents only the US and not Europe (and Australia, New Zealand, Asia, etc)

  Here's a systematic review which looked at trans healthcare guidelines around the world and said The links examined show that early versions of two international guidelines, the Endocrine Society and World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) guidelines (specifically the 2009 Endocrine Society guideline and WPATH V.7 published in 2012) have influenced nearly all the national and regional guidelines identified. The two guidelines also have close links, with WPATH adopting Endocrine Society recommendations in its own guideline and acting as a cosponsor for and providing input on drafts of the Endocrine Society guideline.[18] That was part of the Cass Review, which was critical of WPATH's guidelines - so even critics of the guidelines admit they're the world's standard.

  I'd agree it's no longer mainstream in the UK but even then, until the last few years, it was. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

  So, I agree that the UK is an exception here, but WPATH represents the mainstream thinking in everywhere but Europe (and arguably really just the UK), not just the US. I cited a position paper from a major Japanese WP:MEDORG above that cites them and it's frankly not hard to find similar things from other major international WP:MEDORGs. Even the WHO positively mentions WPATH in its (very short) most recent guidelines, and at least according to the article Chess posted above they're going to rely on them more when they post more comprehensive ones soon. Loki (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

  I think it's important to make the distinction between what governments and popular opinion follow, and what the academic establishment follows. There are numerous governments, and plenty of public polling, that supports WP:FRINGE positions on (for instance) climate change, or the origins of COVID, or vaccines, or things like that; but we wouldn't consider that when determining the academic perspective, which is how we write our articles on the relevant cores of those topics. The best practices in medicine are fundimentially academic questions. --Aquillion (talk) 03:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Is the UK an exception? And are we not falling into a trap of focussing on one specific issue (the use of blockers) whereas WPATH covers the whole spectrum of health care for trans people.

• The British Society for Endocrinology cites WPATH first on its list of resources on its page about gender identity disorder.
• The British Medical Association cites WPATH Standards of Care on its page about inclusive care of trans and non-binary patients.

So it looks like British experts do actually consider WPATH mainstream. I'm limited through language to establish the view of expert bodies in other major European countries, but out of the big ones I see:

• in France, Trans-Santé participated in revising the latest WPATH standards of care.
• In France, the 2024 Expert consensus of the French Society of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetology working group on endocrine management of transgender adolescents, while not mentioning WPATH, seems very much in line with it on the hot button issue of transgender youth. Adolescent health is also only one part of WPATH's remit.
• In Italy, the Gender identity service at the University of Rome [19] says it operates "by the guidelines of the World Professional Association of Transgender Health (WPATH), the Endocrine Society and the latest position statement of SIGIS (Italian Society of Gender, Identity and Health) - SIAMS (Italian Society of Andrology and Medicine of Sexuality) - SIE (Italian Society of Endocrinology)" which sounds to me like Italian experts are consistent with WPATH.

The culture war being fought against trans access to healthcare does make it difficult to wade through the contributions from fringe and anti-trans groups, but at the moment, when I manage to locate anything like a position statement, I'm generally seeing explicit endorsement of or alignment with WPATH in general.OsFish (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I think what's happening is a lot of people on the "no" end of this discussion are confusing government legislation and popular opinion for academic consensus. WP:FRINGE discussions are about the latter rather than either of the former. Simonm223 (talk) 13:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

See also: Several countries allowing alternative medicine [sic] on their national healthcare plans. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Well put, @Simonm223. Lewisguile (talk) 10:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, it really does seem to be, as per the evidence from Loki, and also per that which I provided against claims that it isn't, in specific parts of Europe. Even in the UK, expert bodies refer to it. And yes, the issue really is about attempts to discredit WPATH entirely as a source of expertise across a broad range of issues affecting health care for trans people and others, as part of a general campaign against gender affirming care. As such, one should be wary of conspiracy theory style arguments against WPATH designed to somehow pull back the curtain.OsFish (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

  Extra comment, subsequent to the opening of the RFC and my own !vote, the Polish expert-based framework guidelines were published 26 February 2025. They state

  This document is based on the Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People, Version 8 (2022) [1] and an Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline [15], both of which are intended to have a global reach.

  This seems to me to be a straightforward statement, by experts, in an appropriately formal setting, that WPATH is a gold standard authority in this area. OsFish (talk) 05:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Yes per discussion above. Relm (talk) 05:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

  There is a considerable amount of WP:BLUDGEON going on irt JonJ937's insistence that political authorities endorsing a medical position does not make a position WP:FRINGE. Many governments across the globe endorse a variety of viewpoints that are uncontroversially designated as fringe on Wikipedia. Just because it is a first world nation's political leadership holding a position does not confer a belief legitimacy for WP:FRINGE purposes. At this point their comments are a case of WP:IDHT and disruptive. Relm (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

• Obviously yes. They've been setting the standard for the past few decade. Arguments it is US-only are clearly factually incorrect - as shown above it's globally the standard from the WHO and Endocrine Society to health bodies in most countries that offer transgender care. Even critics note they're the standard, which they don't like and criticize, but the standard nonetheless.[20] Opinion pieces[21][22] and investigative reports[23] (from an author criticized by the British Medical Association, Royal College of Surgeons' LGBTQ chapter, and the UK's LGBT Doctor's association for bias, selective use of evidence, omission of trans people when writing about their healthcare, and usage by hate groups[24][25][26]) are not weighty sources.
  The claim that WPATH only dropped age limits from the SOC8 because of pressure from Rachael Levine is false at best, conspiratorial/transphobic at worst. The sources people are citing are the NYT[27] (who says James Cantor - famous for FRINGE nonsense like the claim all trans women who aren't straight are fetishists, raised the issue to defend a ban on trans healthcare for minors opposed by every major MEDORG in the country...) the Hill[28] and the aforementioned BMJ piece by a questionably reliable author[29]. None of whom say it was Levine, just that she "urged"/"shared her view". The NYT and BMJ pieces actually said it was the American Academy of Pediatrics, a top-tier MEDORG, who said they'd withdraw support if age limits were kept in (because age limits aren't generally a thing for most kinds of health care).
  @Aquillion, I know you meant this as an RFCBEFORE but it seems to be rolling along as an RFC, I think the wording of WPATH broadly represents the mainstream on trans medicine; sweeping attacks on its legitimacy are generally fringe covers it well if you want to reformat it as one. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
• Obviously Not WPATH cannot reasonably be considered a 'gold standard.' If it were, why are its guidelines being rejected across multiple countries? Ireland is the latest example, abandoning plans that align with WPATH recommendations. [30]

Many European countries have already banned or severely restricted puberty blockers and surgeries for minors. Even in the US, there’s no uniform consensus regarding WPATH guidelines. For instance, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons state that "ASPS has not endorsed any organization's practice recommendations for the treatment of adolescents with gender dysphoria. ASPS currently understands that there is considerable uncertainty as to the long-term efficacy of the use of chest and genital surgical interventions for the treatment of adolescents with gender dysphoria, and the existing evidence base is viewed as low quality/low certainty." [31]

Why would a major medical organization involved in transgender care decline to endorse WPATH if it were the gold standard? I'm leaving aside the fact that WPATH's guidelines have been banned in at least 24 US states, and The Supreme Court is likely to uphold the ban. Additionally, The European Academy of Paediatrics stated that 'The fundamental question of whether biomedical treatments (including hormone therapy) for gender dysphoria are effective remains contested'. [32], so clearly there is no scholarly consensus for the use of puberty blockers on minors that WPATH guidelines endorse. In addition, it has recently been revealed that WPATH guidelines are not evidence-based, and have been developed with manipulation of scholarly evidence. In particular, as reported by the Economist and the BMJ, WPATH suppressed publication of systematic reviews that they had commissioned from Johns Hopkins University, because Hopkins team research did not deliver the results that WPATH wanted. In fact, the Hopkins team reported that they “found little to no evidence about children and adolescents”, contrary to the WPATH guidelines. In addition, as reported by a number of mainstream publications, in particular The New York Times [33] [34], The Hill [35] and others, WPATH removed minimum ages for surgery on minors from the latest revision of their “Standards of Care” under the pressure from Dr. Rachel Levine of HHS. This information led to an extensive public discussion, with many major news outlets such as the Washington Post [36] [37], The New York Times [38] and others publishing critical editorials and op-eds.

This was the biggest misinformation controversy on this topic, which got widely publicized in the mainstream media, but it has unfortunately not been adequately covered in our articles. I should also note that NYT and Economist are listed as reliable at WP:RSP, and this is not a place to question their reliability. I also find it strange that YFNS repeats the claim that the Economist article is an opinion piece, when the Wikipedia community has already rejected that claim: [39] To be a 'gold standard,' guidelines must have widespread, international acceptance. WPATH’s do not. They face increasing scrutiny from both medical bodies and governments worldwide, undermining any claim to universal authority.

PS: To illustrate how much of a reach this 'Gold standard' suggestion as it pertains to Wpath is: even in fields with far greater global consensus—like cancer treatment—no single set of guidelines is considered the universal 'gold standard.' For example, the NCCN Guidelines are highly influential in the U.S., but Europe often relies on ESMO Guidelines, and treatment protocols vary globally based on emerging evidence, national health policies, and regional expertise. Despite their widespread use, neither is universally accepted as the sole authoritative standard. If such variability exists in areas like oncology, it’s unrealistic to claim that WPATH’s guidelines—amid growing international rejection—represent a universal gold standard. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 12:11, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

If it were, why are its guidelines being rejected across multiple countries?

Because politics are intervening in healthcare. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

And the process of that intervention is described clearly in academic literature. [40] Simonm223 (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Bingo. We can't treat elected governments themselves as a valid source of medical information, and we can't pretend that the current warpath many governments are on against trans people is rooted in science. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

So basically you are saying that all the European states (France, Finland, Norway, Sweden, etc) rejecting WPATH guidelines do it due to political reasons? I don't think it is so. Every country conducted its own research, and the results are not in favor of WPATH guidelines. In fact, if you want to make such an assertion the onus is on you to show that these governments are totally acting politically and not in accordance with the prevailing medical establishment. One cannot just discredit the majority position based on postulations. Please see the relevant medical (not political) sources that support what I'm saying: Here's the one from Norway that recommended designating puberty blockers and surgery on minors as "experimental treatment". [41] The National Board of Health and Welfare of Sweden concluded that: "At group level (i.e. for the group of adolescents with gender dysphoria, as a whole), the National Board of Health and Welfare currently assesses that the risks of puberty blockers and gender-affirming treatment are likely to outweigh the expected benefits of these treatments". [42] And this is the Swedish research supporting this [43] Moreover, here is Finland's position, which gives priority to psychotherapy over medical transition [44] I don't think anyone can present strong evidence that Scandinavian states reject WPATH guidelines for political reasons. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, basically every case of rolling back these rights I'm aware of is citing insufficient data, as opposed to harm, and mixing that in an environment of wider public pushback against trans healthcare. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Your supporting statement does not accord with your resource. This source does not say the reversal in Europe is politically motivated. And in fact, there are sources that clearly indicate that the Europeans approaches are not politically motivated. For example, this article in Forbes, which writes:

A series of Europe-based systematic reviews of evidence for the benefits and risks of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones have shown a low certainty of benefits. Specifically, longitudinal data collected and analyzed by public health authorities in Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands and England have concluded that the risk-benefit ratio of youth gender transition ranges from unknown to unfavorable. As a result, across Europe there has been a gradual shift from care which prioritizes access to pharmaceutical and surgical interventions, to a less medicalized and more conservative approach that addresses possible psychiatric comorbidities and explores the developmental etiology of trans identity. In turn, this has brought about the imposition of restrictions in Europe on access to hormones. Currently, minors in most European countries can access puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, but only if they meet stringent eligibility conditions. And, this is increasingly done in the context of a tightly controlled research setting. ... De facto, according to European health authorities and medical experts, there isn’t yet a medical consensus for the use of pharmaceutical and surgical interventions in gender dysphoric minors.

Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 10:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I don’t see how this relates to the comment you’re replying to? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

What about it confuses you? You argued that "many governments are on a warpath against trans people", and it was "not rooted in science". My point is that the European health authorities act exactly on the basis of science that does not confirm the benefits of puberty blockers on minors. And there is no consensus on medical treatment of minors either. In response to your statement on roll-backs above - Insufficient data is a very valid reason to stop certain practices, as state cannot push unverified and untested methods on people. That is responsible medical practice. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

You argued that "many governments are on a warpath against trans people", and it was "not rooted in science".

What you responded to:

Yeah, basically every case of rolling back these rights I'm aware of is citing insufficient data Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 20:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, insofar as anything is: While there may be variation at the edges, this is basic trans healthcare guidelines. We don't put weight on Uganda making homosexuality illegal in our coverage of that, or in India's inclusion of Ayurveda in its official medical organizations. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 12:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
• This question doesn't make sense when you think of WPATH's relationship to research. Does WPATH employ gold standards practices in their SOC development? No
  WPATH has said that they did not use systematic reviews of evidence for parts of SOC8 and instead went with authors they were familiar with. WPATH agreed that most most participants in the SOC-8 process had financial and/or nonfinancial conflicts of interest. One of WPATH's most important roles in research is to commission systematic review of evidence but they did not allow Hopkins to publish the ones with unfavorable results. This is all from their own mouth. Evathedutch (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

  If you say "this is all from their own mouth", I'd like you to source any of it. Loki (talk) 05:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• No. Gold standard should not be so controversial, be banned or rejected in half the US and most of Europe. A gold standard is something that has universal acceptance. If most of the world does not follow WPATH's guidelines, it shows that there are serious and justified doubts about the quality of those guidelines. Another question is, what is the actual purpose of this RFC? This board is for discussion of fringe theories. What fringe theory are we discussing now? Also, what practical implications are expected of this vote? If a number of users votes that WPATH is a "gold standard", then what? It certainly won't prevent anyone from including the criticism of WPATH in the articles, or mentioning WPATH related controversies in discussions, if it is supported by reliable sources. There is no such Wikipedia rule that makes any organization untouchable or above any criticism. We just accurately report what the reliable sources say. JonJ937 (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  Controversy and political interference in medical issues have no bearing on the validity of said medical issues. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  You mean to say that the National Academy of Medicine of France acted under political interference? Do you have any proof of that? How about the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare? Or the Council for Choices in Health Care in Finland? JonJ937 (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  France? This is the 2024 French expert consensus. How does it reject WPATH? OsFish (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  I don't see how this supports WPATH. It says that "Uncertainties also persist regarding the long-term effects of hormonal treatments" and "medical support is now an option that should be considered in a personalised approach that takes into account the needs of each young person without a predefined protocol." So they do not sign up WPATH guidelines (no predefined protocol), but propose a "multiprofessional support by individuals trained in the support of transgender minors". Basically, an individual case by case approach with careful evaluation by specialists in various disciplines. More in line with the careful approach recommended by The National Academy of Medicine of France. JonJ937 (talk) 10:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

  What are you talking about? They cite WPATH SOC8 all over, they rely on it more heavily than most of these do. Loki (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

  "Without a predefined protocol" means that they do not support any particular set of guidelines. JonJ937 (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  JonJ937, you claimed that the phrase "Uncertainties also persist regarding the long-term effects of hormonal treatments" demonstrates that the French consensus is definitively at odds with WPATH SOC 8. Yet when I go and check SOC 8, I see these two statements: “There is, however, limited data on the optimal timings of gender affirming interventions as well as the long-term physical, psychological and neurodevelopmental outcomes in youth” (p.S65 left hand column) and “the long term effects of gender affirming treatments initiated in adolescence are not fully known” (p.S65 right hand column). This is very much the same. You also claim that it is against WPATH SOC 8 to have “multiprofessional support by individuals trained in the support of transgender minors" - but that’s in SOC 8 (see p.S48 list of recommendations) as is the idea that “medical support…should be considered in a personalised approach that takes into account the needs of each young person without a predefined protocol”. Because of course it is. WPATH SOC 8 does not propose a one-size fits all conveyor belt of treatment.

  I’m really not quite sure why you claimed WPATH SOC8 didn’t say these things when it plainly does. Did you not check the document before making the claim? As trying to torture the phrase “without a predefined protocol” into meaning WPATH must be wrong is frankly surreal. Again, WPATH does not insist on a one-size fits all approach.

  To repeat the point I made: the French expert consensus statement is NOT out of step with WPATH in any meaningful way. It is not evidence at all that WPATH is not mainstream. Rather the opposite. OsFish (talk) 06:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

  We can continue debating the meaning of "Without a predefined protocol," but this document was not adopted as official policy in France. However, the National Academy of Medicine of France has not changed its recommendation and NAM is still cited as the French policy in this matter. JonJ937 (talk) 11:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  I missed the part where you explained what appeared to be a series of highly misleading claims you made about the contents of WPATH 8. Gish galloping is bad form. OsFish (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  Real-world controversy must bear on WIkipedia's coverage. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:26, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  Actually when it comes to science that's the opposite of correct. Simonm223 (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  Except that the entire basis for these guideline changes is, as far as I can tell from any source I've been able to find, "The effects are understudied" as opposed to "It is an inappropriate treatment". I'd love some mainstream medical sources that pass WP:MEDRS without involving a hate group that discuss the nuance, rather than just going "See? France and Sweden" so we avoid WP:OR. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I note that so far, only North American and European opinions are being cited - yet, some commenters seem to go as far as to conflate them with "most of the world". Since we are a global encyclopedia, I believe it's important to take a wider view.
  • Thailand: In line with the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Standards of Care and the 2017 Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline, the Thai guideline for gender-affirming care for youth includes initial thorough assessments of gender dysphoria to determine the appropriateness of starting gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT). The GAHT protocol involves antiandrogen agents such as oral cyproterone acetate or spironolactone, alongside estradiol administered as oral estradiol valerate, oral 17 beta-estradiol, or estrogen gel. Providers also address associated mental health issues and medical complications, advocating a holistic approach. Aungkawattanapong et al., 2024, citing, well, The Thai Handbook of Transgender Healthcare Services.
  • India: In India, the recently enacted Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 and its associated 2020 Rules explicitly recognize the need to provide “sex reassignment surgery” and hormone therapy for trans people and direct the government to provide such services within the public healthcare system [10]. Despite the passage of this law, trans persons still struggle to access health services due to discrimination and inaccessibility of health facilities across the country [11]. Many states also do not provide comprehensive insurance coverage as required by the Act [11]. The Act also recommended that the government should prepare a “health manual related to sex reassignment surgery” in line with the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) guidelines. However, no such government-issued national guidelines are available. Guidance documents have been released by Indian non-governmental agencies such as the Association for Transgender Health in India [12, 13] and Sappho for Equality [14], but have not been endorsed by the Indian government. Chakrapani et al., 2024
  • PRC: You'll have to forgive me for not being able to find a "clean" academic citation like the above, since virtually all of the literature is paywalled. However, WPATH was directly cited by Global Times in 2021, whose opinion is (in)famously consistent with the country's leadership. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) defines a transgender person as someone whose gender identity is inconsistent with his or her birth sex. That was from an article about the first clinic for adolescent transgender patients being opened in Shanghai.

Those three countries collectively account for nearly 40% of the global population. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought this up.

Russia is a comparably larger country than Thailand, and transgender care there is banned. Nontheless, despite having a larger population than the UK too, it does not have the same weight as the UK in global medical affairs. Considering other countries, the Middle East and most of Africa also have such bans as well. However these countries are not representative for the global perspective on transgender healthcare trends, as the population size is not the main criteria.

With reference to China, it does not appear to follow WPATH protocols, judging by and with reference to Transgender people in China. If you don't have open access to the resources for China, then what valid academic reference did you see that substantively supports your opinion on China?

Certain countries cited that might engage in gender affirming care also have instances of medical practices that run against the grain of global medical consensus and norms.

If we are going to look beyond the USA and Europe, the global picture is much more complicated. It is a tall order to claim that there is a uniform global standard - especially if we base it on population & country size.Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

The Russian Ministry of Health also recommends using homeopathy. This does not mean that we should rewrite articles about homeopathy in favor of homeopaths. Reprarina (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Exactly - That is my point. The user above claimed that a country's size or population gives it more weight in medical discourse, but I disagree, and it seems you do too. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to refer back to the specific title of this RFC. An endorsement of WPATH, is, well, an endorsement and is obviously relevant to the question, whichever country it comes from. A disagreement with WPATH is also relevant to the question of the RFC if it can be shown to be motivated by medical grounds specifically. I am unaware of the Russian Ministry of Health presenting medical evidence which they consider contradictory to WPATH, as opposed to taking a stand in line with the whole-of-government approach to preserve "traditional values" and oppose the "extremist LGBT movement" (as it is now formally defined in Russian law).

Likewise, those "Middle Eastern" countries (many in the region apparently prefer West Asia) which ban all forms of gender-affirming healthcare do so in what academic sources such as Noralla, 2024 explicitly describe as Islamic Sharia-influenced policy. Again, not something which appears relevant to this discussion - no more than another country in the region, Iran, infamously treating gender transition as a "cure" for homosexuality based on a different approach to religious jurisprudence. The African prohibitions tend to equally apply to homosexuality and gender change and be taken for religious reasons. I struggle to see them as relevant to the subject, particularly as they are often not consistent enough to simultaneously ban gender change and gender-affirming healthcare, as the list from Equaldex appears to show. (At the risk of stating the obvious, those countries also struggle with providing healthcare at a far more fundamental level than either adult or adolescent transgender care, often making explicit laws irrelevant - though Al Jazeera notes some Nigerian clinics offering hormones and other "dual-use" therapy anyway.)

Since we are already discussing this region, it's worth noting that you can find academic sources in both Israel (Segev-Becker et al., 2020) and Turkiye (Ozturan et al., 2023) which describe the ongoing treatment protocols which involve puberty blockers and hormones for adolescent transgender patients - in the latter study, at ages as young as 11 and 16 for blockers and cross-sex hormones. South Africa - a country with population similar to that of the U.K. - has limited healthcare capacity in general, but it certainly allows for adolescent transgender healthcare - as this criticism of Cass Review from the country should make clear.

Finally, the deviations from WPATH taken by the PRC authorities appear to be things like must notify their family or must not be married or even must have no criminal record. Those considerations appear rooted in the expansive way the PRC interprets "preserving social cohesion" rather than any medical disagreement, and so are again irrelevant to the topic of this RFC. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

• I'm not sure we deal in "gold standards" in the sense that it constitutes an appeal to authority that can be uncritically accepted. Even the DSM is balanced against the ICD, and they each have their own detractors on a range of issues. GMG^talk 21:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  Sure, but clearly both the DSM and ICD are both solidly mainstream, right? And someone asserting that nothing in the DSM is true is clearly WP:FRINGE, right? Loki (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  But someone dissenting from the DSM is not necessarily fringe, and there exists a great deal of legitimate debate and controversy in the medical community about the DSM and its validity. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed. The DSM is full of subjective / culturally conditioned value judgements and represents (despite improvements in the most recent edition) a minefield of reliability and construct validity issues. This is all, thankfully, discussed in-depth in the article Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. It's a mainstream source, for sure, but only because it's about the best that the science of psychology can currently accomplish. An analogy might be the new neoclassical synthesis in economics –– also prescriptive, also culturally conditioned, also (for better or worse) solidly mainstream, and very much a creature of the epistemic limitations of economics as science. Generalrelative (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  The issue isn’t about disagreement here and there on this or that issue. The issue is attempts to portray WPATH in general as fundamentally at odds with mainstream scientific opinion in this area. Akin to claiming that that the IPCC is a conspiracy against science. OsFish (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  ”Is this the golden standard?” ≠ “Are attempts to wholly delegitimize this and cast it as against mainstream consensus fringe?” ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

  nothing in the DSM is true I think that makes them a Sith. Only a Sith deals in absolutes. GMG^talk 22:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, though I would prefer the phrasing a gold standard for research on trans healthcare in academia (rather than the). The argument that this would foreclose on criticism is a red herring. Gold-standard journals like Science and Nature have proven wrong in the past, and yet we still consider them great sources. In science, nothing is unassailable, but it's still helpful to come to a collective understanding of which sources are most reliable, particularly when it comes to hot-button issues like this. Generalrelative (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  The title is probably a mistake; the wording at issue if we ever put this to a formal RFC would be WPATH broadly represents the mainstream on trans medicine; sweeping attacks on its legitimacy are generally fringe. Loki (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed. Generalrelative (talk) 04:28, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• From what I see here, no one disagrees with the content of the proposal but mainly have a problem with the title of the section. From this point of view the more important thing is where the line is drawn on what "sweeping attacks on its legitimacy" actually means. LunaHasArrived (talk) 08:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• Yes per above Snokalok (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
• No. Very many highly educated states and countries have stepped away from WPATH, so much that it seems odd to even ask the question of WPATH being a gold standard. Davemc0 (talk) 06:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
• No. The World Health Organization (WHO) stated that its guideline on the health of trans and gender diverse people would not cover children or adolescents. [45] According to WHO: "the scope will cover adults only and not address the needs of children and adolescents, because on review, the evidence base for children and adolescents is limited and variable regarding the longer-term outcomes of gender affirming care for children and adolescents". Since the main transnational health organization does not endorse any particular protocol, and admits that "the evidence base for children and adolescents is limited and variable", one cannot reasonably argue that there is a single, worldwide gold standard in this area of healthcare.Parker.Josh (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
• While deferring to the WHO opinion on medical matters is a decent rule of thumb, I'm not sure if it is justified in every instance. For example, how did Wikipedia deal with the evolving consensus on aerosol transmission of COVID-19? WHO was infamously late to describe it as airborne, not using that term until December 2021 (see Nature, among others). I was not an editor at the time, so I cannot tell if Wikipedia actually waited for the WHO in that instance to declare consensus (though I would certainly hope that wasn't the case.) If that didn't happen then, it probably has lessons for us now as well. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 10:23, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
• The scientific paradigm is ever-changing, but Wikipedia should reflect a current or at least not completely outdated scientific paradigm. Reprarina (talk) 02:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  That is correct— many countries and major medical bodies have recently moved to restrict or ban puberty blockers and surgeries for minors in response to increasing evidence that the 'benefits' are low or are in fact - not beneficial. [46] [47] Keep in mind that the position now, is as it was for a long time in modern medical history, making the brief shift to a WPATH cohesive position - a drop in the ocean. The subsequent shift to the current position is reasoned by more scrutiny of the effects of gender blockers and surgeries on children, and having considered the funded studies and realities of what has happened. Cases like WPATH blocking findings from the John Hopkins reviews, when the results weren't as WPATH hoped for, further show that the benefits were not persuasive.

  The WHO’s latest statement on this issue, from January 2024, acknowledges that the evidence base for these interventions is limited—which is a cautious position, not an endorsement of WPATH’s guidelines. WHO has not revised its stance since then, while many national health bodies have shifted their policies away from WPATH’s recommendations. Given this, it is inaccurate & impossible to claim that WPATH represents a 'global consensus' when even the WHO has not endorsed WPATHS's guidelines. There is no evidence to suggest that WHO is falling behind the latest developments in transgender care, as their latest statements acknowledge the evolving scholarly debate on transgender care issues Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

• No, there is no gold standard. The field is unsettled science, and any Wikipedia article needs to represent all significant viewpoints. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  I would say, perhaps more precisely, that if there is a gold standard in any medical science, it is never "an organization", and that it is also never a large collection of recommendations. For example, colonoscopy is the gold standard for detecting colon cancer. The organizations that recommend colonoscopies are never "the gold standard", and their guidelines for various aspects of colon health (e.g., everything from dietary advice to first-line treatments for constipation) are not "gold standards" either. A gold standard is defined individually, and sometimes an organization will, in the same document, recommend using the gold standard for one thing and a non-gold standard option for another thing (e.g., due to price, availability, or side effects). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

  This may be clearer: WPATH's SOC8 is not "the gold standard". But SOC8 contains many individual recommendations that are the gold standard (and others that are not; medicine doesn't have a gold standard for everything). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• No. @Aquillion I appreciate you are trying to be specific about "sweeping attacks" rather than specific criticism. But sometimes specific criticism amounts to being quite discredited on particular areas. This MEDRS is highly critical of WPATH's guidelines for youth trans medicine saying they "lack developmental rigour and transparency" and "lacks an evidence-based approach" They go on to say "Healthcare professionals should consider the lack of quality and independence of available guidance when utilising this for practice." In other words, don't base your guidelines on the current WPATH ones. And the second part MEDRS says "Divergence of recommendations in recent guidelines suggest there is no current consensus about the purpose and process of assessment, or about when psychosocial care or hormonal interventions should be offered and on what basis." I don't think this is a view we should regard as FRINGE. There's more than enough evidence of health bodies diverging from WPATH wrt youth trans medicine, and basing their decisions on medical grounds rather than politics (see Scotland's response for example).

More generally, I don't think we should be RFC'ing editors to decide if one medical body is Gold Standard and essentially infallible and that medical body is not. Especially not in a contentious topic area. There's way too much variation internationally on all sorts of things. I believe, in some states in the US, people carry guns around with them all the time and think primary school teachers should be armed. One man's common sense is another's lunacy on these areas. -- Colin°^Talk 20:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

The first paper you cite says:

The links examined show that early versions of two international guidelines, the Endocrine Society25 and World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH)34 guidelines (specifically the 2009 Endocrine Society guideline48 and WPATH V.7 published in 2012)49 have influenced nearly all the national and regional guidelines identified (emphasis added). The two guidelines also have close links, with WPATH adopting Endocrine Society recommendations in its own guideline and acting as a cosponsor for and providing input on drafts of the Endocrine Society guideline.

That seems pretty clear that WPATH is being treated as a gold standard around the world. The second paper you cite is explicitly a continuation of the first paper. Both papers come out of the Cass Review process, which as you know has been rather controversial, reaching conclusions that have themselves hardly received overwhelming support in the subsequent literature. OsFish (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

The word "have" is past tense. I know the origins of the papers. Both are published in the Archives of Disease in Childhood and are quality MEDRS sources. I'm aware of activist opinion. -- Colin°^Talk 18:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I think that much of this is based on a lack of familiarity with what a Gold standard (test) actually is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Right, but that's just the (unfortunate) title of the section, not what would actually be polled.

The way doctors use "gold standard" it usually refers to a test that can be used to compare other tests against. WPATH is, obviously, not that. But also, it's very common to have a WP:MEDORG or two in a particular field that essentially defines the mainstream, the way (for instance) the APA defines what's mainstream in psychiatric diagnosis with the DSM. Loki (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

This board is meant to assess fringe theories, not declare 'gold standards' or "define the mainstreams. When it comes to WPATH, the relevant question is whether any specific proposal in their standards of care qualifies as fringe. Wikipedia’s guidelines don’t allow us to declare an organization 'the gold standard for research'—we don’t vote on whether something or someone is infallible or represents undisputed truth. The reliability of a source is determined at WP:RSN. Otherwise, we simply follow WP:RS, WP:V, and other policies.

All in all, this entire RFC appears to be outside the scope of Wikipedia’s rules. Moreover, this overreach to establish WPATH as the 'gold standard' - seems like a strategic effort to shield WPATH-related assertions from scrutiny. Effectively trying to bypass challenges that question their alignment with independent research and reliable sources. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I think Loki is right: There are often a couple of organizations that we take as embodying the mainstream. WPATH is that organization for gender medicine. ASH is the organization for hematological malignancies. The ADA is one for dentistry. The AMA is one of those organizations for primary care medicine.

But:

• "The" organization can hold and promote minority or fringe views, especially for political reasons. The AMA's decades-long campaign against chiropractic didn't make spinal manipulation a true WP:FRINGE theory (though the quasi-religious 19th-century story about it is FRINGE). The mainstream scholarly view of that chapter in the AMA's history is that the AMA was engaged in a turf war intended to protect their members' finances.
  Similarly, the ADA promotes a regulatory environment that results in dentists owning small businesses and dental hygienists being employed dentists. (If you're in the US, think about this: You can walk into any CVS Pharmacy and get a vaccine from the pharmacist. You can deal with a URI or UTI or other minor ailments at their MinuteClinic. So why can't you get an ordinary teeth cleaning there? The answer is: the ADA wants that money going to their members instead of going to CVS.)
• Which organization is "the" organization changes over time. However, I'm confident that WPATH will be "the" organization for gender care for years to come.
• "The" organization doesn't have a monopoly on science. Last year, we saw news stories saying that WPATH commissioned an independent review of the scientific literature. (I understand that it was somewhat comparable to the Cass Review.) But they refused to publish it, because it concluded that gender care really is plagued by low-quality research. I think they were correct to believe that publishing this would fuel gender care bans in the US. But now we have a problem: Do we treat WPATH's made-for-US-politics statements about the research body as mainstream science(!), or do we treat the results of the research that WPATH commissioned from hand-picked researchers as the mainstream view?

The point is: disagreeing with WPATH doesn't automatically make the disagreement be FRINGE. It usually makes the disagreement be fringe or minority.

One of the results that I expect from this RFC is that some editors will use this RFC as evidence that all disagreement with WPATH is always and automatically a fringe POV that must be censored out of Wikipedia, or, when that's not possible, at least presented in an unfavorable light. I hope that they prove me wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Honestly I agree with all of this. WPATH defines the mainstream in trans medicine but that doesn't mean that it's always right or that it's above politics. It, in fact, is neither of those things. (I've posted the WHO's pushing of Ayurveda several times now.)

But it does mean that when someone comes in with sweeping criticisms of everything WPATH does, that likely means they're pushing a WP:PROFRINGE agenda the same way someone who comes in with broad criticisms of everything the AMA does is probably not a big fan of modern medicine in general. Loki (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I saw this proposition more as saying that (for example) saying "all of WPATH's guidance is junk science" would be fringe. Not "WPATH needs better practices for it's standards of care". So I heavily agree with this point. There is a difference between narrow criticisms based on evidence, and wide criticisms that say they only produce rubbish and no one should work with them. LunaHasArrived (talk) 12:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree, except that criticisms don't need to be based on evidence. It's perfectly fine, e.g., if the Hijra (South Asia) communities want to criticize WPATH for pathologizing their religious/cultural traditions. The adoption of Western conceptions of gender has had significant effects on the traditional communities (e.g., fewer young people joining them). This isn't a "scientific" criticism, but it's a valid one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I share your assessment of the likely outcome. It appears that this RFC is being used as a means to suppress criticism or to prevent the inclusion of critical perspectives on WPATH—something that is already evident on the WPATH page. You've referenced the controversy surrounding WPATH’s decision to withhold the systematic reviews it had commissioned from Johns Hopkins University. It should be noted that this issue has not been adequately addressed in the Wikipedia article on WPATH. Despite months of discussion at [48], no consensus was reached on how to present this information, as some editors consistently opposed its inclusion or attempted to downplay its significance.

Moreover, every reliable source that covered the controversy—many of which are recognized as generally reliable per WP:RSP—was dismissed as unreliable, undue, primary, or inaccurately labeled as an opinion piece. This level of scrutiny, however, has not been applied with the same rigor in discussions about SEGM - where double standards are as clear as day. (Some editors have appeared to apply inconsistent standards—downplaying credible sources and excluding certain information about WPATH, while simultaneously allowing advocacy-based sources in the lead of SEGM and strongly defending WPATH-affiliated sources from criticism. This pattern raises concerns that the push to establish WPATH as a 'gold standard' may be, at least in part, an attempt to reinforce these sourcing discrepancies. Notably, a discussion along these lines took place on the talk page immediately before this RFC was initiated—something worth considering.)

Additionally, Wikipedia policies do not permit us to declare any organization as a 'gold standard' or to unilaterally define what is mainstream in any scientific field; rather, they allow us to assess whether specific ideas constitute fringe theories. Whether something or someone is a "gold standard" or mainstream should not be decided by RFC, but determined based on reliable sources to support particular statements in Wikipedia articles, and not shield a person or entity from criticism

With respect to WPATH’s future, it is already facing diminished credibility in much of Europe and is likely to remain largely a U.S.-centric organization. Even within the U.S., there is considerable division over its authority, raising questions about its long-term standing.

Regarding Loki’s comment, there has been no sweeping rejection of everything WPATH does. However, it is clear that WPATH has a conflict of interest when responding to criticism of its own practices and positions, which should naturally warrant careful scrutiny rather than uncritical acceptance. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 11:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Every person and every organization has a conflict of interest when responding to criticism of its own practices and positions. WPATH should be treated exactly like any other subject in that regard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, obviously. Per a recent systematic review in the BMJ/Archives of Childhood Disease, as linked above; "The links examined show that early versions of two international guidelines, the Endocrine Society25 and World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH)34 guidelines (specifically the 2009 Endocrine Society guideline48 and WPATH V.7 published in 2012)49 have influenced nearly all the national and regional guidelines identified (emphasis added). The two guidelines also have close links, with WPATH adopting Endocrine Society recommendations in its own guideline and acting as a cosponsor for and providing input on drafts of the Endocrine Society guideline." Whether one agrees it's correct or not is another matter—the fact is, most WP:MEDORGs rely on it in whole or in part. The OP of should probably strike out "gold standard" from the title, since that seems to be the main objection, but the substance of the question itself seems pretty clear. Lewisguile (talk) 10:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• No, it is not. WPATH guidelines are not the most exemplary standard for research on transgender healthcare. It’s also an activist organization which raises concerns about its impartiality and unfair preference - causing Sweden, Finland, and Norway along with the UK to dismiss its advice in favor of separate evaluations. If WPATH were the true best example, major health organizations would not reject it. Although it has some influence, it lacks the strict scientific checks and unbiased approach needed for that level.--Colaheed777 (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• Procedural oppose to this discussion here: I've only recently been roped in here, but see to my astonishment just how much debate is going on in this topic - and at the entirely wrong place. I can not understand why whether something is or isn't "gold standard" is a debate for a Fringe theories Noticeboard. If anything is a fringe theory - it is taking a single guideline or policy and stating that it is infallible. That is clearly WP:FRINGE. Not even in the topic of human rights, does Wikipedia consider the United Nation's 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights as infallible in policy.

Criticism of WPATH is certainly credible, but this degree of discussions, RfC:s, and posts on various Noticeboards seems to be textbook WP:DISRUPTIVE. Circling back to how opposition to WPATH is harmful and incompatible to a human rights-based approach is frankly WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Many of the editors here who make valid policy-based criticism, without being in any way espousing even critical views of transgender care, are being shot down by what can only be said to a be WP:TAGTEAM. I think perhaps this is a time for administrative or even arbitration-level action regarding these posts. CFCF (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

• Yes Gold standard (test) is a term for the best that exists, and not the perfect Platonic ideal of research and processes which could be imagined. WPATH has emerged as the global leader in conventional academic views on trans issues in health and medicine. That does not preclude errors from the organization or criticism against them. Their publications are merely the best that science, society, and the world have to offer on this topic. The organization has conventional recognition from all or nearly all respected institutions in this space. The evidence is the citation and recognition of their works. Any entity which doubts this organization's standing to take a position or to practice good science and research is itself taking a fringe view. Bluerasberry (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

No Court exhibits show that: WPATH Used SOC-8 to Advance Political and Legal Goals, WPATH Changed Its Treatment Recommendations Based on Political Concern, WPATH Failed to Properly Manage Conflicts of Interest, WPATH Was Not Transparent in How It Used GRADE, WPATH Hindered Publication of Evidence Reviews.

https://www.alabamaag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Md.92-Alabama-et-al.-Amicus-Br.pdf BlueBellTree (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did you really just cite a bunch of Republican politicians and America First Legal supporting an executive order by Trump that every major medical organization in the U.S. opposes? Hell, no medical organization in the world has endorsed such draconian restrictions as they are supporting...

I've spent the last 5 minutes trying to figure out just how to word, as kindly as possible, how absolutely flabbergastingly ridiculous citing a court document by Trump and Co. is. The mind actually boggles... Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

No Medical bodies of Sweden, Finland, Norway, and the United Kingdom have rejected the guidelines. New Zealand and other countries have acknowledged that the evidence leans in favor of the guidelines, but is of very low certainty. I'm alarmed by the editors implying that the Scandinavian governments are WP:FRINGE. Experts critical of WPATH are in the minority, but they are not fringe like climate change deniers. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

No ​From an ethics perspective, WPATH's recent actions are troubling. RS indicates that WPATH attempted to suppress systematic reviews from Johns Hopkins University when the findings didn't align with their guidelines, compromising research integrity. TenBlueEagles (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Yes The WPATH established and maintains a standard that is consulted by physicians worldwide and exists for that purpose and related ones. Which means, whenever there is a shift in the science, the WPATH follows it. That is the very definition of a 'gold standard' mainstream org. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:16, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Splitting this out because I would like to receive clarity on this point. There have been multiple appeals to international disagreement from the No voters in this overarching set of discussions (meaning both WPATH, puberty blockers and SEGM), involving terms like significant international disagreement, lively debate in the international medical community, many developed countries, mainstream European medical guidelines or even Very many highly educated states and countries. I note that all of these involve descriptors like "many" or "significant" that are qualitative and therefore subjective. (Statistical significance is objective, but no-one here appears to be using that definition.) I propose that the editors (on both "Yes" and "No" side) commit to a definition of these terms for the sake of the current and any future discussion on this subject (and perhaps any other subject which involves disagreement between global medical bodies).

1. What is "many" in the context of this discussion? It clearly means more than one country/medical body/you name it, but how many more? Should "many" be defined against; a) the total number of countries in the world; b) the total number of countries which recognize transgender identity and do not hold the position that it is something to be criminally penalized; c) the number of developed countries; d) something else? (I.e. for Europe, editors tend to cite 3-4 countries - out of the 27 current and 28 historical members of the European Union, meaning about 1/9 or 1/7 is considered "significant".) For that matter, if "many" is a specific number, then falling below it would logically mean that the opposition becomes "few".
2. What is the objective metric for defining whether a country's opposition to (or support of) WPATH protocols and/or puberty blockers is "significant" or "mainstream"? In particular, as I noted on here before, opposition by countries like Finland or Ireland appear to be considered more significant by certain editors than support from countries like Thailand or South Africa. (Or Turkiye and Israel, if linked papers are any indication.) Does an objective way of defining which country's voice counts as more or less significant on medical matters exist? InformationToKnowledge (talk) 11:12, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

The question can also be posed in reverse: How many countries worldwide have officially endorsed the WPATH guidelines? If, for instance, only 10 out of 193 UN member states have done so, can WPATH actually be considered a universal gold standard? If the WHO states that its transgender healthcare guidelines will not include children and the evidence is limited, does that make WPATH an international "gold standard"? JonJ937 (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

This is continuing the mistake of assuming national healthcare guidelines are derived from science. We are currently living through a global rise in far-right extremism the likes of which hasn't been seen in nearly a century. That is a purely political phenomenon. And, just as it was 90 years ago, the question of trans identity is a wedge issue exploited by the far right. That is critical context that those who support the use of SEGM as a source seem loath to admit. Simonm223 (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that the healthcare policies of Scandinavian countries are influenced by far-right politics? If not, it is just a speculation. The Scandinavians adopted a cautious approach ahead of others and their politics are largely dominated by socialist parties. JonJ937 (talk) 11:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

This is hilariously incorrect. The second most powerful party in Sweden right now is a nationalist right-wing populist party. Simonm223 (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, “Scandinavia?” Norway and Denmark (and Iceland if you want to include them in Scandinavia) allow blockers etc for trans youth. So one out of three or four. It would be helpful if certain editors held back on the persistent geographical hyperbole (such as also making a few countries stand for “Europe”). OsFish (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Scandinavian countries began moving away from puberty blockers long before others and this shift didn’t happen recently. It’s not just Sweden and Finland. Norway’s Healthcare Investigation Board (Ukom) found insufficient evidence supporting the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormone treatments in young people. They recommended revising national guidelines, which may happen soon. [49] [50] Denmark has also implemented strict restrictions. According to The New York Times:

"In December, regional health authorities in Norway designated youth gender medicine as a ‘treatment under trial,’ meaning hormones will be prescribed only to adolescents in clinical trials. And in Denmark, new guidelines being finalized this year will limit hormone treatments to transgender adolescents who have experienced dysphoria since early childhood." [51]

This represents a broad shift across Scandinavia. While I have no information on Iceland, elsewhere in Europe, Italy has also recently placed restrictions on puberty blockers. If restrictions in all these countries were politically motivated, it would be helpful to provide some evidence. So far, the available evidence suggests otherwise. JonJ937 (talk) 10:44, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Editors should avoid such over reach and stick to WP:MEDORG which provides guidance on org rankings. Evathedutch (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Could I get a second opinion on Coniferous resin salve? It seems to have issues, but I'm not familiar with alternative medicine topics and I'm not sure what the correct approach would be here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I saw this and took to smartening up the references. Notably most of the content is supported by references to work by Arno Sipponen, Wiley notes "A.S., J.J.J., J.L. and P.S. have now founded a company (Repolar Ltd) for developing the resin salve as a commercial product"[52]. This may have something to do with why the creator of the article posted a COI declaration[53][54]. I can't speak for the validity of the content, but I'm unsurprised that someone marked it as having neutrality issues back in 2018. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn't this content be more appropriate within an ethnobotany section for Picea abies? Anything not related to the species could be moved to oleoresin etc. fiveby(zero) 13:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh, "burgundy pitch" is currently a redirect to galipot but that may be incorrect? fiveby(zero) 15:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I say take to AfD and delete. There are multiple merge targets but really not any tremendously useful content and the title is not really a good redirect to anything. Besides the species article:

• plaster (disambiguation) lists adhesive bandage and poultice. Historically a plaster was a medication which was applied externally and adhered to the skin, it might have been used to affix a bandage or to treat similarly to a poultice but should have its own article. General information about medicinal use of resins from conifers or other sources would probably best be put there.
• burgundy pitch or burgamy pitch was the 17th through 20th century product: the resin of the "pitch-tree" Picea abies. As a resin it had lots of uses but one probably obtained it from the apothecary and called pix burgundica in the pharmacopeia. It was maybe effective for wound care, a physical barrier to dirt and like many substances having some antimicrobial properties. When mixed with pigeon dung and applied to the soles of Charles II's feet it might also have been effective, at least delaying the physicians in practicing their less benign treatments

I don't think this article is an encyclopedic topic, but it is adjacent to some content which WP should have. If you just want to redirect to avoid an Afd rosin would probably be the best target which contains the text rosin forms an ingredient in several plasters and ointments. fiveby(zero) 04:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm finding other medical resources about this. It seems to have a variety of names, such as pine resin salve and conifer pine resin, which may help in searches. I very quickly found this scoping review looking at the use of pine resin, a clinical trial, and this report from the Royal Society of Chemistry so it looks like there is legitimate interest. This doesn't look fringe. Rather, the article could do with more varied sourcing.OsFish (talk) 05:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

There is a tremendous amount of interest in biopharmaceuticals. Some of that interest comes from those selling commercial products or those attempting to validate a system of traditional medicine. I'm sure we could probably collect papers to create a number of new medical articles. How about an article on medicinal gifts of the wise men. According to our article there is promise for Commiphora myrrha in treating COVID, and i hear great things about Frankincense also. Too bad gold isn't a plant product, looks like maybe useful to treat HIV infections. fiveby(zero) 06:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• The Mothman Prophecies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Book promotes theories about UFOs and various supernatural phenomena, ultimately connecting them to the collapse of the Silver Bridge across the Ohio River. Should the article mention that official investigations determined the bridge collapse was caused by stress corrosion cracking in an eyebar in a suspension chain? Some discussion on Talk here. - LuckyLouie (talk) - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for a third active thread on this topic, but I’ve started cleaning up some of the Thelema articles and they’re bad, I just cleaned up Abrahadabra which contained things like

In meditative practices, practitioners use the word to focus their minds, channeling its energy to connect with the divine and achieve mystical insights. The word's power lies in its ability to harmonize the practitioner's internal state with the universal forces it symbolizes.

Unhedged and written in Wikivoice. I’ve started an NPOVN thread about this, but I think it’s going to take a lot of eyes, especially as this appears to have bled into other religion articles a fair bit in some very clear WP:UNDUE ways. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Alien abduction entities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Alien woo. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

AfD just filed. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Another POV fork, now at AfD: Alien abduction claimants. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Was a redirect to alien abduction but has been reverted. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• List of religious hoaxes (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Another article to watch - Shroudies have been trying to remove or whitewash this article too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:13, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Hob, we probably need to mention the MDPI study. Your (reasonable) rejection of MDPI as a source is noted, but WP:MREL applies for MDPI publications. Given the press, the paper probably should be mentioned as methodologically deeply questionable but we can’t just excise all MDPI cites as bad sources by virtue of them being MDPI cites. I somewhat think the impression a lot of people have of MDPI at FTN is flawed (for example, field-specifically it can be considered just fine pretty much across the board, it’s just inconsistent across all their publications. Which, to be clear, isn’t great.

Until we can find an WP:RS outlining the methodological problems I agree it’s probably best left out, because what was there was WP:PROFRINGE. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

General rule: never used MDPI for anything, ever, and you'll be golden. Bon courage (talk) 07:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Not a good rule. Perfectly valid papers consistently come from MDPI journals depending on the field. Clearly this paper is bullshit, since it presumes the shroud of turin was held at a static temperature for two millennia and proposes testing and theoretical technique from the authors of that paper in the most spectacular and eye-catching way possible, but there are entire fields where MDPI is pretty much just as good as any other publisher. This has come up repeatedly at FTN and the issue is always the same: we cannot declare a source verboten against Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

That's like the argument that the Daily Mail is often right. Sources need to have a good reputation and the MDPI brand is a toxic taint. Recent discussions at RSN indicate it's getting even worse. Honestly, when the World is full of so many reliable sources I'm astonished how often Wikipedia editors strain to reach for questionable ones (POV-pushing is the reason, of course). Pinging Headbomb for any update on the MDPI situation. Bon courage (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

That's like the argument that the Daily Mail is often right

if the daily mail had a sister publication that published under the daily mail brand, but was reliable, that would be a better comparison. But again, we can’t just remove MDPI cites by virtue of them being MDPI cites. Headbomb isn’t the only publishing academic at FTN. I’d have no issue citing an MDPI paper from within my own field, and have done so. FTN is overstating things and getting all black-and-white on things it lacks specialist knowledge on, again. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

It's not a question of specialist knowledge, but basic Wikipedia policy. I generally remove anything non-mundane verified solely by a MDPI journal and am confident the Project benefits as a result. Bon courage (talk) 08:13, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I generally remove anything non-mundane verified solely by a MDPI journal

I don’t see how this doesn’t net out to a POV push/WP:IDONTLIKEIT if you’re not bothering to verify the underlying citation? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Errm, how can it be POV-pushing when the POV is not adjudicated, just the source? Filleting out bad sources gives us better verified articles. Editors do well to look for the WP:BESTSOURCES, which MDPI publications never are. Bon courage (talk) 08:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Filleting out bad sources

You can’t just declare a source you don’t like to be an unacceptably bad source for Wikipedia. There’s a process for that, and it didn’t determine MDPI was a “bad source” for Wikipedia purposes. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:25, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

The actual point I’m trying to make here is that simply removing that MDPI citation reference from the shroud of turin on the basis of it being MDPI invites a very reasonable and policy-based revert. The paper is bad, but as MDPI is WP:MREL we should make sure that the removal reasons don’t look spurious. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:27, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:RSP is not policy, but a sort of lies to children thing that experienced editors generally ignore. WP:FRINGE, WP:V and WP:NPOV are the relevant actual WP:PAGS here and yeah, MDPI sourcing verifying claims on fringe topics is simply a no-no. Bon courage (talk) 08:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

MDPI sourcing verifying claims on fringe topics is simply a no-no

This needs to be handled on a case by case basis. If it’s a fringe claim being validated by an MDPI citation then there are probably really good reasons to remove that citation that don’t involve just relying on ad hominem. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

A publisher is not a hominis. You are always welcome to argue for inclusion of MDPI fringe sources on a case-by-case basis of course, but I'd expect all fringe-savvy editors to shoot MDPI sources on sight. Bon courage (talk) 09:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Might I recommend bringing this up at WP:VPP, then? And anti-fringe editors shooting things on sight that they have only a limited understanding of historically has been a little bit of a problem, so requiring a modicum of effort to justify a removal of something that hasn’t been declared a bad source writ large is probably a good idea. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:27, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Don't think we want more vague misplaced grumbling about "anti-fringe" editors at inappropriate places. Bon courage (talk) 10:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Thankfully, as we were both parties to the last time this got brought up, know each others’ stances, and both know it’s not a productive line of conversation, we don’t need to rehash it. :) Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

It's a fucking WP:PRIMARY source! If we allow primary sources on such subjects for relativization of a solid scientific consensus, we have to allow homeopaths to use the newest shitty pro-homeopathy study with five subjects that "felt better" after taking magic suger pills. There is a reason we have the WP:NOR page.

This is disputed by another study? Nearly everything is disputed "by another study" and we do not mention it! This is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, and it should be based on secondary sources! Yes, I am aware that you have a soft spot for religiously motivated bullshit (like the belief that this medieval artwork is a selfie made by Jesus on linen that he miraculously turned into photographic paper while being dead as well as standing upright so his long hair could fall to his shoulders instead of the back of his head, and the linen flat in front of him so the images of his ears would not be half a meter apart, as they would be if it were wrapped around him), but that is your problem, not Wikipedia's. Will you defend the wording "but a new study says the Earth is six thousand years old" in the Earth article next if creationists manage to publish such a study in a predatory journal? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I’m genuinely curious what part of me explaining the exact methodological flaws in the paper, while wikilinking “Bullshit” on the phrase “methodologically deeply questionable” and agreeing with your removal because what was there was WP:PROFRINGE gave you the impression you have in this reply.

this is what, the third or fourth time you’ve simply declared I harbour a bunch of specific pro-fringe beliefs in a way that clearly shows you didn’t read the thing you’re replying to. Could you consider knocking that off, perhaps? Just as a friendly request? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:59, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Seriously my guy, you spent a half paragraph accusing me of stumping for the Shroud of Turin right after I said we shouldn’t mention the MDPI paper until we can reliably source statements about why it’s methodologically unsound bullshit. Feel free to strike the aspersions of POV pushing, though! Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

From your opening comment: Hob, we probably need to mention the MDPI study ... we can’t just excise all MDPI cites as bad sources by virtue of them being MDPI cites ... ← head-spinning! Bon courage (talk) 10:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

When your head stops spinning maybe you should finish reading the thing, then go back and strike your aspersions? Seems like a good use of time to me. I’d certainly like to know if I accidentally spent a half paragraph accusing someone of patent bullshit that’s all I’m my head because I didn’t read what I was replying to, but that’s me. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I did not say you "harbour" them, I said you have soft spot for them. That is, you rush to their defense, even if it just in favor of mentioning them unfavorably (there is no such thing as bad publicity) and attacking this whole noticeboard's supposed lack of specialist knowledge. The claim the paper probably should be mentioned simply does not conform with policy. I do not have specialist knowledge on the Shroud, but I have read the most important book and several articles about it, have edited the article about it here since 2016, and am familiar enough with the subject to know that this paper is just one of several such primary papers, and there is no reason to pick this one from the crowd. I did not notice you anywhere around the Shroud articles. Your proposal to mention a peripheral paper in this peripheral list article does not make sense. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

this whole noticeboard's supposed lack of specialist knowledge ← yes, we're back to "FTN" being personified as an entity and the FTN complaint pony being taken out the stable for a trot around, because of this "specialist knowledge" beef. Bon courage (talk) 10:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

If you want to rehash this you’re free to, but I’d recommend stating a new thread and not bother pinging me on it if you’re really keen to discuss it. FTN behaves at times like an overactive immune system, this isn’t a hot take and is shared by a good number of regular, non-PROFRINGE wikipedians. Inventing a policy around acceptable sourcing is probably a good example of this. It’s not my problem that you and hob are so amped up to fight fringe that you read “we should make it clear that this is fringe bullshit” as WP:PROFRINGE. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

It's actually NPOV, specifically WP:FRINGESUBJECTS which requires fringe bullshit to be identified as such. Additionally, such material is to be omitted except when it can be contextualised by established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world. All editors are required to abide by this policy. Bon courage (talk) 10:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

This feels like a discussion for WP:RSN? I’m not sure what your specific objection to “we should make it clear this is fringe bullshit” is, to be perfectly honest, for the non MDPI discussion. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:SIGCOV is why it should be mentioned. Not “hey someone wrote about it” but rather that study got uncritically picked up by a large number of sources. Because of that, merely removing the source for being from MDPI instead of it being bullshit invites very reasonable procedural reverts that can devolve into edit wars. And that’s clearly not what your reply implied or stated. It’s blisteringly obvious you didn’t read what you’re replying to and I am, again, going to ask you to strike the aspersions and refrain from doing this again in the future for what, a fifth time? I believe your mental map of me now has me as a New Age Falun Gong Mormon out to prove the veracity of the Shroud of Turin and Panspermia (the fringe theory). Am I missing something? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

It seems to be irrelevant when it was made and why, what matters is that the hoax was perpetrated by those who made claims about it (if RS calls it a hoax, of course). If I take a piece of rock I find in the garden, it doesn't matter that the rock is real if I claim it's an alien, that is a hoax. Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

There is something to this removal. Which hoax are you talking about or maybe when is the question to ask. The accompanying text suggest a 1355 hoax. The citations (ignoring the silly Britannica one) suggests the hoax was perpetrated in 2005 (or even 1st century, see Schafersman's parenthetical "not a medieval fake, but a 1st century fake!" meaning the resurrection is the hoax). fiveby(zero)

There’s a paper directly addressing that (and similar studies) here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Which looks like a useful reference for the shroud article but really not appropriate and i think you misunderstand or i'm not making myself clear. That source merely states that Some of these challenges can be described as “creative hypotheses”. It is clear that the only position for WP to take here is to WP:ASSERT that the age of the shroud is obtained as AD 1260–1390, with at least 95% confidence.”. But that is really beside the point. What is the hoax? Wiktionary has:

1. [verb] To deceive (someone) by making them believe something that has been maliciously or mischievously fabricated.
2. [noun] Anything deliberately intended to deceive or trick.

The shroud itself is an artifact, linen with an image. So is it a noun, the shroud is an object created with the intention to deceive? Or verb and does the deception come later in efforts to demonstrate it is genuine? When i look for clarification what i see are citations to Rogers and then Schafersman telling me the hoax or deception we are talking about was perpetrated by Rogers in 2005. fiveby(zero) 13:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Somebody painted that image in the middle ages. We don't know who or precisely why but clearly it was intended to deceive. Very shortly after it was painted it was presented as a genuine holy relic by people who must have known that it was recent. It was almost immediately condemned as a hoax yet people continued to present it as a genuine holy relic. "The shroud was denounced as a forgery by the bishop of Troyes, Pierre d’Arcis, in 1389." There were multiple levels hoaxing before the more genuinely credulous started to promote it. What is it if it is not a hoax? Are people arguing it is genuine? Really? That's way beyond Fringe. DanielRigal (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that there’s a fine line between WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and WP:SKYBLUE here. At some point someone knowingly made this and presented it as Jesus, or they found it and someone else misrepresented it as Jesus. I think it’s pretty clear this was a purposeful fraud, if only from the callouts shortly after it was “discovered”. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Then the entry should say that and the citation(s) should support that. I don't know why editors always start arguing content when i mention issues with the citations, maybe i need to point to WP:WHYCITE every time: By citing sources for Wikipedia content you enable users to verify that the cited information is supported by reliable sources – improving the credibility of Wikipedia while showing that the content is not original research. The provided citations do not accomplish that purpose. I am not trying to tell you anything about the shroud being a hoax, i am asking for you to tell me in a verifiable way. fiveby(zero) 14:25, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

OK simple question, which of the three cites (quotes please) calls it a hoax, fake or false? Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

'Hoax', 'fake', and 'false' are three different things, but yes we certainly can't describe the shroud as a 'hoax' without a source for it. The claim that it is genuinely what it is purported to be is unsupportable per scientific analysis, and absolutely should not be asserted in Wikipedia's voice (I assume it isn't), but beyond that, there are a great many possibilities beyond "purposeful fraud", when considering an artefact first documented in the 14th century. And without sources, we don't get to decide what applies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Schafersman calls Rogers' work deception, which i have taken (maybe too generously) as supporting that there is an ongoing "hoax" to demonstrate it is genuine. He also parenthetical says: "not a medieval fake, but a 1st century fake!" meaning the real hoax is the resurrection, but i don't think we need make very much of that, just a bit of rhetoric. fiveby(zero) 15:13, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I would note that it is distinctly possible for the artifact itself to be 'genuine' (by which I mean that it was not made in an attempt to deceive, whether as an art piece, a work of devotion or what have you) and even the original efforts to promote it as being rooted in earnest belief, yet subsequent, particular efforts to promote it being hoaxes. So it seems rather problematic to me to label the object itself as a hoax, even if it was frequently the centerpiece of a number of known hoaxes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I think this is a super fair take and I find it pretty convincing. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:35, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I would note, however, that my logic rests upon the assumption that the preponderance of reliable sources do not label the artifact itself as a hoax. If they do, it is not our job to second-guess them, regardless of any issues we might take with said labels. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this was my thinking with the removal. As with all things, reliable sources trump the opinion of random Wikipedia editors. But in the absence of a single source brought forward alleging deliberate fraud, I'll just say that misidentified art piece has always been a compelling theory to me. If there is such a thing as a WP:SKYBLUE claim, I don't see how this could be it.

At the very least, I hope we can all agree that the currently cited sources need to be replaced. It's just straight up incorrect to say that Encyclopedia Britannica or Raymond Rogers support the claim that the shroud is a hoax; these sources can't even support the claim that it's not a genuine relic from the Resurrection. Mr. Squidroot (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

So add one of the many sources that does. We don't need one single reference that supports everything by itself. We have the extensive scientific evidence that this is a piece of cloth from the middle ages hand-painted with red ochre. We have sources showing that the "shroud" has been denounced as fraudulent from almost immediately after it was created. We don't need to break our backs bending over backwards to create an illusion of doubt about this. DanielRigal (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

That was your task to perform when you restored the content. I am looking, no help in my opinion from Peter Hancock's chapter in Hoax Springs Eternal. Others might wish to have a look. I personally don't think we need demonstrate that the artifact was necessarily created as a hoax in order for it to appear on the list. But that goes back to my original question and i'll let others decide and just look for sources. fiveby(zero) 12:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Maybe we don't need one single source to "Support everything". Even a single sentence could have multiple claims each supported by a separate source. But each claim needs to be sourced. Per WP:SYNTH, we can't take the statement from Brittanica the shroud was denounced as false by the local bishop of Troyes, who declared it “cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who painted it.” and the blog post from Schafersman criticizing modern-day scientists, to assert that the Shroud is a hoax. In fact, this case of WP:SYNTH is so bad it wasn't even clear to me until you explained that this was not just someone slapping a few random references on a statement to make it look legit.

And there is no "illusion of doubt". I am actually doubting the claim that the Shroud was created with the intention to deceive. Both the claim itself and more relevantly, that the consensus of experts supports this claim. I am not playing Devil's advocate or just trying to give you a hard time. The idea that the shroud was originally created as an icon is not a novel idea I just made up [55] [56]. If you look at the talk page, I wasn't even the first one to challenge the inclusion of the Shroud in that list; these are good-faith challenges to the content you want to include and all I am asking for is for you to WP:PROVEIT.

Granted, as @Fiveby points out, the idea that it was intended as an art piece and that there are hoaxes associated with it are not mutually exclusive. But I have a couple of thoughts about this: 1) Including the Shroud of Turin in a list of hoaxes could be misleading if we are not talking about either the original artist's intentions or the intentions of those that made it famous. 2) If we are going to say that a particular modern scientist is guilty of hoaxing, we need to keep in mind WP:BLP standards are different from accusing anonymous medieval artists. Mr. Squidroot (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Not a real stellar academic source but: One possibility can be ruled out, that the artist was deliberately trying to create a forgery, in the sense of an artefact whose predominant intention was to deceive...So the intriguing question remains. If this was not the authentic burial cloth of Christ or even an attempt to forge one, what was it?^[1] fiveby(zero) 15:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)